Because the same exact tech, remote desktop access on macOS, has been working fine for years. That's how I know this has nothing to do with DMA, GDPR and the AI act. Yes, there might be AI features that are gatekept due to DMA and GDPR, cool, that is kind of understandable. But they also threw a hissy fit and excluded the EU from having lots of unrelated functionality. Or, maybe, they're really doing something horribly wrong if they can't be in compliance with GDPR when sharing a screen of your phone on your macbook.
DMA allows EU regulators to designate certain platforms as gatekeepers. Platforms that are designated gatekeepers are subject to different requirements under EU law than those that are not designated gatekeepers. The EU designated iOS as a gatekeeper[1], but did not do the same for MacOS.
So while you are correct that there is no technical barrier, you are incorrect that they are the same under EU regulation. Involving EU regulators in product design for designated gatekeepers was the entire point of the law, so this is the desired effect. Regulators want the flexibility to e.g. work with the gatekeeper to design feature modifications, like the default browser selection screen[2], for other aspects of designated gatekeeper platforms.
One can choose to see this as good or bad, but this is clearly the intent of the law.
> the same exact tech, remote desktop access on macOS, has been working fine for years. That's how I know this has nothing to do with DMA
Apple just got dinged under the DMA [1][2]. The text of the law may not have changed, but the reality of its meaning has.
> they're really doing something horribly wrong if they can't be in compliance with GDPR
The point is verifying you are in compliance with a law has costs. Plenty of start-ups, for instance, are better off geoblocking jurisdictions they don't have the resources to comply with but don't want to accidentally do something illegal in. Not because they think they're violating anything. But because it isn't worth losing (a) nimbleness over or (b) future access to. (Common ones being the EU, China and India.) Apple isn't a start-up. But they probably don't want their design team to be half staffed with lawyers either.
The document you are referencing has no mention of remote access to a phone. The fact that apple chooses to gatekeep unrelated features and seemingly cites EU regulation to explain this behavior is just absurd. And the amount of people coming to their defense is equally absurd. Have you even understood my main gripe? If Apple feels it is unable to comply with EU regulations with apple intelligence, I can understand that given the amount of raw data that is required to deliver the current generation of AI products. But to then turn around and cite the same regulation when it comes to features that are completely unrelated to data gobbling is mindblowingly stupid, and to me, definitely feels like a tactic to gaslight the consumers in the EU, to try and turn them against this legislation.
