5 ms·

Cost of doing business.

by optimalsolver 2y ago

downrightmike 2y ago
Especially for the first time either is doing a card
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
You can say this about literally any punishment.
- rty32 2y ago
  Not Apple's fines in Europe. And Tim Cook is vocal about that. To me that says EU is doing the right thing.
rootusrootus 2y ago
A very tiny one at that. $25M to Apple is a little over two hours of revenue, if my math is roughly correct.
- gruez 2y ago
  Comparisons like this are absurd. Why should fines associated with a small segment of apple's business be compared to their global revenue? Is the implication that all offenses should be fined based on global revenue, such that if they broke some law in Liechtenstein that the government there should be able to demand 5% (or whatever) of apple's worldwide revenue?
  - dartos 2y ago
    The fine should be a deterrent. If the fine is too low, it’s just absorbed as a “cost of doing business” and ceases to be a deterrent.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >The fine should be a deterrent. That's a reasonable position to hold, but crappy comparisons like in the OP doesn't contribute little to the discussion. The fine might be tiny part of worldwide revenue, but how much money are they making off apple cards? If that's tiny as well then the argument is moot.
      - dartos 2y ago
        > The fine might be tiny part of worldwide revenue, but how much money are they making off apple cards? If that's tiny as well then the argument is moot. I disagree. I don’t think the fine should be relative to money gained by breaking a rule. Then it’s not a deterrent for large companies. You end up in a situation where very large companies can act in illegal ways and just absorb the fine. A company doing anything worth fining should be fined relative to the size of that company (by some metric)
        gruez 2y ago
        So going back to the Liechtenstein example, if Apple did a bad there what would be the appropriate punishment? Based on what you're saying you'd want them to be fined a significant portion of their worldwide revenue, which seems absurd. It would basically deprive people living in small countries access to products from multinational companies, because nobody would want to risk 5% (or whatever) of their worldwide revenue to get 1% more market share.
        dartos 2y ago
        > It would basically deprive people living in small countries access to products from multinational companies, because nobody would want to risk 5% (or whatever) of their worldwide revenue to get 1% more market share. Sorry, I’m not sure I follow. How would selling products to smaller countries automatically incur fines for illegal activity?
        StackRanker3000 2y ago
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    What you are implying is that it is a cost of doing business. That is the only conclusion from making the fine relative to the product in question. If it is intended to be a deterrent from future abuse, as I believe fines are intended to be, then the company as a whole needs to see the fine as a viable threat to their profitability.

Cost of doing business.

downrightmike 2y ago

Especially for the first time either is doing a card

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

You can say this about literally any punishment.

rty32 2y ago
Not Apple's fines in Europe. And Tim Cook is vocal about that. To me that says EU is doing the right thing.

rootusrootus 2y ago

A very tiny one at that. $25M to Apple is a little over two hours of revenue, if my math is roughly correct.

gruez 2y ago
Comparisons like this are absurd. Why should fines associated with a small segment of apple's business be compared to their global revenue? Is the implication that all offenses should be fined based on global revenue, such that if they broke some law in Liechtenstein that the government there should be able to demand 5% (or whatever) of apple's worldwide revenue?
- dartos 2y ago
  The fine should be a deterrent. If the fine is too low, it’s just absorbed as a “cost of doing business” and ceases to be a deterrent.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >The fine should be a deterrent. That's a reasonable position to hold, but crappy comparisons like in the OP doesn't contribute little to the discussion. The fine might be tiny part of worldwide revenue, but how much money are they making off apple cards? If that's tiny as well then the argument is moot.
    - dartos 2y ago
      > The fine might be tiny part of worldwide revenue, but how much money are they making off apple cards? If that's tiny as well then the argument is moot. I disagree. I don’t think the fine should be relative to money gained by breaking a rule. Then it’s not a deterrent for large companies. You end up in a situation where very large companies can act in illegal ways and just absorb the fine. A company doing anything worth fining should be fined relative to the size of that company (by some metric)
      - gruez 2y ago
        So going back to the Liechtenstein example, if Apple did a bad there what would be the appropriate punishment? Based on what you're saying you'd want them to be fined a significant portion of their worldwide revenue, which seems absurd. It would basically deprive people living in small countries access to products from multinational companies, because nobody would want to risk 5% (or whatever) of their worldwide revenue to get 1% more market share.
        dartos 2y ago
        > It would basically deprive people living in small countries access to products from multinational companies, because nobody would want to risk 5% (or whatever) of their worldwide revenue to get 1% more market share. Sorry, I’m not sure I follow. How would selling products to smaller countries automatically incur fines for illegal activity?
        StackRanker3000 2y ago
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  What you are implying is that it is a cost of doing business. That is the only conclusion from making the fine relative to the product in question. If it is intended to be a deterrent from future abuse, as I believe fines are intended to be, then the company as a whole needs to see the fine as a viable threat to their profitability.