EU Plans to Fine Apple for Anticompetitive App Store Practices

[cicalinarrot]

Really so Apple FORCED you to buy their product did they. Did they use a knife, gun, threaten family members in this coercion that they applied to make you buy there products and use there services.

how is it that you are FORCED to buy there products and services,

blablabla

Cute strawman there.
That's exactly the point, people want iPhones. Apple uses that for illegal (in the EU) practices.
I want to buy Apple products AND I want the to follow the law. I see no inconsistency there.
Just like I want to eat McDonald's AND I want their food to be safe and regulated, I won't accept that someone just tells me McDonald's should be allowed to sell poisoned food and I'm the one to blame if I trust them.

Now, you argue that it's an unjust law because, if a company is popular and sells a product, they should be allowed to leverage that how they want to upsell stuff. We had many similar cases here, like for compatibility of coffee pods. Competition is killed with cheap techniques such as giving a free machine with pods, customers are trapped with the same product. That's bad for all but the corporation. The richer the corporation, the better so no more competition.
If capitalism is any good, in principle, it's because it claims the best companies get to the top. Monopolies and anti-competition moves like this push to the top the one that creates the scammiest scheme and stops the game, so we've collectively decided they're bad, at least here.

 

[webkit]

They did offer safari on windows. It was not popular so it was discontinued.

Yes, for about five years. Safari is a much more popular and arguably better browser today and I think Apple should offer it on Windows (again), Android, etc. but there doesn't appear to be any plan to do so at this time.

Webkit is open source, you should know that. Google forked it to make the engine that runs chrome. Microsoft edge uses that same engine.

I do know it's open source and have posted about it in the past.

All descendants from safari's webkit which itself came from khtml.

My comment was specifically about Apple's browser version (Safari).

MacOS was actually licensed to third parties in the late 90s. Motorola made a computer called Star Max that was a mac clone. It got discontinued by steve jobs.

The current macOS underlying software is Darwin and that is also open source. It’s not the complete macOS, but nothing is stopping a third party from taking that code and making their own version like linux distros do.

My point here, if not obvious, was that the idea of fining companies for choosing not to enter a particular market is silly. Antitrust/competition laws and regulations are at least in part meant to lower or eliminate barriers in hopes that it will create new or increased competition and choice. They're not meant to force companies to enter a new market or punish them for not doing so.

 

[maxoakland]

Good. Apple deserves heavy fines for only pretending to comply with the law

 

[hagjohn]

I think the EU/EC is just addicted to the money now. At some point, Apple will have to do something or they are going to lose all their profits to the EU whenever they need a cash infusion.

 

[No5tromo]

EU being pro consumer. Apple fanboys: 😡

 

[Starfia]

What is cumbersome is that you guys never complain about your own massive problems, most countries in the EU are better to live in(higher ranked) than in the US, most of them are free, much more than you, I won’t go into details here, the list is long, but for starters, I hope you survive your new German leader🤔

Start complaining about your own crap.

Hi again, Justperry –

(You seem to be assuming I'm an American?)

I found myself typing this year that I've historically admired, and continue to admire, so much about Europe, and there are some ways in which perhaps every one of its nations is superior to the US. Even the good intentions behind the DMA are admirable, which is perhaps why its clumsy implementation and results stood out as exceptionally silly, nonsensical, and wasteful. I'm afraid you're once again sidestepping the issue itself. If you're upset about the criticism, then I'm sorry and I hope expressing your frustration improves your state of mind in some way, but that doesn't really negate the presence of this important and complex topic, nor the fact that people are interested and entitled to talk about it.

 

[Starfia]

EU being pro consumer. Apple fanboys: 😡

NoStormo – from my perspective, the issue with the DMA (and a history of similar tech regulation) is that the regulation indeed fails to live up to that descriptor. It's written and promoted in the interest of software developers as opposed to users, for a start.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That's the only thing you can vote for. And they (the EU parliament) do NOT create the legislation. They ONLY vote.


You should know who vote for the parties in the European Comission. It's the government of your own (corrupt) country. And THEY are the ones making the legislation.


Hahahahahaha funny. See ^


It's not, it's literally how the EU was designed. You only have something that looks like a democracy from the outside. But it's not, it never was and never will be. And that is by design.

This isn’t even close to how this works in EU
EU parliament = directly elected by the people From every member
Eu council = directly elected by the peoples or their representatives in parliament
Council of EU = directly elected by the peoples to their parliament and appointed by their government.

1. The European Council (composed of EU heads of state or government) provides a long-term Strategic Agenda that outlines priority areas. The Commission uses this agenda to align its legislative initiatives with the EU’s overarching goals
2. The Commission identifies issues that need EU-level intervention, often following consultation with stakeholders, including national governments, NGOs, businesses, and citizens.
3. European Parliament and Council of the European Union: Once drafted, the proposed law goes to the European Parliament and the Councilof the EU (representing national governments), which share legislative authority.
   • Parliament’s Role: The Parliament, elected by EU citizens, reviews and debates the draft law in relevant committees before making amendments. Once the committee agrees, the draft is debated in the full Parliament, where Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) vote on it.
     
     
     • Council’s Role: The Council, made up of government ministers from each EU country, simultaneously reviews the proposal. It may suggest its amendments and negotiate with the Parliament on contentious points.
     
     Adoption and Voting
     
     • Approval Process: Both the Parliament and the Council must agree on the final text. This often involves several rounds of negotiation between the two bodies, called trilogues. In these, representatives from the Commission, Parliament, and Council work to resolve differences.
     
     
     • Voting Requirements: Legislation typically requires a qualified majority in the Council, which means at least 55% of member states (15 of the 27) representing at least 65% of the EU population must approve. In the Parliament, a simple majority is usually enough.

Nomination of the Commission President:


• The European Council (comprising heads of state or government from EU member states) nominates a candidate for Commission President, taking into account the results of the European Parliament elections.


• The nominee is usually from the political group with the most seats in Parliament, reflecting the “Spitzenkandidat” (lead candidate) principle.


• The European Parliament then votes on the candidate. If the nominee wins an absolute majority, they are confirmed as the President. If not, the Council must propose a new candidate

Selection of Commissioners:

• Once appointed, the President-elect works with each EU member state to select a candidate for each Commissioner role. Each member state nominates one Commissioner, who is usually a national of that country.

• The President-elect assigns each Commissioner a specific portfolio, such as trade, environment, or digital policy.

Approval by the European Parliament:

• The nominated Commissioners and their portfolios undergo hearings in the European Parliament, where Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) assess each candidate’s suitability.

• After the hearings, the Parliament votes on the entire College of Commissioners as a single body. A majority vote in favor is needed for approval.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes. Majority rules. Which means France and Germany decide for everyone. Exactly my main issue. There is no Veto in the EU, so that's a big issue.

In the end, there are a lot of levels of decision making. With only a small one with direct input from the citizens. (EP) All other decisions are either inderect (local goverment, majority rules) or none at all.

If you'd ask me there should be a public referendum for each major legislation. (the Switserland model) And the people should decide. Not the lobby from NGOs.

Every level have an input from ether citizens directly or indirectly by their representatives such as head of state.

Germany have 96 seats that’s 15~%
France have 81 seats that’s 11~%
Thats 177 out of 720 seats or 25~%
They do not have any power to decide anything with a minority. Especially when their seats aren’t sll controlled by their government

NoStormo – from my perspective, the issue with the DMA (and a history of similar tech regulation) is that the regulation indeed fails to live up to that descriptor. It's written and promoted in the interest of software developers as opposed to users, for a start.

Well it’s explicitly not for consumers but for undertakings.

refers to any business entity engaged in economic activities, regardless of its legal status or how it is financed. This includes a wide range of entities, from individual entrepreneurs and small businesses to large corporations and multinational firms. The term is commonly used in EU competition law and regulation, as well as in policies that address market behaviors, mergers, and antitrust issues.

The EU often uses “undertakings” instead of “businesses” to capture a broad array of economic actors involved in commercial activities, ensuring that all entities, regardless of size or structure, are subject to the same regulatory standards and competition rules within the single market.

 

[surferfb]

Thats 177 out of 720 seats or 25~%
They do not have any power to decide anything with a minority.

I’ve been told on here repeatedly that 25% was clearly a big enough number to be a monopoly that deserves to be regulated like they control the market /snark

😛🤣😛

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I’ve been told on here repeatedly that 25% was clearly a big enough number to be a monopoly that deserves to be regulated like they control the market /snark

😛🤣😛

Well it’s funny considering Eu don’t have monopoly laws. What’s regulated is entrenched companies that abuse their position to harm the competition. That’s it.

 

[Col4bin]

Supra-nationals are the only way we will combat planetary-scale problems that affect us all. I fully expect the USA, Canada, Mexico and Latin states to form a free trade and free movement bloc at some point in future.

Like NAFTA?

 

[Ctrlos]

Like NAFTA?

It would go further, with closer political alignment at an almost federal level. Imagine the whole of the North American continent using the same currency and having one federal government responsible for centralised control of things like defence, labour laws and banking.

If you've ever played it, think the world of Front Mission.

 

[mcnallym]

Cute strawman there.
That's exactly the point, people want iPhones. Apple uses that for illegal (in the EU) practices.
I want to buy Apple products AND I want the to follow the law. I see no inconsistency there.
Just like I want to eat McDonald's AND I want their food to be safe and regulated, I won't accept that someone just tells me McDonald's should be allowed to sell poisoned food and I'm the one to blame if I trust them.

Now, you argue that it's an unjust law because, if a company is popular and sells a product, they should be allowed to leverage that how they want to upsell stuff. We had many similar cases here, like for compatibility of coffee pods. Competition is killed with cheap techniques such as giving a free machine with pods, customers are trapped with the same product. That's bad for all but the corporation. The richer the corporation, the better so no more competition.
If capitalism is any good, in principle, it's because it claims the best companies get to the top. Monopolies and anti-competition moves like this push to the top the one that creates the scammiest scheme and stops the game, so we've collectively decided they're bad, at least here.

And nice attempt at deflection when you said people exaggerating if not lieing and called on doing precisely that yourself, and clearly cannot handle that got caught at it and had to edit my post down and then lie about what I posted.

However I now see that you have understood that I fact Apple don't force you to buy there products as per your original post but you WANT to use them. WANTING not FORCED then you CHOOSE to buy them.

My FULL post is quoted below and NOWHERE in it does make any argument about the EU Regulations and the rightness or wrongness of them. Doesn't even mention the EU or Regulations at all so how is it making an argument either way about them.

Now if you hadn't been such a hypocrite as to do the exact thing accusing others of then I wouldn't have even bothered to respond to the post!

That means absolutely nothing to me, it just feels like rhetoric.
I enjoy liberties, laws and projects provided by the EU on a daily basis. I vote to choose who represents me in the EU parliament. Its policies are usually way closer to my interests than my own utterly corrupt country. I love having that superior control over my politicians when they violate obvious principles. You can explain something a thousand times, it doesn't matter to me if I know for sure it's an exaggeration (not to call it an uninformed lie).
I'm also very aware the EU has primarily economic interests and I don't agree with many of their methods. But I don't see how that's different from any other national state.

Anyway, in this specific case, my country could do almost nothing alone to protect me from being forced into a monopoly. The EU can. I've been wanting a more free development path on Apple devices for a long time, as a user (jailbroken my first iPod Mini a couple decades ago) and as a developer for the last decade (I pay Apple their share and I'm also forced to buy horribly overpriced, unupgradable and unrepairable Macs every few years).
This is one of the EU laws that are closer to me. Even if you were right and the EU was designed for some evil plan, this is obviously not the case where it's bad for citizens.

Here is your FULL post claiming you are forced to buy Apple products.

Really so Apple FORCED you to buy their product did they. Did they use a knife, gun, threaten family members in this coercion that they applied to make you buy there products and use there services.

how is it that you are FORCED to buy there products and services,

or perhaps you have somewhat exaggerated, dare i say flat out lied when said Apple has FORCED or MADE you do something.

how is it that Apple force you to develop for their ecosystem as opposed to developing for the alternatives.

you made a CHOICE to develop for Apples Ecosystem. Once you made that choice then you need to buy what is required to do the development, ie a Mac. Surely part of your CHOICE to develop for Apple Ecosystem is looking at the cost of developing vs the reward, ie how much to buy an iPhone, iPad, Mac etc and making an informed decision as to wether to do so or not.

I use

Mac Studio
Apple TV
iPad
iPhone
Apple TV purchased movies, tv shows.

now the phone, and pad can be swapped out for android equivalent.
the Mac Studio can be replaced by Wintel Machine.
Apple TV anything with a P.ex Client that can connect to TV. (Not exactly a shortage of choice there)
apple content , can be downloaded and have the DRM stripped and put into Plex.

In no way is Apple holding me hostage. I evaluated doing this before buying the Mac Studio however decided to stick with Apple as all works nicely for me.

I have a friend who won’t touch Apple with a barge pole precisely because is locked down etc. instead he buys the alternatives to Apple instead of buying Apple then complaing about Apple.

And that is my post pointing out you doing what you accuse others of doing.

My FULL post is quoted here and NOWHERE in it does it even MENTION the EU or Laws or Regulations.

1.) I simply ask HOW Apple FORCED you into buying there products, admittedly somewhat facetiously.
2.) Tell you were not FORCED but it by YOUR CHOICE that you buy Apple Products
3.) Point out how even though I am invested in the Apple EcoSystem, I can leave it without any issues and what I would need to do. That in no way am I hostage to Apple and forced to continue to buy there products and can switch out to alternatives.

MY Post was 100% about YOU doing what accused others of and then in the same post did the exact same thing yourself.

This last post of yours isn't even exaggeration but flat out LIE about what I posted as nowhere in there does it even mention the EU or Regulation. Not sure how can be making claims about EU Regulation when don't mention either Regulation or EU. Simply that you make a FREE CHOICE to buy and use Apple Products and that absolutely nothing stopping you moving away from them. Like I said nice attempt at Deflection.

If you don't want to get pointed out that you did in the same post what you accuse others of then don't do it and you won't get called out that doing it.

 

[Col4bin]

It would go further, with closer political alignment at an almost federal level. Imagine the whole of the North American continent using the same currency and having one federal government responsible for centralised control of things like defence, labour laws and banking.

If you've ever played it, think the world of Front Mission.

Sounds like George Soros loving New World Order.

 

[cicalinarrot]

And nice attempt at deflection when you said people exaggerating if not lieing and called on doing precisely that yourself, and clearly cannot handle that got caught at it and had to edit my post down and then lie about what I posted.

However I now see that you have understood that I fact Apple don't force you to buy there products as per your original post but you WANT to use them. WANTING not FORCED then you CHOOSE to buy them.

My FULL post is quoted below and NOWHERE in it does make any argument about the EU Regulations and the rightness or wrongness of them. Doesn't even mention the EU or Regulations at all so how is it making an argument either way about them.

Now if you hadn't been such a hypocrite as to do the exact thing accusing others of then I wouldn't have even bothered to respond to the post!



Here is your FULL post claiming you are forced to buy Apple products.

And that is my post pointing out you doing what you accuse others of doing.

My FULL post is quoted here and NOWHERE in it does it even MENTION the EU or Laws or Regulations.

1.) I simply ask HOW Apple FORCED you into buying there products, admittedly somewhat facetiously.
2.) Tell you were not FORCED but it by YOUR CHOICE that you buy Apple Products
3.) Point out how even though I am invested in the Apple EcoSystem, I can leave it without any issues and what I would need to do. That in no way am I hostage to Apple and forced to continue to buy there products and can switch out to alternatives.

MY Post was 100% about YOU doing what accused others of and then in the same post did the exact same thing yourself.

This last post of yours isn't even exaggeration but flat out LIE about what I posted as nowhere in there does it even mention the EU or Regulation. Not sure how can be making claims about EU Regulation when don't mention either Regulation or EU. Simply that you make a FREE CHOICE to buy and use Apple Products and that absolutely nothing stopping you moving away from them. Like I said nice attempt at Deflection.

If you don't want to get pointed out that you did in the same post what you accuse others of then don't do it and you won't get called out that doing it.

You thought it was about users. It's about developers. It's still relative and you pretended it's absolute (there's your strawman, if that wasn't clear) but it definitely proves how evil Apple is.
If you want to develop apps for iPhone (and it's very hard to do since they have most of the market) you can't do that if you don't buy a Mac. An overpriced (at least with acceptable specs) unrepairable, unupgradable machine that you can't use anymore for development after a relatively little number of OS upgrades.
Gee, read more carefully.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And nice attempt at deflection when you said people exaggerating if not lieing and called on doing precisely that yourself, and clearly cannot handle that got caught at it and had to edit my post down and then lie about what I posted.

However I now see that you have understood that I fact Apple don't force you to buy there products as per your original post but you WANT to use them. WANTING not FORCED then you CHOOSE to buy them.

My FULL post is quoted below and NOWHERE in it does make any argument about the EU Regulations and the rightness or wrongness of them. Doesn't even mention the EU or Regulations at all so how is it making an argument either way about them.

Now if you hadn't been such a hypocrite as to do the exact thing accusing others of then I wouldn't have even bothered to respond to the post!



Here is your FULL post claiming you are forced to buy Apple products.

And that is my post pointing out you doing what you accuse others of doing.

My FULL post is quoted here and NOWHERE in it does it even MENTION the EU or Laws or Regulations.

1.) I simply ask HOW Apple FORCED you into buying there products, admittedly somewhat facetiously.
2.) Tell you were not FORCED but it by YOUR CHOICE that you buy Apple Products
3.) Point out how even though I am invested in the Apple EcoSystem, I can leave it without any issues and what I would need to do. That in no way am I hostage to Apple and forced to continue to buy there products and can switch out to alternatives.

MY Post was 100% about YOU doing what accused others of and then in the same post did the exact same thing yourself.

This last post of yours isn't even exaggeration but flat out LIE about what I posted as nowhere in there does it even mention the EU or Regulation. Not sure how can be making claims about EU Regulation when don't mention either Regulation or EU. Simply that you make a FREE CHOICE to buy and use Apple Products and that absolutely nothing stopping you moving away from them. Like I said nice attempt at Deflection.

If you don't want to get pointed out that you did in the same post what you accuse others of then don't do it and you won't get called out that doing it.

1.) I simply ask HOW Apple FORCED you into buying there products, admittedly somewhat facetiously.​

Apple prevents undertakers from conducting lawful business transactions to their customers. Apple provides unjustified barriers and harms the developer market for iOS devices.

2.) Tell you were not FORCED but it by YOUR CHOICE that you buy Apple Products​

​

Locking users to a platform isn’t legal when it disproportionately affects competitors that provide the same services.

3.) Point out how even though I am invested in the Apple EcoSystem, I can leave it without any issues and what I would need to do. That in no way am I hostage to Apple and forced to continue to buy there products and can switch out to alternatives.​

That’s great but undertakers can’t leave it without abandoning their business for arbitrary reasons dictated by their rival.

Had Apple had the AppStore and only allowed Apple apps and nothing else then they would be in the clear. But now Apple provides other developers apps in their store on their devices.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Timmy will be on the horn to Donald pleading for help soon.


Donald will probably agree to reduces Apples tariffs a bit or something

 

[Abazigal]

Timmy will be on the horn to Donald pleading for help soon.


Donald will probably agree to reduces Apples tariffs a bit or something

Well, he did reportedly mentioned the fine by the EU to Trump.

Trump says Tim Cook called him to complain about the European Union

The EU fined Apple billions of dollars this year.

www.theverge.com

I mean, if Trump is going to be the US president for the next 4 years anyways, may as well make the most out of it.

 

[I7guy]

Well it’s funny considering Eu don’t have monopoly laws. What’s regulated is entrenched companies that abuse their position to harm the competition. That’s it.

Which seems to be fluid, moving and intangible.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Which seems to be fluid, moving and intangible.

Well it is based on tangible and testable things.
Whats hard to grasp of someone having an entrenched market position?

And then those who uses that advantage to leverage their position at the cost of competition?

 

[Abazigal]

For what it's worth, I do have some thoughts on what Trump's election victory may mean for Big Tech, particularly Apple. It's still early days (Donald Trump won't be president for another 2 months), and he is unpredictable, but I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a number of things will have changed by this time next year.

For one, I expect Apple to largely be exempt from tariffs in exchange for bringing some manufacturing back home. "Tim Apple" jokes aside, there doesn't seem to be any animosity between Apple and the Trump administration (like say, vs Google or Facebook).

Second, I don't expect to see any new antirust lawsuits being brought against Apple, and existing ones may well end up being killed. I have long held the opinion that those accusations were nonsensical anyways.

Third, we may see the US start going after EU for what they perceive to be unfair persecution of their tech companies (though it will likely be up the likes of Apple to lay the groundwork and spearhead the charge). There is a non-zero chance that the DMA ends up being watered down or even broken up altogether. We will see what this then means for the concessions which Apple has already made for the EU, such as third party app stores.

There's also the $13 billion fine Apple owes Ireland. The problem is that Apple has already technically paid the tax to the US back in 2018 when they repatriated $245 in foreign profits back to the US (and paying $38 billion to the US treasury). Because the entity actually paying the price will be the US Treasury, I do wonder if this will finally motivate Washington to actually defend a US tech company in Europe.

Fourth, it increasingly looks like Tim Cook will remain the best person to continue leading Apple for the next 4 years, due to his apparent experience in working with Trump.

2024 was an interesting year with Apple seemingly beset with lawsuits from all sides, and having taken a fair number of chops. We will see whether this continues to be the case in 2025.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

For what it's worth, I do have some thoughts on what Trump's election victory may mean for Big Tech, particularly Apple. It's still early days (Donald Trump won't be president for another 2 months), and he is unpredictable, but I have a sneaking suspicion that quite a number of things will have changed by this time next year.

For one, I expect Apple to largely be exempt from tariffs in exchange for bringing some manufacturing back home. "Tim Apple" jokes aside, there doesn't seem to be any animosity between Apple and the Trump administration (like say, vs Google or Facebook).

Probably will be similar to his previous tariffs

Third, we may see the US start going after EU for what they perceive to be unfair persecution of their tech companies (though it will likely be up the likes of Apple to lay the groundwork and spearhead the charge). There is a non-zero chance that the DMA ends up being watered down or even broken up altogether. We will see what this then means for the concessions which Apple has already made for the EU, such as third party app stores.

There’s a zero chance of the DMA being watered down or broken up. This is simply from the ground of separation of power, rule of law is a fundamental principle and the laws are already on the books. It would be easier to pay for an American citizen non existent bail

If Trump wants to push EU it’s more likely just to cause a trade war and enormous animosity between Europe and the USA. Especially with regards to the Ukraine war and European perception that America is providing unwarranted state subsidies to their industries against the spirit and principle of free trade( irrespective of your political stance on the policy being good or bad)

There's also the $13 billion fine Apple owes Ireland. The problem is that Apple has already technically paid the tax to the US back in 2018 when they repatriated $245 in foreign profits back to the US (and paying $38 billion to the US treasury). Because the entity actually paying the price will be the US Treasury, I do wonder if this will finally motivate Washington to actually defend a US tech company in Europe.

Don’t really get your point here, this is a tax debt ( it’s already payed in full I think ) Irish taxes. And it’s payed by Apples European branch, not the IRS.

I know the U.S. have weird tax laws but can’t see why the treasury would have any involvement paying another company’s taxes.

Fourth, it increasingly looks like Tim Cook will remain the best person to continue leading Apple for the next 4 years, due to his apparent experience in working with Trump.

2024 was an interesting year with Apple seemingly beset with lawsuits from all sides, and having taken a fair number of chops. We will see whether this continues to be the case in 2025.

Well that will indeed be interesting and a wise choice of Tim to work with Trump last time instead of being antagonistic in the previous administration.

He showed that companies should stay politically neutral instead of taking sides and land on the wrong side of the next administration.

 

[surferfb]

I know the U.S. have weird tax laws but can’t see why the treasury would have any involvement paying another company’s taxes.

The issue is the US gives a credit for foreign taxes paid, which reduces Apple’s American tax bill. Apple had already paid US taxes on the money that the EU court decided Apple owes Ireland over Ireland’s objections. So now Apple will amend their previously paid taxes on that money, which means the US will have to give Apple a bunch of money back.

Personally I don’t expect anything to come of this particular tax bill, but literally the EU said “this money belongs to Ireland, not the US” which is why some people think there may be issues. Particularly because the ruling was patently absurd - Ireland really had no claim on that money - Apple was using the Irish setup to delay paying US taxes, not avoid EU taxes.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The issue is the US gives a credit for foreign taxes paid, which reduces Apple’s American tax bill. Apple had already paid US taxes on the money that the EU court decided Apple owes Ireland over Ireland’s objections. So now Apple will amend their previously paid taxes on that money, which means the US will have to give Apple a bunch of money back.

I see, even tho the money was set aside until after the ruling and Apple counting it to this quarter?

Personally I don’t expect anything to come of this particular tax bill,

Well this ”tax bill” has already had dramatic impact as it was a large catalyst for a global minimum tax rate.

But this is essentially just a case of profit shifting. Nether USA would have acted any differently.

but literally the EU said “this money belongs to Ireland, not the US” which is why some people think there may be issues. Particularly because the ruling was patently absurd - Ireland really had no claim on that money - Apple was using the Irish setup to delay paying US taxes, not avoid EU taxes.

That’s kind of strange considering it doesn’t make any sense to say it was used to delay paying U.S. taxes. Apple have to pay taxes in EU on the profits made here as would any other foreign company in the USA.

Take the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) case as a prominent example where a foreign multinational used transfer pricing to shift profits away from its U.S. operations, allowing it to reduce its U.S. tax liability.
GSK set up an arrangement whereby much of the profit from U.S. sales was attributed to its UK-based operations rather than its U.S. subsidiary.( similar in function as Apples version)

The IRS argued that GSK artificially inflated the costs associated with marketing and distributing its products in the U.S., allowing GSK to pay its UK parent company high royalties for the use of intellectual property (IP). This effectively shifted a large portion of U.S.-earned profits to the UK, reducing GSK’s U.S. tax liability.

But the issue EU had was that the Irish state hade given illegal state aid( giving lower tax rates to individual companies are practically illegal in EU. That includes tax breaks and benefits unless it’s equally applicable to shift profits from other EU states to Ireland.

Under EU law, Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits member states from granting selective financial advantages that could distort competition and affect trade between EU countries. This includes tax benefits targeted at specific companies.

Compare this with the United States, states and local governments have much more freedom to offer tailored tax incentives, such as property tax abatements, income tax credits, or direct subsidies, to attract specific companies. This has led to deals like Amazon’s HQ2 incentive competition or Tesla’s factory incentives. In the EU, such company-specific deals would typically violate state aid rules.