Apple will surrender info on how many users it has to the EU

Posted:
in General Discussion
Big Tech platforms including Apple, Google, and Twitter, have given monthly user data to the European Union, to comply with stringent content regulations.

European Union flags
European Union flags


The companies had until February 17, 2023, to self-report their number of monthly users to the EU. Under the new Digital Services Act (DSA), any such firm with over 45 million users are required to comply with auditing, risk management, and data sharing with the authorities.

According to Reuters, Apple, Google, Meta, and Twitter, have all confirmed that they exceed the 45 million user threshold. In Apple's case, the company claimed that only its iOS App Store exceeded 45 million users -- but that it would also voluntarily apply the DSA rules to its Mac, Apple Watch, and Apple TV app stores.

"Apple intends, on an entirely voluntary basis, to align each of the existing versions of the App Store (including those that do not currently meet the VLOP designation threshold) with the existing DSA requirements for VLOPs," said the company in a statement, "because the goals of the DSA align with Apple's goals to protect consumers from illegal content."

Twitter reported having 100.9 million monthly users in the EU. Alphabet, Google's parent company, said the monthly total of signed-in users was 278.6 million for Google Maps, 274.6 million at Google Play, 332 million for Google Search, 74.9 million in shopping, and 401.7 million on YouTube.

Meta reported 255 million average monthly users on Facebook, in the EU, and around 250 million on Instagram.

Ebay also reported its numbers to the EU, but said that it is below the 45 million threshold.

The Digital Services Act is designed to place restrictions on online content and moderation. It concerns making Big Tech firms responsible for policing and taking down illegal content.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,197member
    Interesting that a private company is required to tell a weird government agency how many customers it has. Do gas stations have to divulge this information? How about grocery stores?

  • Reply 2 of 28
    Illus1ve said:

    Just what the heck is ‘e.u.’ ?
    Sorry if this isn't the answer you're looking for, but the European Union?
  • Reply 3 of 28
    rob53 said:
    Interesting that a private company is required to tell a weird government agency how many customers it has. Do gas stations have to divulge this information? How about grocery stores?
    I sure as hell hope they're just requesting figures for EU customers - the EU/EC has been getting too big for their britches lately, and has been threatening penalties based on a company's world-wide revenue - even though Apple isn't an EU headquartered company.

    How the heck can a EU regulatory body threaten a foreign company's revenues earned outside their jurisdiction when they aren't even headquartered within the EU?
    rob53JanNL
  • Reply 4 of 28
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,197member
    Illus1ve said:

    Just what the heck is ‘e.u.’ ?
    Sorry if this isn't the answer you're looking for, but the European Union?
    That was his first post under that name so I'd totally disregard his statement.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 5 of 28
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,225member
    rob53 said:
    Interesting that a private company is required to tell a weird government agency how many customers it has. Do gas stations have to divulge this information? How about grocery stores?
    I sure as hell hope they're just requesting figures for EU customers - the EU/EC has been getting too big for their britches lately, and has been threatening penalties based on a company's world-wide revenue - even though Apple isn't an EU headquartered company.

    How the heck can a EU regulatory body threaten a foreign company's revenues earned outside their jurisdiction when they aren't even headquartered within the EU?
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.

    On the other hand, the US is banning companies worldwide from selling US origin technology (even small amounts) to Chinese purchasers if their products just happen to have any in the final product. Even if the technology is now not US. That is to say, the US company that created the technology was sold 100% to a non-US company. And in some cases, Chinese born scientists had a hand in creating those technologies but have gained US citizenship. 

    Is that worthy of a 'what the heck...' comment? 

    The laws on fines from the EU were in place for everyone to see from day one. Companys just have to comply with legislation. 

    Laws like US FATCA require sovereign financial institutions to inform the US government of the financial activities of US citizens outside the US. 

    ctt_zh
  • Reply 6 of 28
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Illus1ve said:

    Just what the heck is ‘e.u.’ ?
    Sorry if this isn't the answer you're looking for, but the European Union?
    Sort of like the United States of Europe without the United Kingdom. 💩
    Illus1ve
  • Reply 7 of 28
    it's good at least the EU has some power over companies
    because here in the states, these big companies totally buy out all polticians and have them bend over backwards
    baconstangmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 8 of 28
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,970member
    avon b7 said:
    rob53 said:
    Interesting that a private company is required to tell a weird government agency how many customers it has. Do gas stations have to divulge this information? How about grocery stores?
    I sure as hell hope they're just requesting figures for EU customers - the EU/EC has been getting too big for their britches lately, and has been threatening penalties based on a company's world-wide revenue - even though Apple isn't an EU headquartered company.

    How the heck can a EU regulatory body threaten a foreign company's revenues earned outside their jurisdiction when they aren't even headquartered within the EU?
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.

    On the other hand, the US is banning companies worldwide from selling US origin technology (even small amounts) to Chinese purchasers if their products just happen to have any in the final product. Even if the technology is now not US. That is to say, the US company that created the technology was sold 100% to a non-US company. And in some cases, Chinese born scientists had a hand in creating those technologies but have gained US citizenship. 

    Is that worthy of a 'what the heck...' comment? 

    The laws on fines from the EU were in place for everyone to see from day one. Companys just have to comply with legislation. 

    Laws like US FATCA require sovereign financial institutions to inform the US government of the financial activities of US citizens outside the US. 

    "A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter."

    The main point about fining US companies a percentage of their World revenue is that the law they violated in the EU (that resulted) in the fine, might not be a violation anywhere else in the World. How is fining Apple (a US company) a percentage of their World revenue (not profits) for not using USB-C port for charging in the EU a fair fine, when not using a USB-C for charging is perfectly fine in most other countries?  Oh yeah, Apple is a "gatekeeper". We're getting tire of hearing that BS as the reason.

    If the EU wants to fine EU companies a percentage of their World revenue, because fines like that been around for years in the EU, that's fine. But fines like that, specially on foreign companies, do not exist in the US. Here, punitive fines are based on the actual harm/damages. When Volkswagen (the biggest auto maker in the World) violated US auto emission standards by using the auto on-board computer to cheat on the emission test, their fine was based on actual harm done in the US and the fine amounted to a slap on the wrist. Even the EU only handed a slap on the wrist fine, for cheating on EU emission test. But I bet the fines were enough punishment for the  Worlds biggest auto maker to deterred them from doing that again. A fair fine would be to fine Apple based on a percentage of EU revenue. But judging by the criteria set to be a "gatekeeper", there's nothing fair about the EU, when it comes to the big 5 US techs.  This amounts to fining a Honda $50 for a parking violation and fining a Mercedes $500, for the same parking violation.   


    "On the other hand, the US is banning companies worldwide from selling US origin technology (even small amounts) to Chinese purchasers ......

    Is that worthy of a 'what the heck...' comment? "

    No, not at all. What part of "US origin" do you not understand? It doesn't matter what company owns the patents to those "US origin" tech, they still originated in the US and falls under "US origin."  When Daimler-Benz merged with Chrysler in 1998, did that make a 1990 Dodge minivan a German automobile? 

     "The laws on fines from the EU were in place for everyone to see from day one. Companys just have to comply with legislation." 

    The 15/30% commission in the Apple App Store were in place for every developer to see from day one. When developing for iOS, developers just need to comply with the App Store policies they agreed to.  

    "Laws like US FATCA require sovereign financial institutions to inform the US government of the financial activities of US citizens outside the US." 

    US citizen are liable to pay US taxes on foreign income. Even if they have dual citizenship. This is not all like the US wanting foreign financial data of a non-US citizen.  Only foreign financial institutions in countries with an intergovernmental agreement with FATCA, are required to comply with the request. It works both ways, US financial institutions will also honor foreign request for the same on their citizens, under the same agreement. 
    baconstang
  • Reply 9 of 28
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,225member
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    rob53 said:
    Interesting that a private company is required to tell a weird government agency how many customers it has. Do gas stations have to divulge this information? How about grocery stores?
    I sure as hell hope they're just requesting figures for EU customers - the EU/EC has been getting too big for their britches lately, and has been threatening penalties based on a company's world-wide revenue - even though Apple isn't an EU headquartered company.

    How the heck can a EU regulatory body threaten a foreign company's revenues earned outside their jurisdiction when they aren't even headquartered within the EU?
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.

    On the other hand, the US is banning companies worldwide from selling US origin technology (even small amounts) to Chinese purchasers if their products just happen to have any in the final product. Even if the technology is now not US. That is to say, the US company that created the technology was sold 100% to a non-US company. And in some cases, Chinese born scientists had a hand in creating those technologies but have gained US citizenship. 

    Is that worthy of a 'what the heck...' comment? 

    The laws on fines from the EU were in place for everyone to see from day one. Companys just have to comply with legislation. 

    Laws like US FATCA require sovereign financial institutions to inform the US government of the financial activities of US citizens outside the US. 

    "A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter."

    The main point about fining US companies a percentage of their World revenue is that the law they violated in the EU (that resulted) in the fine, might not be a violation anywhere else in the World. How is fining Apple (a US company) a percentage of their World revenue (not profits) for not using USB-C port for charging in the EU a fair fine, when not using a USB-C for charging is perfectly fine in most other countries?  Oh yeah, Apple is a "gatekeeper". We're getting tire of hearing that BS as the reason.

    If the EU wants to fine EU companies a percentage of their World revenue, because fines like that been around for years in the EU, that's fine. But fines like that, specially on foreign companies, do not exist in the US. Here, punitive fines are based on the actual harm/damages. When Volkswagen (the biggest auto maker in the World) violated US auto emission standards by using the auto on-board computer to cheat on the emission test, their fine was based on actual harm done in the US and the fine amounted to a slap on the wrist. Even the EU only handed a slap on the wrist fine, for cheating on EU emission test. But I bet the fines were enough punishment for the  Worlds biggest auto maker to deterred them from doing that again. A fair fine would be to fine Apple based on a percentage of EU revenue. But judging by the criteria set to be a "gatekeeper", there's nothing fair about the EU, when it comes to the big 5 US techs.  This amounts to fining a Honda $50 for a parking violation and fining a Mercedes $500, for the same parking violation.   


    "On the other hand, the US is banning companies worldwide from selling US origin technology (even small amounts) to Chinese purchasers ......

    Is that worthy of a 'what the heck...' comment? "

    No, not at all. What part of "US origin" do you not understand? It doesn't matter what company owns the patents to those "US origin" tech, they still originated in the US and falls under "US origin."  When Daimler-Benz merged with Chrysler in 1998, did that make a 1990 Dodge minivan a German automobile? 

     "The laws on fines from the EU were in place for everyone to see from day one. Companys just have to comply with legislation." 

    The 15/30% commission in the Apple App Store were in place for every developer to see from day one. When developing for iOS, developers just need to comply with the App Store policies they agreed to.  

    "Laws like US FATCA require sovereign financial institutions to inform the US government of the financial activities of US citizens outside the US." 

    US citizen are liable to pay US taxes on foreign income. Even if they have dual citizenship. This is not all like the US wanting foreign financial data of a non-US citizen.  Only foreign financial institutions in countries with an intergovernmental agreement with FATCA, are required to comply with the request. It works both ways, US financial institutions will also honor foreign request for the same on their citizens, under the same agreement. 
    Again. The fine system is legal, has been in place for years and it is irrelevant what the US does or does not do with its fine system. 

    Weaponising 'origin' technology after the fact is definitely worth a 'what the heck' especially when that tech is also developed by Chinese nationals working in the US.

    The 15/30% commission being there from day one doesn't necessarily make it legal in the context of abusive practices. It just means it wasn't put under the microscope until recently. Apple’s probem's with state aid accusations are another example. They were not on the hook for accounting issues for most of the years they were in place simply because, legally, the EU statutes made it impossible to include those years in the proceedings. In the eyes of the investigators, the practice was ilegal from the day it started. As is usual though, due to the small amounts involved, it flew under the radar for years. 

    FATCA. US citizens have to declare income made abroad. That is one thing but foreign companies are required to comply with that law and at great cost to them. Obligations swing both ways. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 28
    avon b7 said:
    On the other hand, the US is banning companies worldwide from selling US origin technology (even small amounts) to Chinese purchasers if their products just happen to have any in the final product. Even if the technology is now not US. That is to say, the US company that created the technology was sold 100% to a non-US company. And in some cases, Chinese born scientists had a hand in creating those technologies but have gained US citizenship. 
    Betcha the sale was allowed with the proviso that the technology was subject to US regulation - else ASML would tell the US government to go pound sand.

    The EU/EC is beginning to sound like China in the sense that China puts out laws and regulations which makes them look like the kings of the universe.

    China was not elected to be world regulators, and neither is the EU - else the city council of Podunk California can begin regulating European manufacturers assessing penalties for local violations against their worldwide revenue, and assessing criminal penalties against European executives for their violations of Podunk law.
    edited February 19 Illus1ve
  • Reply 11 of 28
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,225member
    avon b7 said:

    On the other hand, the US is banning companies worldwide from selling US origin technology (even small amounts) to Chinese purchasers if their products just happen to have any in the final product. Even if the technology is now not US. That is to say, the US company that created the technology was sold 100% to a non-US company. And in some cases, Chinese born scientists had a hand in creating those technologies but have gained US citizenship. 
    Betcha the sale was allowed with the proviso that the technology was subject to US regulation - else ASML would tell the US government to go pound sand.

    The EU/EC is beginning to sound like China in the sense that China puts out laws and regulations which makes them look ike the kings of the universe.

    China was not elected to be world regulators, and neither is the EU - else the city council of Podunk California can begin regulating European manufacturers assessing penalties for local violations against their worldwide revenue, and assessing criminal penalties against European executives for their violations of Podunk law.
    ASML has already told the US to go pound sand. 

    Its CEO has said sanctions will not work. He has also said they are not valid for military justification because that equipment uses technology that is 10 to 15 years old. 

    https://www.hardwaretimes.com/asml-ceo-states-that-sanctions-on-china-wont-have-the-desired-impact/

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asml-chief-voices-us-gained-131906827.html

    The problem is that the Dutch government has stopped ASML from exporting EUV machines to China. Of course, following US pressure.

    It is the US that wants to be the world's regulator and it was not elected for that role either. 

    There was nothing in the sale terms of that US company to ASML that stopped it from doing business with China. We know this because ASML had orders from Chinese companies for EUV lithography machines.

    That negotiation would never have started if the sale was not possible. 
    edited February 19
  • Reply 12 of 28
    avon b7 said:
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.
    Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

    They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
    Illus1ve
  • Reply 13 of 28
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,225member
    avon b7 said:
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.
    Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

    They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
    There is nothing illegal about it. 

  • Reply 14 of 28
    avon b7 said:
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.
    Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

    They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
    A person can get life imprisonment for a crime, they have no argument that they weren't intending on spending their whole life in that country.

    It's called punitive damages.  It means multinational companies cannot treat fines as a cost of doing business.  There is no question of legal jurisdiction or right, it's a fine.  If the company wants to not pay the fine and completely withdraw from the EU then that's their prerogative.
  • Reply 15 of 28
    Illus1ve said:
    chutzpah said:
    avon b7 said:
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.
    Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

    They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
    A person can get life imprisonment for a crime, they have no argument that they weren't intending on spending their whole life in that country.

    It's called punitive damages.  It means multinational companies cannot treat fines as a cost of doing business.  There is no question of legal jurisdiction or right, it's a fine.  If the company wants to not pay the fine and completely withdraw from the EU then that's their prerogative.
    Fines are usually just money makin' for the 'regulator'. The US could be quite a bit more vocal about this. Like, so you exert pressure on our businesses? Here's a 200% import duty on everything you sell until you reverse that decision. Bet they wouldn't last a day. 
    When they're "exert[ing] pressure" on companies to take data security seriously then the USA isn't going to ignite a trade war.  Silly dick waving.
  • Reply 16 of 28
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,225member
    Illus1ve said:
    chutzpah said:
    avon b7 said:
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.
    Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

    They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
    A person can get life imprisonment for a crime, they have no argument that they weren't intending on spending their whole life in that country.

    It's called punitive damages.  It means multinational companies cannot treat fines as a cost of doing business.  There is no question of legal jurisdiction or right, it's a fine.  If the company wants to not pay the fine and completely withdraw from the EU then that's their prerogative.
    Fines are usually just money makin' for the 'regulator'. The US could be quite a bit more vocal about this. Like, so you exert pressure on our businesses? Here's a 200% import duty on everything you sell until you reverse that decision. Bet they wouldn't last a day. 
    Tit for tat doesn't usually lead to anything satisfactory to either side in a dispute. 

    The US for example thinks it can unilaterally impose sanctions on sovereign nations and then extraterritorially enforce them as punishment for anyone that 'breaks' them.

    That is exactly why the EU created its blocking legislation in 1996 with the aim of tackling those situations. 

    This came back into focus in 2018 when the US decided to pull out of the Iran agreement and EU companies were caught in the political crossfire. 
    Illus1ve
  • Reply 17 of 28
    Illus1ve said:
    avon b7 said:
    Illus1ve said:
    chutzpah said:
    avon b7 said:
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.
    Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

    They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
    A person can get life imprisonment for a crime, they have no argument that they weren't intending on spending their whole life in that country.

    It's called punitive damages.  It means multinational companies cannot treat fines as a cost of doing business.  There is no question of legal jurisdiction or right, it's a fine.  If the company wants to not pay the fine and completely withdraw from the EU then that's their prerogative.
    Fines are usually just money makin' for the 'regulator'. The US could be quite a bit more vocal about this. Like, so you exert pressure on our businesses? Here's a 200% import duty on everything you sell until you reverse that decision. Bet they wouldn't last a day. 
    Tit for tat doesn't usually lead to anything satisfactory to either side in a dispute. 

    The US for example thinks it can unilaterally impose sanctions on sovereign nations and then extraterritorially enforce them as punishment for anyone that 'breaks' them.

    That is exactly why the EU created its blocking legislation in 1996 with the aim of tackling those situations. 

    This came back into focus in 2018 when the US decided to pull out of the Iran agreement and EU companies were caught in the political crossfire. 
    Problem is, these political shenanigans tend to affect the consumers. European prices on Apple products are already through the roof. Yet who do you think is going to absorb all the extra costs that come with these initiatives? New cables? I never asked for it. Alternative App Stores? Again, never asked to degrade my user experience. ‘Enhanced’ ‘privacy’ through surrendering the data to people with questionable reputations (basically any politician)? They claim to be acting on behalf of the people, yet ‘the people’ seem to have no say in it whatsoever. 
    Welcome to the concept of society.  You don't always get your own way with representative government.
    spheric
  • Reply 18 of 28
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,225member
    Illus1ve said:
    avon b7 said:
    Illus1ve said:
    chutzpah said:
    avon b7 said:
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.
    Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

    They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
    A person can get life imprisonment for a crime, they have no argument that they weren't intending on spending their whole life in that country.

    It's called punitive damages.  It means multinational companies cannot treat fines as a cost of doing business.  There is no question of legal jurisdiction or right, it's a fine.  If the company wants to not pay the fine and completely withdraw from the EU then that's their prerogative.
    Fines are usually just money makin' for the 'regulator'. The US could be quite a bit more vocal about this. Like, so you exert pressure on our businesses? Here's a 200% import duty on everything you sell until you reverse that decision. Bet they wouldn't last a day. 
    Tit for tat doesn't usually lead to anything satisfactory to either side in a dispute. 

    The US for example thinks it can unilaterally impose sanctions on sovereign nations and then extraterritorially enforce them as punishment for anyone that 'breaks' them.

    That is exactly why the EU created its blocking legislation in 1996 with the aim of tackling those situations. 

    This came back into focus in 2018 when the US decided to pull out of the Iran agreement and EU companies were caught in the political crossfire. 
    Problem is, these political shenanigans tend to affect the consumers. European prices on Apple products are already through the roof. Yet who do you think is going to absorb all the extra costs that come with these initiatives? New cables? I never asked for it. Alternative App Stores? Again, never asked to degrade my user experience. ‘Enhanced’ ‘privacy’ through surrendering the data to people with questionable reputations (basically any politician)? They claim to be acting on behalf of the people, yet ‘the people’ seem to have no say in it whatsoever. 
    The 'people' were consulted during the consultation period on the different aspects for which were applicable, as were the industry players. Anyone who wanted to give an opinion was able to. 

    These aren't 'blind' moves. There are impact assessments. 

    Sometimes (common chargers) there is no one size fits all solution. That was highlighted in the impact assessment.

    Other times users have no final say because current legislation may be being infringed. 

    You, as a user, will not be forced to use an alternative app store. The whole point is choice. 
    spheric
  • Reply 19 of 28
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,225member
    Illus1ve said:
    chutzpah said:
    Illus1ve said:
    avon b7 said:
    Illus1ve said:
    chutzpah said:
    avon b7 said:
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.
    Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

    They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
    A person can get life imprisonment for a crime, they have no argument that they weren't intending on spending their whole life in that country.

    It's called punitive damages.  It means multinational companies cannot treat fines as a cost of doing business.  There is no question of legal jurisdiction or right, it's a fine.  If the company wants to not pay the fine and completely withdraw from the EU then that's their prerogative.
    Fines are usually just money makin' for the 'regulator'. The US could be quite a bit more vocal about this. Like, so you exert pressure on our businesses? Here's a 200% import duty on everything you sell until you reverse that decision. Bet they wouldn't last a day. 
    Tit for tat doesn't usually lead to anything satisfactory to either side in a dispute. 

    The US for example thinks it can unilaterally impose sanctions on sovereign nations and then extraterritorially enforce them as punishment for anyone that 'breaks' them.

    That is exactly why the EU created its blocking legislation in 1996 with the aim of tackling those situations. 

    This came back into focus in 2018 when the US decided to pull out of the Iran agreement and EU companies were caught in the political crossfire. 
    Problem is, these political shenanigans tend to affect the consumers. European prices on Apple products are already through the roof. Yet who do you think is going to absorb all the extra costs that come with these initiatives? New cables? I never asked for it. Alternative App Stores? Again, never asked to degrade my user experience. ‘Enhanced’ ‘privacy’ through surrendering the data to people with questionable reputations (basically any politician)? They claim to be acting on behalf of the people, yet ‘the people’ seem to have no say in it whatsoever. 
    Welcome to the concept of society.  You don't always get your own way with representative government.
    So why cheer it then? Some posters were trying to justify its actions. Did I get it wrong? It shouldn't be deciding how my personal computer works because it didn't pay for it. It ain't China, after all. 
    That makes no sense if you have actually read through all the relevant documentation.

    Everything has literally been spelled out. 

    Laws cover basically everything at some point. Laws absolutely can (and do) decide how your computer works. 
    muthuk_vanalingamspheric
  • Reply 20 of 28
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,225member
    Illus1ve said:
    avon b7 said:
    Illus1ve said:
    avon b7 said:
    Illus1ve said:
    chutzpah said:
    avon b7 said:
    A perfectly valid option and nothing new. These kinds of fining systems have existed for years. The fines are both punitive and to deter.
    Doesn't mean they're right or have legal jurisdiction outside their borders.

    They have to right to revenues or actions taking place outside their borders - they're suffering from king of the world syndrome.
    A person can get life imprisonment for a crime, they have no argument that they weren't intending on spending their whole life in that country.

    It's called punitive damages.  It means multinational companies cannot treat fines as a cost of doing business.  There is no question of legal jurisdiction or right, it's a fine.  If the company wants to not pay the fine and completely withdraw from the EU then that's their prerogative.
    Fines are usually just money makin' for the 'regulator'. The US could be quite a bit more vocal about this. Like, so you exert pressure on our businesses? Here's a 200% import duty on everything you sell until you reverse that decision. Bet they wouldn't last a day. 
    Tit for tat doesn't usually lead to anything satisfactory to either side in a dispute. 

    The US for example thinks it can unilaterally impose sanctions on sovereign nations and then extraterritorially enforce them as punishment for anyone that 'breaks' them.

    That is exactly why the EU created its blocking legislation in 1996 with the aim of tackling those situations. 

    This came back into focus in 2018 when the US decided to pull out of the Iran agreement and EU companies were caught in the political crossfire. 
    Problem is, these political shenanigans tend to affect the consumers. European prices on Apple products are already through the roof. Yet who do you think is going to absorb all the extra costs that come with these initiatives? New cables? I never asked for it. Alternative App Stores? Again, never asked to degrade my user experience. ‘Enhanced’ ‘privacy’ through surrendering the data to people with questionable reputations (basically any politician)? They claim to be acting on behalf of the people, yet ‘the people’ seem to have no say in it whatsoever. 
    The 'people' were consulted during the consultation period on the different aspects for which were applicable, as were the industry players. Anyone who wanted to give an opinion was able to. 

    These aren't 'blind' moves. There are impact assessments. 

    Sometimes (common chargers) there is no one size fits all solution. That was highlighted in the impact assessment.

    Other times users have no final say because current legislation may be being infringed. 

    You, as a user, will not be forced to use an alternative app store. The whole point is choice. 

    You mean there were actual user surveys? If so, I completely missed that part. 

    Also, if it's all about choice, then a provision should be included to make sure the developers are to submit their apps to the App Store, too, so that they couldn't force the user to either download them from a third-party platform or get lost if the said user disagrees.
    You only need to download the impact assessment for something like the common charger initiative. It has a wealth of information. 

    The consultation phase lasted 11 months. Two companies were tasked with that angle and a representative selection of 5,000 consumers was created. 

    Apart from that, anyone in the EU could write directly to their MEP. Don't forget that it was pressure from MEPs that resulted in legislation and not another MoU. 
    muthuk_vanalingamIllus1vespheric
Sign In or Register to comment.