←back to thread

Apple vs the Law

(formularsumo.co.uk)
377 points tempodox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.217s | 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 #
madeofpalk ◴[] No.44530718[source]
Why is it a false equivalency, apart from "i agree with one law but not the other"?
replies(1): >>44530815 #
1. saubeidl ◴[] No.44530815[source]
One is a law. The other is a doomed attempt at a law by a fraction of extremists - they have tried and failed to do this many a time and it does not deserve to be taken seriously.