It’s hard even to imagine Apple having a good time with the regulations of the European Union (EU). Apple is now facing some hurdles in the region, as it warns of feature delays in Europe due to the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) . This act, in particular, forces brands to open up their services to third-party devices. The tech giant, however, argues that this puts the user’s privacy at risk.
Several new features will be delayed for Apple users due to the EU’s DMA
In an official statement, Apple has confirmed that several new features won’t be delivered to European users on time. These features include the AI-powered live translation on AirPods, iPhone Mirroring, and several navigation features that are linked to Apple Maps.
The EU’s DMA regulation requires the big tech firms, like Apple, to open their services for third-party devices. Apple argues that it has not yet found a “safe” way to make features like iPhone Mirroring and AI-Live Translation work on non-Apple devices without weakening security. According to the company, this particular regulation creates more “complexity and risks” for European users.
Still, there are some signs that Apple is actively working to comply with the regulation. It was recently revealed that the company is working on a “Notification Forwarding” feature that allows users to relay notifications to third-party wearables and accessories.
Apple says it is working hard to comply with the regulations
This is not actually the first time Apple has faced such issues in the European markets. The company was recently fined a whopping $580 million for violating rules linked to the Apple App Store. Authorities have given the company time to comply with the rules until the end of the year, or else face more penalties.
Apple, on the other hand, insists that it is working day and night to meet obligations. It has also criticized the regulations put in place by the union. The company has requested the authorities to either repeal or replace the law , as it risks the user’s privacy. Regulators have, however, argued that this act opens up the competition and stops any particular brand from having unfair advantages.
