Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 735 posts

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#551

Post by rambambram »

Muromec wrote: post #509
rambambram wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I like a lot of Euro regulations, some of the privacy ones go too far with the whole "we're going to enforce this on the whole world" crap. Care to explain? EU is also a jurisdiction, so why would EU law be legal in other areas than EU?

Jurisdiction concept is not strictly bound by territory. Classic example is two parties based in two jurisdiction dealing with each other somehow. Imagine there is a law in your jurisdiction saying if you hire a person there are rules A, B, C which are a bit inconvenient to you, the employer. What if you incorporate in a different jurisdiction where the salaries are higher but there are no rules B and C, but there ar…

I'm not talking about incorporated bodies, I'm talking EU law. EU decides what it wants in EU, not outside EU. Or am I missing something?

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#552

Post by kergonath »

chrisandchris wrote: post #432
burnte wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not as if Apple doesn't have the money to dedicate a team to matching the EU's requirements on a deadline. They just choose not to. Exactly, that's actually why I LIKE this decision so much. I'm not on Apple's side, but I REALLY like the idea that a company just says, "Fine, we'll comply by not even offering this product." It's a perfectly legitimate choice, and it FORCED Apple to evaluate the pros and cons. I…

And as a consumer, I am somewhat happy that a company says "well, then not" if it cannot comply with the law. If the law makes sense, that I cannot judge in this case.

> And as a consumer, I am somewhat happy that a company says "well, then not" if it cannot comply with the law.

As a citizen, I find it both fascinating and disturbing that this is even a thing. Of course companies have to follow the law. Why is this even a thing? If the product fills a real need and the externalities are acceptable, that will be a demonstration that the law needs an update.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#553

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

eastbound wrote: post #456
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do have a say. They can elect representatives who could change the legal framework and the incentives for the bureaucrats, or even remove the ability of the bureaucrats to regulate certain things. Then these regulations would not get passed and that would be that.

We have a say at a 4th level of derived decision, which is 2 levels more than what people call a democracy. Also, the other political party will do it too. = We don’t have a say. We voted NO to the new EU treaties in 2008 and the new president decided that electing him meant that we approved the same treaties. They only let us vote when we agree, anyway.

Not sure what other mechanism would be possible for creating a rule system like the DMA presuming that the EU countries remain independent. Treaties are too slow, and direct democracy on an issue this complicated is the realm of science fiction (see Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space universe for a take on this -- particularly the Demarchist faction).

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#554

Post by dotancohen »

Henchman21 wrote: post #478
eastbound wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a say at a 4th level of derived decision, which is 2 levels more than what people call a democracy. Also, the other political party will do it too. = We don’t have a say. We voted NO to the new EU treaties in 2008 and the new president decided that electing him meant that we approved the same treaties. They only let us vote when we agree, anyway.

Voting the world over is a joke. IIRC it was Carlin who said “if voting mattered they wouldn’t met us do it”.

Carlin was excellent at delivery, but don't confuse clever delivery with wisdom.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#555

Post by subscribed »

eykanal wrote: post #38
afavour wrote: post #2

Apple said "hey, can we not comply with the law", the EU said no, so it didn't launch. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I can see why Apple might want to request an 18 month exemption, there's clearly extra work required to comply with EU regulations. But on the other hand it also feels like a straightforward play for consumer sympathy: let them get used to using it every day for 18 months, then pressure the EU to…

Google eng mgr here. I've worked on a few projects related to compliance with various government policies. This isn't "assign a two-pizza team to it, will be done in a quarter"; these types of compliance efforts can mean completely redoing multiple core systems to handle privacy, wipeout, audit, reporting, per-location policies, etc etc. These efforts can involve hundreds to thousands of people for multiple years. Su…

LOL, do you think Apple learnt about the requirements yesterday during the presentation?

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#556

Post by mocamoca »

sneak wrote: post #539
burnte wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not as if Apple doesn't have the money to dedicate a team to matching the EU's requirements on a deadline. They just choose not to. Exactly, that's actually why I LIKE this decision so much. I'm not on Apple's side, but I REALLY like the idea that a company just says, "Fine, we'll comply by not even offering this product." It's a perfectly legitimate choice, and it FORCED Apple to evaluate the pros and cons. I…

> I want more companies to not get exemptions and thus not offer law-breaking products. I LIKE that the government is saying, "fix it or don't bring it here" and Apple just has to live with it. The idea that there is such a thing as "law-breaking products" when consumers ACTIVELY CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THEM is insane to me. This is authoritarian nonsense. It is not the state's place to tell people what they s…

That is quite a libertarian point of view, and Europeans tend to disagree with it.

The most extreme example could be the legislation on weapons. A less extreme example could be legislation on food additives or PFAS.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#557

Post by mschuster91 »

tonoto wrote: post #508
shykes wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also forced EU voters to consider how much they value these services It's been a while since I left Europe, and I'm rusty on that particular layer of civics. Do EU voters actually have a say in this kind of regulation? Or is it all decided on the executive side which is only accountable to member states and not to individual citizens?

It might be that we have a say, but there are a lot of decisions happening in Brussels that it "feels like" we, EU voters, don't have a say in. Such as: - Chat Control - Vehicle regulations (mandates on "eCall", disturbing audio visuals and other "safety measuers) in Regulation (EU) 2018/858 - Eventual upcoming ethanol restrictions - Ban on plastic drinking straws - Drink caps that are stuck to the bottles - Ban on p…

> It might be that we have a say, but there are a lot of decisions happening in Brussels that it "feels like" we, EU voters, don't have a say in.

Well... your government certainly has a say in Brussels. Often enough, national politicians use "Brussels" as a scapegoat... nothing can happen in Brussels if national governments (or the Commission) don't propose it first, the Parliament has no right to initiative.

If people would stop electing dumb fucks to national governments or to at least hold their dumb fucks in national governments accountable (yes, it is possible, even Hungary managed to do so), you'd get a lot less "Brussels" bullshit.

(And yes, I am aware, this statement is particularly ironic given I'm German and we were utterly infamous for shipping off utter wastes of space to Brussels)

> and in countries with a "green" profiles, such as Netherlands it seems impossible to just buy one or two apples - you have to buy a emplastered six pack of apples (lots of waste if I just wanted one apple).

That's a Dutch specialty. Here in Germany, I can buy single apples, pears, bananas or whatever just fine if I want - although I don't because apples suck.

If I were to guess, it's a logistics thing. Sixpacks of apples are easier to handle and transport than a bunch of loose apples.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#558

Post by coldtea »

kergonath wrote: post #541
coldtea wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even less direct than national parliaments, which already are a joke. And the unelected bureucracy, careerists, and 2-3 big country interests pressuring others under the table, are driving the show...

It’s just as direct as national parliaments. Citizens vote for MEPs.

Sure.

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#559

Post by customguy »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #468
slekker wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I value them a lot, happy that the EU didnt bend down to Apple. If it werent for the EU, the companies would get away with all sorts of shit. Is as if people forget companies are evil by nature and will fuck you any chance they get.

[flagged]

https://block81.com/blog/why-most-websites-dont-actually-nee...

That's been true from day one. So the question is, did you come up with the FUD yourself, or did you believe someone else?

Re: Apple decided not to roll out Siri in EU after denied request for exemption

#560

Post by ahartmetz »

troupo wrote: post #357
jen20 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't _have_ to stop - the features just can't ship in the EU while these requirements are in place, which is exactly what is happening here. The law is working as intended, just not in the way the proponents thought it would.

> the features just can't ship in the EU while these requirements are in place, Yes, they can. Apple wields its duopoly power to try and bend governments to its will.

Spoiler: It won't work this time neither.
Post reply on HN