this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2024
219 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
59414 readers
2747 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, they will, but I think for this to work and be respected, they need to give companies this period, because it actually could take alot of time to change.
In this case, not so much, but it could be in the future, and the rules are the same regardless.
The intent is to allow companies time to implement the change. But if you'll pardon my cynicism, in practice, what ends up happening is companies just use it as a tactic to delay the implementation and continue recording the revenue.
At the very least they should forfeit the revenue that they earn during the period for this. I'm not sure exactly how the fines work and whether they take this into account, but I doubt Apple is seriously going to use the 12-month period to actually come clean and change their ways. I think they'll just use it as more time to come up with some new bullshit form of non-compliance.
If after 12 monty they actually comply then thats still a positive.
However i fear they may “fix” it with malicious compliance at 11 months and then the cycle repeats.
Instead what i think should happen is they should need to obtain “verified compliance” within a year. (Minus the time europe takes to check) and if the term expires the penalty goes up to eventually forced splitting up.
I actually agree with you, that Apple most certainly will stall. And I also don't think it's optimal, but huge decisions on how to go forward do take time.
And I just think it may be better in the long run, that it seems more "fair" for the company, even thought it's not.
Also, if Apple doesn't comply this time and tries to find a new bullshit form of non-compliance, there's no second chance according to the EU law. The fine will hit, so they certainly won't do that.
I like this. This will give them the urgency and motivation to plug the hole ASAP, rather stall and repeat the cycle.
I would say the opposite is true. Apple knows exactly what the EU wants and is doing everything within their power to maliciously comply. Giving them 12 months is nothing but a free pass to exploit consumers for another year. Then they'll continue doing it because the EU has proven that they won't actually do anything about it.