3 ms·
“just”... The DMA is intentionally vague about how to comply and the EU refuses to tell companies ahead of time whether their plans to comply are actually in co
by willseth 2y ago
“just”... The DMA is intentionally vague about how to comply and the EU refuses to tell companies ahead of time whether their plans to comply are actually in compliance. When the amount of money at stake over the long term is far more than the fine, getting fined is the more cost effective option to learn the EU’s actual expectations. This is “just” the incentive structure the EU created. They could avoid most of this by working with gatekeepers to preclear their plans and avoid the wasted time. But I think the EU actually likes the unnecessary noise because it makes it clear they are doing something rather than quietly ensuring compliance. There is a perverse incentive for them not to cooperate to achieve their goals efficiently.
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoThey aren't even attempting good faith interpretation of the law.
- willseth 2y agoHow are they not attempting good faith interpretation of the law?
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoThis seems like a "personal judgement" sort of thing. Personally Apple's actions seem like a giant middle finger to the EU (not to mention humanity)
- willseth 2y agoBut what are you basing your personal judgment on? What would have been reasonable to you? My comment was about how under the EU's framework, Apple's behavior is totally rational. If Apple complies more than necessary, it could cost them far more than the fine, so obviously they undershoot compliance, accept the fine, and then proceed with minimal compliance. If the commission were simply upfront with about specifics of compliance, it could all be avoided.