“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.
But 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.
Yes, and laws involve intent. A lot of laws "when you do a thing that has a result and you intend that result to happen, you're guilty of creating the result". It doesn't matter the thing you do. If you invent some new way of killing someone, and kill someone with it, you're guilty of murder even if the never heard of this particular way of killing someone, etc.
In Apple's case, the edict was to create competition by opening up the app stores. Apple "opened" its app store in a way that failed to actually allow competition and so it is subject to the fine. This is exactly why laws work this way - to prevent what is now called "gaming" the system.
It’s a law that establishes no measurable compliance guidelines, while providing absolutely no limitations on what the EU can decide counts as a violation retroactively. It’s basically “We’re not going to tell you what we want you to do. You need to guess what we want you to do, and fuck you if you guess wrong.”
And it's a law which was crafted with the intent that it apply to a small number of specific companies. How Apple is supposed to comply is hardly an unexpected question.
Are you telling me that a trillion dollar company cannot hire proper lawyers to make sure they comply with the laws?
You may think you are defending Apple, but in truth you are just saying they are horribly incompetent. If that is the case, they deserve to keep being fined.
In the most bad faith way possible. They are going to get absolutely gutted on this.
They think they’re above the fray, but there’s a reason Google and Meta are taking DMA way more seriously than GDPR - it’s basically a speedboat loaded with explosives in regulatory terms.
It’s designed to move fast and take out targets with extreme prejudice. It is crafted to explicitly overcome the barriers that prevent GDPR being enforced (eg Ireland).
Apple is fucking around with the EU, and will very shortly find out why the DMA is written the way it is.
Why on earth is that a relevant market. We don't look at cars as separate software from the hardware. Apples competition is Android and if better apps come out on Android it will win whatever small share the luxury option has.
Maybe we would, if there were only two car manufacturers that also happen to run their own private roads, bridges, mechanics etc. that are also mutually not compatible.
It shouldn’t be. There is no monopoly. There are people that are mad you can’t get blue iMessages from an android and you can’t side load “easily”. That’s it.
App store developers and app store participants don't have a good way to collectively organize, whereas Apple shareholders get all kinds of support to organize together.
These "You broke our arbitrary rules, therefore we fine you x% of your income" schemes are just a roundabout way for the EU to put an income tax on foreign corporations. It's going to blow up in their faces when companies start deciding that access to a shrinking European market just isn't worth the cost and hassle.
> when companies start deciding that access to a shrinking European market just isn't worth the cost and hassle.
Aka never. First off because they would get shredded by their investors, and second because the competitors emerging in that void would end up being threats in the future.
If you think that something comparable to a modern phone operating system and hardware will “just spring up” you’re delusional. If somebody was capable of producing more powerful phones than the iPhone, they’d be doing it already.
