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.
What do you think is more likely to have happened, that those folks were genuinely concerned about the consumers' apparent lack choice, or that their initiative was rather intended, possibly with the help of a competitor's lobby, to undercut a major American enterprise which also happens to be about the only smartphone manufacturer still using its own cable design?
The former. People in the EU in general seem to have a far higher awareness of these and environmental issues.
You can also find a ton of data in the Eurobarometer datasets which are surveys to better understand, at an institutional level, how Europeans see things.
There has also been a general push to a more informational society. Legislation has upped requirements of citizens but also 'protected' them too.
Consumer protections are far better here than in the US. That could be on data protection, health (direct and indirect), food, food safety, food labeling, guarantees etc.
Big Tech is not the only sector under the microscope.
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.
What do you think is more likely to have happened, that those folks were genuinely concerned about the consumers' apparent lack choice, or that their initiative was rather intended, possibly with the help of a competitor's lobby, to undercut a major American enterprise which also happens to be about the only smartphone manufacturer still using its own cable design?
Definitely the former. MEPs and the EU Commission aren't nearly as prone to the sort of petty histrionics that you see in the US Congress.
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 my point is: why cheer it then? Some posters were trying to justify its actions. Or did I get it wrong?
Some people quite like data protection. Others quite like single cable charging solutions or alternative app stores, and don't consider these things to be "shenanigans" at all. You seriously think that no one wants these things? Just because you don't means squat all. As I said, you don't always get your own way.
Government agencies don’t like data protection, though.
What exactly do you think the GDPR is for then?
Wouldn’t it be naive to assume they were with the consumers on this?
Who said anything about assuming anything? You've assumed the opposite. Looks at the facts and evidence before forming an opinion.
As for the hardware, well, do you recall similar incidents, say, in the 90s or even the noughts? Was anyone back then trying to enforce Mac cloning, for instance?
Not that I can recall. So what? No one is trying to enforce Mac or iPhone cloning now. And Apple were a statistical error in terms of market share for much of the 90s.
I think the issue with this is what they might demand next.
And yet you're complaining about something that's happening now. We shouldn't pass seatbelt laws because that could lead to the government taking over your car. Slippery slope arguments are silly.
P.S. All this ‘conscientiousness’ might cost the customer a pretty penny, after all. Do you really think Apple is going to absorb all the extra costs, fines, etc.?
The extra costs of surrendering info on monthly users? Yeah, I think Apple will likely absorb that, it's next to nothing. The costs of using USB-C instead of Lightning? They would have made the switch anyway, not a cost. The fines? Don't incur them.
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 my point is: why cheer it then? Some posters were trying to justify its actions. Or did I get it wrong?
Some people quite like data protection. Others quite like single cable charging solutions or alternative app stores, and don't consider these things to be "shenanigans" at all. You seriously think that no one wants these things? Just because you don't means squat all. As I said, you don't always get your own way.
Government agencies don’t like data protection, though. Wouldn’t it be naive to assume they were with the consumers on this?
You’re assuming a monolithic government. The EU is anything but.
Agencies don’t legislate — they enforce existing laws.
I’m sure there’s lots of law enforcement agencies at the member state level that disapprove of GDPR laws, but if they violate them, they are breaking EU law and can be prosecuted.
Government agencies don’t like data protection, though.
What exactly do you think the GDPR is for then?
Wouldn’t it be naive to assume they were with the consumers on this?
Who said anything about assuming anything? You've assumed the opposite. Looks at the facts and evidence before forming an opinion.
As for the hardware, well, do you recall similar incidents, say, in the 90s or even the noughts? Was anyone back then trying to enforce Mac cloning, for instance?
Not that I can recall. So what? No one is trying to enforce Mac or iPhone cloning now. And Apple were a statistical error in terms of market share for much of the 90s.
I think the issue with this is what they might demand next.
And yet you're complaining about something that's happening now. We shouldn't pass seatbelt laws because that could lead to the government taking over your car. Slippery slope arguments are silly.
P.S. All this ‘conscientiousness’ might cost the customer a pretty penny, after all. Do you really think Apple is going to absorb all the extra costs, fines, etc.?
The extra costs of surrendering info on monthly users? Yeah, I think Apple will likely absorb that, it's next to nothing. The costs of using USB-C instead of Lightning? They would have made the switch anyway, not a cost. The fines? Don't incur them.
By the way, the very same people want to impose USB-C on every laptop manufacturer from 2026 on. How do you think will this affect MagSafe?
P.S. The person in charge of Europe’s alleged ‘digital transformation’ is a Danish economist with no technical background.
Unless Apple have plans to ships notebooks without USB-C, it won't affect MagSafe at all, as all MacBooks can already charge through USB-C.
P.S. Please learn how to quote properly, it's not that hard.
Comments
You can also find a ton of data in the Eurobarometer datasets which are surveys to better understand, at an institutional level, how Europeans see things.
There has also been a general push to a more informational society. Legislation has upped requirements of citizens but also 'protected' them too.
Consumer protections are far better here than in the US. That could be on data protection, health (direct and indirect), food, food safety, food labeling, guarantees etc.
Big Tech is not the only sector under the microscope.
Who said anything about assuming anything? You've assumed the opposite. Looks at the facts and evidence before forming an opinion.
Not that I can recall. So what? No one is trying to enforce Mac or iPhone cloning now. And Apple were a statistical error in terms of market share for much of the 90s.
And yet you're complaining about something that's happening now. We shouldn't pass seatbelt laws because that could lead to the government taking over your car. Slippery slope arguments are silly.
The extra costs of surrendering info on monthly users? Yeah, I think Apple will likely absorb that, it's next to nothing.
The costs of using USB-C instead of Lightning? They would have made the switch anyway, not a cost.
The fines? Don't incur them.
P.S. Please learn how to quote properly, it's not that hard.