6 ms·

The regulations around AI in the European Union are not well formed. The EU has shown that they will regulate things years later and impose massive fines and bu

The regulations around AI in the European Union are not well formed. The EU has shown that they will regulate things years later and impose massive fines and business costs. The EU also happens to be Apple’s least profitable market, and one that isn’t going to be growing over the next two decades. There’s just no reason to get involved over there. It’s not worth the risk.

1oooqooq 2y ago
this have nothing to do with ai regulations. that's not how politics work. if they are holding on ai (what can move the government) they are likely wanting leverage on something else (paired sale, charger standardization, who knows). it's definitely things that are costing them profits already.
talldayo 2y ago
> The EU has shown that they will regulate things years later and impose massive fines and business costs. If that makes the EU look bad, imagine how goddamn incompetent the US regulators look right now.
- russdpale 2y ago
  Corrupt, that is how US regulators look, and everyone knows it. But this is the website that is spawning far right fascists who are advocating for political violence in the bay area, so I don't think you will get a lot of reasonable takes here.
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    Umm... where exactly? Politically I've mostly seen a growing infestation of very lost communists who forget they are at a venture capital backed website.
- selectodude 2y ago
  It has nothing to do with the US. EU regulations are simultaneously unclear and very aggressive. There is significant business risk to operating there as a multi-national. It’s becoming a region that is profitable enough to exist in but not to invest in and Apple is declining the regulatory risk of introducing AI there. Some companies will go for it. Apple is too risk averse. Simple as that.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Worked at a company where certifications were reciprocal (USA certified could be sold in the EU, EU certified could be sold in the USA). Our product was prevented from sale in the EU because they disagreed on one part of the design, nevermind the reciprocity agreement. Add in the way that the EU is friendly to companies the do bribes and kickbacks versus in the USA you go to jail if you use bribes/kickbacks overseas, and we ended up at a huge disadvantage outside the USA. We had the best product, so we still won a lot of deals, but there were huge sales that the EU competitors either won or soured with their bribe/kickbacks schemes for government officials. They then tried to do the same to undermine our service center capabilities. After that I don't see EU regulations as being in anyone's interests, just in someone's pocket.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > It’s becoming a region that is profitable enough to exist in but not to invest in Then so be it. If Europe's market collapses under the weight of it's own regulation, it's not Apple's fault. Except, Europe's market isn't collapsing and in fact leading multiple nations in drafting similar legislation. If forcing Apple to compete makes their risk forecast worse, reciprocally, that's not the EU's concern or problem. It might just reward the innovation and smart consumer-first design Apple has been avoiding recently. If you think these laws are "unclear" then you must be in abject denial of what it's purpose is. It's called the "Digital Markets Act". There is a single company that these crosshairs are aimed at, and Apple wants to whine and say it's not fair that a municipal government caught their profiteering racket. Poor thing! What if trillion-dollar Apple decides they can't invest in Europe's future! Scaremongering. The EU isn't inherently righteous, but their lack of connection to Apple's tax dollars made it very easy to call out Apple's hypocrisy. All Apple can do is whine, and pretend like they weren't illegally abusing Europe's market. I say pretend, because Apple knew full-well that what they were doing was wrong, and now invests inordinate amounts of money marketing, lawyering and lobbying their way out of it.
nope1000 2y ago
They do not cite the AI act (which they probably comply with) as a reason but rather the Digital Markets Act
- AlanYx 2y ago
  The most onerous parts of the AI Act, such as the provision that says "Member States shall confer on their market surveillance authorities the powers of... carrying out unannounced remote or on-site inspections", are not yet in force yet. I wouldn't blame them for having security/IP concerns with allowing unannounced remote or on-site inspections to their facilities.

1oooqooq 2y ago

this have nothing to do with ai regulations. that's not how politics work. if they are holding on ai (what can move the government) they are likely wanting leverage on something else (paired sale, charger standardization, who knows). it's definitely things that are costing them profits already.

talldayo 2y ago

> The EU has shown that they will regulate things years later and impose massive fines and business costs. If that makes the EU look bad, imagine how goddamn incompetent the US regulators look right now.

russdpale 2y ago
Corrupt, that is how US regulators look, and everyone knows it. But this is the website that is spawning far right fascists who are advocating for political violence in the bay area, so I don't think you will get a lot of reasonable takes here.
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  Umm... where exactly? Politically I've mostly seen a growing infestation of very lost communists who forget they are at a venture capital backed website.
selectodude 2y ago
It has nothing to do with the US. EU regulations are simultaneously unclear and very aggressive. There is significant business risk to operating there as a multi-national. It’s becoming a region that is profitable enough to exist in but not to invest in and Apple is declining the regulatory risk of introducing AI there. Some companies will go for it. Apple is too risk averse. Simple as that.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Worked at a company where certifications were reciprocal (USA certified could be sold in the EU, EU certified could be sold in the USA). Our product was prevented from sale in the EU because they disagreed on one part of the design, nevermind the reciprocity agreement. Add in the way that the EU is friendly to companies the do bribes and kickbacks versus in the USA you go to jail if you use bribes/kickbacks overseas, and we ended up at a huge disadvantage outside the USA. We had the best product, so we still won a lot of deals, but there were huge sales that the EU competitors either won or soured with their bribe/kickbacks schemes for government officials. They then tried to do the same to undermine our service center capabilities. After that I don't see EU regulations as being in anyone's interests, just in someone's pocket.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > It’s becoming a region that is profitable enough to exist in but not to invest in Then so be it. If Europe's market collapses under the weight of it's own regulation, it's not Apple's fault. Except, Europe's market isn't collapsing and in fact leading multiple nations in drafting similar legislation. If forcing Apple to compete makes their risk forecast worse, reciprocally, that's not the EU's concern or problem. It might just reward the innovation and smart consumer-first design Apple has been avoiding recently. If you think these laws are "unclear" then you must be in abject denial of what it's purpose is. It's called the "Digital Markets Act". There is a single company that these crosshairs are aimed at, and Apple wants to whine and say it's not fair that a municipal government caught their profiteering racket. Poor thing! What if trillion-dollar Apple decides they can't invest in Europe's future! Scaremongering. The EU isn't inherently righteous, but their lack of connection to Apple's tax dollars made it very easy to call out Apple's hypocrisy. All Apple can do is whine, and pretend like they weren't illegally abusing Europe's market. I say pretend, because Apple knew full-well that what they were doing was wrong, and now invests inordinate amounts of money marketing, lawyering and lobbying their way out of it.

nope1000 2y ago

They do not cite the AI act (which they probably comply with) as a reason but rather the Digital Markets Act

AlanYx 2y ago
The most onerous parts of the AI Act, such as the provision that says "Member States shall confer on their market surveillance authorities the powers of... carrying out unannounced remote or on-site inspections", are not yet in force yet. I wouldn't blame them for having security/IP concerns with allowing unannounced remote or on-site inspections to their facilities.