this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
188 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37717 readers
546 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As far as I can tell this basically means that all apps must be approved by Apple to follow their "platform policies for security and privacy" even if publishing on a third party app store. They will also disable updating apps from third party app stores if you stay outside the EU for too long (even if you are a citizen of an EU country, with an Apple account set to the EU region).

The idea that preventing app updates is in line with their claims of protecting security is utterly absurd. "Never attibute to malice what can be explained with stupidity," but Apple isn't stupid.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 77 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Well, the EU will probably make them actually comply, as this is obviously not complying.

[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 29 points 8 months ago

This is what’s somewhat surprising. If they followed most of the rules, and went a bit off on a few, no one would be as upset and it might even work. Now, I have a feeling the EU is going to be VERY clear about the rules and they aren’t going to be in Apple’s favour at all.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 16 points 8 months ago

People, if this is important to you and you're of voting age in Europe, the elections are in June! Register and vote for a party that wants to shove their middle fingers into big corpos faces.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] kowcop@aussie.zone 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You think a multi trillion dollar company is just winging it from a legal standpoint? Or do you think they have worked with the EU to develop the policy within a hair of what they are actually required to do?

[–] sanzky@beehaw.org 48 points 8 months ago (2 children)

they were just fined with 1.8B because of their anti steering practices. so clearly they don’t always comply

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's equivalent to a parking fine for regular people. I know many people who would risk a parking fine if it means that they save a few minutes of searching for a parking spot.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 26 points 8 months ago (1 children)

1.8B was the fine they got for anticompetitive behaviour with regards to Apple Music, which is not an insignificant amount for that business unit.

The fines for DMA-violations go up to 10% of global revenue for first-time violations and 20% of global revenue for repeat violations. I would love to see Apple continue fucking around and letting Apple find out in the form of a fine of that magnitude. It would be so damn sweet.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago

For the first violation, they chose to go for 0.5% instead of the 10%. I’m not holding my breath.

[–] kowcop@aussie.zone 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Sure, but it would be illogical to think that a company with seemingly unlimited resources would get fined, and then introduce new that didn’t exactly comply with what was required.. I mean, I would think they are working with the EU to ensure it is within a millimeter of what they are allowed. It seems you just don’t like it.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 15 points 8 months ago

I think it’s a safe bet they had their legal teams sifting through the whole DMA to find a way to comply while making it as obnoxious as possible to the user, the third party providers, and everyone else pretty much.

Though it’s also pretty evident that this is bad faith compliance and not in the spirit of the DMA, so the EU legislators will hopefully slap them with another fine.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Apple will put up with fines if it judges that if they manage to avoid the fine, the financial benefit will outweigh the fine.

If there's a 50% chance that I stand to make $100m, and a 50% chance to be fined $20m, it makes sense (if I'm unethical, like corporations are) to take that gamble. Even more so if I think I can use lawyers to shift the chances in my favor.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 8 points 8 months ago

If you're to make $100m, and there's a 99% chance to be fined $100m... it still makes sense to risk it, worst case scenario you end up as you were.

The beauty of EU's laws, is that the fines are set as a % of "global revenue", not just of revenue in the EU, nor in terms of profits, so large multinational corporations stand to lose way more than what they are likely to gain by not complying.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago