3 ms·

These lawsuits are such good fun to watch because it's not often a company complies with laws with a developer mindset and it's honestly kind of refreshing. I t

by Spivak 2y ago

These lawsuits are such good fun to watch because it's not often a company complies with laws with a developer mindset and it's honestly kind of refreshing. I think this kind of back-and-forth is good because it's laying bare just how ridiculous the DMA actually is as a piece of law. It has good intentions but has to ultimately dance around the fact that the law they wanted would never pass. So they keep trying to legally corner Apple into hitching the wagon they want, significant reduction/elimination of the 30% fee, to the compliance of unrelated related things and Apple is taking full advantage. It's feels the exact same with the GDPR cookie banner nonsense where actually banning tracking is legally untenable so they tried the shame banner. Except that companies can't feel shame and this affected their revenue so they just added the banner and moved on, and users added the banners to their ad block and moved on.

chmod775 2y ago
> they tried the shame banner. Cookie banners are something the industry invented. > and users added the banners to their ad block and moved on. Which means no consent was given.
margana 2y ago
The only being ridiculous here is Apple. DMA is fairly clear and reasonable in what it wants to achieve. It's Apple that is trying different ways of not complying with it. There is no "back and forth". The EU is not negotiating with Apple. Laws are not up for negotiation after they've been passed. This is the whole issue here - Apple thinks they're at a corporate negotiation table, but they're not. Laws that are in effect are meant to be followed - it's a one-way process.
- Spivak 2y ago
  > The EU is not negotiating with Apple. Laws are not up for negotiation after they've been passed. ??? Of course they are what are you talking about? Hell even criminal law is up for negotiation some 90%+ of the time with plea deals and DA's declining to prosecute certain crimes. It is unfathomable to me that you can look around and not see regulators working with companies to meet the company's business objectives and the regulator's compliance goals. And of course this is the case, regulators would rather not spend time and resources suing and so will give more liberal interpretations of the law in exchange for the company willingly following it. It's the solution to the iterated regulators dilemma— if you have no give then companies will fight you at every step and make you spend years in court for the smallest things.
  - p_l 2y ago
    The use of DA and plea deals suggests you approach this from rather US mindset... Like Apple. There's no negotiation there other than "we have codified that early mistakes get lower fines, do not make us believe they aren't mistakes". Apple might be thinking they are negotiating towards some kind of a deal, what they are doing is burning through all the cut outs for howjst mistakes.
p_l 2y ago
The banners are malicious and non compliant, trying to reintroduce tracking through fiction of having you agree to a contract (the noncompliance is partly because of how they push it and lie on the banners) The problem is limited throughout available for actually suing the companies, partially because the paw has to be balanced in not applying huge hammer to small companies making a mistake - the point of the law isn't Draconian fines. The constant back and forth on DMA is explained much better by someone at Apple either intentionally playing chicken and hoping they have cashed out by the time fines come, or complete cultural lack of understanding thinking they can get a "deal" while they are burning through all the "carrots and little sticks" till only the fine nuke remains.

by Spivak 2y ago

chmod775 2y ago

> they tried the shame banner. Cookie banners are something the industry invented. > and users added the banners to their ad block and moved on. Which means no consent was given.

margana 2y ago

The only being ridiculous here is Apple. DMA is fairly clear and reasonable in what it wants to achieve. It's Apple that is trying different ways of not complying with it. There is no "back and forth". The EU is not negotiating with Apple. Laws are not up for negotiation after they've been passed. This is the whole issue here - Apple thinks they're at a corporate negotiation table, but they're not. Laws that are in effect are meant to be followed - it's a one-way process.

Spivak 2y ago
> The EU is not negotiating with Apple. Laws are not up for negotiation after they've been passed. ??? Of course they are what are you talking about? Hell even criminal law is up for negotiation some 90%+ of the time with plea deals and DA's declining to prosecute certain crimes. It is unfathomable to me that you can look around and not see regulators working with companies to meet the company's business objectives and the regulator's compliance goals. And of course this is the case, regulators would rather not spend time and resources suing and so will give more liberal interpretations of the law in exchange for the company willingly following it. It's the solution to the iterated regulators dilemma— if you have no give then companies will fight you at every step and make you spend years in court for the smallest things.
- p_l 2y ago
  The use of DA and plea deals suggests you approach this from rather US mindset... Like Apple. There's no negotiation there other than "we have codified that early mistakes get lower fines, do not make us believe they aren't mistakes". Apple might be thinking they are negotiating towards some kind of a deal, what they are doing is burning through all the cut outs for howjst mistakes.

p_l 2y ago

The banners are malicious and non compliant, trying to reintroduce tracking through fiction of having you agree to a contract (the noncompliance is partly because of how they push it and lie on the banners) The problem is limited throughout available for actually suing the companies, partially because the paw has to be balanced in not applying huge hammer to small companies making a mistake - the point of the law isn't Draconian fines. The constant back and forth on DMA is explained much better by someone at Apple either intentionally playing chicken and hoping they have cashed out by the time fines come, or complete cultural lack of understanding thinking they can get a "deal" while they are burning through all the "carrots and little sticks" till only the fine nuke remains.