If they wanted, they could remove the App Store from iOS in EU, or pull the iPhone from the EU market entirely. Apple isn’t required by the DMA to part of a digital market at all.
That's a question for regulators and lawyers. But in general yes: trying to evade a law instead of complying with its intended application is generally not viewed as unquestionably legal. In criminal law it's sometimes even taken as evidence of guilt!
> If they wanted, they could remove the App Store from iOS in EU, or pull the iPhone from the EU market entirely. Apple isn’t required by the DMA to part of a digital market at all.
And if the EU wanted, they could ban Apple products entirely. The point is that no one does stuff like this because there's a general sense that healthy competetive markets are good for everyone, and that the capitalist market will enforce this by punishing actors that try to cheat (in this case, by "trying to make more money by making your product worse").
But sometimes that market enforcement breaks down, in the face of trust/monopoly activities like (in this case) control over a computing platform. And when that happens it's routine for regulators to step in to try to right the ship.
And that ship is listing pretty badly right now. Apple is dancing as close to the edge of predatory monopolism as is possible. Again, they literally think they'll make more money by deliberately breaking their own customer's web apps. There's no way at all that's a healthy market. QED.
A long time ago? You can't sell a product under the pretense that it does X and then remove X after the fact, at least not in any country with decent consumer protections.
Depends on the laws and advertising. Sony got dinged for removing the "Other OS" option on the PS3. A feature you can definitely argued "nobody used" (and as someone who tried, the experience for anything but basically headless Linux was atrocious. You had access to almost none of the hardware for this). Still lost the case.
I wouldn't bet on Apple losing on that specifically. But it sounds like this is all adding up towards another big slap in a future Case.
Are they going to provide full refunds for anyone wanting to return their iPhone, along with any apps they have purchased on the App Store?
I doubt Apple wants to scam all their users by taking their money for a smartphone and then taking away the smart parts.
Huh?
If the EU imposes additional requirements on aquarium lights, and a lighting manufacture decides not to product aquarium lights.....that's violating the spirit of the law?
But if you install their newest version of aquarium lights, they won't have a green option.
Again, this kind of allegorical confusion is generally a sign that you're wrong and trying to cheat. Which Apple is, clearly.
oof, that is not a good assumption
The justice system is not a computer following logical instructions.
But in this particular case it's sort of a silly argument anyway as it cuts better in the opposite direction: the DMA is a big and complicated law and can be interpreted in a zillion ways. If courts and regulators are allowed to read laws as strictly as they want, I can all but guarantee that Apple is in violation of something.
If someone thinks they are safe to ignore the spirit of a law because of a quirk of how it is worded, they will often find they are wrong, and have charges brought against them anyway, and lose at trial and any number of appellate courts. Conversely, if someone is convicted based on a technicality where they broke the letter of the law, but not the spirit, that conviction is very likely to be overturned on appeal.
Of course, the spirit and the letter of the law can't be arbitrarily divorced from one another. One can't claim that the letter of the law says "you shall not kill", but the spirit of the law is that it's ok to kill but only on the full moon. But if a law says "don't lie to prosecutors", and they ask me what I did on some day, and I tell them X and Y and don't mention Z, I won't be able to claim that the law didn't techniclaly say not to omit information.