3 ms·

All-time great read about Apple/EU conflicts: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-eu-and-tech/ https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facin

All-time great read about Apple/EU conflicts: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-eu-and-tech/ https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-e... From the conclusion: > Normally when the EU regulates a given sector, it does so with ample lead time and works with industry to make sure that they understand their obligations. > Apple instead thought that the regulatory contact from the EU during the lead time to the DMA was an opportunity for it to lecture the EU on its right to exist. Then its executives made up some fiction in their own minds as to what the regulation meant, announced their changes, only to discover later that they were full of bullshit. > This was entirely Apple’s own fault. For months, we’ve been hearing leaks about Apple’s talks with the EU about the Digital Market Act. Those talks were not negotiations even though Apple seems to have thought they were. Talks like those are to help companies implement incoming regulations, with some leeway for interpretation on the EU’s side to accommodate business interests. > Remember what I wrote about electrical plugs? The EU is pro-business – often criticised for being essentially a pro-business entity – and not in favour of regulation for regulation’s sake. > If Apple had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are, they would have used the talks to clarify all of these issues and more well in advance of the DMA taking effect. > But they didn’t because they have caught the tech industry management disease of demanding that reality bend to their ideas and wishes.

JoshTriplett 1y ago
> If Apple had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are When the EU attempts to legislate crypto backdoors, do you plan to say "If Signal had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are"?
- saubeidl 1y ago
  That is a bad-faith argument and a false equivalency I will not engage in, lest I be warned by the mods for falling for obvious bait again.
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    It is an argument made in good faith. Companies and individuals should fight against bad laws. And a press campaign is a legitimate, and sometimes effective, tactic for doing so. Different people may disagree about which laws are good or bad; I fully expect, for instance, that more people support the DMA than would support crypto backdoors. But it seems shortsighted to suggest that those who think a law is wrong should simply accept it anyway, rather than fight tooth and nail against it.
    - saubeidl 1y ago
      In that case, I would recommend you read the article. It's not just fighting a bad law. It's fighting the very foundation the EU is built on and that has guaranteed peace in Western Europe since the end of WW2. Apple might not get this, because they don't have an understanding of European history. But that lack of understanding is exactly why they keep getting their nose bloodied in Europe.
    - a2128 1y ago
      They're happy to be quiet and comply with Chinese laws even if they're wrong[0]. How is a requirement to stop giving your own products an unfair competitive advantage a bad law? It's only bad when you see it from the perspective that you'll lose a lot of money. https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/09/everyone-option-airdrop-10-minutes-china/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/09/everyone-option-airdrop-10-mi...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - pyrale 1y ago
      > It is an argument made in good faith. Then I suggest you rework your "good-faith" discussion methods. You're answering a poster who explained how companies are onboarded to new regulation with a gotcha question about a law that isn't voted yet.
      - JoshTriplett 1y ago

JoshTriplett 1y ago

> If Apple had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are When the EU attempts to legislate crypto backdoors, do you plan to say "If Signal had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are"?

saubeidl 1y ago
That is a bad-faith argument and a false equivalency I will not engage in, lest I be warned by the mods for falling for obvious bait again.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  It is an argument made in good faith. Companies and individuals should fight against bad laws. And a press campaign is a legitimate, and sometimes effective, tactic for doing so. Different people may disagree about which laws are good or bad; I fully expect, for instance, that more people support the DMA than would support crypto backdoors. But it seems shortsighted to suggest that those who think a law is wrong should simply accept it anyway, rather than fight tooth and nail against it.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    In that case, I would recommend you read the article. It's not just fighting a bad law. It's fighting the very foundation the EU is built on and that has guaranteed peace in Western Europe since the end of WW2. Apple might not get this, because they don't have an understanding of European history. But that lack of understanding is exactly why they keep getting their nose bloodied in Europe.
  - a2128 1y ago
    They're happy to be quiet and comply with Chinese laws even if they're wrong[0]. How is a requirement to stop giving your own products an unfair competitive advantage a bad law? It's only bad when you see it from the perspective that you'll lose a lot of money. https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/09/everyone-option-airdrop-10-minutes-china/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/11/09/everyone-option-airdrop-10-mi...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - pyrale 1y ago
    > It is an argument made in good faith. Then I suggest you rework your "good-faith" discussion methods. You're answering a poster who explained how companies are onboarded to new regulation with a gotcha question about a law that isn't voted yet.
    - JoshTriplett 1y ago