Apple Reportedly on EU 'Hit List' of Big Tech Companies Targeted for Regulation

[MacRumors]

EU regulators are taking aim at up to 20 big tech companies, including Apple, as part of a "hit list" that seeks to curb their market influence, reports The Financial Times.

The plans reportedly involve the demand that larger tech companies face tougher regulations than smaller competitors, data sharing with rivals, and increased transparency on data gathering. The move is part of a wider effort by EU lawmakers to increase competition in the technology industry.

The list is to be determined based on market share, competition, and number of users, meaning that Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon are all likely to be implicated.

Under the plans, big tech companies could quickly be forced to change their business practices without the need for an investigation or the breaking of any law. In extreme circumstances, big tech companies could be broken up if they are found to be discouraging rivals.

The news comes as the Korea Herald reports that a leading global economic watchdog, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, has proposed an overhaul of international tax rule aimed at big tech companies which could raise an extra $100 billion worldwide. The global tax framework overhaul is to be presented to 20 finance ministers from around the world this week and could be implemented as soon as next year.

Earlier this month, it was reported that the EU was planning to implement wide-ranging legal measures to compel major tech companies to share data with competitors and give no preference to their own apps and services as part of its new Digital Services Act. The legislation is expected to be publicized in full by the end of this year to prevent further long-lasting antitrust cases.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Reportedly on EU 'Hit List' of Big Tech Companies Targeted for Regulation

 

[itsmilo]

This cannot not end in a mess. Every country in the EU will want their own regulations pushed through. We cannot even agree on COVID-19 rules within one country, let alone for something like this

 

[Gorms]

Let's all just hope that whatever the plans are, they are better thought out than the cookie notification one.

 

[Juan007]

They don't even pretend anymore. "Hit list"? Just call these "governments" what they really are -- gangsters who want their cut.

STEVE JOBS created iPhone and Apple reaps the rewards. If the EU doesn't like that then they should encourage innovation in their own borders instead of raising taxes and going after successful people and companies.

 

[casperes1996]

I'm in favour of a lot of regulation in many ways, because pure capitalism doesn't always serve the people - look at the video games industry for a good demonstration of both workers and consumers getting the short end of the stick, or car manufacturers skimping on safety and environmental protections to save a few pennies - if all that drives you is profit, your decisions sometimes does not benefit people as a whole and can have hugely detrimental effects, and minimal competition is a detriment to the wider economy as well.

With all that out, if this is done in the way it sounds in the article - that's not good regulation. If this gets to a point where there's a parliamentary vote, I will write my MEP representatives and I encourage everyone else to do the same.
I too want European businesses to thrive in the tech sector, but the path to that is not to try and split up or force unreasonable rules on the big players that new players can circumvent. I'm in favour of data protection like GDPR but rules should apply evenly. By all means try and close off tax-avoidance loopholes, do tiered taxation systems, all that. Do things to help the consumer. Splitting up these companies and putting restrictions on them new European business don't have to abide by is not regulating for the sake of the consumer, but just unfair protectionism.

 

[G5isAlive]

Politicians seeking to grab the spotlight are exactly the people I trust to manage business practices and technology challenges. What a great system.

 

[justperry]

Let's all just hope that whatever the plans are, they are better thought out than the cookie notification one.

Hopefully so, that indeed is a mess.
I do agree with the topic at hand, something has to be done about it, they combined have way too much influence, although I think Apple is of a lesser problem compared to Facebook/Google/Amazon.

 

[IsaacM]

Good. Big tech needs to be put under control.

Waiting for the brainwashed Americans to come defend their favorite multi-trillion dollar corporation while they fear getting sick so they don't get left with crippling debt.

 

[casperes1996]

Let's all just hope that whatever the plans are, they are better thought out than the cookie notification one.

The cookie thing could work nicely if it were more standardised. If instead of a website thing that each web page had to implement on their own, the browser got involved and the dialog belonged to the browser rather than the webpage, and you could have checkboxes for "always allow" and "always disallow all" or "always disallow third party advertising" and so on. I'd love that

 

[threesixty360]

The thing I don't like the most about all this is that when you hear the politicians talk you can tell that they just don't understand the businesses they are trying to regulate. You saw it the other day when they were all on the stand. It's so corny and so frustrating to know that people who don't understand get to have a say about things because they managed to get some votes from the public.

Democracy the way we implement it can have some crazy backward results.

 

[justperry]

The cookie thing could work nicely if it were more standardised. If instead of a website thing that each web page had to implement on their own, the browser got involved and the dialog belonged to the browser rather than the webpage, and you could have checkboxes for "always allow" and "always disallow all" or "always disallow third party advertising" and so on. I'd love that

It should be defaulted to Opt out, not opt in.
I do agree, it's a complete mess, one has a popup after clicking on settings with all options off, the other one you need to click a lot of boxes, insanity.

 

[G5isAlive]

I'm in favour of a lot of regulation in many ways, because pure capitalism doesn't always serve the people - look at the video games industry for a good demonstration of both workers and consumers getting the short end of the stick, or car manufacturers skimping on safety and environmental protections to save a few pennies - if all that drives you is profit, your decisions sometimes does not benefit people as a whole and can have hugely detrimental effects, and minimal competition is a detriment to the wider economy as well.

Since you start out general, so will I. I find it amusing people that always blame the greedy designer/manufacturer cutting corners for profit without acknowledging the complicity of the consumer that wants the cheapest item they can get. To take your example, you want a safer car? Pay more. There are companies with excellent safety records because they spend the extra R&D dollars, and buy the better components. Pay the money for what you want. If you want to buy a sirloin steak on a MacDonald's budget you will always being crying foul. Just saying. Capitalism does indeed give you choice to fit your budget in almost all categories, including electronic.

With all that out, if this is done in the way it sounds in the article - that's not good regulation. If this gets to a point where there's a parliamentary vote, I will write my MEP representatives and I encourage everyone else to do the same.
I too want European businesses to thrive in the tech sector, but the path to that is not to try and split up or force unreasonable rules on the big players that new players can circumvent. I'm in favour of data protection like GDPR but rules should apply evenly. By all means try and close off tax-avoidance loopholes, do tiered taxation systems, all that. Do things to help the consumer. Splitting up these companies and putting restrictions on them new European business don't have to abide by is not regulating for the sake of the consumer, but just unfair protectionism.

My problem with the regulations as stated is they seem to be more an attention grabbing move than a well thought out plan. Power to the people always sounds good, doesn't always work out that way. Successful small businesses exist, but they are usually the ones with a carefully formulated exit plan to sell their technology as they develop it. It is senseless to penalize the large companies with the infrastructure to actually commercialize a product.

 

[gaximus]

How could they break up a company that’s not in their country?

 

[yaxomoxay]

"Under the plans, big tech companies could quickly be forced to change their business practices without the need for an investigation or the breaking of any law. In extreme circumstances, big tech companies could be broken up if they are found to be discouraging rivals."

Is this a joke?

 

[Unggoy Murderer]

It should be defaulted to Opt out, not opt in.
I do agree, it's a complete mess, one has a popup after clicking on settings with all options off, the other one you need to click a lot of boxes, insanity.

Most website are opt-in, they wouldn't be compliant if they don't do it that way.

Dark patterns are to blame here. When you press "Allow" / "I understand" - so on - there's often always a "By clicking <button> you allow us to do <nefarious actions>.". It's a perfectly legal "loophole", but sadly it's not in the spirit of the GDPR. The GDPR is probably the only EU directive that's actually got good intentions.

 

[mazz0]

Since you start out general, so will I. I find it amusing people that always blame the greedy designer/manufacturer cutting corners for profit without acknowledging the complicity of the consumer that wants the cheapest item they can get. To take your example, you want a safer car? Pay more. There are companies with excellent safety records because they spend the extra R&D dollars, and buy the better components.

You overestimate the power of the individual acting alone, it's part of how capitalism works to benefit the already-rich-and-powerful. A group of people can agree that they'd like to see a situation change a certain way, and if they all acted in unison they could make it happen. The problem is when they're acting individually one person pay the cost with no guarantee they'll see the benefit, yet if enough people do so then the change may happen and the people who didn't pay the cost still benefit.

An example: Let's say a group of people, which includes Alice and Bob, agree they would like to see Business B stop buying up smaller ones before they get a chance to grow into competitors. Alice decides to try and make this change happen by boycotting business B, which comes at a significant cost to her as there's no real alternative to business B (it bought them all up). Bob shares Alice's concern, but isn't willing to pay the cost. Now one of two things happens: either enough people act like Alice and Business B changes its practices, in which case Bob got the result he wanted for free, or nothing changes and Alice has paid the price for nothing. So Bob's better off that Alice either way. From a strictly selfish perspective the system incentivises you to do nothing.

If, on the other hand, the people work collectively, for example by empowering democratically elected representatives to set rules that Business B must follow, then they can not only achieve their goal but also share the costs and benefits more fairly.

I think what I've just described is a well know element of economics/politics and probably has at least one proper name, and plenty people explaining it better than I can (I'd appreciate it if someone can link to somebody doing so!)

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

STEVE JOBS created iPhone and Apple reaps the rewards.

Did he? 🤔

 

[Gorms]

The cookie thing could work nicely if it were more standardised. If instead of a website thing that each web page had to implement on their own, the browser got involved and the dialog belonged to the browser rather than the webpage, and you could have checkboxes for "always allow" and "always disallow all" or "always disallow third party advertising" and so on. I'd love that

I seriously don't know why something like your solution hasn't happened yet at the browser level. We could even show a red icon in the browser chrome somewhere on page load, something nice and discreet, out of the way, but still obvious and clear that a user could take action and not impeding what I'm on page to see. For a developer, implementation could be as simple as adding some meta tags to announce conformance. The only reasons I can think we have this current situation:

A) This is a Europe problem and browsers are primarily US made and no one over there sees the issue or cares

B) Legally, for some reason, we can't just have something nice and discreet and instead have to deal with this interminable solution as is

 

[casperes1996]

It should be defaulted to Opt out, not opt in.
I do agree, it's a complete mess, one has a popup after clicking on settings with all options off, the other one you need to click a lot of boxes, insanity.

Agreed. Always hated that design pattern. It's so clearly engineered to make people give up and just press agree all. You just got to the article you want to read, the cookie thing comes up, and you sigh deeply. "If I click to 'manage cookies' because I don't want their trackers, I'm going to have to go through another page, deselect 20 checkboxes, click OK and be brought back to the front page where I have to find the article again... Or I could click accept all". And you don't just have to do it once per site - it will reset and get you to go through all that again. It's not so much a choice as a battle of attrition.

Since you start out general, so will I. I find it amusing people that always blame the greedy designer/manufacturer cutting corners for profit without acknowledging the complicity of the consumer that wants the cheapest item they can get. To take your example, you want a safer car? Pay more. There are companies with excellent safety records because they spend the extra R&D dollars, and buy the better components. Pay the money for what you want. If you want to buy a sirloin steak on a MacDonald's budget you will always being crying foul. Just saying. Capitalism does indeed give you choice to fit your budget in almost all categories, including electronic.

You don't always have a choice without regulation. You may be in charge of the safety of the car you buy, but not the one your neighbour buys - or how often he gets it checked by a mechanic. If there's no regulation for any of it, his brake might fall off and the car will smash right into someone you care about or yourself
I'm sure you also agree with there being a speed limit even though could also argue that people just should not drive faster than a sensible speed and that could be their own judgment rather than a law.

And as you point out, it has to fit within your budget. Making car safety an expected standard rather than an up-sell significantly lowers the barrier of entry for safety, both in terms of economy of scale and in terms of the incentive for market differentiation of a luxury and a budget brand being shifted. - Setting minimal standards often lowers the cost for everyone. Medicine is a good example; The US is one of the countries (the country?) with the highest cost of medicine. Sweden considers it a right that people can get the medicine they need and it is to a great extend covered by the government. All medication is significantly cheaper there. - And I'm not talking about the price to the customer here - I am talking about the full price, including the part covered by the government. Because there's much better bargaining power with the sellers, and you can buy in bulk. Furthermore there's not a doctor in the mix who gets a commission on the sale and wants to get you to buy the more expensive brand that's the exact same as the cheaper alternative in terms of the chemical makeup.


All in all, where you put the boundary isn't cut in stone. But I'm sure we can agree that some regulation, minor or major, is a good thing.

Regarding your other paragraph I don't have much to say, really

 

[MvdM]

Can't we break up the EU? They are talking too much nonsense, which has a negative effect on the people.

 

[casperes1996]

Did he? 🤔

Yes. Don't you dare give credit to the huge team at Apple that brought it to life. Only pray to Jobs

 

[justperry]

Most website are opt-in, they wouldn't be compliant if they don't do it that way.

Dark patterns are to blame here. When you press "Allow" / "I understand" - so on - there's often always a "By clicking <button> you allow us to do <nefarious actions>.". It's a perfectly legal "loophole", but sadly it's not in the spirit of the GDPR. The GDPR is probably the only EU directive that's actually got good intentions.

I might have not said in the right way, If I go to a website it should default to opt out, this means no popup with Options, If you want to Opt in there should be a button in a default position on that page on every site/subpage to do so.

 

[t76turbo]

Good. Big tech needs to be put under control.

Waiting for the brainwashed Americans to come defend their favorite multi-trillion dollar corporation while they fear getting sick so they don't get left with crippling debt.

Macrumors is an American company talking about rumors regarding another American company. If you are so against American things, why dont you leave and dont come back? No one is keeping you here. And no one is forcing you to buy an Apple product.

The second they do force you to buy one, I will support your opinion whole heartedly. Until then, Leave!

 

[casperes1996]

I seriously don't know why something like your solution hasn't happened yet at the browser level. We could even show a red icon in the browser chrome somewhere on page load, something nice and discreet, out of the way, but still obvious and clear that a user could take action and not impeding what I'm on page to see. For a developer, implementation could be as simple as adding some meta tags to announce conformance. The only reasons I can think we have this current situation:

A) This is a Europe problem and browsers are primarily US made and no one over there sees the issue or cares

B) Legally, for some reason, we can't just have something nice and discreet and instead have to deal with this interminable solution as is

Well, I think if it were to happen it would have to go through the W3C. If they standardised the tags it could work. The EU legislation would also have to be modified a little because as it stands the websites are held responsible - if a flaw was found in this system, like a browser that didn't implement it properly, websites wouldn't dare use it, so just using the standardised tags and trusting the browser should be permitted under the law, but where responsibility should then go is debatable - If I build a browser as a hobby and publish that should I be held accountable? Should the user be for using a browser that doesn't acknowledge the tags?

I think it would be an elegant solution but I do see some roadblocks

 

[RickDEGH]

Meanwhile in Germany if you’re not one of Edeka, Rewe, Aldi, Lidl, and to some extent Tegut or Penny, you can’t even be in the groceries business.