3 ms·

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
        I don’t think anyone’s saying it would be automatic. But the risk of running afoul of laws and regulations is non-zero, and if the penalties are too steep, then it may be a wiser choice to stay out of small markets entirely.
        dartos 2y ago
        > But the risk of running afoul of laws and regulations is non-zero, So the solution is to make breaking laws not truly punished? Seems like companies should be damn sure they’re not breaking laws… Of course not every fine needs to put the company in danger of bankruptcy. Fines could start relatively small and grow quickly and exponentially with repeated offenses. But they should act as a real deterrent.
        gruez 2y ago
        Apple wants to operate in Liechtenstein. Under your proposed regime of a "deterrent", that would put them at risk of fines worth 5% (or whatever) of their global revenue. Of course, they're not going to intentionally break laws, but shit happens and despite their best efforts they might still get fined. Faced with that prospect, they go "nah" and stay out of the market entirely, because the extra 0.1% profit is massively outweighed by the potential 5% revenue in fines. All 40k Liechtensteiners are worse off as a result. This isn't a hypothetical. It's happening in EU right now, as Apple doesn't want to deal with the legal headaches associated with Apple Intelligence and therefore opts out of the EU market entirely.
    - eric_h 2y ago
      The tight integration of the Apple Card with their hardware also means it makes their hardware (iPhones) better. They can lose money on the Apple Card and make money if it means some people like the integration enough to buy into the iPhone ecosystem (sign up for an Apple Card and get an interest free loan to buy an iPhone? I can see that getting new customers)
  - BobAliceInATree 2y ago
    The total fine is ~3x the apparent consumer loss, which seems reasonable.
    - dartos 2y ago
      If you expect the fine to be more legal retribution for consumer loss, sure. I’d like to live in a world where fines are deterrents, though.
- 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.

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
        I don’t think anyone’s saying it would be automatic. But the risk of running afoul of laws and regulations is non-zero, and if the penalties are too steep, then it may be a wiser choice to stay out of small markets entirely.
        dartos 2y ago
        > But the risk of running afoul of laws and regulations is non-zero, So the solution is to make breaking laws not truly punished? Seems like companies should be damn sure they’re not breaking laws… Of course not every fine needs to put the company in danger of bankruptcy. Fines could start relatively small and grow quickly and exponentially with repeated offenses. But they should act as a real deterrent.
        gruez 2y ago
        Apple wants to operate in Liechtenstein. Under your proposed regime of a "deterrent", that would put them at risk of fines worth 5% (or whatever) of their global revenue. Of course, they're not going to intentionally break laws, but shit happens and despite their best efforts they might still get fined. Faced with that prospect, they go "nah" and stay out of the market entirely, because the extra 0.1% profit is massively outweighed by the potential 5% revenue in fines. All 40k Liechtensteiners are worse off as a result. This isn't a hypothetical. It's happening in EU right now, as Apple doesn't want to deal with the legal headaches associated with Apple Intelligence and therefore opts out of the EU market entirely.
  - eric_h 2y ago
    The tight integration of the Apple Card with their hardware also means it makes their hardware (iPhones) better. They can lose money on the Apple Card and make money if it means some people like the integration enough to buy into the iPhone ecosystem (sign up for an Apple Card and get an interest free loan to buy an iPhone? I can see that getting new customers)
- BobAliceInATree 2y ago
  The total fine is ~3x the apparent consumer loss, which seems reasonable.
  - dartos 2y ago
    If you expect the fine to be more legal retribution for consumer loss, sure. I’d like to live in a world where fines are deterrents, though.
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.