5 ms·

Don't understand Apple here. This was a clear cut case of malicious compliance, what did they expect? That they just get away with it? Of course the EU would s

by iSnow 3y ago

Don't understand Apple here. This was a clear cut case of malicious compliance, what did they expect? That they just get away with it? Of course the EU would see the provocation and will take the opportunity. Yes, they might gain a couple years till this is settled, but they can't use the time to crush a competing app store in between, as there is currently none. I am sure I am dumb, but IMO the smart move would have been to work with the law and a couple of years down the road point out that alternative app stores never caught on (which is very likely, IMO)

eigenspace 3y ago
It wasn’t even malicious compliance, because they didnt even come close to complying. The Core Technology Fee is such a clear violation violation of the DMA rules.
- Jensson 3y ago
  I wonder how that meeting went? Exec: So, how can we enforce a fee while complying with DMA? Lawyer: We can't, DMA requires it to be open. Exec: Are you sure? If you can't find a way around this you are fired! Lawyer: Erm, of course there is a way!!!!
  - eigenspace 3y ago
    “Maybe if we insist loudly enough that we complied, they wont bother checking?”
aaomidi 3y ago
The EU has said they’re going to fast track the enforcement of these. Apple lawyers, simply, fucked up. They lost so much good will with developers over this, have lost any goodwill with negotiations with EU, and are now going to have to speedrun compliance. I’ve dealt with lawyers like this before in various company situations. They are sometimes really, really stupid. Not always, but it happened often enough to be terrifying.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  I’ve worked on this very issue, and what happens is the lawyers lay out a menu of options and consequences of each. This was Cook’s call, and hubris is guiding him.
  - mattlondon 3y ago
    I am unsure about hubris, but I can totally see it as a "That does not align with our long-term strategy" and it getting rejected. Perhaps there was some "But we're apple! We are a luxury aspirational brand! We shouldn't have to lower ourselves to this" in the traditional reality-distortion-field of thinking they are somehow special or above the rules that everyone else has to deal with. I'll admit is kinda fund to imagine that, but hey :)
    - tivert 3y ago
      > I am unsure about hubris, but I can totally see it as a "That does not align with our long-term strategy" and it getting rejected. It's pretty hubristic to see that that law does not align with their long-term strategy, and then choose noncompliance with the law.
  - ksec 3y ago
    >This was Cook’s call, and hubris is guiding him. It is obvious Tim Cook is doing what ever he can to protect their services revenue. And lack the intuition Steve jobs has.
- iSnow 3y ago
  Usually, a company does have reasons to play hard ball with authorities, but I fail to understand what it could be in this case. Apple hoping for a far-right Republican presidency that would create a trade war with the EU?
  - DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
    > Apple hoping for a far-right Republican presidency that would create a trade war with the EU? That's the concerning thing...
bevekspldnw 3y ago
Apple has never been big enough to deal with competition authorities. They lack the institutional expertise and mindset for their present circumstances. They will continue to fail until the penalties are unbearable.
jacobsimon 3y ago
This might sound like a dumb question - but why do lawmakers write such roundabout legislation in the first place? They could have passed a law that says “In the EU, app stores including Apple’s App Store on iOS will not be allowed to charge a fee greater than x% on developers.” And the whole thing would be solved. We can argue about what X should be, but then we wouldn’t have to jump through all these hoops.
- Jensson 3y ago
  They did that for credit cards, but for app stores I think opening up for competition is probably better than capping the fees because here a big problem isn't just the fees but also the control and influence these big corporations has as digital gatekeepers.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Because that's not nearly their own objection against Apple and other platform companies targeted by the DMA. For example, Meta is targeted by the same law on WhatsApp messaging interoperability; Apple on their exclusive use of the contactless interface for card payments etc. It's a much more generic and wide-reaching regulatory tool than just an "anti-app-store law".
  - jacobsimon 3y ago
    That’s kinda my point though, by having such generic and wide ranging laws, it opens up room for loopholes and confusion. They should just say specifically what the desired impact of the law is.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Laws being generic is usually a good thing. Those targeting only a specific company are often thrown out by higher/constitutional courts as violating fairness principles.
- _ph_ 3y ago
  Because the problem is more complex. It is not only about the fees - obviously some large companies have that in their focus - but about general user freedom. Like being able to use a web browser of your choice. Or, in general, not have Apple reject some software from their App Store for reasons which are not tied to clear security violations. It is possible to deliver free apps through the App Store without any download limits. But with competing App Stores it isn't.
belter 3y ago
They will go through the EU appeals court process for 8 to 10 years, while making billions. To finally agree to some fine with minor inflation corrections. From a financial management aspect makes total sense.
- rasz 3y ago
  Intel still hasnt paid its $1 Billion 2009 EU fine for destroying AMD in early 2000. Thats 15 years https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/intel-wins-new-boost-in-eu-court-fight-over-1-06-billion-fine https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/intel-win...
  - AwaAwa 3y ago
    Wow. So really Apple knows they don't have to do anything, because the EU's teeth will fall out before Apple runs out of money. Depressing.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    That’s one way of saying Intel has won on appeal and the €1.06 billion fine was thrown in the trash by CJEU.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Fwiw the term you want isn’t malicious compliance, which isn’t a real thing. It’s willful non-compliance. Willful non compliance is potentially a criminal offense and requires providing intent or conspiracy. It’s much more likely they’ll just be found non compliant. Apples strategy here is baffling. They’re not unfamiliar with regulation and how to manage regulators. This is really not a good strategy they’re doing and it’ll make everything worse for them at every step. The fact they unveiled their plans publicly without a green light from the regulator means they’re doing some sort of weird game of chicken. IMO they’re underestimating the motivation of the EU to try to break US tech megacorps grip to try to create a place that an EU tech megacorp might emerge. I don’t know that it’s a very sensible strategy as any EU megacorp will also be subject to onerous requirements, but will have to bootstrap in that regime. Also until the EU fixed its banking and investment structures, pay improves, and any number of other head winds abate, I wouldn’t expect attacking FB, Google, and Apple with regulatory burden will be meaningfully helpful to any tech company in the EU.
timeon 3y ago
> Don't understand Apple here. Me neither but I'm probably going to leave Apple ecosystem with next devices. I guess 'nationalism' is a thing even for me.
voisin 3y ago
> a couple of years down the road point out that alternative app stores never caught on This is the conclusion they hope to force now. Strangling the babies in the cribs rather than trying to rein in a bunch of unruly teenagers that have resources to fight.
turquoisevar 3y ago
It’s quite simple. The EC is not the final arbiter in this. It’s just an executive body. Apple complied with what they think will withstand adjudication by the CJEU and leaves the rest for the EC to act on so they can appeal it with the CJEU. Given the EC’s poor track record in terms of getting their fines and decisions overturned by the CJEU, I too would do it this way, no matter how loud the EC likes to bark and show their teeth. Especially considering the DMA is poorly drafted and in Europe, unlike in the US, the courts aren’t ghostbusters that go seeking for “spirits” of the law. Whether the EC thinks so or not, Apple is in compliance with the straightforward parts of the DMA as well as with the more vague parts on the basis of reasonable interpretation, to be adjudicated by the CJEU. In law there’s very little that’s certain, as such it’s bad form to make predictions, but I’m pretty confident in saying that the CJEU isn’t going to open Pandora’s box by prohibiting Apple from charging a reasonable fee for their IP.

by iSnow 3y ago

eigenspace 3y ago

It wasn’t even malicious compliance, because they didnt even come close to complying. The Core Technology Fee is such a clear violation violation of the DMA rules.

Jensson 3y ago
I wonder how that meeting went? Exec: So, how can we enforce a fee while complying with DMA? Lawyer: We can't, DMA requires it to be open. Exec: Are you sure? If you can't find a way around this you are fired! Lawyer: Erm, of course there is a way!!!!
- eigenspace 3y ago
  “Maybe if we insist loudly enough that we complied, they wont bother checking?”

aaomidi 3y ago

The EU has said they’re going to fast track the enforcement of these. Apple lawyers, simply, fucked up. They lost so much good will with developers over this, have lost any goodwill with negotiations with EU, and are now going to have to speedrun compliance. I’ve dealt with lawyers like this before in various company situations. They are sometimes really, really stupid. Not always, but it happened often enough to be terrifying.

bevekspldnw 3y ago
I’ve worked on this very issue, and what happens is the lawyers lay out a menu of options and consequences of each. This was Cook’s call, and hubris is guiding him.
- mattlondon 3y ago
  I am unsure about hubris, but I can totally see it as a "That does not align with our long-term strategy" and it getting rejected. Perhaps there was some "But we're apple! We are a luxury aspirational brand! We shouldn't have to lower ourselves to this" in the traditional reality-distortion-field of thinking they are somehow special or above the rules that everyone else has to deal with. I'll admit is kinda fund to imagine that, but hey :)
  - tivert 3y ago
    > I am unsure about hubris, but I can totally see it as a "That does not align with our long-term strategy" and it getting rejected. It's pretty hubristic to see that that law does not align with their long-term strategy, and then choose noncompliance with the law.
- ksec 3y ago
  >This was Cook’s call, and hubris is guiding him. It is obvious Tim Cook is doing what ever he can to protect their services revenue. And lack the intuition Steve jobs has.
iSnow 3y ago
Usually, a company does have reasons to play hard ball with authorities, but I fail to understand what it could be in this case. Apple hoping for a far-right Republican presidency that would create a trade war with the EU?
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  > Apple hoping for a far-right Republican presidency that would create a trade war with the EU? That's the concerning thing...

bevekspldnw 3y ago

Apple has never been big enough to deal with competition authorities. They lack the institutional expertise and mindset for their present circumstances. They will continue to fail until the penalties are unbearable.

jacobsimon 3y ago

This might sound like a dumb question - but why do lawmakers write such roundabout legislation in the first place? They could have passed a law that says “In the EU, app stores including Apple’s App Store on iOS will not be allowed to charge a fee greater than x% on developers.” And the whole thing would be solved. We can argue about what X should be, but then we wouldn’t have to jump through all these hoops.

Jensson 3y ago
They did that for credit cards, but for app stores I think opening up for competition is probably better than capping the fees because here a big problem isn't just the fees but also the control and influence these big corporations has as digital gatekeepers.
lxgr 3y ago
Because that's not nearly their own objection against Apple and other platform companies targeted by the DMA. For example, Meta is targeted by the same law on WhatsApp messaging interoperability; Apple on their exclusive use of the contactless interface for card payments etc. It's a much more generic and wide-reaching regulatory tool than just an "anti-app-store law".
- jacobsimon 3y ago
  That’s kinda my point though, by having such generic and wide ranging laws, it opens up room for loopholes and confusion. They should just say specifically what the desired impact of the law is.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Laws being generic is usually a good thing. Those targeting only a specific company are often thrown out by higher/constitutional courts as violating fairness principles.
_ph_ 3y ago
Because the problem is more complex. It is not only about the fees - obviously some large companies have that in their focus - but about general user freedom. Like being able to use a web browser of your choice. Or, in general, not have Apple reject some software from their App Store for reasons which are not tied to clear security violations. It is possible to deliver free apps through the App Store without any download limits. But with competing App Stores it isn't.

belter 3y ago

They will go through the EU appeals court process for 8 to 10 years, while making billions. To finally agree to some fine with minor inflation corrections. From a financial management aspect makes total sense.

rasz 3y ago
Intel still hasnt paid its $1 Billion 2009 EU fine for destroying AMD in early 2000. Thats 15 years https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/intel-wins-new-boost-in-eu-court-fight-over-1-06-billion-fine https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-18/intel-win...
- AwaAwa 3y ago
  Wow. So really Apple knows they don't have to do anything, because the EU's teeth will fall out before Apple runs out of money. Depressing.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  That’s one way of saying Intel has won on appeal and the €1.06 billion fine was thrown in the trash by CJEU.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Fwiw the term you want isn’t malicious compliance, which isn’t a real thing. It’s willful non-compliance. Willful non compliance is potentially a criminal offense and requires providing intent or conspiracy. It’s much more likely they’ll just be found non compliant. Apples strategy here is baffling. They’re not unfamiliar with regulation and how to manage regulators. This is really not a good strategy they’re doing and it’ll make everything worse for them at every step. The fact they unveiled their plans publicly without a green light from the regulator means they’re doing some sort of weird game of chicken. IMO they’re underestimating the motivation of the EU to try to break US tech megacorps grip to try to create a place that an EU tech megacorp might emerge. I don’t know that it’s a very sensible strategy as any EU megacorp will also be subject to onerous requirements, but will have to bootstrap in that regime. Also until the EU fixed its banking and investment structures, pay improves, and any number of other head winds abate, I wouldn’t expect attacking FB, Google, and Apple with regulatory burden will be meaningfully helpful to any tech company in the EU.

timeon 3y ago

> Don't understand Apple here. Me neither but I'm probably going to leave Apple ecosystem with next devices. I guess 'nationalism' is a thing even for me.

voisin 3y ago

> a couple of years down the road point out that alternative app stores never caught on This is the conclusion they hope to force now. Strangling the babies in the cribs rather than trying to rein in a bunch of unruly teenagers that have resources to fight.

turquoisevar 3y ago

It’s quite simple. The EC is not the final arbiter in this. It’s just an executive body. Apple complied with what they think will withstand adjudication by the CJEU and leaves the rest for the EC to act on so they can appeal it with the CJEU. Given the EC’s poor track record in terms of getting their fines and decisions overturned by the CJEU, I too would do it this way, no matter how loud the EC likes to bark and show their teeth. Especially considering the DMA is poorly drafted and in Europe, unlike in the US, the courts aren’t ghostbusters that go seeking for “spirits” of the law. Whether the EC thinks so or not, Apple is in compliance with the straightforward parts of the DMA as well as with the more vague parts on the basis of reasonable interpretation, to be adjudicated by the CJEU. In law there’s very little that’s certain, as such it’s bad form to make predictions, but I’m pretty confident in saying that the CJEU isn’t going to open Pandora’s box by prohibiting Apple from charging a reasonable fee for their IP.