At this point the GDPR is something you have to consider whether you’re in the EU or not because several non EU countries have similar laws and many more are thinking of implementing them, and to the extent many haven’t already it’s because it’s unnecessary since tech companies are following GDPR already.
Essentially GDPR has become a de facto global law at this point.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the same would also be true of other legislation coming out of the EU considering that most tech products are global.
This is called the "Brussels Effect" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect ) and much like the California Effect, leads to most everything being made to the more stringent standard because the market requiring it is so big.
Same reason most of your electronics are RoHS2 too.
Though it would be wise for countries to also implement these laws. For example, companies could ignore your data deletion request if you were in a state without.
> 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.
https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-e...
The EU cannot allow a large business to mess around like this.
That's also a misconception. The EU single market is an important project, but there is a constant failure to understand the actual reason why the EU exists or also a purposeful misinterpretation. Countries joining the EU are requested not to join because of the single market, but because they want to join the political project of a more peaceful and an improving Europe.
At its core the EU is a project to bring Europe together, to cooperate instead of being in wars (... WW1, WW2, Cold War, ...).
The EU is even more a political project as it is an economic project. But there are many other projects. One can not say the market is it. The main motive behind all that is the will to work together. Even the "single market" is it its core a political project.
We have seen it with Brexit. The UK never bought into the political project. Politicians also mislead the public about that. The EU is about social standards, political standards, environment, competition, building up the countries, joint research, joint infrastructure, a common law, being competitive in a larger world, ... and so on.
Just because something started as X doesn’t mean that evolution didn’t happen. The reasons for the bureaucracy are a lot and different but come down to power sharing between the stakeholders.
The EU is the European Union. 500 million humans.
This legislation is a win for the common person. Trying to portray as foisted upon the public from on high = a propaganda twist too far.
Of course, lots of things seem portentous in retrospect, if we look back on the path we took, of course it turns out we passed lots of signposts pointing in our current direction.
Germany has the idea of "Wandel durch Handel" (change through trade)[1], which is essentially that you can prevent and make war non-viable and eventually even change countries to follow democratic norms. The EU is the most extreme version of this.
"By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace."
The European Federation was the goal.
It's worth noting that they didn't just do that in 2016. They were doing it for the entire history of Britain's membership of the EU. During the referendum campaign I talked to quite a few older people (my mother included) who remembered the original Brexit referendum in the 1970s, one that most people outside the UK aren't aware ever existed. It happened just a couple of years after entering the EU, which was done unilaterally by the Labour government of the time and never subjected to a referendum. Many people of that generation say they voted Remain the first time because they were explicitly promised that the EU (or EEC as it was then known) was merely a free trade zone with no ambitions to be more. In that era, without the internet, it was much harder to fact check these sorts of claims and although there were campaigners telling the truth, the public mostly believed the government.
Later it turned out that not only was it untrue but it had never been true, that Labour knew it wasn't true and that the plan right from day one had always been to abolish European governments by merging them together into one superstate. This is often claimed to be a federalist project, but there is no specific philosophy in the EU project as to what rights should remain delegated to the individual states like in the USA. In fact the opening of the EU "constitution" equivalent says that the goal is ever closer union - without limits.
This feeling of betrayal and deception was a big driver of why the older generation went so conclusively for Leave. Most common feedback I got on talking to these people: I haven't changed my opinion from the 70s, but now I know the truth.
That wasn't the goal of the EU. Even now it isn't the goal. Nations and governments still exist.
This is absolutely not true! I can't believe how many people repeat this. The people who tell you this are either misremembering, or they've fooled themselves into believing it, or they're lying to you.
The entire argument against joining the EEC at the time was based on the threat to UK democracy because it was well known the project was a political one, not merely a common market.
The leaflet the government sent out to every household in the UK stated this explicitly but chose to reason about why this wasn't a bad thing.
Here: https://civitas.org.uk/content/files/1975ReferendumGov.pdf
And there is a lot more material out there with various viewpoints on both sides expressed, almost all of them talking about the political side of the EEC.
It's just a nonsense that this wasn't known about.
> Whenever I point out on social media that the single market is the purpose of the EU, I get bombarded by replies saying: “No you’re wrong. The EU was founded to preserve peace in Europe. Gotcha!”
> What mechanism do you think they used to preserve that peace? Cozy feelings about elections for the EU parliament? Happy thoughts about student exchange programs?
> The single market is the EU peace project, which makes protecting it an existential issue to many involved in the EU.
This is what Britain got right, the political projet is not going anywhere, there is just too much difference in heritage (in different meanings of the term) and I believe it is unreasonable to ask the citizens of each country to let go of those heritages. The differences exist for a reason and are keys to keep an equilibrium in power.
As for the economic project, it makes sense in a way it's much more efficient, but since monetary creation gives so much power in ou current system it is problematic in many ways. The standardization efforts are useful but forcing everyone into a dominant economic ideology is not serving everyone equally. Funniest thing is that Germany who was the one dominating the conversation, found a way to fuck up politically. Fiscally conscious but socially inept that is the way of the Germans.
All that being said, I'm all for the EU regulations concerning the DMA but it's just because our interests align and that's pretty much it. France has an history of calling out Apple on their bullshit, so it's not like if there is no precedent.
Also imaging the marketing spin you'd have to create: No no, we can't do business in the EU do to it's consumer protection laws. China is fine, they just execute or forcefully re-educate people, much easier people to do business with.
This isn't how "responsibility to its shareholders" works.
While it's true activist shareholders often launch lawsuits over issues they don't like in the US, they are rarely successful and more often looking for a settlement involving a secondary, less significant issue.
US Courts have repeatedly given a large amount of freedom to management to do whatever they want in terms of "delivering shareholder value". They allow management so consider long term goals against next quarter (as they should).
Additionally there's an excellent precedent for this: Google withdrawing from the Chinese market. There are other precedents for threats like this: Both Facebook and Google threatened to withdraw from Australia in various forms during negotiations over payments for news.
(Not arguing this is a good idea, just that it's completely within the realm of what Apple could do).
That is because they have a responsibility to the current shareholders, not the future ones
You do realise that, don't you?
An argument that was often used to justify things like no limit to working hours, no worker's rights, etc
Also if we are talking democracy and representation- it’s quite obvious you are mistaken. We have the European Parliament elections so… you know democratically elected representatives.
Feel free to share you view on democracy but it will be in conflict with that the real definition of word is given your comment.
As a european citizen, I really wonder what allows you to speak in my name. How arrogant can you get?
Could be that some of the people in here are fine with a "Parliament" that is not really a parliament and that they are fine with the unelected European Commission taking decisions that affect us all, but that has nothing to do with "arrogance", it's just them wanting to live under a non-democratic regime.
And facts speak for themselves, the technocrats in Brussels do not represent anyone because it was not the people of the EU who have put them there. Some of you may agree with their fiat decisions, but that is not "representation", it's just "sharing of interests".
The commission is appointed by the member states, which are all, supposedly, democratically elected (and I only make this caveat because Hungary exists). There's nothing "non-democratic" about it.
> And facts speak for themselves, the technocrats in Brussels do not represent anyone because it was not the people of the EU who have put them there. Some of you may agree with their fiat decisions, but that is not "representation", it's just "sharing of interests".
Please, enlighten me how it was not the people of the EU who put them there. I'll wait.
Yes, that's what they say, if that's "democracy" then we certainly have a different understanding of it.
> Please, enlighten me how it was not the people of the EU who put them there.
Take 8 out of 10 people (and I'm being generous here) off the street and ask them what party they represents them in the European "Parliament" (which is not really a parliament, the same way as the Democratic Republic of Korea is not all that democratic), they won't be able to tell you (I certainly won't be able). As per the European Commission, asking them that would be futile, see my point above.
More generally speaking, this policy of putting one's head in the sand and shouting "I can't hear you! This is a democracy! The European Commission actually represents the will of the European people! Saying otherwise is vile talk!" when the European electorate starts noticing facts for what they are wont' really help this "European" project going forward, but that's the bed that they've decided to sleep in so it's up to the technocrats in Brussels now.
So your argument for it being undemocratic is that randos don't care enough to understand who represents them in the EU?
It's not perfect, but it's the best we've come up with so far.
The predictions of all the bad things that'd happen on leaving were all incorrect. There was no 800k job losses, closed airspaces, trade wars etc.
Edit: forgot to mention this. Someone in my family has a vehicle in Ireland and in NI, we sort of live between the two countries, pre-brexit that was completely fine as their drivers licence was european so there was no issues, but post-brexit they cannot get insured in Ireland due to insurance companies refusing to give insurance to someone with a non-EU licence.
I have no say in how Google, for example, does their business. I'm way too poor for that. I'd need literal billions of stock to get Satya Nadella's phone number =)
All the GDPR is asking is: "if you want to use some PII, you have (1) to ask consent (2) to accept user decision"
Others implementations may have included: respecting "Do Not Track" signal implemented in browser or just... not using PII at first to sell personal datas to advertiser to make more money than selling untargeted ads (so no popup needed)!
It’s literally malicious compliance.
I find it very useful on firefox for android, since those buttons are often tiny.
If the EU Commission were influenced by voters, their priorities would follow what people say they care about in the EU's own opinion polls:
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3218
"Europeans tend to think that the most important issues facing their region at the moment are the cost of living (31%), the economic situation and unemployment (26%), and health (26%)."
No surprises there. People are feeling poor. They want more jobs and more money. A normal democratic government response would be trying to woo companies to Europe to create jobs, train locals and create economic success. It would also be lowering taxes and encouraging the creation of local startups in any way possible. That's a standard recipe that's been used many times throughout the world in response to economic discontent. But the EU isn't a normal democratic government so it spends its time on fiddling with iOS, something that doesn't even show up on polls at all because nobody cares.
It's for this kind of reason that French voters are likely to send the RN to the European Parliament in large numbers in the next election, mirroring the same pattern seen all over Europe:
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/france/
The RN is an explicitly Eurosceptic party whose only specific policy on the EU is to oppose it. Sending it to Brussels will change nothing because the European Parliament doesn't matter, but it does send a strong message of discontentment and a desire to use whatever meagre powers the Parliament has to slow the Commission down.
Replace "EU commissioner" with "government minister" and you've just described the UK, where we also don't elect the people who decide things (the cabinet).
So the commission or random EU MEP would be affected after 5 years or so.
Tim Cook would get backlash from stockholders the moment he announced he wanted to stop getting EU revenue rather than comply with regulations.
This was not a vote along party lines, all big European parties voted in favor, so nobody who matters can credibly campaign on an anti-DSA/DMA platform, so the issue is unlikely to become politicized to the point where it might influence careers.
European Commission is nothing else than an unelected government controlled by a parliament like it happens in most countries.
Also, ultimately, the commission is nominated by elected representatives of each country so, depending on how you see the thing, we could even say that they are more democratically nominated than most governments.
The only major difference between EU and most countries is that the parliament don’t have legislative power.
This is because the main difference between the EU parliament and a country parliament is that the average European has only a vague inkling of who their MEP is, what groups or parties exist in the EU parliament, and how they stand on issues.
People do not (generally) change their vote for a MEP because they did good/bad in their last term, they change their vote because they agree/disagree with the national party they represent.
But I agree with you that this idea of an undemocratic EU is rather false and really dangerous. Everyone feels like this because nobody understands that the commission don’t represent the interests of their country but those of all the European countries which few people are capable of naming years after school.
It is as (un-) democratic as the American Presidency, considering the Electoral College.
Yet you never hear complaints about the EC from the same types that love to rally against the Commission.
So it has no power
> that this idea of an undemocratic EU is rather false and really dangerous
Of course it is false and dangerous. Any disturbance in lobby money, flowing to the corrupt, unelected politicians, is false and dangerous. /s
> The European Parliament has legislative power in that the adoption of EU legislation normally requires its approval, and that of the Council, in what amounts to a bicameral legislature. However, it does not formally possess the right of initiative (i.e. the right to formally initiate the legislative procedure) in the way that most national parliaments of the member states do, as the right of initiative is a prerogative of the European Commission.[7][8] Nonetheless, the Parliament and the Council each have the right to request the Commission to initiate the legislative procedure and put forward a proposal.[9]
What is your conclusion from this? What point do you want to make? Don't leave your readers guessing.
In modern politics, and history, a parliament is a legislative body of government.
The purpose of a parliament is to make decisions about what the law says. Something that cannot decide what the law is, is therefore not a parliament. The EU Parliament isn't really a parliament.
To be clear, I’m absolutely not against the European Parliament having legislative powers but that would require the UE to become a federation and we are still far from this.
You're thinking of EU Directives, which have to be transposed into national law by some deadline. EU Regulations (e.g. GDPR) are considered legally enforceable all on their own, though still have a delay.
> Something that cannot decide what the law is
Good thing the EU parliament decides what the law is, then.
It's not.
> It can only acquiesce to or slow down the Commission's decisions.
That's not all it can do.
I know the names of the leaders of all parliamentary groups in my country, and how the groups stand on all positions. I have no idea who such leaders are in the EU parliament, or how they stand in e.g. the upcoming changes to GMO regulations.
WhatsApp, OTOH, is huge, and that’s an app that’s not installed by default and automatically consists of your entire address book as contacts but instead you have to go ahead and download it and explicitly add contacts to it, and yet it’s almost certainly bigger than imesssage outside the U.S. and is growing rapidly within the U.S.
… which has become a privacy issue now. If WhatsApp has been granted full access to the contact list, the contacts are passed onto Meta that uses numbers to track users, build out shadow profiles and whatever else they are not telling us about. It can be easily seen, e.g. if you add a new phone number that trickles through into WhatsApp, and if that new person happens to have an Instagram account, their Instagram profile will appear in the Instagram suggestions feed pretty much the next moment.
Meta has been agressively pushy in recent years with its attempt to monetise WhatsApp where they can't glean into the actual messages due to them being encrypted (unlike in Facebook Messenger). So they use the metadata and contacts (phone numbers, email, physical addresses etc) that Meta sells to third-parties, data brokers and businesses including. Messages on WhatsApp from South African, or Malaysian, or similarly remote locations offering jobs (!) or business opportunities are now a fairly regular occurence.
Considering the scale, the reach and popularity, the best option for WhatsApp would be to divest it from Meta (not that they would agree to it), however, the cost of running the platform, plus overall maintenance and feature development would be a substantial expenditure that has to be somehow funded since WhatsApp users will never agree to pay for WhatsApp, and many (who comprise a substantial to very large cohort) will not be able to afford paying for it.
So, what is actually needed is an interoperable standard so that people have choices to go and leave as they please depending on the behavior of the developers/companies.
Which is exactly what is being done, so that's convenient.
Now I wish we could legislate a way to make a new standard for email and allow people to run it from their home (just like personal mailbox) to remove that power from big tech. The technical solution is probably not that hard but getting adoption without some sort of leverage is almost impossible...
Switching is super hard when your primary platform just fallback to SMS.
If there's interop between the chat applications - and be honest, do any of them have a unique selling point that makes them significantly better to the average user? - then that restriction is lifted.
It improves competition, which is healthy in a free economy (something corporate liberals really push for), forcing the chat apps to innovate instead of benefit off of critical mass / first mover advantage.
Sure, but "the old one is no longer available" is absolutely going to get everyone to switch in the approximately 60 seconds it takes to go from the notification to having a new account.
I mean, Google basically does this every time they change the default Android messaging app (though in fairness they do get a huge advantage of already knowing all your contacts): https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/08/a-decade-and-a-half-...
That's a huge part of it. Finding good stats is hard, but take Denmark and Sweden, it more likely that not that the person you're messaging also have an iPhone. Still most countries, from the statistics I've seem, have around 20 - 33% iMessage usage. Sure some of these people also have Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp, but 30% is still a massive number.
The thing Apple has going for it is that people can't switch, or they can, but the alternative is SMS. Some seem to think that if iMessage goes away, people will just switch to WhatsApp or Signal. NO, they'll fallback to SMS/MMS.
I know many iPhone users here who don’t even use iMessage. It’s activated, so it would show in the stats, but they’ll message everyone through WhatsApp.
In the US? Maybe. In Europe, where many people have Android phones and iPhone users need WhatsApp/Messenger anyway? I doubt it.
Yet they'll pull out of EU. Sure.
I don't think something can really hurt your income when you have that much money.
If all you can do is sit on a pile of cash without any good ideas on how to turn that cash into larger profits, or you just burn it to buy stock back or give dividends, it is a way of saying “I have no vision for the future of this company, I don’t know what else we can do, we will not continue to grow aggressively, so might as well take the cash dear shareholder”
Not a great move in front of the board. Done marginally is fine, sends a “we made more that we can use” cocky statement. Doing it massively to keep stock afloat, means you are out.
Stock buybacks are net neutral wrt the company's value. They're just one of the ways to return money to stock holders. It's not a magical perpetuum mobile kind of thing.
> I don't think something can really hurt your income when you have that much money.
Of course many things can hurt your income no matter how much money you have. The only entities whose income can't be hurt are the ones who don't have any!
The evil EU forces us to give our customer choices, this will hit our profits so we derided we should lose even more money by just not participating in the market.
Though I REALLY want to find an Apple fanboy defending the policy where Apple does not allow an app to display some text like "if you buy or extend this subscription on our website it is cheaper, you have a choice dear Apple user". Informing Apple users is not allowed by Apple.
Also don’t want apps which are saying: visit this to get cheaper rates or completely not offer me to buy in-app as it is a waste of time to go their random website power by Y platform. You establish this go to website to subscribe and it will increase overall fraud.
These are my problems with the above. Very easily solved I think but I’m just worried that every greedy developer will try to get every single % they can (same as Apple) and I don’t believe this will create a “safer” world.
Competition COULD make Siri improve, competition could make the Store better etc.
You did not told me why you reading the text "if you buy your subscription from our website cheaper" is harming you? Are you having trouble with extra usefull information, I am not aware of this health issue.
We all know that if this is an option and developers are greedy (which they are as humans) then they will do everything they can to push ppl to the payment gateway with least fees regardless of the customer’s privacy or security.
The text on its own is fine but it also increases the attack vector for most people.
You have been properly brainwashed; you don't understand what you say.
Sure, information is dangerous, so Apple needs to keep the users uninformed.
Don't you see that this information can affect Apple\s profits and they hide it for that reason not to protect anyone? Their App Sore is filled with stuff that is not good for the users but if that makes money for Apple then it is allowed, including those shitty mobile games.
When Apple protects users only when they make money from it then some semi intelligent person would manage to figure out the truth.
https://www.mobileworldlive.com/apple/china-forces-apple-to-...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apples-q1-phone-sales-chi...
The US based companies don't care about people's privacy that much either, which is why we have privacy protecting laws in place. Also, there's yet to be evidence that China is doing mass surveillance through electronics or tiktok or whatever; a lot of it sounds like unsubstantiated fearmongering. Don't get me wrong, I don't trust them either, but I don't trust the US either, and there's evidence of their mass surveillance thanks to whistleblowers like Snowden.
Or in other words, the US cannot claim the moral high ground when it comes to privacy and surveillance; most privacy-focused EU laws like the GDPR can be traced directly back to US companies taking liberties.
As soon as Apple/Meta/Google/... sulk and leave, other companies would find the space to grow and fill that space with similar products which would respect the users.
Users outside of Europe would realise it's possible to have those kinds of products without abusive practices, and would start demanding Apple/Meta/Google/... for the same.
Also, the EU is really smart here because they are not doing protectionism. So if GAFAM decides to leave, they’ll take the risk of new competitors which would have no reason to be banned from the US market.
I don't think Apple can and will exit the EU since it would upset the shareholders. Also, if Apple does, it just creates a vacuum that will be filled by other tech companies. Tech companies that can then come after Apple in the markets where they are still present.
It is also likely that other countries and trading blocks will make similar demands, at which point Apple will either have to comply or shrink further.
I want this to happen so much. And I want it to be binding, that Apple cannot back down from that threat afterwards.
https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-e...
The conclusion they come to is: the EU will protect the single market even if it makes things harder for their own businesses, the single market is a totally existential issue for the EU, it is the reason it exists.
It was worst with Jose Manuel Barroso at the head of the EU commission, who needed to hide ... well, why don't I just say it. He spent a big part of his youth being a violent communist protestor (he wasn't even a now-fashionable Marxist, he was a Maoist. He protested IN FAVOR OF the "cultural revolution" in China, in favor of the killing of between 80 and 300 million people. He was explicitly anti-Marx, though I don't understand why), and has more than a few convictions and arrests for destruction of property, beating up people, assault, ...
Frankly, he is THE stereotype of what is wrong with leftists. Turns out, surprise! It's not about communism, or rights, or ... At least, it isn't for him. He was offered power through what, though people don't often think of them this way, is one of THE most capitalist institutions on this planet, the EU commission (used to be named "The European Union of Coal and Steel producers", and hasn't forgotten). He of course, immediately and totally forgot his "conviction" and took the power (of course there were many steps in his rise to power, but ...). For Barroso leftism was, and presumably is, nothing but a way to amass power, to maximize what he accidentally got thrown into at university.
But the worst of it is, he is a suspect in an unsolved murder. Now that isn't QUITE as bad as that sentence makes it sound, but close. At one of the protests where he was, someone was murdered, and the police knows he was in the group where the death occurred. Hence, he is a suspect. Along with ~20 others. The murder was "never solved".
There's even more than a few reasons this information is hidden. First is that he's involved (as well as another famous Portugese politician). Second is that the police essentially let the murder go, and "that this might lead to copycat ...". Frankly, that second part is a genuine concern.
> used to be named "The European Union of Coal and Steel producers", and hasn't forgotten
The “European Coal and Steel Community” predates the European Economic Community, which it was separate from until the 1967 merger (a decade after the EEC was founded). The EEC is related to, but not the same as, the European Union.
You started well, missed the point that the EU commission is extremely capitalistic, protecting "their" own market, pro-immigration TO DEPRESS WAGES (not for any other reason), using money for policy targets, pro-free-trade otherwise (ie. when it comes to anyone but themselves), and generally extremely capitalistic in the usual deceitful way ...
As for "The EEC is related to, but not the same as, the European Union" ... suuure. In the same the the CPC is not China, it's related. The EU commission IS the EEC, and controls the EU. It has overriding power on any and all decision made and controls all 3 branches of EU government (Parliament, itself, and the EU courts)
Look, I get that people generally like the EU commission. On Hacker News, because of their Google and Apple actions. In the EU, because of them forcing democracies to accept the EU border situation and the Euro (both were rejected in democratic votes, both were forced through in less-than-democratic ways). Doesn't change their nature.
Look it up. Decide. Form your own fine opinion.
I mean, what opinion are you really espousing? And what does it really have to do with the European Commission, which is a far bigger entity than a single man?
Hundreds of words to say nothing at all.
In what way was he "anti-Marx", and is it really that common that leftists become traitors that join the higher echelons of capitalism that Barroso can be considered stereotypical?
Platforms will be at fault then, for not complying, and not the EU. Laws are made for a greater good (privacy, customers' rights) that I think will greatly offset not having tiktok.