4 ms·

> Apple's business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise

by gumby 3y ago

> Apple's business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future. C'mon EU! This is as bullshit as the US's TikTok ban justification. Apparently they define a threshold but then use a number that doesn't reach said threshold as justification to take action. We're not talking about troops massed on a border here: if they defined a threshold for action they should not then use it to justify action when the target hasn't been reached yet. Regardless if you agree or disagree on the EU's position, it's hard to support the rule of law when it's explicitly arbitrary like this. > Business users are locked-in to iPadOS because of its large and commercially attractive user base, and its importance for certain use cases, such as gaming apps. This, on the other hand, made me laugh: business users are locked into a platform because it's the only place they can play games?

zamadatix 3y ago
Do you also never support going to the hospital because your fever hasn't hit 40C yet even though you tick a bunch of other boxes and are nearing that temperature anyways? The thresholds are meant to be a cap, not a floor, and that's perfectly easy to support. Also worth noting it takes ~half a year for things to get going so if you wait until the exact moment to start things that's ~half a year the law would be ineffective at its goal. The quote about businesses and gaming is in reference to businesses as the producers of apps trying to reach customers, not as the consumer themselves.
- gumby 3y ago
  > Do you also never support going to the hospital because your fever hasn't hit 40C I think that's the wrong metaphor. Regulation functions well when it is 1 - clear, unambiguous, and consistently applied and 2 - conservative, in the sense of being a bit "behind the times". By this I don't mean reactive. There are cases when those approaches can't be followed, for example when you see an army being built up on a border, medical cases (not just the one you cite, which isn't a regulation, but drug approval) and other incipient life-threatening cases. But those cases are messy, often wrong (but with a risk vs cost profile that makes it worth doing), and often controversial. But this is simply an ipad. The kind of metaphor I think of is I'll speed at 120 km/h when my passenger is bleeding profusely, but if I'm late to a contract negotiation, well, I still have to drive the speed limit. A sense of arbitrariness discourages compliance with the rules. Consider the EU ETS. They already had an example to follow (the north american SO2 trading scheme), had the emissions and other data, and it is indeed an issue killing people. But they took the time to make sure it was right, and it works great, a little grumbling aside. At the end of the day the ipad is even less than that, and so clarity and consistency serves the wider goal.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Yet if you drive recklessly at 110 you can still be in trouble over for what is deemed dangerous or aggressive driving despite the speed limit being 120. Law isn't (and shouldn't) just be clear cut objective criteria, real life is more complicated than that. Again, the difference between a hard cap and a floor - you can't go over 120 but that doesn't mean if you go 110 there should be no other criteria for you breaking the law.
talldayo 3y ago
> Regardless if you agree or disagree on the EU's position, it's hard to support the rule of law when it's explicitly arbitrary like this. Regardless of whether you are an Apple customer or not, surely you see how claiming that iPadOS is not equivalent to iOS earns you regulatory ire.

by gumby 3y ago

zamadatix 3y ago

Do you also never support going to the hospital because your fever hasn't hit 40C yet even though you tick a bunch of other boxes and are nearing that temperature anyways? The thresholds are meant to be a cap, not a floor, and that's perfectly easy to support. Also worth noting it takes ~half a year for things to get going so if you wait until the exact moment to start things that's ~half a year the law would be ineffective at its goal. The quote about businesses and gaming is in reference to businesses as the producers of apps trying to reach customers, not as the consumer themselves.

gumby 3y ago
> Do you also never support going to the hospital because your fever hasn't hit 40C I think that's the wrong metaphor. Regulation functions well when it is 1 - clear, unambiguous, and consistently applied and 2 - conservative, in the sense of being a bit "behind the times". By this I don't mean reactive. There are cases when those approaches can't be followed, for example when you see an army being built up on a border, medical cases (not just the one you cite, which isn't a regulation, but drug approval) and other incipient life-threatening cases. But those cases are messy, often wrong (but with a risk vs cost profile that makes it worth doing), and often controversial. But this is simply an ipad. The kind of metaphor I think of is I'll speed at 120 km/h when my passenger is bleeding profusely, but if I'm late to a contract negotiation, well, I still have to drive the speed limit. A sense of arbitrariness discourages compliance with the rules. Consider the EU ETS. They already had an example to follow (the north american SO2 trading scheme), had the emissions and other data, and it is indeed an issue killing people. But they took the time to make sure it was right, and it works great, a little grumbling aside. At the end of the day the ipad is even less than that, and so clarity and consistency serves the wider goal.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Yet if you drive recklessly at 110 you can still be in trouble over for what is deemed dangerous or aggressive driving despite the speed limit being 120. Law isn't (and shouldn't) just be clear cut objective criteria, real life is more complicated than that. Again, the difference between a hard cap and a floor - you can't go over 120 but that doesn't mean if you go 110 there should be no other criteria for you breaking the law.

talldayo 3y ago

> Regardless if you agree or disagree on the EU's position, it's hard to support the rule of law when it's explicitly arbitrary like this. Regardless of whether you are an Apple customer or not, surely you see how claiming that iPadOS is not equivalent to iOS earns you regulatory ire.