They'd probably still find a way to fine them. This is about generating more revenue than anything. They should just be straightforward and pass an additional tax on American tech giants and get it over with.
True. This chart is a little old now (2024) but the EU gets more from fining US companies than tax income from all EU tech companies. That's probably why they keep doing it, always follow the $s.
Maybe. They can try - since phones aren't regulated.
Apple have an incentive to sell expensive phones for hundreds of Euros each anyway.
The chart is evidently wrong, because more than just 10 European public "tech" companies.
Not for consumers, for all those savvy EU tech companies to buy and load with their own OS, so EU citizens can enjoy the choice. You could have SpotifyOS and… I can’t think of any others right now.
Not going to argue with you there. I think the data was originally produced by an American lobbying group and they skewed it to only show software rather than the entire tech industry because they were saying these were software related issues. But yes if you include the entire tech industry in EU this chart would be entirely different
Still wrong.
They do it every time. It’s nothing new. And they’re never ignoring the feedback, but they don’t take it as gospel
You still miss the entire point. It’s about software not hardware. The primary EU concern is the software ecosystem. Hardware interoperability is secondary.
Yup, unfortunately it’s way too easy for the US to argue “national security” on things that are simply an inability to compete with China. I was about to write that in the long run this will harm the US, but in many industries it is too late already.
Consumer protection is good. Protecting consumers from abuses by companies of personal data is good. Trying to force everyone to interoperably message with WhatsApp or WhateverApp - naive. Misguided. Raises its own privacy, security, and interoperability issues. Standards and interoperability are difficult. Security is difficult. The EU EC needs to be much more sophisticated about what it is asking for, engineering-wise.
And they’ve already come out publicly to say it sucks. And, are bound and determined to replace it with something altogether worse because EU companies don’t like the fact that they can’t get at the data without ignoring a consumers intent.
That’s because there’s no tech intelligence in the EU to speak of. The regulators don’t have anyone from an EU perspective to ask because they’ve driven them all out of the region. Microsoft tried to tell EU regulators that giving others the same access to the security frameworks as they have would be a mistake, and they forced Microsoft to do it it anyway or face further regulation. Then Crowdstrike happened. Did that make the regulators think a moment that, perhaps when a big company with an expertise in a field says a bad thing could happen, that, perhaps, the bad thing could happen? Nope, they just lied and said that Microsoft never warned them. They’ll be responsible for something like this in the future and will again not learn.
Sigh again they had a million ways to solve it and chose poorly. Suck to suck they should have moved the function outside of the kernel or stoped treating their anti virus software more priveliged than the competition.
Totally, the regulation don't dictate one particular way of doing things, so if companies want to take the easy road and half-ass their implementation that's 100% on them, not the EU
Not missing it all. Of course this regulation - and the associated fines - are about software. That’s why I wrote above that phones (hardware) aren’t regulated. But operating systems (and, by extension, AI assistants) - software! - are.
👉 If you can't ensure that your products (OS) are inherently secure, you shouldn't be allowed to anticompetitively commercialise and monopolise the market for improving security.
