EU rejects Apple's changes: Company could be fined 10% of global turnover

If I have a tool, lets say I buy a 'doorbell' camera. Right now, the "app" must be curated and qualified and verified clear of defects, malware, etc by App store policy and review. (not that they are 100%, but it's a pretty decent process).

When a 'free app store' shows up, then this same doorbell camera company will just pop their app, which will become a much shittier version of what would have been available, into some shitty app store, and, not bother to make a better version.

What will happen, in practice, is that there will be some percentage of apps that become shittier and only available from the shitty 3rd party store, and not the curated (and not free) app store.

So, no, it won't be a simple matter of just "don't use that store", there will be more factors at play.

It is obvious Tim Cook is doing what ever he can to protect their services revenue. And lack the intuition Steve jobs has.

In fact, perplexity includes actual sources (via links). I couuld have posted the 8 sources that perplexity.ai cited.. I did not want to take the time.

Perplexity does have a sharelink, so, if you are really curious, here is the search and results

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/What-percentage-of-VTOCreO8...

The regulation creates the context to specify something like this. Writing ad hoc rules for named entities without a law or regulation behind it isn’t how our system of governance works. You first have to have a framework to judge against, either in law or regulation. You then assess the compliance of each in scope entity and issue findings.

Btw the term “malicious compliance” isn’t really a thing. The right term is “willful noncompliance.” For this they need to prove intent to be a defensible finding, which they probably could. However it would be easier to just find them in non-compliance.

I would also note this is a back and forth. What surprises me is Apple went public with their plans rather than developing them directly with the regulators. Going public with their plan creates all sorts of problems for Apple.

This is surprising because Apple is a pretty sophisticated regulatory player. For all their devices they go through many regulatory processes and regimes. They have tons of experience dealing with regulators across many regions and regulatory domains, including these sorts of policies. This is a shocking lack of cooperative behavior that won’t work for Apple. Apple is flush with cash, but governments have unlimited resources and the ability for forcibly enforce their will. It’s usually smart money to invest in appeasing your regulators in private.

Apples strategy here is baffling. They’re not unfamiliar with regulation and how to manage regulators. This is really not a good strategy they’re doing and it’ll make everything worse for them at every step. The fact they unveiled their plans publicly without a green light from the regulator means they’re doing some sort of weird game of chicken.

IMO they’re underestimating the motivation of the EU to try to break US tech megacorps grip to try to create a place that an EU tech megacorp might emerge. I don’t know that it’s a very sensible strategy as any EU megacorp will also be subject to onerous requirements, but will have to bootstrap in that regime. Also until the EU fixed its banking and investment structures, pay improves, and any number of other head winds abate, I wouldn’t expect attacking FB, Google, and Apple with regulatory burden will be meaningfully helpful to any tech company in the EU.