4 ms·

150M is ridiculously low for a company with a 3.34T market cap. It's the equivalent of fining a millionaire 150 EUR, or a regular person fifteen cents. That's

150M is ridiculously low for a company with a 3.34T market cap. It's the equivalent of fining a millionaire 150 EUR, or a regular person fifteen cents. That's not a fine, it's a show put on for people who can't do division.

freetime2 2y ago
Agree it's a slap on the wrist for Apple. But the punishment fits the "crime" in this case, in my opinion. Enough to pay for the legal costs of enforcement, and get Apple's attention. But nothing terribly punitive, which I don't think is warranted in this case. I believe Apple's goal with the popups is to protect consumers' privacy from 3rd party apps, which is admirable. But where they went wrong is that they didn't apply the same process to themselves.
pertymcpert 2y ago
Do you actually agree with the fine? Don't give users a choice in tracking: complaints Give users a choice in tracking: now it's too many pop ups
- epolanski 2y ago
  The issue here is that Apple only needs one click to sell your data (and yes they do it, they made 11B $ on ads last year) and others need two. In fact Apple is making more and more money on ads because they limit data access to third parties, but still sell yours in search and store.
  - pertymcpert 2y ago
    No, the issue in the article is that 3rd parties feel they need additional consent. That's on them if they choose to do it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Yes, to comply with regulations. Because apple's forced solution isn't enough. So it's apple's fault. This is just more an extension of the DMA lolly gagging they are doing where there's a clear solution that Apple takes its sweet time strolling towards.
      - pertymcpert 2y ago
        The ATT features predated DMA.
GuB-42 2y ago
It is not the right question. The goal is not to destroy Apple, it is to force them into compliance. In order to force them into compliance, you only need the fine to be higher than what it costs to comply. And €150M is a lot of money, you can have on the order of a thousand people working on the problem for a year to get even. I am sure they can figure out a way. Same idea with, say, a parking ticket for nonpayment. It may be nothing to a millionaire, but the important part is that in the long run, it is more cost effective to simply pay for parking.
- lodovic 2y ago
  > Same idea with, say, a parking ticket for nonpayment. It may be nothing to a millionaire It's telling that the former CEO of Apple was famous for driving a car without plates, and parking in handicapped parking spaces, just because he could.
crazygringo 2y ago
Comparing a fine with market cap doesn't make a lot of sense. More logical is to compare it to their yearly profit. Net income was $74B last year. So the fine is ~0.2% of that, which is pretty significant for something as tiny as having two pop-up messages rather than a single combined one. And for a regular person making $50K/yr, it would equate to a $100 fine. Not fifteen cents.
- epolanski 2y ago
  No, you'd need to first take the expenses out of the person's salary. Assuming the person needs 35k to live it's a 30$ one.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    Good point! I've never seen it compared that way before but I like it.

freetime2 2y ago

Agree it's a slap on the wrist for Apple. But the punishment fits the "crime" in this case, in my opinion. Enough to pay for the legal costs of enforcement, and get Apple's attention. But nothing terribly punitive, which I don't think is warranted in this case. I believe Apple's goal with the popups is to protect consumers' privacy from 3rd party apps, which is admirable. But where they went wrong is that they didn't apply the same process to themselves.

pertymcpert 2y ago

Do you actually agree with the fine? Don't give users a choice in tracking: complaints Give users a choice in tracking: now it's too many pop ups

epolanski 2y ago
The issue here is that Apple only needs one click to sell your data (and yes they do it, they made 11B $ on ads last year) and others need two. In fact Apple is making more and more money on ads because they limit data access to third parties, but still sell yours in search and store.
- pertymcpert 2y ago
  No, the issue in the article is that 3rd parties feel they need additional consent. That's on them if they choose to do it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Yes, to comply with regulations. Because apple's forced solution isn't enough. So it's apple's fault. This is just more an extension of the DMA lolly gagging they are doing where there's a clear solution that Apple takes its sweet time strolling towards.
    - pertymcpert 2y ago
      The ATT features predated DMA.

GuB-42 2y ago

It is not the right question. The goal is not to destroy Apple, it is to force them into compliance. In order to force them into compliance, you only need the fine to be higher than what it costs to comply. And €150M is a lot of money, you can have on the order of a thousand people working on the problem for a year to get even. I am sure they can figure out a way. Same idea with, say, a parking ticket for nonpayment. It may be nothing to a millionaire, but the important part is that in the long run, it is more cost effective to simply pay for parking.

lodovic 2y ago
> Same idea with, say, a parking ticket for nonpayment. It may be nothing to a millionaire It's telling that the former CEO of Apple was famous for driving a car without plates, and parking in handicapped parking spaces, just because he could.

crazygringo 2y ago

Comparing a fine with market cap doesn't make a lot of sense. More logical is to compare it to their yearly profit. Net income was $74B last year. So the fine is ~0.2% of that, which is pretty significant for something as tiny as having two pop-up messages rather than a single combined one. And for a regular person making $50K/yr, it would equate to a $100 fine. Not fifteen cents.

epolanski 2y ago
No, you'd need to first take the expenses out of the person's salary. Assuming the person needs 35k to live it's a 30$ one.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Good point! I've never seen it compared that way before but I like it.