3 ms·

>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

>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.