←back to thread

Apple vs the Law

(formularsumo.co.uk)
378 points tempodox | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.682s | source
Show context
saubeidl ◴[] No.44529314[source]
All-time great read about Apple/EU conflicts: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-e...

From the conclusion:

> Normally when the EU regulates a given sector, it does so with ample lead time and works with industry to make sure that they understand their obligations.

> Apple instead thought that the regulatory contact from the EU during the lead time to the DMA was an opportunity for it to lecture the EU on its right to exist. Then its executives made up some fiction in their own minds as to what the regulation meant, announced their changes, only to discover later that they were full of bullshit.

> This was entirely Apple’s own fault. For months, we’ve been hearing leaks about Apple’s talks with the EU about the Digital Market Act. Those talks were not negotiations even though Apple seems to have thought they were. Talks like those are to help companies implement incoming regulations, with some leeway for interpretation on the EU’s side to accommodate business interests.

> Remember what I wrote about electrical plugs? The EU is pro-business – often criticised for being essentially a pro-business entity – and not in favour of regulation for regulation’s sake.

> If Apple had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are, they would have used the talks to clarify all of these issues and more well in advance of the DMA taking effect.

> But they didn’t because they have caught the tech industry management disease of demanding that reality bend to their ideas and wishes.

replies(1): >>44529377 #
JoshTriplett ◴[] No.44529377[source]
> If Apple had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are

When the EU attempts to legislate crypto backdoors, do you plan to say "If Signal had faced reality and tried to understand the facts as they are"?

replies(1): >>44529380 #
saubeidl ◴[] No.44529380[source]
That is a bad-faith argument and a false equivalency I will not engage in, lest I be warned by the mods for falling for obvious bait again.
replies(2): >>44529398 #>>44530718 #
JoshTriplett ◴[] No.44529398[source]
It is an argument made in good faith.

Companies and individuals should fight against bad laws. And a press campaign is a legitimate, and sometimes effective, tactic for doing so. Different people may disagree about which laws are good or bad; I fully expect, for instance, that more people support the DMA than would support crypto backdoors. But it seems shortsighted to suggest that those who think a law is wrong should simply accept it anyway, rather than fight tooth and nail against it.

replies(4): >>44529458 #>>44529475 #>>44529487 #>>44529624 #
1. pyrale ◴[] No.44529624[source]
> It is an argument made in good faith.

Then I suggest you rework your "good-faith" discussion methods.

You're answering a poster who explained how companies are onboarded to new regulation with a gotcha question about a law that isn't voted yet.

replies(1): >>44529658 #
2. JoshTriplett ◴[] No.44529658[source]
I'm answering someone who said that the response to being "onboarded to new regulation" should be to "face reality", rather than fight it and try to stop it. Whatever level of tooth-and-nail fighting you'd expect someone to do in response to a law you do think is wrong, it's reasonable think someone would wish to do in response to a law they think is wrong.
replies(1): >>44529880 #
3. pyrale ◴[] No.44529880[source]
You're missing the point. A law in the process of being voted is up for discussion and political involvement.

Once the law has been voted, you can still complain about it, but it is not wise to use the talks given to you by the regulator in order to help you adapt to new regulation as a soapbox for your complaints. That will burn goodwill with the regulator and make them discard any legitimate feedback you might have.

Or, in short, lobbying parliament is fine, trying to strong-arm regulatory bodies is not.