ADAM ENGST 25 September 2025
In a statement, Apple writes:
It’s been more than a year since the Digital Markets Act was implemented. Over that time, it’s become clear that the DMA is leading to a worse experience for Apple users in the EU. It’s exposing them to new risks, and disrupting the simple, seamless way their Apple products work together. And as new technologies come out, our European users’ Apple products will only fall further behind. …
That’s why we’re urging regulators to take a closer look at how the law is affecting the EU citizens who use Apple products every day. We believe our users in Europe deserve the best experience on our technology, at the same standard we provide in the rest of the world — and that’s what we’ll keep fighting to deliver.
I struggle to offer constructive thoughts about Apple’s battles with the EU over the Digital Markets Act, a competition law aimed at boosting interoperability and limiting gatekeeper control. At a high level, I believe both the European Commission (which is responsible for the DMA) and Apple believe that they have the best interests of their constituents at heart. However, the European Commission views itself as serving all residents of EU member countries, whereas Apple is focused on current or prospective Apple users in the EU. Neither side is likely acting in bad faith; they’re advancing different, sometimes conflicting, mandates. As much as I believe Apple makes good products that serve its users well, what’s best for Apple users (and thus Apple itself) isn’t always best—or even good—for everyone else.
Apple’s claim of “the same standard we provide in the rest of the world” rings somewhat hollow, given that it often adjusts its technology and services to comply with local laws and rulings. The company has made significant concessions to operate in China, doesn’t offer FaceTime in the United Arab Emirates, and removes apps from the still-functional Russian App Store at the Russian government’s request. Apple likely pushed back (unsuccessfully) in less public ways in those more authoritarian countries, but in the democratic EU, this public statement appears aimed at rallying its users and influencing the regulatory conversation. Even in the United States, Apple dropped the Blood Oxygen app from watchOS to comply with the International Trade Commission’s ruling in favor of Masimo’s claim of patent infringement before coming up with an iPhone-focused workaround (see “Blood Oxygen Monitoring Returns with iOS 18.6.1 and watchOS 11.6.1,” 14 August 2025).
Ultimately, we’re witnessing a clash between two immense power structures—the European Union, a federation of 27 countries representing 450 million people and the world’s third-largest economy—and Apple, one of the world’s most influential and valuable companies, with a market capitalization of about $3.7 trillion and roughly $100 billion in net income over the past 12 months. As the power of the tech giants, whose products and services underpin the lives of billions, continues to increase, these conflicts will become more common, and it’s often impossible to predict which side’s vision will best serve everyone in practice.
