Apple Says It May Stop Shipping to the Eu
Mood
heated
Sentiment
mixed
Category
other
Key topics
Apple threatens to stop shipping products to the EU due to new anti-monopoly laws, sparking a heated debate among HN users about the implications of such a move and the motivations behind Apple's actions.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
30s
Peak period
149
Day 1
Avg / period
53.3
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 25, 2025 at 9:38 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 25, 2025 at 9:39 AM EDT
30s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
149 comments in Day 1
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 28, 2025 at 5:03 AM EDT
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
The EU.
Just some protections so that China doesn't take over and then let the free market do its work.
Oh the children card! Too bad you do ship such an app with your device since forever, it's called a Browser!
Think of the children though, they can't see boobs.
It does ring hollow when the Screen Time controls that Apple includes is such a muddled mess. And, sometimes, it just doesn't seem to work properly at all. Working properly, the browser bypass isn't really a problem, but it's very twitchy and fiddly to set up.
If that happens, then the demand is big enough that companies would import millions of iPhones from other regions and sell them in the EU.
For warranty service, the company would ship the phones back to the original country where Apple sold them.
Then, if that causes Apple too much trouble, then Apple would have to detect that the phone had been spending most of the time in the EU, and refuse to provide free servicing under warranty.
That’s an interesting can of worms for Apple.
Threatening to stop offering certain products or services in jurisdictions with unfavorable regulatory environments doesn't meet those criteria in any jurisdiction I'm aware of. European car companies often have models that can't profitably be brought into compliance with USA regulations, and they're just not sold in the USA.
Apple can almost certainly comply with EU regulations while remaining profitable in that market; they're just making a fuss because they don't like the regulations and they hope to get the public on their side.
The very large potential fines create a big tail risk on the profits that has to be accounted for. 10% of global revenue or somesuch.
Apple is, of course prone to doing exactly that, but it doesn't have to be. The EU recently fined Apple, and a US judge sanctioned them for violating a previous ruling, both with regard to developers offering subscription payment methods other than Apple's.
It's not hard to let developers put whatever they want for subscription payments in their apps, which would fully comply and eliminate the risk. Apple just doesn't want to because it feels entitled to a cut of that revenue.
The safest approach is not to bring in new features that might be deemed non compliant.
If the EU nonetheless threatens fine that weighs into the cost benefit analysis.
Your last paragraph focussed on the app store, but the DMA covers everything. There is no feature of the iphone excluded from potential rulings that it must be interoperable.
Simply avoiding self-dealing is also a near-guarantee they won't get fined. According to my inexpert reading of the DMA, including a translation app wouldn't create any compliance risk if:
* It allows the use of third-party hardware
* It documents any APIs such third-party hardware needs to support
* The app and OS allow third party access to said APIs
* Apple imposes no barriers to a third party creating a competing translation app
* Users can uninstall Apple's translation app
These are not complicated requirements if Apple actually wants to comply. Of course, Apple does not want to comply, and the risk of fines shows up when Apple tries to preserve a degree of control that the law intends to take from them.
Apple is already somewhat classified as critical infrastructure, like via the DMA. I don't think the electricity provider will be allowed to say 'don't pass that law, or we don't provide your city with energy'. This would result in dispossession.
This might not be encoded in current law. I'm just stating it should pointing to other legal subjects doing comparable things.
This sounds bogus right? If all the headphones can do is transmit audio via first party operating system features how is this creating a data privacy issue? How are headphones going to exfiltrate data unless they have their own Wi-Fi connection or application that can serve as a bridge? Just disallow both.
Example: iCloud photos backup can upload a photo to iCloud in the background immediately after it was taken. Competing cloud storage providers cannot do this[1], because Apple withholds the API for that. Of course they're saying this is for "privacy" or for "energy saving" or whatever, but the actual reason is of course to make the user experience with competing services deliberately worse, so that people choose iCloud over something else.
[1] There is some weird tricks with notifications and location triggers that apps like Nextcloud or Immich go through to make this work at least somewhat but those are hacks and it's also not reliable.
Which makes Google Photos so much more impressive because it's heads above iCloud in this regard. No idea how they do that, pure magic.
In the same way, the EU could ask manufacturers of wireless headphones to open up and homologise their proprietary “APIs” with which they communicate with the other earpiece so you can mix&match single earpieces from different manufacturers.
Forcing standardization and interop is obviously good for interop, but it's bad for companies trying to innovate, because it ties their hands. The moment apple ships a v1 they have to ship an API, and then they have to support that API and can't change it. When it's private they can figure it out.
Which is why DMA only applies to huge, dominant companies (the complete list: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft) and there too it does not apply to all technologies, only for those where standardization is important to enable competition. It's much more important to have at least some competition than letting dominant companies monopolise entire markets through 'innovation' with private APIs.
Why shouldn't they share those APIs?
Or whatever other shady company wants to make headphones that sell for dirt-cheap in order to get their private spy devices into people's homes and offices.
I'm personally a bit on the fence about whether I think this is a sufficient concern to justify what Apple's doing, but AIUI this is the gist of their objection.
Apps on the app store are held to a high standard for privacy, security, and content because nothing is more important than maintaining users' trust.
This is a rhetorical question, obviously. Apple is happy to stand on principle when it benefits them, and more than willing to soften or bend those principles when it'd be too difficult.So, I'm a user who's looking to buy some headphones. Why can't I buy any headphones that offer live translation functionality except Apple's?
Maybe not the way Apple is doing it is my guess. Apple can bypass security concerns for Apple itself since they know they aren't doing anything malicious.
I love Apple and would love better integration with other headsets, but I have a feeling none of us have the full picture.
Wait until third parties "require" an app to be installed, and the headphones send audio as data to the app instead of calling itself a microphone, and the app then sends that data to wherever you don't want it to.
Bose, for example, "requires" an app to be installed. For "updates", they tell you. Updates... to headphones...?!
I do not install vendor apps for BT peripherals, and have been through the QC and 700 series of headphones without using their app. Same for Google and Samsung BT earbuds.
Can you install an app and get updates for bugs or changes to equalizer, noise cancellation, or other features (wanted or unwantes)? Yes, but it is not required nor "required", whatever that means.
Is it FUD? It's fear, for sure. Uncertainly maybe. Doubt, not really.
An app that doesn't do that today is an app that could do that after an update tomorrow.
As for firmware... well the fact that something that just processes audio needs a firmware update demonstrates that the company isn't doing proper engineering. Proper engineering processes would be able to resolve just about anything with firmware before it gets released. Yes there "might" be bugs. No, those bugs shouldn't be severe. And regardless of proper engineering, a firmware that doesn't send telemetry back today is a firmware that could send telemetry after an update tomorrow.
So it is FUD? No. It's awareness of what's possible.
Apps get updated all the time, and most of the time the update is fine. That's not untrue. It doesn't change the fact that an app could be updated with new/additional telemetry. That's not untrue, either. Telemetry is nothing less than a data grab of my private information. What do I use, what do I do, where do I do it, blah blah. That's my data and no "business" has a right to it. That's also not untrue no matter what you think.
Headphones, wireless or not, should not "need" firmware updates. That's not untrue. If the device is not fit for use, then make a recall.
Bose has nice products. I've used several generations of QuietComfort headphones. But the fact remains that they offer an app for updates when it shouldn't be needed at all, and they strongly "request" that it's needed.
The headphones work without the app, but the app is required for updates (the headphones have onboard software) and also if you want to manage the multipoint connection capability from your phone (which can be more convenient than doing it from the headphones and each device you want to connect to, but is not necessary to use the feature.)
> The interoperability solutions for third parties will have to be equally effective to those available to Apple and must not require more cumbersome system settings or additional user friction. All features on Apple will have to make available to third parties any new functionalities of the listed features once they become available to Apple.
Apple is saying, "We designed our API in a way that requires trusted headphones as part of the privacy model, and DMA would force us to give everyone access to that API."
What goes unstated is that trusted headphones aren't necessary for the feature and a company trying to meaningfully comply with the spirit of the DMA probably would have chosen to implement the API differently.
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe...
> Live Translation with AirPods uses Apple Intelligence to let Apple users communicate across languages. Bringing a sophisticated feature like this to other devices creates challenges that take time to solve. For example, we designed Live Translation so that our users’ conversations stay private — they’re processed on device and are never accessible to Apple — and our teams are doing additional engineering work to make sure they won’t be exposed to other companies or developers either.
We know it isn't necessary because Apple believes it is possible and are working on it. That's a pretty good indication that Airpods and their associated stack are currently being treated differently for a feature which fundamentally boils down to streaming audio to and from the headphones. It's not even clear how 'securing' live translated audio is any different from 'securing' a FaceTime call in your native language. I think a reasonable reading sans more technical information from Apple is that they give Airpods more data and control over the device than is necessary, and they want us to be mad at the DMA for forcing them to fix it.
I see three possibilities. Either the whole thing is made up entirely by Apple for bad faith reasons. Or some non-technical person with bad faith motivations at Apple suffered from some internal misunderstanding. Or somebody at Apple made some incredibly bad technical decisions.
Basically, there's no way that this isn't a screw up by somebody at Apple in some form. We just can't say which it is without additional information.
Apple said what they said. It wasn't a mistake. It was attempted deception.
But Apple could instead have a sandbox that has no Internet access or other ability to exfiltrate anything, and Apple could make a serious effort to reduce or eliminate side channels that might allow a cooperating malicious app to collect and exfiltrate data from the translation sandbox. Everyone, including users of the first-party system, would win.
I don't think it's beyond the pale to argue that some shady headphone company could throw a cell modem into a set of over-the-ear headphones to exfiltrate audio. I just can't see the business case for it, even considering shadier business cases.
If they want to play fast and loose with the lack of consumer protections in the US market, by all means! Delayed features actually lead to a BETTER experience over here in the EU.
I could not care less about interoperability or whatever the current trend of regulation tries to “fix,” I want the features, period.
Actually not the ones I care about (for instance idgaf about live translation).
> Apple made a decision to shoot itself in the foot and you are a collateral damage.
Also not really true. Apple has always been straightforward about what they were doing, and suddenly the EU decided it was not good. But I truly and wholeheartedly disagree, and I actively want iOS the way it was.
Let the market decide! As long as they do not deceive the users it’s ok/good, even, IMHO.
There's nothing sudden. There were several years of discussions with the industry and all the involved parties, including developers (something Apple never does).
On top of that all affected companies were given ample warnings and ample time to comply.
Even now Apple decrees it will not comply because "users and developers porn safety" bullshit never once getting off its high horse. At the same time the EU literally asks for feedback: https://9to5mac.com/2025/09/18/european-union-app-store-rule...
> Let the market decide!
How can the market decide when one of the duopoly players prevents others from competing? E.g. Pebble literally cannot compete with Apple Watch because Apple uses a completely unrelated product to cut them off from useful functionality https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...
Why are they going to this now ? Nobody is holding apple responsible for that. It's just another 'think of the children' fear mongering while with the other face they want to be able to record everything without explicit consent or with some guadrails ?
Apple can adapt if they want to participate in the EU market, like others have. They seem to think that it works like their lobby groups in the US.
Just waiting for Macron to receive an expensive plaque from 'Tim Apple'.
It's why even if an app in the app store is rated 17+ it still can't really have nudity in it.
NSFW content for tons of apps is buried in account settings that can't be changed from the iphone app but have to be changed from the browser. They've been doing this for a damn decade bro.
Is it specifically an iPhone? Is the Apple logo visible in any screen? Or is it something like https://www.theearlhayspress.com (Adam Savage's Tested - https://youtu.be/0TS6x8dK2u0 )
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/01/apple-says-eu-represents-7...
That's an Apple problem, they're the ones going to lose market share to competitors offering those experiences.
Samsung already has live translation, including in calls.
In any case, I find it interesting that Palantir and Thorn are much better at lobbying the EU against its interests than Apple and other companies on much smaller and less relevant issues.
Right now I’m not bothered by whatever “features” that are already delayed, but if the list gets larger, and their competitors find a way of not delaying them (I think they will), I’ll simply jump ship the next time I upgrade and that’s that.
As a consumer I can’t care less about Apple’s woes around DMA.
Between that and their pandering to the Trump administration, it will snow in hell before I buy another of their products.
Samsung isn't large enough to be considered a gatekeeper under the DMA. They're exempt from the rules Google and Apple have to follow.
Also I believe Samsung's in-person live translation feature is tied to their Galaxy earbuds hardware. This would be non-compliant if they were classified a gatekeeper.
If Samsung suddenly had to follow the same rules Apple does they'd either have to open up the API or pull this feature from the EU.
I don't think it's about Samsung not being "large enough"; Samsung has basically the same market share as Apple does in Europe according to https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/europe.
Apple used to partner with some of the best external ad agencies and released some of the most memorable campaigns ever. But sometime over a decade ago they switched to doing it primarily in house and we haven’t seen a memorable ad campaign since forever.
I suspect they similarly are driving their EU lobbying/legal decisions from California but the EU system is completely different from the U.S. system.
It’s been quite evident, even from the outside looking in, that Apple keeps making arguments and keeps getting surprised by decisions that should be obvious to anyone who has even the slightest inkling of how the EU operates.
They do it quietly offer clear benefits to decision makers (e.g. Palantir with it's promise to reduce crime) and give up control where it doesn't disturb their core business model.
Apple on the other hand is pretty much absolute in its desire control the Hardware and the software. They act like they themselves are beyond any doubt and publicly denounce politicians with their contrarian attitude.
There is some strategy to this madness I'm sure but I don't see it.
This is starting to become apparent in a variety of aspects of life. The past 2 or 3 decades the EU (and most of the world) has sort of ignored "might makes right" in favor of mutual respect.
However, when shit hits the fan, you need to negotiate from a strong position like you've said and the EU lacks that -- customers, supply chains, military, economic, you name it.
I'm not spending the cost of an entry level Mac (nearly) on headphones, that's just insane to me. An entry level Macbook Air is $50 more. That is wild to me. I've never spent that much on Headphones, and if it aint a DAC headset, I just can't justify it.
I do wonder, how much of what Apple is doing is proprietary, and patented? Or is the fear that Apple could not patent it, and competitors will realize they could do the same for other ecosystems?
Take your pick
The amount of plastic in any single consumer device is negligible compared to companies and norms.
If we wanted to save earth, we need to target corporations and norms, not make snarky comments about individual's consumerist behaviors.
Though as I under it it's already too late and we're just figuring out how to live in comfort in an environment getting more and more damaged.
I use and like my macbooks, but the only reason I remain on iOS is for the integration. Auto switching with airpods, continuity camera, universal control, shared clipboard, etc.
The moment that third party software & hardware can use those APIs and integrate to the same level that Apple's own tech can, Apple no longer as a unique selling point (outside of maybe Advanced Data Protection) vs. any other smartphone.
I'd love to use my macbook, an Android phone, AirPods, and a Pixel watch all together to the level of seamlessness that Apple's own ecosystem integrates.
Apple does not seem to have a reputation for bluffing.
The US & China are much bigger, more important markets for Apple.
I doubt that.
E.g. according to these charts, it's at least a quarter of profits: https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/aapl/metrics/revenue-by-geo...
> so I'm also in the camp of "I don't think they are bluffing."
How big is Russian market do you think? They didn't quit even that, and here we are pretending that Apple is going to quit EU.
> They'd still have UK & Norway, both of which have a higher share of iOS than other European nations.
UK and Norway is ~75 million people
EU is 450 million people
> The US & China are much bigger, more important markets for Apple.
So, a wealthy US market with 350 million people is very important. Unlike the wealthy EU market with 450 million people which Apple can just easily abandon.
Definitely makes it seem more likely they are bluffing in that case unless they plan on just selling dumb phones with no app store.
It appears that Europe is 26% of Apple's revenue. (https://bullfincher.io/companies/apple/revenue-by-geography)
EU is 7% of Apple's app store revenue specifically, not total revenue.
Definitely makes it seem more likely they are bluffing in that case unless they plan on just selling dumb phones with no app store.
Heard of Lenovo & Superfish or just don't care about that kind of thing when choosing a vendor?
Any app targeting the EU is then required to go android first, and other markets will have a real life sample of what happens when Apple leaves, which won't be as catastrophic as Apple predicts.
Sony and Sharp won't be crying a river if Japan does the same move for instance.
Those are not exactly the same thing, but Apple playing political games and emit the message they want without any reality behind it isn't new. They'll use whatever tool they have at hand if they see a strong enough chance to get away with it.
What would the EU lose?
Tariffs also become less of Apple's problem when the phones aren't being sold via official channels. The EU is not a growing market of consideration compared to China or India.
> What would the EU lose?
A very secure smartphone option for consumers.
Apple has done other unprecedented things, after claiming "if this doesn't change, we will take something from customers"
Apple rarely takes something from customers, to the point I'm searching for examples beyond iCards... which are back recently as Invites
It’s like a comparison of “I’d be mildly annoyed” vs. “I’ll burn myself alive” as far as reactions go.
Unless Apple devices become illegal to import or use (unlikely), the resultant gray market will starve said governments of significant yearly iPhone + case purchase VAT
Apple might lose something like 1/2 the revenue you suggest in a realistic scenario. 12% is nothing for a company like Apple who has a strong POV.
For a few more years until their former customers move on to competitor's walled garden and become their customers.
> starve said governments of significant yearly iPhone + case purchase VAT
I can't believe any government seriously feeling the lack of VAT from iPhone sales. That's tiny, even for tiny countries in the EU.
Not to mention lack of iPhone sales don't equal lack of Smartphone sales, and grey markets would make an already pricy product even pricier and less desirable because of lack of support, warranty etc.
Other brands will sell, and VAT will be collected.
Ah yeah, people really don't mind giving up things like iMessage, as we've clearly seen.
Flippin' Symbian phones from early 2010's are more capable and yet they are the ones we call "dumbphones"...
As a person who used them then and still have a few working that I turn on now and then, this is nostalgic bunk. Symbian phone hardware & software SDK were a disorganized mess. By 2010, Symbian phones were stagnant and the market was mostly abandoned.
The Symbian OS had promise, but it was not realized. There is a reason the 2007 iPhone totally disrupted PalmPC/PalmOS/webOS/Symbian and wiped them from the landscape.
You could convince a user to turn off this code-signing requirement by having them alter the firmware on their device; not exactly friendly for sideloading
Self-signed symbian apps:
- had no lasting persmissions... EVERY single time a self-signed app did something like use network or bluetooth, the user gets a popup... every.single.time
- had no background task ability; save before you switch apps! and music players? nope.
- could not write to or browse the general phone filesystem - could only write to files created BY that app
- could not use any of the phone functions (call records, making calls, filtering calls, recording calls, SMS/MMS)
- had no kernel access for any access to custom plugins or methods outside the official SDK
The self-signing tools provided for Symbian devs were MakeKeys and SignSIS & barely worked then. Nowdays, getting them to work takes a dark art incantation and rolling your VM back in time a few decades.
Symbian was a shaky, shortsighted OS that switched directions in software and hardware multiple times before finding a lane that it quickly abandoned.
As for permission dialogs in particular, there is no facility, at least not in S^3 and above to display any kind of runtime permission dialogs. Maybe you're thinking of some other OS that isn't Symbian.
Furthermore, there is no mechanism for app ownership of files outside of app directories either. And writing to common fs directories is definitely allowed for self-signed apps that specify an appropriate permission.
Overall, I sense you don't like being wrong, but you are not wrong, you're just talking about some other non-Symbian OS I don't really know, so I can't really say much about that…
I suppose there was no need to mention Symbian. It was a hellish system to develop for, and once smartphones had a little more RAM and CPU power, Symbian had absolutely no future. Nokia's answer to the iPhone was MeeGo [0], which wasn't bad, but Google's Android was, in fact, even better.
A common pattern in Apple platforms has been for APIs to be private initially, then made public 2-4 major versions after introduction, once the bulk of the design churn is over with and it can remain relatively stable. Essentially, they focus on making it functional and shaped correctly and then make it public once they’re satisfied. They don’t do this with every API obviously, but have with several.
I think the DMA would be stronger if it had a “beta clause” that allowed that form of development for some stretch of time (a couple of years maybe) after public release before requirements kick in. This way companies don’t have to try to juggle making the APIs functional vs. fit for public consumption.
I think DMA is what it is partly because Apple has stopped doing that for signifiant chunks of functionality, and started removing features available to third-party developers. See "Apple restricts Pebble from being awesome with iPhones" https://ericmigi.com/blog/apple-restricts-pebble-from-being-...
Now, Apple shipping an API has never been a guarantee they'll keep it compatible for any specific length of time, they've kept some APIs half broken without much afterthought as well. Versioning APIs wouldn't be some incredible techbical burden either.
At the size and position of Apple they sure can do it.
(See pages 87-88): https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
Doing it for a week, perhaps, to make a point and see if EU caves from it, which I dont see happening either.
Apple is answerable to shareholders and the EU is too big a market to exit. But if they do - great! Imagine the exciting industry that will flourish without them!
Tragic how much goodwill Apple has squandered.
Funnily, the previous EU commissioner for competition, who has spearheaded these clashes between EU and the U.S. tech giants has stated that the U.S. basically wrote the book on sensible anti-trust legislation back in the day, and that the EU's current laws are greatly inspired by the historical example of the U.S.
this defense argument seems really counter productive as it feels exactly the point of antitrust laws.
Just like disrupting the seamless way internet explorer worked together with Windows was exactly the point.
Also the "Pornography, in my iPhone?!" has meme potential.
I am shocked!
As good as Apple hardware is (well in the designe department at least) their behavior is terrible for consumers and their OSs are becoming a joke. So, it's not like we would lose something particularly great.
There's a few other countries in Europe where it's released but their vat is much higher. I think apple normalizes prices across countries but every now and then it's cheaper to buy apple gear here. There was even a time when iPhones were cheaper here than in the USA because of some exchange rate issues.
I mean, all this public grandstanding between sides is exhausting: - apple says its walled garden is the best for consumers so they should have a spine and push back - the EU has been pushing their Brussels effect around because it's also good for consumers so they should just stiffen their spine and stop dragging courts cases and media attention for years. Not only that: all the EU complains on how Apple has not paid their fair share of taxes by using European tax loopholes. They should just keep their spine stiff and impose a massive penalty on Apple non-compliance!
In the end it's a win-win isn't it? Europe gets a chance to come up with local players to fill in the market for a walled garden device and apple keeps their reputation with consumers
This is disingenuous. The DMA gatekeeper rules apply to Android and Google Play, and Samsung's live translation feature does not appear to be tied to specific earbuds.
4 more comments available on Hacker News
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.