anonymouse

avon b7 said:

beowulfschmidt said:

If they had said, "ATT is fine, but Apple has to follow the same rules, so since you didn't, we're fining you," that would have been pretty legit.

Instead they said, "ATT is fine, nothing wrong with it.  But we're going to fine you anyway.  Because we can, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it."

The Reuters article is a little clearer on that point. 

"Coeuré told reporters the regulator had not spelled out how Apple should change its app, but that it was up to the company to make sure it now complied with the ruling.

The compliance process could take some time, he added, because Apple was waiting for rulings on regulators in Germany, Italy, Poland and Romania who are also investigating the ATT tool."

https://www.reuters.com/technology/french-antitrust-regulator-fines-apple-150-million-euros-over-privacy-tool-2025-03-31/

On the size of the fine, that was also tackled head on (it was proportional):

"We apply competition law in an apolitical manner," Benoit Coeure told a press conference."

While maximum fines can be up to 10% of global revenue (and it's global as a dissuasory measure), the fines still have to be proportional and take into account other factors such as reincidence. 

Like everything else the EU and Eropean countries do, this is like a bad joke. "We didn't say what you needed to do, but, because you didn't do what we wanted, we're fining you."

That's like deciding you want a low speed limit, not setting or posting it, then fining "speeders" for being over the limit by whatever amount you want them to be. Europe and the EU no longer operate under the rule of law, they operate under the whims of the "regulators".

DAalseth said:

pulseimages said:

DAalseth said:

No, I’ll pass

Why?

The idea according to the article is to be “a new AI agent would monitor the data in the Health app and provide feedback to the user on how to improve their health. This will apparently work to offer advice similar to how a real doctor would to a patient.”
Considering how many truly idiotic mistakes AI systems make there’s no way I would trust it. Maybe in 20-30 years, but today? Hell no we’re still at the stage where AI systems recommend adding glue to pizza sauce. 

Seriously, how hard can this be to get right — "offer advice similar to how a real doctor would to a patient" —considering how bad a job most doctors do of it? In fact, you'd probably be much better off with even today's AIs monitoring your health than today's doctors.

CheeseFreeze said:

anonymouse said:

CheeseFreeze said:

Kuminga said:

Is there anymore doubt the EU is evil and anti American?

Trump is right in this one 

What an arrogant & narcissistic thing to say. Have you considered the USA being anti-European? 

Also, this article is sensationalist nonsense written by someone who’s clearly incredibly biased. It totally misrepresents the demands of EU and places the conflict in the wrong context. 

I recommend people to actually read EU’s arguments (easy to Google) instead of this brain rot article.

In exactly which particulars is the article wrong and what exactly is the EU's position where you believe it differs from what is stated in the article. Please be specific and cite sources in your response.

Ok, I won't hold my breath for that, but, frankly, it's hard not to see how the EU putting the screws on American tech companies doesn't lend credence to Trump's rhetoric. This is a boon for the radical elements in charge of our government right now, which will end up backfiring on the EU, and all because the EU wants to appropriate Apple's, and other tech companies', IP and shake them down for cash. 

Sure. Here is the actual *information* summarized, without the usual AppleInsider craziness:   

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_816 

The European Commission has issued two legally binding decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to ensure that Apple enhances interoperability between its iOS operating system and third-party devices and applications. 

Key Requirements:

1. Interoperability with Connected Devices:

• Apple must grant third-party device manufacturers access to specific iOS features to facilitate seamless integration. This includes functionalities such as notifications, background processes, and various wireless technologies (e.g., Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, NFC). 

2. Transparency and Predictability for Developers:

• Apple is required to provide clearer guidelines and technical documentation to developers. This aims to make the process for requesting interoperability with iOS devices more transparent and predictable, ensuring that developers have the necessary information to integrate their products effectively. 

These measures are designed to promote competition and innovation by allowing third-party devices and applications to work as seamlessly with iOS as Apple’s own products, thereby offering consumers more choices. 

While Apple has expressed concerns that these directives might hinder innovation and place the company at a disadvantage compared to others, the European Commission maintains that these steps are essential for ensuring a fair and open digital market. 

These decisions are part of the European Commission’s ongoing efforts to enforce the DMA, targeting major tech companies to ensure they do not engage in anti-competitive practices. 

The reason why Apple specifically is targeted is the fact Android already does comply. Again, AppleInsider likes to look at it this from the lens of a cult. Maybe they should be acquired by Fox News?

Sorry, but you failed to answer the question nor did you provide a foundation for your previous accusations.

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

longpath said:

This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.

Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.

Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.

Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them. 

EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

EU law makes a mockery of law.

The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective. 

You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers. 

But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA)  a meaningless label.  

Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.

No it's not open for debate, it's established as fact, and he is not "pumping" claims that are "opinion". In fact, it is you who are being entirely disingenuous in this discussion and pimping claims that are false and misleading. 

goofy1958 said:

avon b7 said

I don't need to come up with anything 'original'. My points are clear. 

Try an informal survey yourself. How aware are the iPhone users you know and meet of Apple's imposed limitations? 

Why shouldn't apple just be open about the limitations - just to do the right thing? Like they did with app tracking transparency.

After all, your entire argument is that they won't mind because it's all in their interests. The price one pays for privacy and security (in spite of zero day exploits and non-stop security updates landing on their devices).

My take is that Apple would rather jump through all the EU hoops (malicious compliance included where possible) instead of being open. And we all know why, right? 

So as an Apple user for many years, what, in your opinion, am I missing out on that I might find even remotely interesting or required?

It's not even my opinion. Prior to the DMA/DSA all iDevice users were subjected to the same, unilateral restrictions.

No choice on wallets. 
No choice on app stores or software. 
No access to NFC hardware unless apple allowed it (and in the case of payments, only Apple). 
Anti-steering
WebKit obligatory use
Restrictions on third party watch features. 
(previously) restrictions on cloud backup of WhatsApp chats (only iCloud)


A lot of that has changed thanks to the EU. 

Now you have choice (at least in the EU) where before, the choice was made for you and without your express consent. 

A. None of these things are of any benefit to me.
B. Most of them represent a weakening of security and privacy.
C. All of them were enacted to benefit European companies, not users, and not anyone else in the world.

Your "points" are just a lot of empty words.

The European countries and the EU are acting like a mafia, constantly shaking down US tech companies for "protection money" and making it difficult for any but the companies run by Europeans to do business. How Spotify constantly needs more protection despite being the dominant music platform is beyond belief unless it's simply because they are European.

And furthermore, this sort of protectionist racket feeds into the sort of right wing politics that are destroying Europe and America, so the net "benefit" will be negative for everyone.

avon b7 said:

davidw said:

avon b7 said:

anonymouse said:

avon b7 said:

longpath said:

This ruling is akin to Lamborghini being declared anticompetitive for not allowing 3rd party (including parts made by Ford & Chrysler) dealer installed accessories in the Temorino.

Apple is a minority manufacturer of phones, tablets, and personal computers. As such, they do not now, nor have they ever had anything vaguely resembling sufficient market control for any other their actions to be meaningfully anticompetitive. This ruling reflects a warped grasp of Apple's actual market share.

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en

By Apple's own numbers it qualifies as a Gatekeeper for phones under EU law.

Car anologies don't work well here due the digital CPS nature of the issue.

Also, many jurisdictions around the world are coming to similar conclusions about Apple's anti competitive practices. The US might end up being one of them. 

EU Law is a joke. EU law is so entirely vague and open to subjective interpretation that anyone perceived to have deep pockets can quite easily be deemed to be in violation of it. The way it's written, all they have to do is fabricate a plausible rationale and set, or move, the goal posts to wherever they need them to be, and jackpot!

EU law makes a mockery of law.

The numbers that determine gatekeepers are not subjective. 

You may argue about how those numbers were set but not that Apple falls into the group of gatekeepers. 

But if those numbers are set only for the purpose of insuring that the 5 largest US tech companies are captured as "gatekeepers", then Apple didn't just "fall" into the group of "gatekeepers". And it makes being a "gatekeeper" (under the DMA)  a meaningless label.  

Like I said, that line of argument is open for debate but saying it didn't just 'fall' into the group of 'gatekeepers' is ridiculous because you are pumping the situation full of claims that are just your opinion.

No it's not open for debate, it's established as fact, and he is not "pumping" claims that are "opinion". In fact, it is you who are being entirely disingenuous in this discussion and pimping claims that are false and misleading.