←back to thread

Apple vs the Law

(formularsumo.co.uk)
377 points tempodox | 3 comments | 11 Jul 25 06:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.644s | source
Show context
simonask ◴[11 Jul 25 08:22 UTC] No.44529604[source]▶
As a European, I have to say I am generally impressed with the EU in these cases. I'm from a country that's rich and capable, but with a GDP a fraction of Apple's market cap. There is no chance that national laws and entities would be sufficient to protect my consumer rights from corporations this size.

The EU is fundamentally a centre-right, liberalist, pro-business coalition, but what that means is that it is pro-competition. What's really impressive is that it seems to mostly refrain from devolving into protectionist policies, giving no preferential treatment to European businesses against international (intercontinental?) competitors, despite strong populist tendencies in certain member states.

replies(6): >>44529791 #>>44529860 #>>44530729 #>>44530812 #>>44530885 #>>44540013 #
FinnLobsien ◴[11 Jul 25 08:48 UTC] No.44529791[source]▶
I would argue the opposite: It actually makes European businesses worth off by continuing to make its regulatory environment so complex only massive companies like big tech or Europe's legacy players have the resources to comply.

Add to that feel-good green initiatives like a packaging initiative that might lower packaging waste from European companies, but more likely will just make European goods more expensive and cause Europeans to buy from Temu instead.

replies(10): >>44529817 #>>44529841 #>>44529944 #>>44529961 #>>44530002 #>>44530307 #>>44530446 #>>44530649 #>>44530875 #>>44532390 #
1. dotandgtfo ◴[11 Jul 25 09:16 UTC] No.44530002[source]▶
> I would argue the opposite: It actually makes European businesses worth off by continuing to make its regulatory environment so complex only massive companies like big tech or Europe's legacy players have the resources to comply.

Are you arguing that 27 different sets of laws was a better approach? That these countries would just gladly lie down and never regulate the societal-level harms, systemic lawbreaking, and massive infringement of privacy across the board? I don't think so.

For a moment the political system in the US seemed to get to the same conclusions as the EU under Bidens FTC and anti-trust cases. But the conclusions of that remain to be seen.

replies(1): >>44530221 #
2. FinnLobsien ◴[11 Jul 25 09:41 UTC] No.44530221[source]▶
The problem is that those 27 sets of laws basically still exist. Regulation is certainly not the only reason. Fragmentation is another massive problem.

There's the EU-Inc initiative that the EU has basically made pointless (by wanting to introduce 27 new standards, not one, just making things more complex).

Note that I'm not arguing for zero regulation.

replies(1): >>44530534 #
3. rickdeckard ◴[11 Jul 25 10:28 UTC] No.44530534[source]▶
This keeps coming up over and over on HN.

There are no 27 sets of laws to do business in Europe. It's not perfect, but it's a SINGLE MARKET, if you comply to the EU regulation you are allowed to sell everywhere.

It does however not absolve you from additional local market demands to be competitive, i.e. local language support, service infrastructure, etc.

For example: Miele is one of the largest washing machine manufacturers in Europe. They have their front panel translated to local languages for most of its markets. You can sell a washing machine with a English front panel, but you won't be able to compete in e.g. the German/Italian/French market