Difficult to imagine what Apple were thinking in the first place. Did they actually think there was a chance the EU would let this slide? Best I can tell, all they've achieved is bringing even greater scrutiny on themselves.

When reason fails to explain people's actions, it gives you a measure of the strength of their ideology on something. In this case, you can see how deeply they believe in the concept of complete authoritarian control of their ecosystem. Enough that logic and practical outcomes barely matter in comparison.

Or the tech gossip scene, sorry, “tech press”, doesn’t have full visibility over the circumstances.

Chaining one sole thought-logic all the waaaayyyyy...untiiiilllll zap

I think Apple may behave more creditably from here on out.

I admire your optimism.

That ideology hasn't stopped them from becoming the most valuable company in the world, so I wouldn't disregard it from the point of view of practical outcomes.

Dictators and monopolies are always very rich.

As of 9th March 2024, Microsoft is the most valuable company in the world, followed by Apple and Nvidia (which might take Apple's position soon).

That's a baby and bathwater conflation. Did they succeed despite this cultural aspect or because or both.

I think they are struggling to adapt to a new situation that has resulted from their own success.

An ideology that helps you build and grow a new platform may not be equally suitable for running a dominant platform on which significant parts of the world economy depend.

That would be plausible if they stuck to their guns for as long as possible.

In this case, they suspended the account, put themselves further into the spotlight, and then reactivated the account.

Well... all corporations [0] are modelled after authoritarian states. The only model that seems to work is a single person with dictatorial power and a tree shaped hierarchy. Pretty much everyone does that, and the exceptions prove the rule. It isn't weird that they have authoritarian views of how their assets should be managed.

Hold in mind that everything involves trade offs. Authoritarianism is really good at monomaniacal focus on something that the dictator thinks is important, they just tend to fail at all the other stuff. And it is fine - indeed, remarkably effective - as long as people can leave when the focus isn't benefiting them.

Democracy sucks at pretty much everything except being flexible in the face of change and empowering voters. You do not want your food supply being run according to democratic principles, you want it to work.

[0] And most open source projects AFAIK

Authoritarian states are a very ineffective model. A leader can lead their small band of merry man to rob the highway alright. But it doesn't scale up to larger groups of people.

If you talk to the CEOs of large companies or miltary leaders, you find that they are unable to exert effective control of their organisations. The organisation will do whatever it wants to do. The leader can make their command but at every level through the organisation that command will be slightly subverted. The more layers, the less of that command will get through.

Since it's in the news, take for example Putin and Russia, Putin thought he had tank battalions that his lower downs had sold for parts decades ago. Based on the information in front of him, he should have taken Ukraine in several days regardless of resistance by the locals.

And whilst you might think it's impressive that he cut the budget in US congress to Ukraine, back-handed deals to send old Soviet equipment from 3rd party countries to Ukraine were made and now they are exhausted London is loaning Ukraine, Russia's money.

Putin's authoritarian Russia might be able to cut off the head of democracy but he's up against a five headed hydra. Democracy is a lot more scary than Authoritarism from a military perspective.

"You do not want your food supply being run according to democratic principles, you want it to work."

This is something that people don't really get, what's important is that the people delivering the food get the sack if they failed to do it. As long as that happens it's okay.

That's the reason why socialist and overly authoritarian countries have supply problems, they don't have an effective mechanism to replace failing organisations. Venezuela isn't able to extract Oil because the Oil dereks are run by the local dictator's family members.

> Democracy is a lot more scary than Authoritarism from a military perspective.

Yes. But note that armies are a hierarchy with little flexibility once orders start coming down. When democracies want to achieve outcomes they set up (subordinate) dictatorships. The army does not stop to vote in the middle of a war. Indeed, sticking to the Ukraine example, they suspended elections as I assume is usual in war.

Democracy is a better model of governance because the military can focus on winning wars. In a dictatorship, the military has to focus on keeping the dictator in power - otherwise the dictator will get rolled. Since authoritarianism can only do one thing at once, generally they have a weak military at the expense of stability.

Democracy without what you term 'subordinate-dictatorship' would just be anarchy. Democracy is the _collective_ will of the people, it necessarily includes compulsion to do things one doesn't precisely align with which you seem to consider as "dictatorship". But, when the demos compells you to obey orders, that's still democracy.

There is a hierarchy and a single person at the peak of it who has ultimate executive power (a Chief Executive Officer, if you will) then it'll perform roughly the same as as authoritarian system except in some highly unusual circumstances. A military coup by the army would play out differently for example, but day-to-day operation would be largely the same. And most of the performance differences between democracies and non-democracies come down to democracies having more freedom not to worry as much about generals getting too powerful.

It doesn't matter where the power officially stems from, the decision making bandwidth and incentive structures govern results - and for companies that is a clear authoritarian model.

>There is a hierarchy

There can be, but it's not necessary in a democracy and you can design a democracy in which any action is subordinate to the demos should they choose to operate against it.

> Since authoritarianism can only do one thing at once, generally they have a weak military at the expense of stability.

I wouldn't say Nazi Germany had a weak military. They had problems with too many tank models (to appease Hitler?) but they only begain losing the war when everyone else that was against them got their act together. And of course, invading Russia. That one was stupid.

Difficult to imagine what "companies" are thinking. I was working as an executive for subsidiary of eBay Inc. but would never imagine something like this happenening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal

They think they're above the law, as evidenced by their repeated poking and misrepresenting facts.

Why wouldn't you think the EU would let that slide? Until recently all they've done is fine these companies amounts of money that are nice for headlines but not really that painful. Regulators with teeth is - new for apple