8 ms·

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 end

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.
  - zpeti 3y ago
    From Ben Thompson (stratechery): "The first thing to note is that no one — including Apple — knows if this plan abides by the DMA. This is, unfortunately, par for the course for the European Union. Regulations are passed that insist on certain outcomes, with various carve-outs and definitions, and it is up to the companies impacted to figure out how to meet them; only then do the powers-that-be decide whether or not said company is in compliance. This is, needless to say, an insane way to write regulations, but when you consider the E.U.’s insistence on contradictory end goals — increasing competition while insisting on an absolutist approach to user privacy, for example — you can understand how the burden ends up falling on companies to come up with their own solutions. This also, needless to say, opens up the door to massive loopholes (like the fact that Apple believes it can still enforce App Tracking Transparency restrictions on apps not in the App Store)."
somenameforme 3y ago
This made me think of the other recent case against Apple from Epic, where Apple's response to the court was essentially trolling. The judgement required Apple to allow apps to advertise outside marketplaces where users could purchase in-game items. So apple responded by allowing developers to apply to place exactly one text-only (non-hyperlink), static, reference to an outside payment source on one page in an app, and further added a new term that developers must also pay Apple 27% of all revenue from these off-site purchases. I'm certain they have the best legal team that money can buy, but I'm equally certain that that legal team is under the sort of pressure that happens when a multinational corporation is looking at the prospect of possibly losing billions of dollars in zero-effort recurring profit. I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand, which is certainly Apple's most valuable asset - which is to say that I think they're acting in an irrational way, because of the amount of money at stake.
- mdekkers 3y ago
  > I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand I have a lot of Apple kit, and the Vision Pro is hugely tempting. Unfortunately, Apples’ shenanigans the past few years, starting with “we will scan all pictures you want to send to iCloud on your phone” which signalled to me that Apple feels fine about unilaterally altering our agreement whenever they feel like, have increasingly soured me on their brand to the point where we as a household and as a business were discussing to stop purchasing new Apple products and services. Their recent actions, both in terms of their Epic situation as well as their reaction to these new EU regulations, have cemented that decision.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    Who will you change to? Pretty much every other company with a mechanism to send photos to the cloud scans your pictures for CSAM right now and nobody cares. They've been doing it for many years. Nobody cares. Unlike every other cloud photo service, Apple invited community discussion before implementing it. Apple heard the feedback and didn't implement it, but people still criticise Apple as if they did. What should I conclude from this? That criticism of Apple is frequently false, disingenuous and devoid of context? Pretty much every other comparable mainstream ecosystem has most of the same vices. Most are arguably worse in my opinion. Epic still haven't satisfactorily explained why they haven't pursued Sony or Nintendo with the same arguments.
cavisne 3y ago
I think this fits the intent of EU regulators. The DMA is essentially a tariff on American tech companies. A European company could now fork android and have a locked down App Store with large fees, without complying with DMA (as it only applies to certain companies the EU does not like).
ska 3y ago
> This happens all the time. Not only does it happen all the time, it's often the only way to sort out what legislation means in practice.
- addicted 3y ago
  In the U.S. maybe. In the EU Apple could have sorted this out with regulators without having to involve lawsuits and legal proceedings. Unfortunately Apple has a strong deeply held conviction about its walled garden which it’s unwilling to compromise on. Tim Cook’s hundreds of millions in salary/bonus are dependent on Apple being able to extract a 30% cut out of the entire app and media ecosystem.
- freeAgent 3y ago
  Yup.
- roenxi 3y ago
  And adds substantially to the cost of compliance; one suspects. Dealing with a regulator is not a cheap process; there are a lot of lawyers involved.
  - chongli 3y ago
    I’m sure not only does Apple have a host of lawyers working on understanding this specific regulation but they have gone through the process of developing rigorous estimates of the costs and benefits of compliance vs litigation. Given the size of Apple’s market and the potential for other countries to follow suit with their own regulations pending these cases, they have likely deemed compliance to be extremely costly to their business. In that case, their potential budget for fighting this may be enormous.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Oh yeah, it was an aside. I'm not worried about the world-leading US and Asian incumbents. Expensive regulations help incumbents. I'm more worried about the local EU companies that play in this market. Or I would be, something mysterious (sotto voce probably regulatory expenses) put them out of business.
arghwhat 3y ago
Note: while legislators can chose to accept lesser terms, "leave it" means they follow up with the legal repercussions for non-compliance. Apple's only "leave it" move would be pulling out of the EU, which is an unlikely response. Apple will as shown here do their best to comply the least with the intent of the legislation, but it's up to the legislators if it is acceptable. E.g., if notarization turns out to be used for central gate keeping by declining specific apps in the human review step or by using it to impede the process for apps intended for third-party stores, that would be a violation.
andy_ppp 3y ago
Yeah, if you can afford normal lawyers they attempt to make the company comply with the law, if you can afford Apple lawyers they attempt to make the law comply with Apple’s interests. They will eventually implement something specific the EU tells them and receive a fine but for now it is worth trying it on and messing the EU around to try to water down what this law eventually means.

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.
- zpeti 3y ago
  From Ben Thompson (stratechery): "The first thing to note is that no one — including Apple — knows if this plan abides by the DMA. This is, unfortunately, par for the course for the European Union. Regulations are passed that insist on certain outcomes, with various carve-outs and definitions, and it is up to the companies impacted to figure out how to meet them; only then do the powers-that-be decide whether or not said company is in compliance. This is, needless to say, an insane way to write regulations, but when you consider the E.U.’s insistence on contradictory end goals — increasing competition while insisting on an absolutist approach to user privacy, for example — you can understand how the burden ends up falling on companies to come up with their own solutions. This also, needless to say, opens up the door to massive loopholes (like the fact that Apple believes it can still enforce App Tracking Transparency restrictions on apps not in the App Store)."

somenameforme 3y ago

This made me think of the other recent case against Apple from Epic, where Apple's response to the court was essentially trolling. The judgement required Apple to allow apps to advertise outside marketplaces where users could purchase in-game items. So apple responded by allowing developers to apply to place exactly one text-only (non-hyperlink), static, reference to an outside payment source on one page in an app, and further added a new term that developers must also pay Apple 27% of all revenue from these off-site purchases. I'm certain they have the best legal team that money can buy, but I'm equally certain that that legal team is under the sort of pressure that happens when a multinational corporation is looking at the prospect of possibly losing billions of dollars in zero-effort recurring profit. I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand, which is certainly Apple's most valuable asset - which is to say that I think they're acting in an irrational way, because of the amount of money at stake.

mdekkers 3y ago
> I also think these sort of behaviors are damaging their brand I have a lot of Apple kit, and the Vision Pro is hugely tempting. Unfortunately, Apples’ shenanigans the past few years, starting with “we will scan all pictures you want to send to iCloud on your phone” which signalled to me that Apple feels fine about unilaterally altering our agreement whenever they feel like, have increasingly soured me on their brand to the point where we as a household and as a business were discussing to stop purchasing new Apple products and services. Their recent actions, both in terms of their Epic situation as well as their reaction to these new EU regulations, have cemented that decision.
- simondotau 3y ago
  Who will you change to? Pretty much every other company with a mechanism to send photos to the cloud scans your pictures for CSAM right now and nobody cares. They've been doing it for many years. Nobody cares. Unlike every other cloud photo service, Apple invited community discussion before implementing it. Apple heard the feedback and didn't implement it, but people still criticise Apple as if they did. What should I conclude from this? That criticism of Apple is frequently false, disingenuous and devoid of context? Pretty much every other comparable mainstream ecosystem has most of the same vices. Most are arguably worse in my opinion. Epic still haven't satisfactorily explained why they haven't pursued Sony or Nintendo with the same arguments.

cavisne 3y ago

I think this fits the intent of EU regulators. The DMA is essentially a tariff on American tech companies. A European company could now fork android and have a locked down App Store with large fees, without complying with DMA (as it only applies to certain companies the EU does not like).

ska 3y ago

> This happens all the time. Not only does it happen all the time, it's often the only way to sort out what legislation means in practice.

addicted 3y ago
In the U.S. maybe. In the EU Apple could have sorted this out with regulators without having to involve lawsuits and legal proceedings. Unfortunately Apple has a strong deeply held conviction about its walled garden which it’s unwilling to compromise on. Tim Cook’s hundreds of millions in salary/bonus are dependent on Apple being able to extract a 30% cut out of the entire app and media ecosystem.
freeAgent 3y ago
Yup.
roenxi 3y ago
And adds substantially to the cost of compliance; one suspects. Dealing with a regulator is not a cheap process; there are a lot of lawyers involved.
- chongli 3y ago
  I’m sure not only does Apple have a host of lawyers working on understanding this specific regulation but they have gone through the process of developing rigorous estimates of the costs and benefits of compliance vs litigation. Given the size of Apple’s market and the potential for other countries to follow suit with their own regulations pending these cases, they have likely deemed compliance to be extremely costly to their business. In that case, their potential budget for fighting this may be enormous.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Oh yeah, it was an aside. I'm not worried about the world-leading US and Asian incumbents. Expensive regulations help incumbents. I'm more worried about the local EU companies that play in this market. Or I would be, something mysterious (sotto voce probably regulatory expenses) put them out of business.

arghwhat 3y ago

Note: while legislators can chose to accept lesser terms, "leave it" means they follow up with the legal repercussions for non-compliance. Apple's only "leave it" move would be pulling out of the EU, which is an unlikely response. Apple will as shown here do their best to comply the least with the intent of the legislation, but it's up to the legislators if it is acceptable. E.g., if notarization turns out to be used for central gate keeping by declining specific apps in the human review step or by using it to impede the process for apps intended for third-party stores, that would be a violation.

andy_ppp 3y ago

Yeah, if you can afford normal lawyers they attempt to make the company comply with the law, if you can afford Apple lawyers they attempt to make the law comply with Apple’s interests. They will eventually implement something specific the EU tells them and receive a fine but for now it is worth trying it on and messing the EU around to try to water down what this law eventually means.