They'd lose less money paying the fines than changing their practices.
It's what corporations do.
You should read that other Macrumors article posted today, Apple has already lost the case.
They'd lose less money paying the fines than changing their practices.
It's what corporations do.
ACM ≠ Governmentapple can squeeze some euros from developers in EU before inevitable new law
gov't can squeeze some euros from apple for time being
win-win
It's Apple taking the extra step, not me. I'm observing and without any intel about what they are trying to accomplish, I'm guessing at their strategy as you are. It's clear, at least to me, they are paying the fines so they don't have to rip apart their infrastructure to accommodate changes, which could cost them billions instead of millions.That's kind of the same thing I said. Cook is trying to find the line. The only difference is that my reasoning for Apple trying to get right up to the line is because $$$. For you, it's Cook trying to not fracture iOS. Of course they could adopt the same changes everywhere that the Netherlands is forcing on them so as to not fracture iOS, but of course that conflicts with maximum $$$. So we're saying the same thing, but you take an extra step to get there.
And if fines eventually continue, Apple will leave the Dutch market altogether and pull all their products (including Macs and iPhones) instead of complying. It won’t matter to Apple in terms of market share, they have other country they can rely on.
Does apple even do enough business in Denmark to justify these fines?
Would be hilarious if they just stopped formally operating in the country lol
The Netherlands.If they comply, other countries will smell blood and follow with regulations
The total cost of covid related disease in The Netherlands is > €80 billion, just saying.Other countries should do this too, get some of that covid cost back, LOL
I'm talking about an extra step in your estimation of their strategy. At the end of the day, we both agree it's about money.It's Apple taking the extra step, not me. I'm observing and without any intel about what they are trying to accomplish, I'm guessing at their strategy as you are. It's clear, at least to me, they are paying the fines so they don't have to rip apart their infrastructure to accommodate changes, which could cost them billions instead of millions.
1. The NetherlandsI wouldn’t call cessation if operations in a country complying.
Let the politicians sweat when their voters can’t buy pretty iPhones in Denmark anymore.
Tbh apple only has 23% market share in the EU in general. Begs the question as to if some of these markets are worth the regulatory headaches.
Sure, it’s my opinion of what I believe their strategy to be. Apple would gladly pay billions not to perform major surgery on their ecosystem, but if they have to perform major surgery on their ecosystem, they might as well try to lose as little as possible.I'm talking about an extra step in your estimation of their strategy. At the end of the day, we both agree it's about money.
Then most likely Apple will probably have to discontinue providing App Store and iMessage service to the EU.
? Well it will be the sum of this all…Dunno why you got a thumbs down. This is literal pennies to Apple. I don't understand these lawsuits that are trying to make a difference. They do the same with Facebook. I'm sure if they threatened to fine them 200 billion dollars they would probably stop doing whatever it is they are being sued for.
Get real, Boy!Then most likely Apple will probably have to discontinue providing App Store and iMessage service to the EU.
Or even give in and shut the whole company down.
Apple’s willing to spend every single penny defending their empire they built.
(Sips Apple Kool-Aid while I type this ?)
I’m gobsmacked on how people won’t vote with their $$$, if they don’t like a companies practices. Don’t buy the damn product if you don’t like it.I hope they increase the fines
And that the DMA act will get trough fast. Then companies can’t just brush it off like it’s nothing.
I am really flabbergasted by how many people just completely follow Apple on everything, even if it is anti consumer. Looks like it’s a religion for some…
I honestly don't see these moves as being anti-consumer. Pretty telling when they are all being brought forward by other companies, and there has been zero feedback solicited from the ground as to what we (the end users) think of these proposed changes.I hope they increase the fines
And that the DMA act will get trough fast. Then companies can’t just brush it off like it’s nothing.
I am really flabbergasted by how many people just completely follow Apple on everything, even if it is anti consumer. Looks like it’s a religion for some…
When your choices are 'bad' and 'worse', you don't really have a meaningful vote. And of course, if all consumers had to do in order to effect change is vote with their wallet, we wouldn't need antitrust or product safety laws now would we?I’m gobsmacked on how people won’t vote with their $$$, if they don’t like a companies practices. Don’t buy the damn product if you don’t like it.
They’re trying to do what’s possible and all of their efforts will be what’s possible. The regulators don’t want what’s possible, they JUST want the fees. The point in the theater is “We’ve tried, but they’re just interested in charging fees. At this rate, it would be $260,000,000 a year to stay in the Dutch dating app market. As the affected dating app market isn’t worth that much to us, we shall resolve the issue by requiring all dating apps to be resubmitted such that they don’t operate if they’re geographically located within the country.”To what end? Saying they tried when apparently, according to you at least, it's so obvious they're not really trying, isn't going to stop the fines. So what's the point in their "theater."
There are dozens of smartphone manufacturers. And so far Apple has not been found for any anti-trust violation in the US, except one California provision.When your choices are 'bad' and 'worse', you don't really have a meaningful vote. And of course, if all consumers had to do in order to effect change is vote with their wallet, we wouldn't need antitrust or product safety laws now would we?
That's beside my broader point though. It would seem that according to you, we don't need antitrust laws or product safety laws, right? We can all just vote with our wallets and the market will go where we want, so why have all that regulation in place anyway?There are dozens of smartphone manufacturers. And so far Apple has not been found for any anti-trust violation in the US, except one California provision.
Dutch = The Netherlands. The Kingdom of the NetherlandsDoes apple even do enough business in Denmark to justify these fines?
Would be hilarious if they just stopped formally operating in the country lol
If according to you saying that I am promulgating that we don’t need antitrust laws or product safety laws, then you are all for more and broader for more legislation because we are under regulated.That's beside my broader point though. It would seem that according to you, we don't need antitrust laws or product safety laws, right? We can all just vote with our wallets and the market will go where we want, so why have all that regulation in place anyway?
Tough to be in a monopoly when you don’t have a majority of the market shareWhen your choices are 'bad' and 'worse', you don't really have a meaningful vote. And of course, if all consumers had to do in order to effect change is vote with their wallet, we wouldn't need antitrust or product safety laws now would we?
In some areas we are under-regulated in my view. But apparently areas where voting with your wallet is applicable, that’s all that’s needed. Otherwise, why is the argument “well you can vote with your wallet so why do you want this?” And again, there are only two choices with your vote. Mobile OS’s are not a vibrant, thriving, and competitive market. Saying that sometimes we need other regulations like antitrust and product safety laws would seem to be a tacit admission that voting with your wallet isn’t always a reliable mechanism to effect change in a market, particularly when a market lacks competition.If according to you saying that I am promulgating that we don’t need antitrust laws or product safety laws, then you are all for more and broader for more legislation because we are under regulated.
I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or not, but one would think regulation is needed in a broad way to protect society, protect life and finances along with the remainder of the myriad of laws on our books that are needed in modern life.
Enacting a law to force iMessage to support protocols apple doesn’t want to support, is governmental overreach. And yet like death and taxes here it comes.
Not anywhere in my post did I say anything about a monopoly.Tough to be in a monopoly when you don’t have a majority of the market share View attachment 1980887
Countries have the right and the responsibility to create regulations that their constituents want.