-Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly". -If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone? -Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules? -And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try?
The simplest thing to do would be to ship EU phones without Messages installed, and make it available for download in the app store.
The EU/EC are waaayyyy too full of themselves, and the best thing to do is to ship crippled phones to EU customers and let EU customers know it's EU rules and regulations causing it.
The EU has already crippled their native industries, and outside of a couple of infrastructure companies there are no big tech companies left within their jurisdiction.
The fact that the EU thinks it's appropriate to go after revenues made outside of the EU just shows how fatheaded they've become.
The point of fines is that they’re supposed to hurt.
Even with fat headed global megacorps who figure they don’t need to follow laws because they can afford the cash to violate them.
The US courts generally seem to agree, btw. Look up this famous case for an inkling of how silly you sound:
No, your link shows the the US court disagree. The $2.7M was for punitive damages awarded by a jury, not the government. And the courts lowered the jury $2.7M award for punitive damages by about 80%, to $480K. The $2.7M award was based on 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales and not McDonalds total annual revenue. 2 days of McDonalds coffee sales only amounted to .54% of McDonalds annual coffee sales revenue. It's a rounding error compared to McDonalds total annual revenue. But the US courts still saw fit to lower the jury $2.7 award by 80%. The final award is confidential, after the plaintiff and McDonalds agreed to an out of court settlement, upon appeal.
Here in the US, we have the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution which states ....
>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. <
This prevent the government from levying excessive fines for the violation of any laws. The fines must be in proportion to the harm done. Not some random amount arrived by using a percentage of the violators wealth. A wealthy person violating a law don't do any more harm than a poor person violating the same law. That would be like writing a $50 parking ticket for a ten old Honda and a $500 parking ticket for a 2022 Mercedes, for the same parking violation.
However, a jury can award punitive damages that might be considered excessive. Punitive damages awarded by a jury in not a government fine. But the government can still step in and reduce that punitive damage award, if they think the amount of the award is excessive and violates the 8th Amendment concerning excessive fines. As they did in the Lieback vs McDonalds case.
FIRST: For those of you who are unaware, all major cellular carriers in the U.S. and probably in the EU and elsewhere are now actually data only (LTE and 5G) but Calls (VoLTE, HD Voice, VOIP, etc.), SMS, and some MMS are not charged as data or at all depending on your plan. Thankfully, the interoperability between carriers still works as usual as far as we the customers are concerned. However, cellular carriers have left us with the lowest common denominator, meaning no video calls without third party apps and problematic/marginal MMS.
SECOND: The EU has realized that the cellular carriers of the world will never come up with a viable solution to all of the things that it would like and has decided that it will just threaten the big four with huge fines and see if they come up with a solution. Not going to happen!
The EU can force the carriers to comply if it falls under legislation.
The carriers cannot exist without the governments as it is the governments that licence the frequencies that the carriers need.
How hard they push and in what way is another matter. The EU has historically tried to foster agreement with industry. It is normally the first (and easiest option).
That's why the common charging initiative started out as a simple MoU. Over a decade later it was decided that not enough had been achieved and legislation has been created to remedy the situation.
The interoperability situation is quite light at the moment and quite open to interpretation. The onus though is very much on the dominant players to open up.
FWIW, at hearings in the last couple of days that apple attended, they have acknowledged they will need to comply with the EU's DMA.
"The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services."
Gotta read that one a few times to understand exactly what it was saying and what might still need clarifying.
-Are you claiming the EU cannot do what they are saying they wish to do because "not a monopoly". -If so then you're also saying Apple can safely ignore anything the EU has to say about allowing other browser engines besides their own on your iPhone? -Or that Apple could have safely said "NO!" to the charger cross-compatibility rules? -And that any challenges to Apple AppStore will be of zero consequence and any attempt for regulators to interfere is not legal anyway, and certainly can't stand up to an Apple legal challenge if they try?
The simplest thing to do would be to ship EU phones without Messages installed, and make it available for download in the app store.
The EU/EC are waaayyyy too full of themselves, and the best thing to do is to ship crippled phones to EU customers and let EU customers know it's EU rules and regulations causing it.
The EU has already crippled their native industries, and outside of a couple of infrastructure companies there are no big tech companies left within their jurisdiction.
The fact that the EU thinks it's appropriate to go after revenues made outside of the EU just shows how fatheaded they've become.
The point of fines is that they’re supposed to hurt.
Even with fat headed global megacorps who figure they don’t need to follow laws because they can afford the cash to violate them.
The US courts generally seem to agree, btw. Look up this famous case for an inkling of how silly you sound:
Comments
Here in the US, we have the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution which states ....
>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. <
This prevent the government from levying excessive fines for the violation of any laws. The fines must be in proportion to the harm done. Not some random amount arrived by using a percentage of the violators wealth. A wealthy person violating a law don't do any more harm than a poor person violating the same law. That would be like writing a $50 parking ticket for a ten old Honda and a $500 parking ticket for a 2022 Mercedes, for the same parking violation.
However, a jury can award punitive damages that might be considered excessive. Punitive damages awarded by a jury in not a government fine. But the government can still step in and reduce that punitive damage award, if they think the amount of the award is excessive and violates the 8th Amendment concerning excessive fines. As they did in the Lieback vs McDonalds case.
The carriers cannot exist without the governments as it is the governments that licence the frequencies that the carriers need.
How hard they push and in what way is another matter. The EU has historically tried to foster agreement with industry. It is normally the first (and easiest option).
That's why the common charging initiative started out as a simple MoU. Over a decade later it was decided that not enough had been achieved and legislation has been created to remedy the situation.
The interoperability situation is quite light at the moment and quite open to interpretation. The onus though is very much on the dominant players to open up.
"The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services."
Gotta read that one a few times to understand exactly what it was saying and what might still need clarifying.