Report: Apple to Announce More App Store Concessions for the EU

[bcortens]

Yes it does! The banners explicitly came because of the legislation. If the legislation went away they would too. Cause and effect!

You can argue they’re worth it, but arguing they’re not because of the legislation is just silly.

The legislation merely exposed what was already happening and made everything better for everyone.

Before: No way to opt out of creepy data collection.
After: A way to opt out of creepy data collection.


The banners only exist because the websites want to collect data.
If the websites chose to not collect data, no banners would be needed.

I think websites should not be allowed to present banners and opt-out of data collection should be the default, I think the EU is starting to require a deny-all button be present at the top level rather than buried in menus, that is a step in the right direction but not far enough.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

We didn’t. We don’t know at all what


It was rehashed by multiple outlets - not independently reported.


Here’s what they said:

“The Commission made it very clear whenever Apple’s proposals were at the outset falling short of effective compliance and encouraged the company to seek market feedback”

So let’s assume the commission told Apple something like: “Well, we’d recommend you seek market feedback first”.

👉 So what market feedback did they receive? Were the “usual suspect” developers happy with Apple’s proposal? Obviously not.

👉 Also, why didn’t they enact these measures, even though it was abundantly clear to any layman that doing nothing would most probably constitute a violation of the law?

👉 Apple surely doesn’t lack professional legal advice. Do you honestly believe their legal counsel told them: “Well, taking the law at face value, you’re now most likely (or seriously in risk) of violation. But that non-public email you’ve received will cover you ***** and prevent you from being fined. So I recommend you to do nothing?”

Don’t forget the 2014 anticompetitive ruling with the close to 2 billion Euro fine regarding anti steering was deemed illegal as a perfectly good guideline for Apple to not implement bonkers anti steering rules.

Ok? Not sure why you're bringing them up then. EU is still to blame.

Because the commission is the executive branch with sole authority to write legislation.

Yes so GDPR screwed up.

It didn’t. GDPR is unrelated to cookies banners.

Sounds like EU needs to restructure themselves to have one coherent body to dictate these changes.

They have one coherent structure. Just the elected representatives disagree on a compromise and get a qualified majority 🤷‍♂️ in the council.

So a correction the council failed to agree with itself ( 27 seats)

So...it still is EU either way screwing this up regardless if it was GDPR or ePrivacy.

you end up largely in the same position just implemented by the member states parlaments. And just like now enforced by their legal system.

it’s the member states fault for not wanting to implement a common eprivacy regulation that would have solves this

 

[surferfb]

The legislation merely exposed what was already happening and made everything better for everyone.

Strongly disagree it made things better for everyone. I’d argue it made things worse for everyone. See my previous post (#100) as to why.

Before: No way to opt out of creepy data collection.
After: A way to opt out of creepy data collection.

Those who cared already had ways to opt out. Most don’t care.

The banners only exist because the websites want to collect data.
If the websites chose to not collect data, no banners would be needed.

Websites need to collect data to function, and many of them need targeted advertising to stay in business. Including important European companies and newspapers.

I think websites should not be allowed to present banners and opt-out of data collection should be the default, I think the EU is starting to require a deny-all button be present at the top level rather than buried in menus, that is a step in the right direction but not far enough.

Agree these are reasonable approaches. All much better than the EU originally gave everyone 13 years ago!

My issue is with the approach that was taken by the EU, and then inability to do anything about it for over a decade. Anyone who was even somewhat knowledgeable in data tracking could have told you would result in these sorts of banners plaguing everyone, so why couldn’t the EU regulators?

It’s the consistent inability to think through the consequences of their regulations, and then “no it’s not the regulation that is wrong, it’s the company’s fault” reaction anytime someone points out negative consequences (Crowdstrike, Cookies, killing innovation, EU losing access to features) that is so infuriating.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Make the website operators categorize them (the way they do today). Browser settings can definitely handle this.


This is exactly what I’m talking about the EU not caring about user experience at all, which is why they are intent on ruining iOS to promote competition that already exists on Android.

Consent popups increase bounce rates and reduce conversions, especially on mobile. European websites saw a 5–15% decrease in engagement after GDPR due to consent fatigue and friction.

In addition, adding and maintaining a compliant consent manager also adds dozens of developer hours initially, and ongoing cost for audits, third-party service integrations, and updates as privacy laws evolve - a further drag on business.

• Yes, poorly implemented banners harm UX and reduce conversion.
• But this doesn’t mean that privacy requirements themselves are the problem, it’s how corporate legal teams implement them.
• GDPR and ePrivacy don’t require popup banners, they require informed consent. Banners are just the laziest path to tick a box and a sure way to be fined

Had they not been lazy or greedy they would have seen no drop in engagement because they didn’t bother the user with horrible pop ups.

The biggest good for the biggest number of people is not showing every person on planet earth a banner than the, at most, 15% of the population who cares about. Put it in the browser, let those who care about it change it. Same with browser choice screens.

It’s still your right and they are legally liable for not having your permission to collect and use your data unsolicited. And we will see if EU can implement it in a browser as they sought to do.

How much productivity must be lost clicking accept or deny when you multiply every person on earth? Some math:

If you assume:

• 1 billion web users see ~20 cookie prompts a day
• 3 seconds per prompt = 60 seconds/day

That’s over 11,400 years of human time lost per day to cookie banners globally! And I suspect that’s significantly underestimated.

Further reading for you:

• Nouwens et al. (2020) – Found only 12% of users rejected all tracking when given a fair choice
• MIT Technology Review (2021) – Showed cookie banners are largely ineffective at protecting privacy and mostly serve to shift liability
• Consumer Reports (2022) – Documented user frustration and confusion with cookie popups
• Industry blogs report measurable UX degradation on ecommerce sites due to banners

Absolutely not worth the cost as implemented.

If only they didn’t implement internationally terrible banners. They can say Yes or No.

• CNIL v. Google/Facebook (2021–22):
  Both fined €150M+ even though they used cookie banners — because reject was buried or asymmetrical. CNIL: “User consent must be as easy to refuse as to accept.”
• NOYB complaints (2021–23):
  Hundreds of banners using deceptive UX were found to lack valid consent even with banners in place.
• AEPD (Spain) 2023:
  Fined a website for auto-loading cookies before consent, despite having a visible banner.

Conclusion: Banners that don’t offer a real, legally valid choice expose companies to fines.

The idea that banners “shift liability” is a wishful American-style assumption, not a valid reading of EU regulatory logic.

In the EU:
Form matters, but substance matters more.
If your banner is just a performative act to trick users, you’re wide open to enforcement.

 

[surferfb]

Had they not been lazy or greedy they would have seen no drop in engagement because they didn’t bother the user with horrible pop ups.

The law requires the website to get consent. How on earth are they supposed to do that without a pop up?

It’s still your right and they are legally liable for not having your permission to collect and use your data unsolicited. And we will see if EU can implement it in a browser as they sought to do.

Again, I don’t have a problem with the intent behind the law - I run privacy software like VPNs, Ad Blockers, and Pi-Hole. But the implementation is worse than the problem it’s solving. It’s like cutting off your hand because a finger is sore, when you could have just taken some Advil. And it’s taken over a decade and nothing has been done to address the mess the EU made.

If only they didn’t implement internationally terrible banners. They can say Yes or No.

• CNIL v. Google/Facebook (2021–22):
  Both fined €150M+ even though they used cookie banners — because reject was buried or asymmetrical. CNIL: “User consent must be as easy to refuse as to accept.”
• NOYB complaints (2021–23):
  Hundreds of banners using deceptive UX were found to lack valid consent even with banners in place.
• AEPD (Spain) 2023:
  Fined a website for auto-loading cookies before consent, despite having a visible banner.

Conclusion: Banners that don’t offer a real, legally valid choice expose companies to fines.

The idea that banners “shift liability” is a wishful American-style assumption, not a valid reading of EU regulatory logic.

In the EU:
Form matters, but substance matters more.
If your banner is just a performative act to trick users, you’re wide open to enforcement.

This seems like a bunch of AI-generated nonsense that has nothing to do with my point about the massive productivity loss WORLDWIDE because the EU can’t think more than one step ahead, completely ignores my point that the law doesn’t actually do anything for the vast majority of users, and makes things more confusing for normal users.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Strongly disagree it made things better for everyone. I’d argue it made things worse for everyone. See my previous post (#100) as to why.


Those who cared already had ways to opt out. Most don’t care.

Incorrect. You had zero opt out and zero legal protections.

Websites need to collect data to function, and many of them need targeted advertising to stay in business. Including important European companies and newspapers.

Not my problem. My data my choice.

Agree these are reasonable approaches. All much better than the EU originally gave everyone 13 years ago!

My issue is with the approach that was taken by the EU, and then inability to do anything about it for over a decade. Anyone who was even somewhat knowledgeable in data tracking could have told you would result in these sorts of banners plaguing everyone, so why couldn’t the EU regulators?

That’s why companies gets fined continuously for not having consent and being suprised their poorly implemented of cookie banners didn’t protect them.

It’s the consistent inability to think through the consequences of their regulations, and then “no it’s not the regulation that is wrong, it’s the company’s fault” reaction anytime someone points out negative consequences (Crowdstrike, Cookies, killing innovation, EU losing access to features) that is so infuriating.

Do you have zero concept of what political compromise is? It doesn’t matter what the regulators want if the politicians want something else.

As an American I thought you would be intimately familiar with states rights.

If EU doesn’t explicitly ban sharp iPhone edges in phone shapes and consumers where harmed you would say Apple did nothing wrong, how could they know that would happen and EU failed to regulate them properly … and not the company choosing to be maliciously dishonest.

You have freedom under responsibility

 

[breenmask]

They where fully aware but you’re literally pointing to the wrong legislation.
The directive is the issue because it’s a member states implementing it and endowing it. It’s not an EU level regulation.

EU Regulation = U.S. Federal Law or Agency Rule (e.g. Clean Air Act, FCC rules

EU Directive = U.S. Federal Requirement with State Implementation (e.g. No Child Left Behind, Medicaid expansion requirements)

A Regulation is “plug-and-play” law once passed, it applies across all EU states without modification.

A Directive is a “national homework assignment” it tells states what goal they must achieve, but lets them write the details into national law.

You're nitpicking into exactly where in EU it came from but the fact is, EU in some way caused the cookie popups to proliferate throughout the majority of the website. That's basically all.

Why would you speak of selling cables individually? When you can include it with the sale of the phone…

I already stated I traded in my iPhone to Apple. Apple would simply recycle it == still ewaste.

Aka Apple isn’t the unique snowflake here. They aren’t the center of the world.

Doesn't make the decision any less wrong for the purposes of reducing ewaste. I don't understand your argument here.

The intention is reducing waste as well as allow for better interoperability.

It increased ewaste for interoperability.

Hence the port is a charging interface so your headphones, keyboard, controller, computer, phone, mouse etc use the same USB-C port.

And that artificially increased ewaste for the sake of interoperability. It did not reduce ewaste. To reduce ewaste is to lower production of cables. The byproduct of that is not including a cable with every device. Changing the port increased demand for new cables and accelerated the death of perfectly functional cables.

And most people I would bet just donate away the cable with the device when switching.

which most people don't need because there's already a surplus of lightning. you're just using the argument of "well I can give it to someone else" but you're not understanding that that "someone else" already doesn't need it either.

It’s interoperability and ewaste.

It's one or the other.

Then what’s your concern then that you bought up earlier?

The statement "Increased competition only improves things for customers in the end" is not 100% true.

Today yes. This wasn’t always the case. It took them a solid decade to grow into the behemoth they are.

Wrong:
https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/people
"Boss-free since 1996."

Can both be true despite the store being a horrible product and user experience.

"Worst" is subjective but people have been voting with theirs dollars and it shows that people continue to buy into a closed platform as opposed to an open platform. If open platform was so great, we'd see more dollars on Android, especially with their much larger marketshare.

Now it’s free for more proper inovation.

Because if there's one thing gamers want, it's 20 game stores to manage on a device and to search through...

 

[breenmask]

Because the commission is the executive branch with sole authority to write legislation.

Still an EU problem.

It didn’t. GDPR is unrelated to cookies banners.

It had a major role in proliferation in cookie banners.

They have one coherent structure. Just the elected representatives disagree on a compromise and get a qualified majority 🤷‍♂️ in the council.

So a correction the council failed to agree with itself ( 27 seats)

EU problem.

you end up largely in the same position just implemented by the member states parlaments. And just like now enforced by their legal system.

it’s the member states fault for not wanting to implement a common eprivacy regulation that would have solves this

That is still, very much, an EU problem.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The law requires the website to get consent. How on earth are they supposed to do that without a pop up?

The law doesn’t require you to get consent for legitimate reasons. Only unrelated data.

Example The cookie for storing your session Or login in needs zero consent.

Again, I don’t have a problem with the intent behind the law - I run privacy software like VPNs, Ad Blockers, and Pi-Hole. But the implementation is worse than the problem it’s solving. It’s like cutting off your hand because a finger is sore, when you could have just taken some Advil. And it’s taken over a decade and nothing has been done to address the mess the EU made.

What do you think the intent is? If you go to your mechanic to fix your car, any information that is unrelated to fixing your car needs to be approved by you. Clearly.

You’re privacy at the mechanic is no different than meta.

ePrivacy directive = member states implementing it 2009~ with 2 years for states to implement it. And amended the 95 directive.

Was deemed insufficient and expanded with GDPR in 2012. Negotiations untill passing 2017

ePrivacy Regulation= EU rule also intended to pass 2018, gets stuck because it can’t get a qualified majority (65% population and 15/27 members have to agree)

This seems like a bunch of AI-generated nonsense that has nothing to do with my point about the massive productivity loss WORLDWIDE because the EU can’t think more than one step ahead, completely ignores my point that the law doesn’t actually do anything for the vast majority of users, and makes things more confusing for normal users.

It was explicitly legal cases related to your nonsense studies you brought up.

• Nouwens et al. (2020) – Found only 12% of users rejected all tracking when given a fair choice

12% are meeting the legal requirements. Not that 12% of user reject it when given a fair choice.

• MIT Technology Review (2021) – Showed cookie banners are largely ineffective at protecting privacy and mostly serve to shift liability

This is legally false

• Consumer Reports (2022) – Documented user frustration and confusion with cookie popups
• Industry blogs report measurable UX degradation on ecommerce sites due to banners

Most of these are illegal cookies banner designs as well

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You're nitpicking into exactly where in EU it came from but the fact is, EU in some way caused the cookie popups to proliferate throughout the majority of the website. That's basically all.





I already stated I traded in my iPhone to Apple. Apple would simply recycle it == still ewaste.

Ewaste= throwing it in the trash instead of recycling it.

Doesn't make the decision any less wrong for the purposes of reducing ewaste. I don't understand your argument here.

It increased ewaste for interoperability.

Eliminating 10 different cables with 1 universal charging cables will reduce ewaste as it stops the proliferation of incompatible units. .

And that artificially increased ewaste for the sake of interoperability. It did not reduce ewaste. To reduce ewaste is to lower production of cables. The byproduct of that is not including a cable with every device. Changing the port increased demand for new cables and accelerated the death of perfectly functional cables.

It accelerated the death of a bygon era. Their Mac and iPad had usb c. For years.

Lightning cables are contrary to usb c useful. It’s better the iPhone 15, 16 and soon 17 didn’t come with a wasteful lighting cable. That every AirPod, magic key etc is usb c.

Better than 5 more years of lightning cables.

which most people don't need because there's already a surplus of lightning. you're just using the argument of "well I can give it to someone else" but you're not understanding that that "someone else" already doesn't need it either.

Plenty of new potential non iPhone users.

It's one or the other.

Interoperability = less waste. Now that everyone have the same cable you can easily eliminate it as an included thing.

The statement "Increased competition only improves things for customers in the end" is not 100% true.


Wrong:
https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/people
"Boss-free since 1996."

They’re a game studio. Steam wasn’t a thing until much later. Being boss free have zero relevance to being able to launch something if windows didn’t allow it back then

"Worst" is subjective but people have been voting with theirs dollars and it shows that people continue to buy into a closed platform as opposed to an open platform. If open platform was so great, we'd see more dollars on Android, especially with their much larger marketshare.



Because if there's one thing gamers want, it's 20 game stores to manage on a device and to search through...

lol wepick the store we want to use. And I bet you don’t use the 20 different stores on your computer but just keep to steam or another you like? I just simply refuse to buy games that aren’t on steam 🤷‍♂️

On Android and iOS people have not voted with their dollars for any such thing. It’s a feature or boon among hundreds of other things.

Show me the study that the consumer cares for open or closed as primary purchase decision over battery life’s technological features like camera and screen etc.

Still an EU problem.



It had a major role in proliferation in cookie banners.



EU problem.


That is still, very much, an EU problem.

Germany does something = EU problem
Germany doesn’t do something = eu problem.
Germany doesn’t want to do something = also EU problem…
It’s an EU problem irrespective what EU does.

 

[retroneo]

They should just pull the iPhone out of the EU

They happily accommodate China's authoritarian rule requests (e.g iCloud), even when they affect us all around the world (AirDrop)

But they have trouble with the EU when it comes to privacy guarantees or competition rules.

 

[breenmask]

Ewaste= throwing it in the trash instead of recycling it.

Recycling is a process of handling ewaste. It's still ewaste.

Also you do know there are still emissions into recycling, correct?
And you do know that when a cable is recycled, not 100% of the materials are reused, correct?

Eliminating 10 different cables with 1 universal charging cables will reduce ewaste as it stops the proliferation of incompatible units. .

1 universal charging cable? Hardly. The cable that ships with the iPhone 15 is a 60watt usb2.0 cable. Good luck charging your MacBook Pro 16" at full speed. I've already seen plenty of people trashing their 60 watt cables because they don't want to be confused with their 240Watt cables.

Then there's usb3.0 cables, 3.2, usb 4/TB3/TB4, thunderbolt 5.

It's barely any different than a lightning cable. Eventually it's going to get thrown out for something better.

It accelerated the death of a bygon era. Their Mac and iPad had usb c. For years.

Doesn't negate from the fact that useful, functional cables's death were accelerated rather than reused and prolonged. That increases ewaste.

It’s better the iPhone 15, 16 and soon 17 didn’t come with a wasteful lighting cable. That every AirPod, magic key etc is usb c.

Better than 5 more years of lightning cables.

It's better it didn't come with any cable. But now that users who have a surplus of lightning cables in the drawer have to start building up their USB-c collection, Apple won't remove the cable from the box until users have a surplus

Plenty of new potential non iPhone users.

Minority. We're talking <20% new users for new generation of iPhone. Having them purchase lightning cables (or as you suggested, have people give it away!) is far less emissions than giving new usb-c cables to 80% returning users every year.

Interoperability = less waste. Now that everyone have the same cable you can easily eliminate it as an included thing.

Not when you're forcing everyone to give up usable cables in their drawer.

They’re a game studio. Steam wasn’t a thing until much later. Being boss free have zero relevance to being able to launch something if windows didn’t allow it back then

You were wrong about flatland not being a thing until later. Steam was developed with zero bosses. Admit it.

lol wepick the store we want to use.

I'm sure you were able to buy Borderlands 3 on Steam when it first came out. Oh no wait...

And I bet you don’t use the 20 different stores on your computer but just keep to steam or another you like?

Literally have Steam/Xbox/Ubi/Epic games open right now on my PC. Also have EA installed. And oh boy, when you launch Cyberpunk, it used to launch GoG. Lmaoooo

I just simply refuse to buy games that aren’t on steam 🤷‍♂️

So while all of your friends are playing Borderlands 3, you with your political stance will wait it out until the game is available on steam. Amazing.

On Android and iOS people have not voted with their dollars for any such thing.

Apple App Store spending more than doubles that of Google Play

Developers should know about the revenue gap between the App Store and Google Play. iPhone users are clearly more willing to pay for apps.

www.cultofmac.com

Show me the study that the consumer cares for open or closed

Show me the data that majority of people want an open platform that warrants laws to be changed.

Germany does something = EU problem
Germany doesn’t do something = eu problem.
Germany doesn’t want to do something = also EU problem…
It’s an EU problem irrespective what EU does.

But the EU did it, no matter which particular country in the EU did it.

 

[Ctrlos]

Whilst the banners are entirely the fault of websites, the EU should have gone full sledgehammer and banned cookies and browser tracking altogether.

Far from killing of small websites who rely on web advertising to survive, it would have made web ads more like roadside or magazine ads where they are more generic to catch a wider audience. Crucially web advertiser's would have to rely on quality rather than hyper personalisation to get people to click on them.

The EU should also have banned video adverts on non-video content. That is the real bane of the internet.

 

[delsoul]

Apple should tell the EU to go stuff it. It’s about time the EU makes some concessions instead of expecting everyone else to bend over for them.

 

[frownface]

The European Commission is empowered to impose escalating daily fines of up to 5% of Apple's average global turnover.

Maybe I’m just a stupid, rowdy American but I cannot see how the EU can fine Apple as a percentage of its global turnover. Maybe its turnover in the EU. What is clear to me is that the European regulators are in over their heads on this one.

Could be same reason as taxes; because apple use elaborate holding structures to route their earnings through various tax havens to obfusciate where they're making their money.

"% of our European earnings? unfortunately for you we made a net loss in europe last year, so you owe us money, but in unrelated news our business in Gibraltar is going super well"

But really, it's probably punitive to make it sting.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Recycling is a process of handling ewaste. It's still ewaste.

Also you do know there are still emissions into recycling, correct?
And you do know that when a cable is recycled, not 100% of the materials are reused, correct?

Over the last 3 years and for the next 2 years you think the ewaste is more or less now that micro usb, mini-usb and lightning can’t be sold with anything?

Apple could have transitioned into usb c 10 years ago. With the first MacBook, or 7 years ago with the first iPad. Instead of 2 years ago.

We could have had it with the iPhone 6s. We would have only gotten iPhone 5, iPhone 5s and iPhone 6 with lightning. We could’ve kept the

1 universal charging cable? Hardly. The cable that ships with the iPhone 15 is a 60watt usb2.0 cable. Good luck charging your MacBook Pro 16" at full speed. I've already seen plenty of people trashing their 60 watt cables because they don't want to be confused with their 240Watt cables.

Then there's usb3.0 cables, 3.2, usb 4/TB3/TB4, thunderbolt 5.

It's barely any different than a lightning cable. Eventually it's going to get thrown out for something better.

There’s a big difference, the lightning cable is a useless wire I can only use with one thing. And if you already have the MacBook Pro you can use its cable to charge everything else.

If Apple want they could’ve made the iPhone 15 usb 3 but they didn’t 🤷‍♂️ because apple is greedy and cheap

Doesn't negate from the fact that useful, functional cables's death were accelerated rather than reused and prolonged. That increases ewaste.

Literally nothing here prevents their reuse than a persons laziness.

It's better it didn't come with any cable. But now that users who have a surplus of lightning cables in the drawer have to start building up their USB-c collection, Apple won't remove the cable from the box until users have a surplus

Minority. We're talking <20% new users for new generation of iPhone. Having them purchase lightning cables (or as you suggested, have people give it away!) is far less emissions than giving new usb-c cables to 80% returning users every year.

Apple could have been brave and sold it without a cable. I have a surplus of usb c cables before even getting the new iPhone.

Not when you're forcing everyone to give up usable cables in their drawer.

Literally zero people are forced into doing it. You opted to sell it back to Apple wasting cables. I sell mine on eBay or give it to family members who still need the cables

You were wrong about flatland not being a thing until later. Steam was developed with zero bosses. Admit it.

Having zero bosses is of zero relevance for the financial possibility of them making steamOS for nobody if they can’t launch their own launcher 20 years ago.

I'm sure you were able to buy Borderlands 3 on Steam when it first came out. Oh no wait...


Literally have Steam/Xbox/Ubi/Epic games open right now on my PC. Also have EA installed. And oh boy, when you launch Cyberpunk, it used to launch GoG. Lmaoooo


So while all of your friends are playing Borderlands 3, you with your political stance will wait it out until the game is available on steam. Amazing.

Easy, i didn’t. Because i have no interest paying for a game on Ubisoft/Epic/EA or gog unless i can use it in steam. I have plenty large library I don’t care for the exlusives. I limit my self to steam/xbox and free epic games.

People like me is the reason EA crawled back to steam because we refused to follow it.

Apple App Store spending more than doubles that of Google Play

Developers should know about the revenue gap between the App Store and Google Play. iPhone users are clearly more willing to pay for apps.

www.cultofmac.com

Show me the data that majority of people want an open platform that warrants laws to be changed.

Luckily it’s not for consumers but undertakings and the market

But the EU did it, no matter which particular country in the EU did it.

If anything California does means the U.S. did it then sure.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The European Commission is empowered to impose escalating daily fines of up to 5% of Apple's average global turnover.

Maybe I’m just a stupid, rowdy American but I cannot see how the EU can fine Apple as a percentage of its global turnover. Maybe its turnover in the EU. What is clear to me is that the European regulators are in over their heads on this one.

I can guarantee you the regulators aren’t over their heads. Because they don’t play games as the enforcer

Could be same reason as taxes; because apple use elaborate holding structures to route their earnings through various tax havens to obfusciate where they're making their money.

"% of our European earnings? unfortunately for you we made a net loss in europe last year, so you owe us money, but in unrelated news our business in Gibraltar is going super well"

But really, it's probably punitive to make it sting.

It is punitive. And global revenue is the sealing to prevent fines from getting out of hand depending on the infringement and is calculated cost.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Make the website operators categorize them (the way they do today). Browser settings can definitely handle this.

Nothing preventing browser developers from doing that, is there?
If only the most popular browser wasn’t developed by one of the most egregiously user-tracking ad companies.

The biggest good for the biggest number of people is not showing every person on planet earth a banner than the, at most, 15% of the population who cares about.

The biggest good?
That would be stopping showing so much ads on websites.

The EU should also have banned video adverts on non-video content. That is the real bane of the internet.

Speaking of those: is there a way to stop them from playing in Safari?
(Third-party content blockers only, I suppose?)

Apple should tell the EU to go stuff it. It’s about time the EU makes some concessions instead of expecting everyone else to bend over for them.

Taking a page from your president’s playbook, the EU has not gone far enough in their demands:

• Banning third-party cookies and non-essential cookies outright
• Banning all of Apple’s restrictions on software installation: no mandatory code review, no mandatory code signing
• Banning all of Apple’s restrictions on in-app purchases: no steering from Apple, no warning screens
• No preferential treatment of any software store vs. another, e.g. no pre-installation of the Apple App Store app on covered core platform services

How about that?
And then we can talk some concessions.

 

[Baslea]

Apple should tell the EU to go stuff it. It’s about time the EU makes some concessions instead of expecting everyone else to bend over for them.

Why should the EU make some concessions and tolerate anticompetitive behavior? In the end it's Apple who wants to be part of the EU/EEA-market, not vice versa. They are already making a lot of concession by not fixing the tax-loopholes Apple and co are using. At least let the users alone.

 

[Ctrlos]

Speaking of those: is there a way to stop them from playing in Safari?
(Third-party content blockers only, I suppose?)

Pretty much. It seems to have escaped advertisers notice that people reading the paper don't want to watch TV commercials.

 

[bcortens]

Strongly disagree it made things better for everyone. I’d argue it made things worse for everyone. See my previous post (#100) as to why.


Those who cared already had ways to opt out. Most don’t care.

It is not worse for everyone, for all those people who wanted to opt out but couldn't it is undeniably better.

For those who don't care to opt out this adds one extra step, push the "accept all" button.

This is a fine tradeoff IMO because most people aren't doing things like running web extensions or blocking all third party cookies in the browser.

I agree that there are other ways to tackle this and web browsers themselves should be preventing cross site cookies from being installed but right now Safari only lets you block all cookies and while there are a number of good options for preventing tracking they aren't fully able to defeat the ad industry.

Websites need to collect data to function, and many of them need targeted advertising to stay in business. Including important European companies and newspapers.

If no one was allowed to do targeted advertising then the price of non-targeted ads would rise. Simply because, as you say, the companies need the higher rates to operate, however if there just doesn't exist the option to do invasive tracking there is no higher priced tier of ads available so the ad providers can charge more for the ads that they are serving.

Agree these are reasonable approaches. All much better than the EU originally gave everyone 13 years ago!

My issue is with the approach that was taken by the EU, and then inability to do anything about it for over a decade. Anyone who was even somewhat knowledgeable in data tracking could have told you would result in these sorts of banners plaguing everyone, so why couldn’t the EU regulators?

It’s the consistent inability to think through the consequences of their regulations, and then “no it’s not the regulation that is wrong, it’s the company’s fault” reaction anytime someone points out negative consequences (Crowdstrike, Cookies, killing innovation, EU losing access to features) that is so infuriating.

Crowdstrike is a Microsoft issue, MS has an insecure design.

The problem with trying to think through the consequences is that you end up over specifying the regulation and then companies think they don't have to comply unless the exact scenario specified in the regulation applies to them.

The EU definitely moves to slowly when they find bugs with their regulation.

The US has little innovation in the last few years, most of it is just iterating on what came before with little truly new.

 

[surferfb]

Nothing preventing browser developers from doing that, is there?
If only the most popular browser wasn’t developed by one of the most egregiously user-tracking ad companies.

And for some reason the EU is increasing that browser’s marketshare on mobile by forcing a completely unnecessary “browser choice screen” that is sure to lead some users to select Chrome because it’s the one they’ve heard of (not to mention confusing a further subset of users into changing their browser when they don’t want to.) Once again showing they can’t think through the consequences of their actions and have no concept of user experience.

The biggest good?
That would be stopping showing so much ads on websites.

If that’s the goal, then ban targeted ads in the EU! Or limit the number of ads allowed to be shown. Don’t make literally everyone’s web browsing experience around the world significantly more annoying.

It is not worse for everyone, for all those people who wanted to opt out but couldn't it is undeniably better.

For those who don't care to opt out this adds one extra step, push the "accept all" button.

11,000 years of productivity lost per day. Even small annoyances add up when it’s everyone on planet earth.

This is a fine tradeoff IMO because most people aren't doing things like running web extensions or blocking all third party cookies in the browser.

I agree that there are other ways to tackle this and web browsers themselves should be preventing cross site cookies from being installed but right now Safari only lets you block all cookies and while there are a number of good options for preventing tracking they aren't fully able to defeat the ad industry.


If no one was allowed to do targeted advertising then the price of non-targeted ads would rise. Simply because, as you say, the companies need the higher rates to operate, however if there just doesn't exist the option to do invasive tracking there is no higher priced tier of ads available so the ad providers can charge more for the ads that they are serving.

Once again, if that is your goal, the answer is to ban targeted ads, not ruin the experience of using the web for everyone.

Crowdstrike is a Microsoft issue, MS has an insecure design.

Crowdstrike would not have happened had the EU forced them to give kernel access to third parties. Again, blaming others for the EU’s actions is tiresome.

The problem with trying to think through the consequences is that you end up over specifying the regulation and then companies think they don't have to comply unless the exact scenario specified in the regulation applies to them.
The EU definitely moves to slowly when they find bugs with their regulation.

Maybe, just maybe, the answer isn’t “regulate everything!” The free market does a pretty good job.

The US has little innovation in the last few years, most of it is just iterating on what came before with little truly new.

The entire GenAI industry would like a word.

 

[bcortens]

11,000 years of productivity lost per day. Even small annoyances add up when it’s everyone on planet earth.

And yet the option to disable targeted ads still makes things better.

Once again, if that is your goal, the answer is to ban targeted ads, not ruin the experience of using the web for everyone.

It increases my annoyance but it doesn't 'ruin' the experience. Were I making the rules I would ban targeted ads, but I don't I live in a world where corporate interests have managed to undermine privacy legislation the world over and we get watered down half-baked implementations. Its still better than nothing.

Crowdstrike would not have happened had the EU forced them to give kernel access to third parties. Again, blaming others for the EU’s actions is tiresome.

Kernel access for others was required because MS needs it themselves. If MS had better security architecture they wouldn't need it for themselves. Even without crowdstrike MS still allows kernel hacking in the form of various anti-cheat systems that games use. MS should be able to lock down kernel access but that would require them to actually do better at OS design.

Maybe, just maybe, the answer isn’t “regulate everything!” The free market does a pretty good job.

Which free market currently has zero targeted ads? Free markets do not do a good job of protecting user privacy, or user security.

Apple is the closest but even they don't do a very good job. I would have a greater love for the App Store if it actually was all about protecting our privacy by kicking out apps that hoover up massive amounts of user data. Since the App Store doesn't really try and protect user privacy I have little love for it.

The entire GenAI industry would like a word.

The GenAI industry is built on mountains of IP theft, something you supposedly hate... stealing other peoples work isn't innovation if I recall your previous arguments...

 

[surferfb]

And yet the option to disable targeted ads still makes things better.

It increases my annoyance but it doesn't 'ruin' the experience. Were I making the rules I would ban targeted ads, but I don't I live in a world where corporate interests have managed to undermine privacy legislation the world over and we get watered down half-baked implementations. Its still better than nothing.

This is the last I'm going to chime in on this point, because we just need to agree to disagree, but to state my opinion one last time:

I disagree that it makes things better. It is a massive drag on productivity that is not worth the benefits because almost all users just click "accept" - meaning it really isn't doing anything at all in the grand scheme of things, particularly when a large number of the users who do care know how to do things like run VPNs, Ad Blockers, know how to get data from data brokers removed etc.

Kernel access for others was required because MS needs it themselves. If MS had better security architecture they wouldn't need it for themselves. Even without crowdstrike MS still allows kernel hacking in the form of various anti-cheat systems that games use. MS should be able to lock down kernel access but that would require them to actually do better at OS design.

The EU required MS to give kernel access to third parties, which directly led to Crowdstrike. Had the EU not required that, Crowdstrike wouldn't have happened. You cannot argue otherwise. That doesn't mean MS is absolved of all responsibility, but it literally would not have happened if the EU hadn't gotten involved. You can argue the EU getting involved was "worth it" despite the massive internet outage, but you can't argue the EU bears no responsibility for the outage.

(Also, because that regulation existed, removing kernel access is a much more complicated endeavor than when Apple did so. Had MS tried, you know developers would have gone running to the EU about how "big bad Microsoft" is hurting them and it was going to cost them so much money to implement and it's clearly anticompetitive, etc. Who do we think the EU would have believed, Big Tech Microsoft, or the "poor" little developer? Be honest.)

Which free market currently has zero targeted ads? Free markets do not do a good job of protecting user privacy, or user security.

Apple is the closest but even they don't do a very good job. I would have a greater love for the App Store if it actually was all about protecting our privacy by kicking out apps that hoover up massive amounts of user data. Since the App Store doesn't really try and protect user privacy I have little love for it.

While I personally am creeped out by targeted ads, I don't think my preferences should necessarily rule the world. My wife, for example, actually LIKES targeted ads, because she thinks they surface products for her she wouldn't have seen otherwise. I highly suspect my wife is much closer to a "typical user" than I am. I also suspect that while people care about privacy, if forced to choose "no tracking and irrelevant ads and more expensive services" or "allow tracking and get more relevant ads and cheaper services", "allow tracking" is going to win handily with the vast, vast majority of users, even if it wouldn't win with me. Which means the free market is working as intended.

The GenAI industry is built on mountains of IP theft, something you supposedly hate... stealing other peoples work isn't innovation if I recall your previous arguments...

I do have serious issues with how GenAI was trained, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue it isn't innovation.

But don't listen to me about the EU's regulations strangling innovation, listen to Europeans quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

• In a report published last September, Draghi pinpointed the lack of a thriving tech sector as a key factor. “The EU is weak in the emerging technologies that will drive future growth,” he wrote.
• Only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies are European, despite Europe having a larger population and similar education levels to the U.S. and accounting for 21% of global economic output. None of the top 10 companies investing in quantum computing are in Europe.
• “Taxes are higher, and regulations designed to corral big business become a costly and time-consuming headache for startups. It is easier for large AI companies in the U.S. or China to move to Europe than “growing out of Europe and to have to invest from the start to satisfy a much more complex regulatory framework,” said Sebastian Steinhäuser, chief strategy and operating officer at German software giant SAP.“
• European businesses spend 40% of their IT budgets on complying with regulations, according to a recent survey by Amazon.
• Software company Bird, one of the Netherlands’ most successful startups, said recently it plans to move its main operations out of Europe to the U.S., Dubai and other locations due to restrictive AI regulation. “Stop regulating, Europe. We might be the first, but we won’t be the last (to leave),” Robert Vis, the company’s founder, wrote on his LinkedIn page.

 

[Ctrlos]

But don't listen to me about the EU's regulations strangling innovation, listen to Europeans quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

• In a report published last September, Draghi pinpointed the lack of a thriving tech sector as a key factor. “The EU is weak in the emerging technologies that will drive future growth,” he wrote.
• Only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies are European, despite Europe having a larger population and similar education levels to the U.S. and accounting for 21% of global economic output. None of the top 10 companies investing in quantum computing are in Europe.
• “Taxes are higher, and regulations designed to corral big business become a costly and time-consuming headache for startups. It is easier for large AI companies in the U.S. or China to move to Europe than “growing out of Europe and to have to invest from the start to satisfy a much more complex regulatory framework,” said Sebastian Steinhäuser, chief strategy and operating officer at German software giant SAP.“
• European businesses spend 40% of their IT budgets on complying with regulations, according to a recent survey by Amazon.
• Software company Bird, one of the Netherlands’ most successful startups, said recently it plans to move its main operations out of Europe to the U.S., Dubai and other locations due to restrictive AI regulation. “Stop regulating, Europe. We might be the first, but we won’t be the last (to leave),” Robert Vis, the company’s founder, wrote on his LinkedIn page.

The EU should have had stronger protectionist laws from the beginning. It doesn't help that its biggest companies were all acquired by, and promptly ran into the ground by US tech firms. If it wasn't Microsoft with Nokia it's EA and Criterion.

High taxes are not a problem. It stops profits from sitting in the bank accounts of billionaires and does things like fund public healthcare. There is a direct correlation between the consistently most content societies on earth and high tax rates. See: the Nordic bloc. Nokia was once the buzzword in phone innovation directly under the Finnish tax rates.

Bird's AI criticism stems from the EU rules on AI ethics which the rest of the planet will quickly wish they had invoked themselves.

I'm not saying the EU is perfect, but its current woes are largely down to US corporate and startup culture being incompatible with its regulatory stance. But if we examine the business practices of Meta, Google's data harvesting, Apple's lock-in practices, OpenAI's data scraping and Microsoft's market abuse we can see that these regulations existed for a reason.