Apple calls for changes to anti-monopoly laws and says it may stop shipping to the EU
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.
Blackmail, formally extortion or coercion is a crime only when specific kinds of threats (which may vary by jurisdiction) are used to compel someone's behavior.
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.
However a bus driver refusing to refusing/threatening to not provide service to a passenger is illegal, unless in some special cases.
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.
There's only a risk of fines if Apple doesn't comply with the regulation, or tries to appear compliant while sabotaging the intended goals of the regulation.
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.
There isn't really a good way to know if the EC will find a violation. The legal rulings are much more substance based than rule based. This sounds good but it creates uncertainty. The previous enforcement chief routinely touted the potential for large fines.
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.
As I understand it, Apple's compliance officer (a position the DMA requires) can talk to the EC and get feedback on whether a planned feature creates compliance issues. Following the guidance that comes out of such a discussion is a near guarantee they won't get fined.
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.
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.