6 ms·

If Apple maintains that it will only support new web engines in the EU, the EU will step in and force Apple to allow it worldwide. So it's a losing battle for t

by joshlk 3y ago

If Apple maintains that it will only support new web engines in the EU, the EU will step in and force Apple to allow it worldwide. So it's a losing battle for them.

scarface_74 3y ago
How pray tell is the EU going to tell Apple what they have to do in the rest of the world?
- devit 3y ago
  They could make it a condition of doing business in the EU (which of course leaves Apple the option of pulling out from the EU). Not clear though whether they have any interest in doing that.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    “Apple announces the formation of a new company - Apple EU”.
- jsnell 3y ago
  Well, telling is easy. You just tell them. What you're really wondering about is how they would compel Apple to do it, not just tell. If this were found to be a violation of DMA, they could fine them for absurd amounts of money. If Apple paid the fines but didn't fix the underlying issue, they'd be fined even more. After suffient repeat offenses the EU would force Apple to make structural changes such as break up their businesses. If Apple chose to not pay the fines, break up, etc, they would need to stop operating in the EU, or run the risks of their assets being seized, their employees arrested, etc. It's only at the point where Apple left the EU that there's no more leverage on them. And this is Apple, they're not going to leave a market with money. They didn't even leave China. (But the real key question is whether there's a reasonable interpretation of the DMA where the companies need to comply even outside of the EU.)
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Easy answer, create a separate company called Apple EU that licenses and resells services to the EU and follows EU laws. They already do something analogous for taxes purposes.
    - jsnell 3y ago
      Not sure what you're thinking it'd achieve. Apple already has a subsidiary like that[0]. And sure, that subsidiary is the only part that the EU can directly act on. But the EU can definitely take into account the entirety of Apple when deciding what to do. For example, when Apple gets fined for violating the DMA, the maximum penalties are going to be based on their global revenue, not just the EU revenue going through their Irish subsidiary. If you're proposing a fully independent public company rather than a subsidiary of Apple, it's true that the separate company wouldn't actually be able to fix any of their possible DMA violations. But that just means they'd not be complying, not that they wouldn't be breaking the law or that they're somehow immune.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        The EU has no jurisdiction over what a company does outside of the EU or does not have a business nexus in the EU. Just like the US couldn’t have jurisdiction over a company that only operates in the EU. Apple could easily not make a subsidiary. But make it a fully independent legal entity that resales in the EU.
        jsnell 3y ago
        How will that entity continue operating in the EU when its only business is selling devices that are infringing on EU laws, and it is unable to reach compliance? It can't. Either the company shuts down, stops selling Apple devices, or the proceeds of their illegal sales will be garnished before they can pay Apple. It is a plan that is functionally identical to Apple leaving the EU. Apple can choose not to operate in the EU. That's a totally legit and acceptable outcome. But that means they have to actually give up that revenue. Any attempt at laundering it will just mean that the penalties apply to whatever entity they try to use for the regulatory evasion. (Or I guess shrink their presence to do small that the DMA no longer applies. But again, this is Apple. They'll rather hand out user data to the Chinese government than leave China and all their juicy money.)
rrdharan 3y ago
The EU lacks the power to do that kind of enforcement. It surprisingly quickly turns into a military and hard power question, which the EU lacks considering it’s the GDP of all these evil tech companies that’s paying for their national security and health care. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/07/03/defence-spending-sustaining-the-effort-in-the-long-term/index.html https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/07/03/defence... https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/529049-america-is-subsidizing-europes-socialist-medicine-with-higher-drug-prices/amp/ https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/529049-america-is-sub...
- jdiez17 3y ago
  How quickly, exactly? Do you think the US military would step in to resolve a dispute regarding a consumer electronics company? > considering it’s the GDP of all these evil tech companies that’s paying for their national security and health care I find the logic of the article you linked highly questionable. > Certainly it is more difficult than what drug companies do now, which is to set a high U.S. price, assuring profitability, no matter how thin the profit margin on European sales. So there is a profit margin, right? Otherwise drug companies wouldn't sell their products in Europe. It seems that this article and the MFN legislation is worried about the high drug prices in the US. Fair enough, I suppose, but how exactly is that "subsidizing the European health system"? > The goal of the MFN concept is to deliver fair prices to Americans without diminishing drug company profits. So you are specifically protecting the drug companies' massive *profits*. Not research or production costs, profits. > Since the introduction of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, Medicare has been prohibited by law from using its volume-purchasing power to negotiate prices for the drugs it covers, while government-run European health authorities have used such volume-purchasing power to obtain drastically low prices. That seems very dumb.
chrisfinazzo 3y ago
Prior art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Regional_variations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Regional_v... Safari N/KN anyone??

by joshlk 3y ago

If Apple maintains that it will only support new web engines in the EU, the EU will step in and force Apple to allow it worldwide. So it's a losing battle for them.

scarface_74 3y ago

How pray tell is the EU going to tell Apple what they have to do in the rest of the world?

devit 3y ago
They could make it a condition of doing business in the EU (which of course leaves Apple the option of pulling out from the EU). Not clear though whether they have any interest in doing that.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  “Apple announces the formation of a new company - Apple EU”.
jsnell 3y ago
Well, telling is easy. You just tell them. What you're really wondering about is how they would compel Apple to do it, not just tell. If this were found to be a violation of DMA, they could fine them for absurd amounts of money. If Apple paid the fines but didn't fix the underlying issue, they'd be fined even more. After suffient repeat offenses the EU would force Apple to make structural changes such as break up their businesses. If Apple chose to not pay the fines, break up, etc, they would need to stop operating in the EU, or run the risks of their assets being seized, their employees arrested, etc. It's only at the point where Apple left the EU that there's no more leverage on them. And this is Apple, they're not going to leave a market with money. They didn't even leave China. (But the real key question is whether there's a reasonable interpretation of the DMA where the companies need to comply even outside of the EU.)
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Easy answer, create a separate company called Apple EU that licenses and resells services to the EU and follows EU laws. They already do something analogous for taxes purposes.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    Not sure what you're thinking it'd achieve. Apple already has a subsidiary like that[0]. And sure, that subsidiary is the only part that the EU can directly act on. But the EU can definitely take into account the entirety of Apple when deciding what to do. For example, when Apple gets fined for violating the DMA, the maximum penalties are going to be based on their global revenue, not just the EU revenue going through their Irish subsidiary. If you're proposing a fully independent public company rather than a subsidiary of Apple, it's true that the separate company wouldn't actually be able to fix any of their possible DMA violations. But that just means they'd not be complying, not that they wouldn't be breaking the law or that they're somehow immune.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      The EU has no jurisdiction over what a company does outside of the EU or does not have a business nexus in the EU. Just like the US couldn’t have jurisdiction over a company that only operates in the EU. Apple could easily not make a subsidiary. But make it a fully independent legal entity that resales in the EU.
      - jsnell 3y ago
        How will that entity continue operating in the EU when its only business is selling devices that are infringing on EU laws, and it is unable to reach compliance? It can't. Either the company shuts down, stops selling Apple devices, or the proceeds of their illegal sales will be garnished before they can pay Apple. It is a plan that is functionally identical to Apple leaving the EU. Apple can choose not to operate in the EU. That's a totally legit and acceptable outcome. But that means they have to actually give up that revenue. Any attempt at laundering it will just mean that the penalties apply to whatever entity they try to use for the regulatory evasion. (Or I guess shrink their presence to do small that the DMA no longer applies. But again, this is Apple. They'll rather hand out user data to the Chinese government than leave China and all their juicy money.)

rrdharan 3y ago

The EU lacks the power to do that kind of enforcement. It surprisingly quickly turns into a military and hard power question, which the EU lacks considering it’s the GDP of all these evil tech companies that’s paying for their national security and health care. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/07/03/defence-spending-sustaining-the-effort-in-the-long-term/index.html https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2023/07/03/defence... https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/529049-america-is-subsidizing-europes-socialist-medicine-with-higher-drug-prices/amp/ https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/529049-america-is-sub...

jdiez17 3y ago
How quickly, exactly? Do you think the US military would step in to resolve a dispute regarding a consumer electronics company? > considering it’s the GDP of all these evil tech companies that’s paying for their national security and health care I find the logic of the article you linked highly questionable. > Certainly it is more difficult than what drug companies do now, which is to set a high U.S. price, assuring profitability, no matter how thin the profit margin on European sales. So there is a profit margin, right? Otherwise drug companies wouldn't sell their products in Europe. It seems that this article and the MFN legislation is worried about the high drug prices in the US. Fair enough, I suppose, but how exactly is that "subsidizing the European health system"? > The goal of the MFN concept is to deliver fair prices to Americans without diminishing drug company profits. So you are specifically protecting the drug companies' massive *profits*. Not research or production costs, profits. > Since the introduction of the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, Medicare has been prohibited by law from using its volume-purchasing power to negotiate prices for the drugs it covers, while government-run European health authorities have used such volume-purchasing power to obtain drastically low prices. That seems very dumb.

chrisfinazzo 3y ago

Prior art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Regional_variations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_editions#Regional_v... Safari N/KN anyone??