Apple Hit With €500M Fine as EU Enforces Digital Markets Act

[surferfb]

Like almost everything else Apple does, their reluctance to moving away from Lightning has a lot more to do with locking their users into their "ecosystem" via third-party accessories than it does with getting licensing fees from third party device sales. Apple's entire product and service offering is designed to lock-in their customers as tightly as possible.

Then why on earth did they work so hard to help invent USB-C? They did more than any other company?

Case in point.

What makes more sense "Apple has a secret conspiracy to lock people in using Lightening, and just ignore the fact that they did more than any other company to invent and popularize USB-C" or "USB-C didn't exist, so Apple invented lightening. And rather than immediately change after helping invent USB-C, they did what they said they'd do and keep lightening for ten years, since it's at best slightly worse than USB-C and the vast, vast majority of users don't care"

Not everything is a conspiracy, folks.

And none of that changes the fact that mandating what connectors devices use in law is incredibly idiotic idea. Remember. the EU originally wanted to mandate Micro-USB. Are you upset they failed then? Maybe we would have been laughing about how big and clunky USB-C was in ten years, but now we won't because the ROI in coming up with a new cable isn't there anymore.

 

[raythompsontn]

Assuming Billy Bob lives in the EU, some of that money may at least go towards Billy Bob's medical expenses.

I highly doubt that. Show me a line item on the budget that shows where fines from companies go to specific purposes. Most likely that money is placed in the general fund to be spent on pet projects of politicians. For all I know the money was used to redecorate the politicians office with a $20K lamp.

Fines from companies are not part of any budget that was set months in the past. That income from fines is an added monetary income that was not planned.

EU, US, whatever. It does not matter. If people were truly hurt by some company not following the rules, which the fines are supposed to remedy, where does the individual benefit? There is no monetary compensation to anyone that could not download their favorite porn app because a company blocked the download. Owners of VW diesels that were "harmed" by the VW cheating scandal got nothing except a lowball offer for their vehicle. The fines went to the coffers of Germany and other EU countries.

 

[WilliApple]

Tariff the EU

 

[m4mario]

Dear Tim, talk to Donald Trump about this. Reciprocal laws that regulate European companies in the US are only fair. Why are only American companies regulated in other countries?

For example, the US should form a council and grade every luxury product on quality. Every luxury brand from Europe must get a quality certificate, and the US should maintain a website where all the products of the same grade are listed, sortable by price.

That means: If Hermès wants to sell leather in the US, it should get a grade. Let’s say Hermès has A++ leather. Then any company can get their leather graded and added to the US website. Customers can search for A++ leather and sort it by price. Now this is the kind of regulation that will benefit customers for sure.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Tariff the EU

LOL That would work if you want to protect your own market for stuff you produce, but your point is what exactly?

Dear Tim, talk to Donald Trump about this. Reciprocal laws that regulate European companies in the US are only fair. Why are only American companies regulated in other countries?

They are not alone, every company is treated equal. Why do you believe and repeat such lies?

For example, the US should form a council and grade every luxury product on quality. Every luxury brand from Europe must get a quality certificate, and the US should maintain a website where all the products of the same grade are listed, sortable by price.

That means: If Hermès wants to sell leather in the US, it should get a grade. Let’s say Hermès has A++ leather. Then any company can get their leather graded and added to the US website. Customers can search for A++ leather and sort it by price. Now this is the kind of regulation that will benefit customers for sure.

But why limit it to a particular region? Why not do it universally? But ahem, you do realise there are already ISO standards for such things

 

[0049190]

If you break the law you pay the penalty. Apple should change their attitude and follow the DMA rules.

 

[j26]

You funny! Seriously. It is about the money. The laws, the fines, the threats, it is all about money. EU, US, etc. it does not matter. Civil laws with resulting fines are mostly designed to extract money from people or corporations. Fines just reinforce the money grab. The money collected does not go to the people that are supposedly protected, or harmed, in violation of the law.

Does anyone honestly think that any of the money from the fines will go to Billy Bob and his family because they could not side load an app? Will Billy Bob get any money because the proper instructions were not provided? Will Billy Bob get any money because he could not run some app from a nefarious company?

So much wrong with that post that it's hard to know where to start.

You seem to be confusing civil and criminal law.

If the penalty is a fine, then it's a criminal matter. Civil matters are dealt with by damages, injunctions or other orders.

Since it's criminal, the only real options for punishment are fines or imprisonment. Since you can't imprison a company, fines are the only option realistically available.

Also, since it's a fine, and not damages Billy Bob ain't seeing a penny of it - this is not a type of class action lawsuit. It gets paid into the general finances. As another poster said, Billy Bob will derive some benefit from it through general spending, but not directly.

The ideal outcome is no fines collected as companies comply with the law, and consumers are protected. They don't want Apples money, but they have to enforce the law because if they don't, everyone will just ignore it and consumers suffer.

 

[surferfb]

They are not alone, every company is treated equal. Why do you believe and repeat such lies?

The law was clearly written to target American companies and avoid EU ones. Sure, if an EU company gets big enough the DMA will apply, but there's a reason SAP and Spotify are excluded - it's because the EU wrote the law to ensure they wouldn't be impacted.

 

[Kkspire]

So if I own a store in the UK, where I sell your goods, you can set up shop and use all of my resources, and you must be allowed to put a sign up and say, but you can buy this at another place instead, circumventing me from making any money? That sounds wild unless I’m missing something.

 

[raythompsontn]

You seem to be confusing civil and criminal law.

Nope. Criminal cases require a district attorney to bring charges with a grand jury returning an indictment. Anything else is civil. At least relative to the U.S. Anything different in the EU is, well, because the EU is, well, the EU.

 

[j26]

Nope. Criminal cases require a district attorney to bring charges with a grand jury returning an indictment. Anything else is civil. At least relative to the U.S. Anything different in the EU is, well, because the EU is, well, the EU.

Yes, the EU is different from the US. A fine means it's criminal.

 

[ashdelacroix]

We now go live to the MacRumors userbase for their spin on why Apple should pull out of the entire continent of Europe rather than make some simple changes.

Would love to see the people who say that be the ones who have to explain to the shareholders why Apple pulled out of a market of 745M people.

EU population is 449m, but your point remains.

 

[ashdelacroix]

Which leads to less choice and a bigger monopoly for Google. Which.. well... that circle will continue.

The EU doesn't create ANYTHING they only know how to DESTROY something that's good and what people want.

The US creates, the EU regulates.

 

[MLVC]

Dear Tim, talk to Donald Trump about this. Reciprocal laws that regulate European companies in the US are only fair. Why are only American companies regulated in other countries?

For example, the US should form a council and grade every luxury product on quality. Every luxury brand from Europe must get a quality certificate, and the US should maintain a website where all the products of the same grade are listed, sortable by price.

That means: If Hermès wants to sell leather in the US, it should get a grade. Let’s say Hermès has A++ leather. Then any company can get their leather graded and added to the US website. Customers can search for A++ leather and sort it by price. Now this is the kind of regulation that will benefit customers for sure.

You are seriously implying that only American companies are regulated in other countries, and companies from other countries aren't regulated at all? Like are you even for real? Of course European companies have to adhere to US regulations when they're active in the US, or Indian companies have to adhere to Brazilian regulations when active in Brazil? Are you seriously implying that ONLY American companies are targeted to follow regulations of other countries/regions/trade blocks?

 

[cyb3rdud3]

The law was clearly written to target American companies and avoid EU ones. Sure, if an EU company gets big enough the DMA will apply, but there's a reason SAP and Spotify are excluded - it's because the EU wrote the law to ensure they wouldn't be impacted.

Please do tell me where in this act SAP and Spotify are excluded? https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2022.265.01.0001.01.ENG

 

[Mother Nature]

Apple ofc is not concerned about that privacy nonsense. They want the money.

Well, they developed the platform, the hardware, I think they have the right to charge developers for every "consumer purchase or subscription", Apple should lower the fine to 15% though.

 

[MLVC]

The law was clearly written to target American companies and avoid EU ones. Sure, if an EU company gets big enough the DMA will apply, but there's a reason SAP and Spotify are excluded - it's because the EU wrote the law to ensure they wouldn't be impacted.

The things Americans believe....

1. They feel the world is their playground and they should just do whatever they're used to doing back home.
2. They pull the victim card as soon as they discover that, oh wait, the world is not their playground and they can't do what they do in the US. Conveniently forgetting that American companies totally dominate the tech world.

 

[surferfb]

Please do tell me where in this act SAP and Spotify are excluded? https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2022.265.01.0001.01.ENG

Again, I said the law was written so they would be excluded, not that the law excludes them by name.

As one example, "music streaming services" were not listed as a covered area a company could be a gatekeeper, despite video streaming (i.e. YouTube) being included. I wonder why that is? I mean, iPadOS was declared a gatekeeper despite not meeting the metrics written into the law because of the number of "business users" who use iPadOS to reach its customers. You mean to tell me musicians aren't business users who use Spotify to reach their customers? Then why doesn't the DMA apply to Spotify? Because the law was purposely written to exclude Spotify.

But don't take my work for it. Here’s a European professor (emphasis mine):

The spectre of protectionist intervention is reinforced by the fact that revenue thresholds outlined in the DMA seem designed purposefully to exclude European platforms, notably Spotify

 

[davide_eu]

.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Given overall world events and the directional leanings of various administrations at this point, I have a hard time being critical of the EU personally.

I would’ve hoped us Americans had learned that Apple is not really doing things in our interest.

Whether it’s trying to curry favor with the wannabe authoritarian or lying to our face in marketing now with Apple Intelligence features that don’t even functionally exist..

Be real careful believing that Apple’s motives are pure and on the level anymore.
We as Apple customers are not exempt from being frog boiled.

Apple has changed a lot under Tim Cook and in the last 10+ years.

Consider … Gruber has now found himself publicly critical of Apple.
That alone is a bit shocking to me, still.

 

[steve09090]

So much wrong with that post that it's hard to know where to start.

You seem to be confusing civil and criminal law.

If the penalty is a fine, then it's a criminal matter. Civil matters are dealt with by damages, injunctions or other orders.

Since it's criminal, the only real options for punishment are fines or imprisonment. Since you can't imprison a company, fines are the only option realistically available.

Also, since it's a fine, and not damages Billy Bob ain't seeing a penny of it - this is not a type of class action lawsuit. It gets paid into the general finances. As another poster said, Billy Bob will derive some benefit from it through general spending, but not directly.

The ideal outcome is no fines collected as companies comply with the law, and consumers are protected. They don't want Apples money, but they have to enforce the law because if they don't, everyone will just ignore it and consumers suffer.

It’s not criminal. It’s not civil. It’s commercial, also known as trade law. Companies can get fined by breaching trade laws and it is not considered criminal. If you’re going to try and be high and mighty on this, be accurate.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

The things Americans believe....

1. They feel the world is their playground and they should just do whatever they're used to doing back home.
2. They pull the victim card as soon as they discover that, oh wait, the world is not their playground and they can't do what they do in the US. Conveniently forgetting that American companies totally dominate the tech world.

It is absolutely crazy isn't it. Trump and his cronies exclaim these untruths, and they just repeat it without any kind of critical thinking. The way they are going against educational institutes now is taking it to another level. The absolutely funny thing is that all of this is so easily debunked or verified. It just doesn't seem to matter to to them.

 

[j26]

It’s not criminal. It’s not civil. It’s commercial, also known as trade law. Companies can get fined by breaching trade laws and it is not considered criminal. If you’re going to try and be high and mighty on this, be accurate.

Again, it's criminal. Commercial law is a branch of civil law.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Again, I said the law was written so they would be excluded, not that the law excludes them by name.

As one example, "music streaming services" were not listed as a covered area a company could be a gatekeeper, despite video streaming (i.e. YouTube) being included. I wonder why that is? I mean, iPadOS was declared a gatekeeper despite not meeting the metrics written into the law because of the number of "business users" who use iPadOS to reach its customers. You mean to tell me musicians aren't business users who use Spotify to reach their customers? Then why doesn't the DMA apply to Spotify? Because the law was purposely written to exclude Spotify.

But don't take my work for it. Here’s a European professor (emphasis mine):

They are literally excluded.

Ok, so which is it again?

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Again, it's criminal. Commercial law is a branch of civil law.

Actually that is not correct. The DMA is a regulatory framework in EU competition law. The enforcement is administrative in nature, handled by the EC. The fines are civil, administrative, not criminal.