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

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

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

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

#91

Post by rasz »

PlutoIsAPlanet wrote: post #10
geek_at wrote: post #2

wow, 38B could really impact them. Maybe they'll stop the malicious compliance scheme then

I wonder what lawyer at Apple thought that the EU would not investigate Apple's malicious compliance, or Apple has done this to see how far the EU will go. This isn't US legislation where you can find loopholes, EU legislation prohibits malicious compliance and not following "the spirit" of the law, the latter Apple has publicly admitted to doing.

>This isn't US legislation where you can find loopholes

https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20240119/STORY/912...

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

#92

Post by fnordpiglet »

jacobsimon wrote: post #89
jacobsimon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I see what you mean, I just think these regulatory frameworks are themselves somewhat draconian, indirect, and lead to obnoxious and bad user experiences despite their good intentions, like cookie consent popups. Obviously my opinion doesn’t matter, but wouldn’t it be easier if the EU simply said, “We have the power to regulate commerce in the EU, including software marketplaces. We have decided X.” That would b…

In fact, I’m almost convinced that this regulatory framework was suggested by Apple themselves, because it doesn’t really accomplish anything. No one wanted to use third party app stores, they just want Apple to stop charging them so much. It’s fundamentally a payment processing issue, and they’ve spun it into a user freedom issue.

It’s always a cat and mouse thing but being overly obtuse runs the risk of irritating the regulator. The reality is there’s a clear intention and spirit behind the regulation. It’s also purposefully vague to capture more than this one case and allow for creative compliance that meets the spirit. Often regulators fail to grok the specific details of a business and the point isn’t to crush companies it’s to elicit a behavior.

But being evasive or a general asshat with a regulator leaves you open to the fact it was vague and the judge of compliance isn’t you, it’s the regulator. And if you’re too far in the wrong direction criminal consequences can kick in. Creating ill will makes all future interactions worse. So it’s really in your best interest to engage constructively with your regulators to achieve a best outcome possible.

There are exceptions - Uber has made willful non compliance a business model requiring that TLC regulation is pretty toothless. I don’t think Apple will find a similar situation here.

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

#93

Post by nojvek »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #61
notamy wrote: post #6

> could be fined up to 10% of its worldwide turnover That "up to" makes me nervous that 10% won't happen, but I love the idea of smacking companies with real fines for not complying / maliciously complying with laws.

If they did 10% of global turnover, I'm pretty sure the US government would get involved, so I don't think Europe will go there. They would basically be starting a trade war. > but I love the idea of smacking companies with real fines for not complying / maliciously complying with laws. A lot of people don't, or to say, when you have extra-territorial penalties (we are going to fine you on all the money you spend), t…

The shareholders of Apple would give Timecook a reality check. Apple is struggling to grow. Exiting Europe would start a cascading effect.

They would lose trillion from market cap if they exited.

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

#94

Post by lxgr »

jacobsimon wrote: post #86
lxgr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's not nearly their own objection against Apple and other platform companies targeted by the DMA. For example, Meta is targeted by the same law on WhatsApp messaging interoperability; Apple on their exclusive use of the contactless interface for card payments etc. It's a much more generic and wide-reaching regulatory tool than just an "anti-app-store law".

That’s kinda my point though, by having such generic and wide ranging laws, it opens up room for loopholes and confusion. They should just say specifically what the desired impact of the law is.

Laws being generic is usually a good thing. Those targeting only a specific company are often thrown out by higher/constitutional courts as violating fairness principles.

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

#95

Post by AwaAwa »

rasz wrote: post #90
belter wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will go through the EU appeals court process for 8 to 10 years, while making billions. To finally agree to some fine with minor inflation corrections. From a financial management aspect makes total sense.

Intel still hasnt paid its $1 Billion 2009 EU fine for destroying AMD in early 2000. Thats 15 years https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/intel-win...

Wow. So really Apple knows they don't have to do anything, because the EU's teeth will fall out before Apple runs out of money. Depressing.

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

#96

Post by seanmcdirmid »

nojvek wrote: post #93
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they did 10% of global turnover, I'm pretty sure the US government would get involved, so I don't think Europe will go there. They would basically be starting a trade war. > but I love the idea of smacking companies with real fines for not complying / maliciously complying with laws. A lot of people don't, or to say, when you have extra-territorial penalties (we are going to fine you on all the money you spend), t…

The shareholders of Apple would give Timecook a reality check. Apple is struggling to grow. Exiting Europe would start a cascading effect. They would lose trillion from market cap if they exited.

It would never make it that far, so we are just speaking hypothetical, but basing fines on global turn over is specifically targeted at American companies (who make most of their money not in Europe), and would get attention from the USG.

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

#97

Post by turquoisevar »

rasz wrote: post #90
belter wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will go through the EU appeals court process for 8 to 10 years, while making billions. To finally agree to some fine with minor inflation corrections. From a financial management aspect makes total sense.

Intel still hasnt paid its $1 Billion 2009 EU fine for destroying AMD in early 2000. Thats 15 years https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/intel-win...

That’s one way of saying Intel has won on appeal and the €1.06 billion fine was thrown in the trash by CJEU.

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

#98

Post by turquoisevar »

iSnow wrote: post #11

Don't understand Apple here. This was a clear cut case of malicious compliance, what did they expect? That they just get away with it? Of course the EU would see the provocation and will take the opportunity. Yes, they might gain a couple years till this is settled, but they can't use the time to crush a competing app store in between, as there is currently none. I am sure I am dumb, but IMO the smart move would have…

It’s quite simple.

The EC is not the final arbiter in this. It’s just an executive body.

Apple complied with what they think will withstand adjudication by the CJEU and leaves the rest for the EC to act on so they can appeal it with the CJEU.

Given the EC’s poor track record in terms of getting their fines and decisions overturned by the CJEU, I too would do it this way, no matter how loud the EC likes to bark and show their teeth.

Especially considering the DMA is poorly drafted and in Europe, unlike in the US, the courts aren’t ghostbusters that go seeking for “spirits” of the law.

Whether the EC thinks so or not, Apple is in compliance with the straightforward parts of the DMA as well as with the more vague parts on the basis of reasonable interpretation, to be adjudicated by the CJEU.

In law there’s very little that’s certain, as such it’s bad form to make predictions, but I’m pretty confident in saying that the CJEU isn’t going to open Pandora’s box by prohibiting Apple from charging a reasonable fee for their IP.

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

#99

Post by ossyrial »

jacobsimon wrote: post #88
_ph_ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the problem is more complex. It is not only about the fees - obviously some large companies have that in their focus - but about general user freedom. Like being able to use a web browser of your choice. Or, in general, not have Apple reject some software from their App Store for reasons which are not tied to clear security violations. It is possible to deliver free apps through the App Store without any down…

I think you’re right, but my take is that the user freedom bit is a regulatory overreach. Couldn’t Apple literally turn off the App Store tomorrow, or replace everything with first party applications? There’s no law saying they have to support all these developers, though the DMA may require this indirectly. It feels like a slippery slope to “you need to be able to run Android on your iPhone hardware” or something li…

> It just seems really far fetched to me if you were to apply this logic to other industries- eg “movie theaters must let you play any movie, not just the movies they want!” Or “movie theaters must allow you to bring your own popcorn or allow competing concessions vendors!”

If a local movie theater doesn't play the movie you like, you can go to a competitor. If no such competitor exists, and movie theaters would be essential to daily life, such a method would make more sense. The DMA targets "gatekeepers", ie not local movie theaters, but enormous companies that have done their best to entrench their market position by making competition difficult or impossible. I would keep that in mind when comparing to other industries.

You can of course buy an Android, and I am not an expert on the DMA or economics, but the playfield of a group of local movie theaters is wildly different from Apple's Apple Store (or browser, or Apple Music store, etc).

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

#100

Post by pjmlp »

kutenai wrote: post #70
_ph_ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple halts their iPhone sales in the EU, they endanger their platform globally. Because suddenly a pretty large and important market would go 100% to Android. Also, Macs would become extinct pretty quickly in the EU.

I agree, but I'm just pointing out that this fine is outrageous, and, basically almost equal to total sales in the EU.

That is the point, otherwise companies would just pay them up as the cost of doing business their way, and move on.
Post reply on HN