China: “Remove all VPNs”
Apple: “Sure thing”
China: “…and podcast apps”
Apple: “Can do boss!”
China: “…and also hand over all iCloud data for our citizens”
Apple: “I mean why wouldn’t we? Here you go!”
EU: “Allow alternate app stores, and do it fairly”
Apple: “Ahhh hell no! This is so unfair you guys are bullies! Malware! Privacy! We have standards! Unlike you we care about our users!”
@rustyshelf China govt has teeth and will destroy Apple's production capacity if they push back. This is a direct threat to their business and thus something called "fiduciary responsibility" kicks in and literally requires their leadership to act in the interest of shareholders
The EU has no teeth. They have no way to hurt Apple enough without producing huge backlash. Once again "fiduciary responsibility" dictates that Apple do whatever they can to maximize shareholder profit, which means pushing back when they know they can
It sucks but until the EU figures out a way to really hold Apple's feet to the fire, the law requires this response
@pirijan @rustyshelf because it's literally the law and they are obligated to follow it? Like, you don't have to personally care about it for their leadership to act based upon it. "I don't care about politics" yeah well the fuckers screwing us all over do.
Unless all you want to do is bitch about Apple, without actually doing anything to stop them.
You know, kinda like the EU.
@zbrando @rustyshelf I'll believe it when I see it. And I expect the next two headlines to read "Apple closing all retail stores across Europe" and then "Consumers outraged over EU's Apple fiasco, demand accountability".
Because consumers don't care about alternative app stores. They just want their phones and laptops.
Apple has insane cash-on-hand and could easily outlast any such embargo, IMO
@neatchee @zbrando @rustyshelf Do you remember Apple switching their phone models to USB-C, starting with iPhone 15, worldwide?
If you believe that was their own decision, for the sake of their customers, you are wrong. They we forced into doing so, by EU's teeth.
If they did not obey, all their phone would have become illegal to sell in the EU. Maybe you think that was just bluff, but Apple did not, which is all that matters.
@elessar @zbrando @rustyshelf There is a huge difference between enforcing a universal technical standard on everyone and dictating what types of software must be available for a device
(Edited to clarify "types of software", not a particular program/app)
@neatchee How exactly do you get that “allowing alternate software sources” implies “dictating that a given piece of software must be present”?
Do you know that in many countries, the tenant of an apartment is allowed to choose his ISP and that the landlord is not allowed to restrict that choice? Do you really think this these countries are dictating what provider must be chosen? 🤪
@elessar see my edit; I meant to say "types of software" not specific software.
The ISP situation you're talking about isn't the correct comparison. A more appropriate comparison is the (very common) situation where a legislative body requires that a home be serviceable by more than one service provider, and if they're not, then the single service provider must allow another provider to piggyback on their infrastructure.
And in that scenario, yes, I consider that to be dictating what type of connectivity must be available to the consumer
@neatchee Okay, I get it. Well here, the good news is it will not require much code from Apple. The big part of it is the alternate software sources, and they are not for Apple to code.
In fact, they are already available, but they required the user to crack a restriction developed by Apple to prevent that. This operation is called “jailbreaking”.
All they have to do to comply, that it's, with regard to the software source part of the DMA, is to provide an official option to, well, jailbreak. Of course they can do something more specific, more refined or whatever, but basically, this is about removing an anti-feature, not adding a feature.
@neatchee Then you surely know that the fact you cannot use an alternate software source on iOS is not because Apple did not do something, but because they actually did implement a locking mechanism.
They are simply required to provide an option to remove that.
@elessar That's....not really the point though? I know that, yes, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the conversation at hand.
Like, I agree with you that for the sake of consumers, they ought not be allowed to prevent sideloading apps, but this conversation is about enforcement and Apple's willingness to comply with different requirements from different governments
@neatchee The point is that EU is not telling Apple to do something, such as installing some mandatory software on the phones they sell. They are telling them to stop doing something, that is, preventing people from installing and using alternate software sources.
Not : “Hey Apple, now you will pre-install Cydia”
Rather: “From now on, you will stop preventing people from installing and using Cydia (among others)”
@elessar bruh, did you even read what I wrote? That's not what we're talking about right now. I just replied to you in another fork with the same point: this is a thread about why Apple pushes back on reasonable EU requests but doesn't push back on unreasonable China requests.
And on that subject, I stick by my answers above
@elessar @zbrando @rustyshelf But that's not what this conversation was about. Go back to the OP I replied to. This is about Apple pushing back against the EU when they don't push back against China.
I'm trying to tell you all that it's because the Chinese government has shown to be a far greater potential threat to their business than the EU has, and all anyone wants to talk about is how "it's so easy, and reasonable, and they could just..., they should just ..."
Like, I get it, and I don't disagree, but that is not how businesses are run. Proof is in the pudding, as they say
@zbrando @elessar @rustyshelf I agree! But they're not just going to do that for funsies.
Perhaps a good long term strategy for the EU would be to aggressively undercut Chinese manufacturing through subsidy until they have the leverage they want.
Embrace, extend, exterminate is a strategy the EU could model their relationship with Apple on if they wanted. Would just take time and investment
@zbrando @elessar @rustyshelf Better for whom? For consumers? For the company's brand? For long-term shareholders? Short-term shareholders?
That's the problem. Our legal system strongly incentivizes Apple executives to prioritize the interests of short-term shareholders - people who want to make money fast - over everyone else. This is true for more reasons than just fiduciary duty, for what it's worth.
Apple's original sin was working with Foxconn in the first place, instead of refusing on the grounds that it would irreparably damage their brand. Could've made a good argument back then. Too late now
@neatchee @zbrando @rustyshelf Does that mean an American company is legally supposed to violate other countries' laws when they know it would lead to more profit? This seems doubtful.
In this case, let is suppose, for the sake of argument, that not complying with the DSA would lead to more profit than complying (which is probably really not the case, considering the fines at stake). Do you mean that, in such a case, the US law requires that they violate the DSA?
If so, this is frightening, when applied to oil companies operating in third world countries for instance.
@elessar @zbrando @rustyshelf Yes, if you could find evidence that there was research conducted that showed exactly what you're saying - that they would only receive a fine, and the fine would be less than the profit, and there would be no brand image damage, and it wouldn't effect their sales, etc etc - then they would have a duty to do so.
It IS super fucked up. The language of the law is so broad that it creates fucked up situations like that. If you can show that when all is said and done, doing X would be in the best interests of the shareholders, that's what they have to do
It's insane. But that's how it is
@neatchee @rustyshelf a fine amounting to 10% of Apple's annual worldwide revenue (the first time, 20% the second) is enough teeth to give any company a pause.
And Apple execs may be screeching and fuming, they have altered their TOS to comply.
The EU has no teeth. They have no way to hurt Apple enough without producing huge backlash.
lol. next thing you'll tell me is that there's no way eu would fine microsoft on a daily basis.
@mawhrin @rustyshelf ...... economic principles aren't geographically bound, my dude. My statement has nothing to do with enforcement, just a statement of fact about financial incentives.
That said, I DO have some knowledge of how the EU does things (they're much better about proportionate punishment) but the fact remains that Apple will push back (which is what the OP complained about) until the EU acts like China and threatens their business in a way that scares them into never pushing back
Russell Ivanovic
neatchee
Pirijan
Bas (Tools on Tech)
v
zbrando
Elessar
КруШеф
Ash_Crow
flere-imsaho 🇺🇦
lonjil