12 ms·

I’m fairly sure Apple did consult a bunch of lawyers, and actually talked through the eu about it.

by kaba0 3y ago

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
... in order to calculate likely fines so they could decide whether they'd still make a profit. Looks like they're happy to pay fines to maintain their monopoly. /flagrant-speculation That would be following the Microsoft playbook when it comes to corporate crime in the EEA/EU.
matkoniecz 3y ago
This does not mean they actually follow law. I am pretty sure that FB also has many lawyers, but they were repeatedly violating law. Sometimes clearly, blatantly and openly.
disiplus 3y ago
It could be, they are technically complying while trying in court to throw out the law.
closewith 3y ago
Obviously this is a stalling move, which could be effective for years.
mil22 3y ago
They definitely consulted a bunch of lawyers. The App Store makes on the order of $100B profit annually. Given that, a reasonable budget for consulting lawyers - on a matter which may result in them losing a substantial amount of that profit - would be massive. Even $1B in attorney fees would be a tiny price to pay to protect that. Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the content of those discussions. It's easy to assume they were checking whether their proposed implementation would satisfy the regulators. It's equally likely, even more likely, they were gathering information, posturing and probing to see how the EU would react, to gauge how best to craft their scheme to outwit them and what they could or could not easily get away with. You can hold a negotiation and still screw the other side over afterwards - isn't that actually the best way to do it? Holding a meeting first to learn what cards your opponent has in their hand is just a better way to play any game.
- andrewljohnson 3y ago
  Apple overall makes $100B, not the App Store.
  - thedailymail 3y ago
    Thanks for pointing this out. App Store sales (not profit) for 2020 was estimated at around $64B. Apple apparently does not make the profits from the App Store public. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-sales-around-64-billion-in-2020.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-s...
    - politician 3y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised if it was 99% profit. Operating a glorified FTP service isn't going to dent $64B in revenues.
      - brk 3y ago
        A glorified FTP service with an army of moderators. Still good margins I would suspect, but not just passive income.
        pbhjpbhj 3y ago
        How big is their "army" of app store moderators?
        fennecfoxy 3y ago
        From my own experiences and plenty of others their so called moderators are crap. App Store review process is total bullshit most of the time, and yet they still end up with scam/trash apps on the store. Besides, how many app updates are there per day? The amount they pay an app reviewer x n reviewers is going to be _nothing_, a drop in the bucket of what they make from the app store overall. App Store is a cash cow so they'll protect it viciously; I expect Apple will win this one through their usual gaslighting/cult personalities unless EU is willing to come down hard enough on 'em. Ban sales of Apple products that do not conform, easy. It doesn't affect consumers in any negative way, only positive.
jjcm 3y ago
It's more likely that they felt the cost of challenging this was worth it from a cost/benefit standpoint.
mrtksn 3y ago
I'm sure they did but Apple also Apple is having trouble selling Apple Watches with O2 monitors due to legal reasons.
- kaba0 3y ago
  That’s more like playing it safe until there is a definite ruling.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    That's now, at some point at in the past their lawyers probably said It's all going to be fine, put the sensor and make it a main feature of the product.
  - andy_ppp 3y ago
    To be fair they were going to license the tech but instead hired employees of the company whose tech they said they were interested in buying. Allegedly. It is quite often just worth going to court and settling rather than paying extortionate fees forever. It’s very unlikely at Apple’s scale a court will give them a percentage of sale price of an Apple Watch as the headline number would just be too large.
summerlight 3y ago
During USB-C debates, Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation and got an explicit public warning from EU commissioner who read the secret plan from the media outlets. Then they retracted their MFi for USB-C plan. I'm reasonably sure Apple didn't reveal most of their compliance plans to EU, since they will ask Apple to implement the most strict interpretation of the regulation and it would be headaches in the court if there's any evidence that Apple knowingly ignored such requests.
- kingsleyopara 3y ago
  > Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation and got an explicit public warning from EU commissioner who read the secret plan from the media outlets. Then they retracted their MFi for USB-C plan Source? This has conspiracy theory written all over it. My take is that the rumor mill was just flat out wrong about this like they often are. EDIT: To be clear here, I don’t deny that an EU commissioner sent a letter but I doubted the existence of these secret (and rumored) plans that prompted it e.g. seems out of character for Apple given iPads have had USB C for some time without such restrictions.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    It’s a conspiracy theory to allege that a major corporation would intentionally break the law? I mean I guess technically executives did conspire to break the law, so correct, they do that all the time.
  - gmerc 3y ago
    Many times. Gotta love people so brainwashed they can’t imagine government interfering with big tech https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-warns-apple-against-using-privacy-security-limit-2021-07-02/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-wa...
  - silverlyra 3y ago
    hi, I also read this website and sometimes comment on it. after I read your comment, I ran the query “apple usb-c eu commissioner warning” through an internet search engine, and I found this article – https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-limiting-usb-c-iphone-cables/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-li... > It was rumored in February that Apple may be planning to limit charging speeds and other functionality of USB-C cables that are not certified under its "Made for iPhone" program. […] In response to this rumor, European Commissioner Thierry Breton has sent Apple a letter warning the company that limiting the functionality of USB-C cables would not be permitted and would prevent iPhones from being sold in the EU when the law goes into effect. I would posit that a commenter with a sincere wish to dispel “conspiracy theories” might instead take a moment to do that search themselves instead of posting this (pardon me) inflammatory remark!
freeAgent 3y ago
They definitely talked with their lawyers and the EU regulators, but this doesn’t mean that where Apple ended up today was mutually agreed. They very likely ended up in disagreement and basically told their EU regulators to take them to court if they don’t like it. This happens all the time.
- zpeti 3y ago
  Remember that Meta actually followed GDPR law in terms of getting constent for personalised ads, and the irish courts even said that Meta was doing things legally, and then the EU courts decided Meta was actually doing illegal things, and fined Meta. So there can be multiple layers to this, and ultimately I don't think the EU really works as a robust legal system any more, there are so many politically driven cases where the courts follow the politics not the law.
  - impossiblefork 3y ago
    The Irish DPA is well-known for it laxity. There is a reason why it is regularly overruled.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    Ireland is trying to attract overseas businesses by being as "business friendly" as possible even if it means shafting local businesses and workers. This includes half-assing any EU regulations to the fullest extent possible and having very low taxes. The Irish DPA is a prime example of this.
    - MoonlitKnight 3y ago
      There is some irony in half-assing something to the fullest extent.
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      That wouldn’t explain the Irish courts affirming the DPA’s decisions on this. Unless you also want to argue that the Irish courts are compromised of course.
benzible 3y ago
Look at the long list of massive fines levied on the US tech giants for GDPR violations [1]. Every one of them consulted lawyers (and likely substantially ignored their advice). [1] https://www.enzuzo.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines https://www.enzuzo.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines

I’m fairly sure Apple did consult a bunch of lawyers, and actually talked through the eu about it.

by kaba0 3y ago

I’m fairly sure Apple did consult a bunch of lawyers, and actually talked through the eu about it.

... in order to calculate likely fines so they could decide whether they'd still make a profit. Looks like they're happy to pay fines to maintain their monopoly. /flagrant-speculation That would be following the Microsoft playbook when it comes to corporate crime in the EEA/EU.

matkoniecz 3y ago

This does not mean they actually follow law. I am pretty sure that FB also has many lawyers, but they were repeatedly violating law. Sometimes clearly, blatantly and openly.

disiplus 3y ago

It could be, they are technically complying while trying in court to throw out the law.

closewith 3y ago

Obviously this is a stalling move, which could be effective for years.

mil22 3y ago

They definitely consulted a bunch of lawyers. The App Store makes on the order of $100B profit annually. Given that, a reasonable budget for consulting lawyers - on a matter which may result in them losing a substantial amount of that profit - would be massive. Even $1B in attorney fees would be a tiny price to pay to protect that. Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the content of those discussions. It's easy to assume they were checking whether their proposed implementation would satisfy the regulators. It's equally likely, even more likely, they were gathering information, posturing and probing to see how the EU would react, to gauge how best to craft their scheme to outwit them and what they could or could not easily get away with. You can hold a negotiation and still screw the other side over afterwards - isn't that actually the best way to do it? Holding a meeting first to learn what cards your opponent has in their hand is just a better way to play any game.

andrewljohnson 3y ago
Apple overall makes $100B, not the App Store.
- thedailymail 3y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out. App Store sales (not profit) for 2020 was estimated at around $64B. Apple apparently does not make the profits from the App Store public. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-sales-around-64-billion-in-2020.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-s...
  - politician 3y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if it was 99% profit. Operating a glorified FTP service isn't going to dent $64B in revenues.
    - brk 3y ago
      A glorified FTP service with an army of moderators. Still good margins I would suspect, but not just passive income.
      - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
        How big is their "army" of app store moderators?
      - fennecfoxy 3y ago
        From my own experiences and plenty of others their so called moderators are crap. App Store review process is total bullshit most of the time, and yet they still end up with scam/trash apps on the store. Besides, how many app updates are there per day? The amount they pay an app reviewer x n reviewers is going to be _nothing_, a drop in the bucket of what they make from the app store overall. App Store is a cash cow so they'll protect it viciously; I expect Apple will win this one through their usual gaslighting/cult personalities unless EU is willing to come down hard enough on 'em. Ban sales of Apple products that do not conform, easy. It doesn't affect consumers in any negative way, only positive.

jjcm 3y ago

It's more likely that they felt the cost of challenging this was worth it from a cost/benefit standpoint.

mrtksn 3y ago

I'm sure they did but Apple also Apple is having trouble selling Apple Watches with O2 monitors due to legal reasons.

kaba0 3y ago
That’s more like playing it safe until there is a definite ruling.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  That's now, at some point at in the past their lawyers probably said It's all going to be fine, put the sensor and make it a main feature of the product.
- andy_ppp 3y ago
  To be fair they were going to license the tech but instead hired employees of the company whose tech they said they were interested in buying. Allegedly. It is quite often just worth going to court and settling rather than paying extortionate fees forever. It’s very unlikely at Apple’s scale a court will give them a percentage of sale price of an Apple Watch as the headline number would just be too large.

summerlight 3y ago

During USB-C debates, Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation and got an explicit public warning from EU commissioner who read the secret plan from the media outlets. Then they retracted their MFi for USB-C plan. I'm reasonably sure Apple didn't reveal most of their compliance plans to EU, since they will ask Apple to implement the most strict interpretation of the regulation and it would be headaches in the court if there's any evidence that Apple knowingly ignored such requests.

kingsleyopara 3y ago
> Apple reportedly tried to circumvent EU regulation and got an explicit public warning from EU commissioner who read the secret plan from the media outlets. Then they retracted their MFi for USB-C plan Source? This has conspiracy theory written all over it. My take is that the rumor mill was just flat out wrong about this like they often are. EDIT: To be clear here, I don’t deny that an EU commissioner sent a letter but I doubted the existence of these secret (and rumored) plans that prompted it e.g. seems out of character for Apple given iPads have had USB C for some time without such restrictions.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  It’s a conspiracy theory to allege that a major corporation would intentionally break the law? I mean I guess technically executives did conspire to break the law, so correct, they do that all the time.
- gmerc 3y ago
  Many times. Gotta love people so brainwashed they can’t imagine government interfering with big tech https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-warns-apple-against-using-privacy-security-limit-2021-07-02/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-eus-vestager-wa...
- silverlyra 3y ago
  hi, I also read this website and sometimes comment on it. after I read your comment, I ran the query “apple usb-c eu commissioner warning” through an internet search engine, and I found this article – https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-limiting-usb-c-iphone-cables/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/05/04/eu-warns-apple-about-li... > It was rumored in February that Apple may be planning to limit charging speeds and other functionality of USB-C cables that are not certified under its "Made for iPhone" program. […] In response to this rumor, European Commissioner Thierry Breton has sent Apple a letter warning the company that limiting the functionality of USB-C cables would not be permitted and would prevent iPhones from being sold in the EU when the law goes into effect. I would posit that a commenter with a sincere wish to dispel “conspiracy theories” might instead take a moment to do that search themselves instead of posting this (pardon me) inflammatory remark!

freeAgent 3y ago

They definitely talked with their lawyers and the EU regulators, but this doesn’t mean that where Apple ended up today was mutually agreed. They very likely ended up in disagreement and basically told their EU regulators to take them to court if they don’t like it. This happens all the time.

zpeti 3y ago
Remember that Meta actually followed GDPR law in terms of getting constent for personalised ads, and the irish courts even said that Meta was doing things legally, and then the EU courts decided Meta was actually doing illegal things, and fined Meta. So there can be multiple layers to this, and ultimately I don't think the EU really works as a robust legal system any more, there are so many politically driven cases where the courts follow the politics not the law.
- impossiblefork 3y ago
  The Irish DPA is well-known for it laxity. There is a reason why it is regularly overruled.
- hnbad 3y ago
  Ireland is trying to attract overseas businesses by being as "business friendly" as possible even if it means shafting local businesses and workers. This includes half-assing any EU regulations to the fullest extent possible and having very low taxes. The Irish DPA is a prime example of this.
  - MoonlitKnight 3y ago
    There is some irony in half-assing something to the fullest extent.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    That wouldn’t explain the Irish courts affirming the DPA’s decisions on this. Unless you also want to argue that the Irish courts are compromised of course.

benzible 3y ago

Look at the long list of massive fines levied on the US tech giants for GDPR violations [1]. Every one of them consulted lawyers (and likely substantially ignored their advice). [1] https://www.enzuzo.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines https://www.enzuzo.com/blog/biggest-gdpr-fines