4 ms·

Apple is run by glorified accountants. Jobs and Ive are long gone. I would expect a bit more decency and awareness, but they probably suffer some kind of tunn

Apple is run by glorified accountants. Jobs and Ive are long gone. I would expect a bit more decency and awareness, but they probably suffer some kind of tunnel vision.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
On the contrary, I don't think accountants would tell Apple to pick a fight with the EU; idealists would. They may not share your ideals, or mine, but doing "letter of the law" and "bare minimum malicious compliance" is absolutely something someone does because their principles would be offended by doing otherwise.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >I don't think accountants would tell Apple to pick a fight with the EU; They don't have any fight with the EU yet. Apple's accountants and lawyer are only engaging in malicious compliance with the EU so that they cause the most annoyance in the EU while still being legally in the green to not have a fight. It's precisely what accountants and lawyers would do.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    > They don't have any fight with the EU yet. They absolutely do. The EU took a step, then Apple took a step, and I fully expect the EU to take further steps in response, both in terms of further regulation and in malicious enforcement. (When engaging in malicious compliance, you'd better be sure you're following the letter of the law to the last detail, including anything a court may be willing to nitpick and might otherwise dismiss or discount for someone not engaged in malicious compliance.) Frankly, the biggest reason I'm annoyed with Apple for doing this is that it's likely to contribute to the existence of a future worse version of the DMA that overreaches in the course of precision.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >The EU took a step, then Apple took a step Apple didn't need to take any extra steps. They just had to comply, while keeping functionality as is, they didn't need to break it in the process. Apple's response is the corporate equivalent of that toddler who smashes things out of spite when things don't go his way. >and I fully expect the EU to take further steps in response, both in terms of further regulation and in malicious enforcement Bureaucratic politics respond way way slower than wealthy tech companies with 7 figure lawyers on payroll. It's a legal game of whack-a-mole and the likes of Apple are high-score players at this.
      - JoshTriplett 3y ago
        > Apple didn't need to take any extra steps. They just had to comply, that's it. And they did comply. If you regulate something by saying "X and Y must have equal capabilities", a company can comply by reducing the capabilities of X rather than increasing the capabilities of Y. And in the general case that's valid; the alternative would be punishing a company for having more capabilities in X in the first place, where a company that didn't have those capabilities to begin with wouldn't be punished for not adding them. (To be clear, I don't like in the first place that Apple didn't allow third-party apps or browsers, and I wish they'd opened that up to begin with, and that we'd never had or needed the DMA.) > Yeah, right. Bureaucratic politics respond way way slower than well funded tech companies with 7 figure lawyers on payroll. Sure. They've picked a very slow fight with the EU. But when the EU punches back, it may well do so with massive additional legislation with its own unintended consequences, and fines measured in percentages of global revenue.

Apple is run by glorified accountants. Jobs and Ive are long gone. I would expect a bit more decency and awareness, but they probably suffer some kind of tunnel vision.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

On the contrary, I don't think accountants would tell Apple to pick a fight with the EU; idealists would. They may not share your ideals, or mine, but doing "letter of the law" and "bare minimum malicious compliance" is absolutely something someone does because their principles would be offended by doing otherwise.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>I don't think accountants would tell Apple to pick a fight with the EU; They don't have any fight with the EU yet. Apple's accountants and lawyer are only engaging in malicious compliance with the EU so that they cause the most annoyance in the EU while still being legally in the green to not have a fight. It's precisely what accountants and lawyers would do.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > They don't have any fight with the EU yet. They absolutely do. The EU took a step, then Apple took a step, and I fully expect the EU to take further steps in response, both in terms of further regulation and in malicious enforcement. (When engaging in malicious compliance, you'd better be sure you're following the letter of the law to the last detail, including anything a court may be willing to nitpick and might otherwise dismiss or discount for someone not engaged in malicious compliance.) Frankly, the biggest reason I'm annoyed with Apple for doing this is that it's likely to contribute to the existence of a future worse version of the DMA that overreaches in the course of precision.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >The EU took a step, then Apple took a step Apple didn't need to take any extra steps. They just had to comply, while keeping functionality as is, they didn't need to break it in the process. Apple's response is the corporate equivalent of that toddler who smashes things out of spite when things don't go his way. >and I fully expect the EU to take further steps in response, both in terms of further regulation and in malicious enforcement Bureaucratic politics respond way way slower than wealthy tech companies with 7 figure lawyers on payroll. It's a legal game of whack-a-mole and the likes of Apple are high-score players at this.
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
      > Apple didn't need to take any extra steps. They just had to comply, that's it. And they did comply. If you regulate something by saying "X and Y must have equal capabilities", a company can comply by reducing the capabilities of X rather than increasing the capabilities of Y. And in the general case that's valid; the alternative would be punishing a company for having more capabilities in X in the first place, where a company that didn't have those capabilities to begin with wouldn't be punished for not adding them. (To be clear, I don't like in the first place that Apple didn't allow third-party apps or browsers, and I wish they'd opened that up to begin with, and that we'd never had or needed the DMA.) > Yeah, right. Bureaucratic politics respond way way slower than well funded tech companies with 7 figure lawyers on payroll. Sure. They've picked a very slow fight with the EU. But when the EU punches back, it may well do so with massive additional legislation with its own unintended consequences, and fines measured in percentages of global revenue.