[HN Gopher] Italian Competition Authority Fines Apple $115M for ...
___________________________________________________________________
Italian Competition Authority Fines Apple $115M for Abusing
Dominant Position
Author : amarcheschi
Score : 125 points
Date : 2025-12-22 11:22 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (en.agcm.it)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.agcm.it)
| lioeters wrote:
| OK now slap the wrists of Alphabet and Meta.
| Lapel2742 wrote:
| > OK now slap the wrists of Alphabet and Meta.
|
| Google is probably next (Antitrust case(s)). AFAIK the EU is
| currently probing a case.
|
| And before the Nationalists get mad again: If I sell in the US
| I'm naturally obliged to follow US rules and regulations. I
| wouldn't even think twice about this. The same is true in other
| markets. So for the Single Market: If you play on European
| turf, you play by European rules.
| mk89 wrote:
| The weirdest thing is that all fines from EU countries are
| about privacy and anti-competitive behavior, which literally
| every citizen can benefit from. The implementation might be
| something questionable sometimes, but this hatred is totally
| nonsense.
|
| It strikes me as odd that the land of opportunity has become
| the land of bigX that must overtake everything and everyone
| just accepts it. This isn't the spirit of the Americans I
| know, who actually challenge and see opportunity everywhere.
| How can you just choose to bend to Apple/Google/Meta etc? I
| understand they are great companies, but they do really ugly
| things to push competitors out, to allow scam/phishing, etc.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Apple's consent requirement isn't good enough for legal consent
| so third-parties have to ask twice, which "harms advertisers"
| trying to get at that juicy personal data.
| nicole_express wrote:
| I'm so glad they're protecting us from Apple (checking document)
| making it too hard to collect personal data for advertising.
| Thanks, Italy
| znpy wrote:
| It really depends if apple is making it hard to collect data
| that apple itself can collect with blanket permissions from
| users.
|
| In that case yes, apple is abusing its dominant position and is
| competing unfairly with other companies. And they must be fined
| for that.
|
| Apple does advertising too: https://ads.apple.com
| nicole_express wrote:
| Nothing about unfair competition is mentioned in the press
| release, so I can only assume this wasn't a significant
| factor in the competition authority's decision.
| Unfortunately, I can't read Italian, so I'm not sure if this
| is brought up in the 199-page full text of the order.
| dns_snek wrote:
| The press release is.. not great. The summary document
| linked at the bottom of the page is written in English and
| makes it clear that the fine was issued due to their double
| standards:
|
| > xii. As a matter of fact, revenues from App Store
| services increased, in terms of higher commissions
| collected from developers through the platform; likewise,
| Apple's advertising division, which is not subject to the
| same stringent rules, ultimately benefited from increased
| revenues and higher volumes of intermediated ads
|
| [1]
| https://en.agcm.it/dotcmsdoc/pressrelease/A561_SUMMARY.pdf
| amarcheschi wrote:
| It's way too long for me, but just skimping I read that
|
| 1)apple was reported to the authority by meta, the
| authority then started investigating (and this is honestly
| extremely funny)
|
| 2)apple says that att prompt is enough to work as a gdpr
| consent form, meta didn't agree with this. The authority
| after a long investigation found apple was in wrongdoing
| because the att prompt breaks some rules on I don't
| understand what and so is not gdpr compliant - the only
| thing I understood is that it doesn't provide enough
| informations to the end user
|
| 3)authority also notes that this prompt was imposed by
| Apple without input from third parties, thus distorting the
| market because the same prompt is not required for apple's
| own apps
| monocularvision wrote:
| Apple is allowed to share data among its apps. Third-party
| app developers are allowed to share data within their apps.
| If third-party developers want to share data with _other_
| third-party developers (aka the advertising ID), then they
| need the explicitly request permission. It is fairly
| straightforward.
| concinds wrote:
| I wonder where this narrative came from. It's simply not
| true. Third-party apps with ATT denied have the same data
| access as Apple does.
| troupo wrote:
| Of all issues they chose "poor advertisers can't get their hands
| on user data"
| sonuhia wrote:
| money laundering? a bribe? someone ink and track every single one
| of those dollars!
| mainde wrote:
| Don't you find it excessive to imply the above regarding a G7
| country?
| f6v wrote:
| I don't download any apps anymore, so not very informed on the
| state of alternative app stores in EU. I decided to Google where
| I can find those. One of the first links is leading to MacPaw's
| website. It's a company with questionable ethics and business
| practices that tries to sell you "antivirus" and "decluttering"
| app. So I'll pass.
|
| But are there any real 3rd-party AppStores for iOS now? Something
| that's used by more than just a couple of people? Or is EU just
| trying to milk rich USA tech giants (I think I know the answer).
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| > One of the first links is leading to MacPaw's website.
|
| Yikes, Google results are bad these days! They seem to focus on
| Mac applications, not iOS app store alternatives.
|
| > But are there any real 3rd-party AppStores for iOS now?
|
| Yes, the main one I am familiar with is AltStore:
| https://altstore.io
|
| However, according to Apple's docs, they only allow alternative
| app stores in the EU and Japan, so you have to be using an iOS
| account with the region set to one of those two places and be
| physically located there in order to install the app store. Not
| something that's easy to experiment with for people in the USA
| to see how the other half lives.
|
| > Or is EU just trying to milk rich USA tech giants (I think I
| know the answer).
|
| I don't really see an angle for the EU to do much milking here.
| Actually I think the AltStore founders are Americans? So they
| seem to be reaping the benefits of EU and Japanese legislation,
| remotely.
| troupo wrote:
| > However, according to Apple's docs, they only allow
| alternative app stores in the EU and Japan
|
| Also: even though Apple is explicitly told not to censor
| these alternative stores, Apple effectively does this through
| notarization
| Terretta wrote:
| > _are there any real 3rd-party AppStores for iOS now_
|
| "Always has been": Setapp. Very interesting model.
|
| Readily recommend devs subscribing to this collection, but non-
| devs as well if you're into "there's an app for that" and
| fatigued with IAP.
|
| https://setapp.com/
| rdtsc wrote:
| > privacy rules imposed by Apple for iOS devices, as of April
| 2021, on third-party developers of apps distributed through the
| App Store. In particular, third-party app developers are required
| to obtain specific consent for the collection and linking of data
| for advertising purposes through Apple's ATT prompt
|
| Wait, so they are punishing Apple because Apple makes it harder
| to spy on users.
|
| What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market? They can
| create their own Apple competitor, I guess.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| As far as I can understand, the fine is for having a prompt for
| 3rd party apps, but not apple's own apps. Then I'm not sure
| because even to me, the wording used by the authority is not
| entirely clear, but the issue would lie in a different
| treatment reserved for 3rd parties compared to 1st party apps
| dns_snek wrote:
| Yes, precisely, take a look at the summary document [1] at
| the bottom of the article.
|
| > xii. As a matter of fact, revenues from App Store services
| increased, in terms of higher commissions collected from
| developers through the platform; likewise, Apple's
| advertising division, which is not subject to the same
| stringent rules, ultimately benefited from increased revenues
| and higher volumes of intermediated ads
|
| > xiii. Therefore, considering that Apple holds an absolute
| dominant position in the market for the supply to developers
| of platforms for the online distribution of apps to users of
| the iOS operating system, the Authority established that
| Apple's conduct amounts to an exploitative abuse, in breach
| of Article 102 TFEU, that started in April 2021 and is still
| ongoing.
|
| [1]
| https://en.agcm.it/dotcmsdoc/pressrelease/A561_SUMMARY.pdf
| concinds wrote:
| ATT isn't about a vendor tracking you across their apps
| (Facebook can still log you into all their apps at once).
| It's about using data collected by third-parties or sending
| data to third party trackers, which Apple doesn't do for
| their own ads.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Ok, that makes it clearer
| epolanski wrote:
| It's about 3rd party vs apple's own.
| piva00 wrote:
| No, they are punishing because the ATT pop-up is not enough to
| comply with privacy rules, requiring 3rd party apps to have a
| secondary pop-up to be compliant (which Apple's own apps
| wouldn't need since they don't use ATT).
|
| So it's more that Apple's ATT _is not compliant_ with stricter
| privacy rules, not the opposite...
| concinds wrote:
| The "stricter" privacy rules of "Accept all" banners that
| send your data to 1000+ companies? Or "Accept all", but to
| Refuse you must tap a small grey link and manually uncheck
| dozens of boxes? Or worse, banners that force you to choose
| between accepting all tracking or paying a monthly
| subscription, blatantly illegal in the EU but ubiquitous in
| Italy even among large companies and news sites?
|
| Meanwhile ATT blocks access to IDFA (instead of making it a
| pinky promise), and if apps were honest and were denied ATT
| it should disable other tracking too. The user has already
| indicated lack of consent.
| piva00 wrote:
| > The "stricter" privacy rules of "Accept all" banners that
| send your data to 1000+ companies? Or "Accept all", but to
| Refuse you must tap a small grey link and manually uncheck
| dozens of boxes? Or worse, banners that force you to choose
| between accepting all tracking or paying a monthly
| subscription, blatantly illegal in the EU but ubiquitous in
| Italy even among large companies and news sites?
|
| I don't know, I just stated what is in the decision: Apple
| makes 3rd party developers have to go through a process
| their own apps do not have to, hence creating an imbalance
| in competition since they are also the owners and
| controllers of the distribution channel.
|
| The blatantly illegal pop-ups also annoy me a lot, it's
| clear it's not even malicious compliance but a targeted
| attack against the regulations to make it seem the law is
| requiring them to make it as annoying as possible. It seems
| to work since you got incensed by it.
| concinds wrote:
| I'm not "incensed" by the law at all, only by the
| companies gleefully violating it.
|
| But Apple doesn't track you in the way ATT prevents, see
| my other comment; the narrative that they do was pushed
| by the adtech industry who wants ATT gone, and the courts
| (French, Italian) just never bothered checking if that
| was true. Check the decision yourself, they take it for
| granted and never look into how it works.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| It's not only that.
|
| > The terms were also found to be disproportionate to the
| achievement of the company's stated data protection
| objectives. Since user data are a key input for personalised
| online advertising, the double consent request that
| inevitably arises from the ATT policy, as implemented,
| restricts the collection, linking and use of such data. As a
| result, such double consent requirement is harmful to
| developers
| p-e-w wrote:
| > What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market?
|
| They can't.
|
| If they did, the company (and thus shareholders) would lose
| money. Shareholders would vote out the board, and the new board
| would appoint a CEO who would promptly re-enter the Italian
| market.
|
| This is why corporations get slapped around by regulators
| everywhere, even though on the surface, the regulators need the
| company far more than the other way round.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > What happens if Apple just exits the Italian market? They can
| create their own Apple competitor, I guess.
|
| My guess is that if they want to do that, they'd also need to
| leave the European market as a whole, as many countries share
| similar laws and regulations, besides the ones that applied
| across the entire European Union. And since Europe seems to
| represent ~25% total revenue in 2025 for Apple, that feels like
| a highly unlikely choice for them to do, considering they're a
| public company and have obligations to the shareholders.
| concinds wrote:
| > The Authority found the App Tracking Transparency ("ATT")
| policy to restrict competition. [...]
|
| > In particular, third-party app developers are required to
| obtain specific consent for the collection and linking of data
| for advertising purposes through Apple's ATT prompt. However,
| such prompt does not meet privacy legislation requirements,
| forcing developers to double the consent request for the same
| purpose.
|
| > The Authority established that the terms of the ATT policy are
| imposed unilaterally and harm the interests of Apple's commercial
| partners. The terms were also found to be disproportionate to the
| achievement of the company's stated data protection objectives.
|
| They must think we're fucking stupid.
| petcat wrote:
| EU privacy regulations and the GDPR are a complete farce.
| You'll notice that the EU's own government websites are
| littered with cookie banners. They want the data just as bad as
| everybody else.
|
| The goal was not in any way to protect privacy, but rather to
| extract rent from American tech companies.
| hnbad wrote:
| > They want the data just as bad as everybody else.
|
| Sure. Let's look at the main site: https://european-
| union.europa.eu/index_en
|
| Big cookie banner. Wait. What's that. It's not a modal? And a
| big "Accept only essential cookies" button with the same
| visual weight as the "Accept all cookies" button? Surely
| everybody does it this way because it's literally what EU law
| requires - surely nobody would try to trick people into
| clicking "accept all" by hiding the alternative behind
| multiple layers of opaque options and checkboxes.
|
| So let's look at what data they are harvesting:
| https://european-union.europa.eu/cookies_en
|
| Technical cookies... functional cookies... boring - most of
| these are just for handling logins and preferences. Ooh,
| analytics! But what's Europa Analytics? Let's check:
| https://european-union.europa.eu/europa-analytics_en
|
| Oh, they are not only opt-in, they even respect DNT headers.
| And they're masking the IP addresses before processing them
| further. Damn, they must really want that data just as bad as
| "everybody else".
| wkat4242 wrote:
| No the goal was to give users that want privacy an option to
| get it. Even the EU site allows users to say no to tracking.
| That's a good thing.
| runako wrote:
| This looks like it's targeted at the relationship between Apple
| and Italian developers. I guess this means Apple could also
| comply by kicking Italian developers out of the iOS developer
| program?
| esperent wrote:
| Unlikely because services in the EU have to be offered without
| barriers to everyone across all member states.
| joe_mamba wrote:
| Which EU law say that exact thing?
|
| Because now I live in an EU country that had (and has)
| foreign products and services, typically of US origin, that
| are not officially available in my home EU country, like for
| example Xbox GamePass for console. Was same with Nextflix
| till a few years ago. Same with AMEX cards.
|
| So NO, you can definitely provide your services only to
| specific EU member states if that's what you wish, they can't
| force you to sell in all countries.
| macbr wrote:
| You're right but there has been some progress in that
| matter.
|
| I.e. streaming providers can't stop you from watching
| Germany exclusive Netflix content when on holidays in
| Greece using your German Netflix subscription (only free/ad
| supported services are allowed to do that)
| wqaatwt wrote:
| Yet plenty of companies are not doing that. Sony and MS
| amongst others..
| nradov wrote:
| I don't necessarily disagree with this ruling, but it's sad that
| EU governments now take in more revenue from fining US tech
| companies than from taxing local tech companies. An entire
| continent is on the path of becoming parasites instead of
| builders. Will they ever adopt a growth and abundance agenda
| again?
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Maybe companies that break eu/local rules could respect the law
| arpinum wrote:
| Hard to respect vague laws. Apple can't read the regulators'
| minds and figure out their interpretations, or instantly
| pivot when regulators change their minds.
| Steve16384 wrote:
| So, like being a citizen then?
| dns_snek wrote:
| You don't need to read minds to know that abusing your
| dominant market position in one market to disadvantage your
| competitors in a different market (advertising) has a very
| high likelihood of breaking competition rules. That's a
| textbook example of anti-competitive behavior.
|
| When did they change their minds, can you provide a link to
| a previous regulatory decision which approved this
| behavior?
| jltsiren wrote:
| All laws are inherently vague. Some actions are clearly
| legal and some are clearly illegal. Between them, there is
| a gray zone, where it can be impossible to say in advance
| what's legal and what isn't.
|
| If you are an amoral profit maximizer, like the average
| publicly traded company, it's often rational to take risks
| by entering the gray zone. Sometimes nobody cares that you
| do that. Sometimes you manage to get a favorable court
| ruling. And sometimes the expected gains outweigh the
| eventual fines.
|
| It's almost always easy to comply with the laws by playing
| it safe. But shareholders don't like that.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| If the US tech companies stop behaving this way, maybe.
| nradov wrote:
| Sure. I'm not here to defend bad behavior by US tech
| companies. Just pointing out the sad contrast in terms of
| lack of growth and innovation by EU tech companies.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| How is the EU tech company lack of growth related to fining
| companies for not obeying the law?
|
| Yes, Europe is a laggard in tech, but I don't see any
| relationship here. Even if they wouldn't fine these
| companies, EU would still lag, and now that they are fining
| them, EU companies are not at an advantage, nor growing
| faster.
| hnbad wrote:
| The US is in the middle of a recession if you exclude the
| AI bubble. Even if you include the AI bubble it's barely
| avoiding stagflation. I'm not sure "growth and innovation"
| accurately serves as a contrast between the US and EU tech
| companies right now.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Europe just doesn't have the "move fast and break things"
| mentality because we don't want things like privacy broken.
| At least not without the user's unpressured choice which is
| what GDPR is all about.
|
| If we allowed the same kind of unrestricted development
| we'd have more money and growth but we'd be just like the
| US. Which I personally don't want for sure. I'm glad to be
| living here. It's not all about money and economy.
| vnchr wrote:
| Or the US tech companies could abandon EU markets
| piva00 wrote:
| They could, it could be a blessing for competitors in the
| EU.
|
| But they won't because the EU is a huge market and money
| speaks, while that happens they need to comply with the
| laws. Stop breaking the laws and you stop being fined, it's
| pretty simple for multi-billion/low-trillion market cap
| companies, innit?
| lenkite wrote:
| It would be terrific if this happens. Can give room for
| alternatives to grow in the EU. Even the rest of the world
| would love it.
|
| So far only China has managed alternatives - and only
| thanks to govt exclusion. US behemoths just eat everyone
| else up - even in the global South.
| tt24 wrote:
| I'm sorry to disappoint you but the EU is unable to
| create any usable alternatives to US tech chiefly due to
| lack of SWE talent (among other things). Anyone remotely
| competent sees the 40k senior SWE salaries offered by
| European tech companies and immediately crawls through
| glass just to work at a mid-tier company in the Northern
| California area of the United States.
| lenkite wrote:
| Once they pay "modern" US health insurance (esp after a
| layoff) and also need to raise a family, the vast
| majority will crawl back through lava.
| tt24 wrote:
| Still no - PPP (that's after expenses such as food,
| healthcare, housing, etc) is significantly higher in the
| United States.
| lenkite wrote:
| I believe that would be true (after food, housing,
| healthcare, taxes, child-care, etc) only for a very
| narrow band of senior SWE's. And you are still not
| considering employment protection. And for junior or mid-
| level SWE's, not at all true for the overwhelming
| majority.
| tt24 wrote:
| This is true not only for SWEs, but for the median worker
| in the United States.
| linhns wrote:
| I'd love alternatives that work well, but having used the
| said Chinese ones, I got no choice but to stick to the
| behemoths. Telegram may eat a bit into the messaging
| dominance, but that's it.
| hnbad wrote:
| You must believe that US companies are trying to enter and
| stay in hostile markets out of the sheer kindness of their
| hearts. Have you considered that not being present in the
| second biggest market by GDP may actually be a massive
| liability by creating a massive opportunity for competitors
| that will be far better adapted to stricter regulatory
| conditions? You could just as well advise US car
| manufacturers to stick to building cars like the Cybertruck
| and ignore markets that consider it unsafe.
| epolanski wrote:
| US tech companies already avoid paying jackshit by moving to
| Ireland.
|
| So apple Ireland sells services and devices to apple italy on
| which the profit is all in Ireland.
| geon wrote:
| > EU governments now take in more revenue from fining US tech
| companies than from taxing local tech companies
|
| Do you have a source for that, or did you just make it up?
| wendgeabos wrote:
| The government is everywhere prone to becoming the mafia.
| dinkblam wrote:
| no year goes by without Italy imposing random >100mEUR fines for
| 2-3 american tech companies. whenever they need money, they just
| hit another one without care whether actual laws were violated.
| the amount they take has no correlation to what has been blamed,
| only to how much the companies can afford to pay without
| threatening to leave the country.
|
| the 'Guardia di Finanza' has a long standing tradition of trying
| to extort money without regards to actual laws. its not long ago
| that they told all companies 'if you pay X% more than your tax
| report says you own then we won't destroy your company'. more
| recently they went after the Agnelli family trying to extort
| money without having an actual case.
|
| its not the rule of law, its simply Might makes Right or modern
| robber knights...
| threemux wrote:
| It's the EU way. The only area where they produce world-leading
| innovation is regulatory regimes, so gotta use it to hit up
| American tech companies like an ATM.
| razakel wrote:
| Just an idea - how about not breaking the law?
| threemux wrote:
| Oh please. "The law" is a Kafkaesque patchwork that
| delegates authority to local officials and has enough
| complexity and wiggle room to make anything possible. We're
| not talking about a speed limit sign here. Show me the
| [company], I'll show you the crime.
|
| I've been assured by people in this thread and others that,
| for example, if you "don't spy on users", you don't need
| cookie banners, and yet official EU sites have them.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Show me the [company], I'll show you the crime.
|
| Yeah, maybe that floats the people's boat wherever you
| live, but in other countries where people's health and
| well-being go above corporate interests, it is not common
| for companies to break the law.
|
| > for example, if you "don't spy on users", you don't
| need cookie banners, and yet official EU sites have them.
|
| Which is true, and you can understand that yourself by
| not relying on others, but reading the regulation
| yourself. It's actually pretty simple, and I think even
| someone who don't like regulations would be able to get
| through it if you apply yourself.
|
| And yeah, even official EU sites could avoid it if they'd
| chose to not use tracking cookies. Not sure what the
| gotcha is supposed to be here? There is no inconsistency
| here.
| rpdillon wrote:
| > I think even an American would be able to get through
| it if you apply yourself.
|
| This doesn't belong on HN.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| True, and I see now it could be read in a way I didn't
| intended it to, fixed it by making it clearer what I
| meant. Thanks :)
| prettygood wrote:
| They can always chose not to sell their products and services
| in the EU if they don't want to comply with the laws here.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > no year goes by without Italy imposing random >100mEUR fines
| for 2-3 american tech companies. whenever they need money
|
| Since you apparently know, how large would a 100M EUR injection
| into the Italian budget for 2026 actually be, relatively to the
| other things?
|
| You're saying they're doing this because they need money, but
| wouldn't changing the tax rates be more effective at this? 100M
| feels like a piss in the ocean, when you talk about a country's
| budget, but since you seem to imply Italy is doing this
| survive, would be nice to know what ratio this fine represents
| of their budget, which I'm guessing you have in front of you
| already?
| franch wrote:
| Italy's unconsolidated budget for 2025 is projected to be
| around 700 billion euros in revenue and 900 billion in
| expenditures:
|
| https://www.rgs.mef.gov.it/VERSIONE-I/attivita_istituzionali.
| ..
|
| So yeah, whoever talks about these fines as a strategy for
| fixing the budget knows nothing about the actual budget of a
| G7 state, these fines are completely immaterial to Italian
| fiscal policy.
|
| For perspective, that's roughly equivalent to someone with a
| EUR50,000 annual income finding EUR7 on the street and
| someone claiming they're doing it "to survive."
| dmix wrote:
| From a post I saw on reddit:
|
| > In 2024 EU fined US tech companies EUR3.8B meanwhile
| public internet tech companies paid only EUR3.2B in income
| tax
|
| How is it not a major budget contribution to have fines on
| American companies bigger than revenue from your entire
| tech industry?
|
| That is a de facto tax, particularly when they announce
| these new fines monthly like clockwork.
| franch wrote:
| The relevant comparison is fines vs. actual budget, not
| fines vs. some cherry-picked industry segment. EU general
| government spending (across 27 nations) in 2023 was
| around EUR8.4 trillion. EUR3.8B in fines is 0.045% of
| that, again, completely immaterial.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/1379290/government-
| expen...
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| Income tax paid by public internet tech companies is not
| the same as "revenues from the entire tech industry"
|
| This report is indicating around 800B in value for the
| sector (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
| explained/index.php...)
|
| While other reports have significant higher numbers
| https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/tech-europe-is-
| worth-4000-bil...
| troupo wrote:
| > fines on American companies bigger than revenue from
| your entire tech industry?
|
| 1. As someone already mentioned, taxes != revenue
|
| 2. On top of that, "public internet companies" != "entire
| tech industry"
|
| 3. On top of that, tax evasion and creative accounting by
| "public internet companies" companies is well known,
| documented, and is subject to additional fines (not as
| often or as much as they deserve)
|
| 4. On top of that "announce these new fines monthly like
| clockwork" speaks volumes about the state of the "public
| internet companies" and there continuous disregard for
| the law.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| This, I think, is the real answer why this is happening. The
| motivation behind these huge fines on large U.S. tech companies
| by EU countries is actually "we need revenue", not "we must
| protect our users". I would expect this to become another
| source of strain between the EU and the US as the EU economy
| continues to atrophy. Especially so if the U.S. economy
| weakens, too.
| gbalduzzi wrote:
| European companies are fined all the time as well, you just
| don't see the news about it, there definitely no ill-intent
| vs american companies as you are trying to imply
| fn348x2 wrote:
| On the Euro, Maastricht Treaty circa. ratified in 1992.
|
| Is certainly a leverage in Apple's third-party research.
| earthnail wrote:
| Surprised by the negative comments here. Usually HN univocally
| complains about Apple's dominant App Store. Now a government
| fines them for it and some people are upset?
| petcat wrote:
| I think people would sympathize more if it was something like
| "Apple makes choosing a different default browser or email
| client unnecessarily cumbersome" --
|
| instead of "Apple makes you double-opt-in to sharing your
| private data with even more advertisers"
| dns_snek wrote:
| But that's not the story here. I hate ads as much as anyone,
| but this action is a matter of market competition, not
| privacy. They're completely different fights and intelligent
| people ought to be able to distinguish between the two. Anti-
| competitive behavior by Google, Apple, Meta, etc. is what got
| us into this mess with tracking and privacy violations in the
| first place.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| It's the market for privacy violations. I'd go so far as to
| say that improving competitiveness in this market probably
| makes the world worse, by making privacy violations more
| profitable. If they had fined them for not allowing
| sideloading, or not allowing third-party payments, it would
| be a different story. Those are markets I want to see grow
| and thrive.
| dns_snek wrote:
| They received a complaint, they investigated and issued a
| fine. You're asking them to selectively enforce laws
| based on their subjective opinion of some industry, which
| would be highly illegal.
|
| The entire advertising industry needs to die and I'll
| support every fight in pursuit of that goal, but this
| isn't about that. You don't dismantle an industry by
| picking a winner and letting them get away with crime.
|
| And yes, there needs to be an EU-wide action over all of
| those other issues you mentioned too but that has nothing
| to do with this particular case.
| lukeschlather wrote:
| I'm not asking them to do anything, I'm just saying I
| don't particularly find this enforcement action to be
| cause for celebration.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > this action is a matter of market competition, not
| privacy
|
| Nope.
|
| This is literally about apps having to ask the user for
| permission before they can track them.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Can you do me a favor and familiarize yourself with the
| executive summary document instead of just replying "nuh
| uh" out of ignorance? See paragraphs 5, 10, and 12 in
| particular.
|
| They broke competition law. The fact that did so in the
| advertising industry as opposed to any other is
| irrelevant to this case.
| earthnail wrote:
| When Apple introduced these changes, rates for Apple Search
| Ads tripled.
|
| Because Apple Search Ads are offered by the same company that
| sold you the device, they are legally not a "third party"
| service. Apple still tracks your installs, your revenue, your
| retention period, etc, and uses it for Apple Search Ads.
| Developers can see these metrics for their own apps.
|
| You can't opt out of this.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| It's almost like the stories on HN always attract more nay-
| sayers/detractors/negative nancies than positive ones, so if
| you just go by "general vibe of the comment section by
| submission theme", it'll always look like HN has split
| personality disorder, while in reality HN is composed of a wide
| range of diverse individuals :)
| Someone1234 wrote:
| It is a nationalistic thing. When foreign governments fine
| "American" companies, they get all up in arms, while constantly
| asking the US Government to provide better consumer protections
| and promote competition.
|
| This position commonly ignores that these fines are against
| these companies position within the market for which they're
| fined. Meaning that the EU will look at the EU profits and fine
| relative to those, so they aren't fining the "American"
| side/profits of the company but rather their "EU" (or Italian
| in this case) balance sheet.
| StopDisinfo910 wrote:
| The EU moved to fining on the basis of global revenues a long
| time ago to avoid companies using accounting to hide local
| revenues and avoid fines.
|
| Then again, it could be seen as a tit for tat move regarding
| how the US applied its laws extraterritorialy using the
| dollar as a medium so it's bit harsh to complain about the EU
| when the US started the whole thing.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| This whole procedure started after Meta (that meta) reported
| apple to the authority, it's not even an investigation that
| was started by the authority of its own volition
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Meta reported that they had to ask users for permission
| before being allowed to track what users were doing on
| their device.
|
| This is literally about users having the ability to say no.
| like_any_other wrote:
| > When foreign governments fine "American" companies, they
| get all up in arms
|
| Which is ironic, because Apple is more aligned with China
| than the US:
|
| _Apple CEO Tim Cook "secretly" signed an agreement worth
| more than $275 billion with Chinese officials, promising that
| Apple would help to develop China's economy and technological
| capabilities_ - https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-
| ceo-tim-cook-secr...
| dns_snek wrote:
| You shouldn't be surprised. Almost every single story involving
| the EU and Apple that I've seen over the past few years was
| full of low effort responses and generic rants about the EU by
| people who clearly haven't read past the title, especially when
| it comes to fines.
|
| Take your pick: "EU is fining us to finance itself", "EU can't
| innovate", "I can't believe that EU is fining Apple for _[gross
| misunderstanding of the situation]_ "
| wrxd wrote:
| I don't think it's surprising. The ideal setup for many people
| here is an OS that gives them control over what they run and
| over their data.
|
| An App Store that restrict us from running the application we
| want is bad. An App Store that prevents applications from
| tracking us is good. The former restricts our freedom, the
| latter restricts the freedom of developers who want to take
| advantage of our data.
| Obscurity4340 wrote:
| It wasnt until recently that we could even have emulators to
| play old video games we grew up with, instead of having to
| buy "clones" one by one for $5/piece. The only thing that was
| protecting was Apple's profits
| earthnail wrote:
| Except the Apple App Store literally tracks you, which in
| turn powers Apple Search Ads.
| wrxd wrote:
| Have you ever read a comment in favour of Apple Store ads?
| Every time the topic is discussed here the opinion is very
| negative.
|
| What I said it's that I don't find it surprising that
| people generally dislike the App Store but that they also
| aren't against limiting tracking from apps.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > Usually HN univocally complains about Apple's dominant App
| Store.
|
| There is a strong population on HN that dislikes walled
| gardens. In my experience there are also plenty of people who
| disagree. There's also a large population that doesn't like EU
| tech regulations.
|
| The ratio between different parts of the HN population can
| change significantly depending of stuff like time of day and
| headline draw. I don't find it particularly surprising, it
| isn't like HN is a monolith with internally consistent views
| across the entire population.
| jaredklewis wrote:
| Ok, but can you give me an example of even ONE specific
| commenter who has made inconsistent comments on this topic in
| different threads?
|
| "HN" is lots of different people with lots of different
| opinions. Different threads select for different commentators.
| This is not unusual (nor has it been the other thousand times
| people have commented on the inconsistency of HN).
| amelius wrote:
| These posts should really have a poll on HN, so we know what
| HN thinks about the case.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Why does it matter what others on HN think? Either you find
| a comment insightful, read it, upvote and move on. Or it
| isn't, or maybe it's outright wrong, and you try to correct
| it. Or you found some question in your head, so you ask
| that.
|
| Not once have I wondered what "HN at large thinks" because
| it simply doesn't matter. What HN-the-collective thinks
| about things-in-general just isn't interesting, people's
| individual thoughts and opinions though, is so much more
| valuable to read and interesting.
| jaredklewis wrote:
| Polls would be just as inconsistent as the comments.
| Individual contributors would be consistent, but different
| polls would select for different contributors.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| It's almost like HN is a (semi-)large community with many
| different viewpoints!
| port11 wrote:
| This one's getting negative reception because the optics are
| crap. I've ranted plenty about Apple, but ATT is a great thing
| and I don't see how it's "abusing market position". Like, just
| don't track people across the web and then you don't need to
| show the ATT pop-up?
| smegma2 wrote:
| I think comments on pretty much everything skew negative.
| There's not much to say if you support the fine.
| primer42 wrote:
| Apple makes, what, $1 billion (with a B) in profit every day.
|
| So this is nothing to them.
| groundzeros2015 wrote:
| What about profit in Italy?
|
| Relative amounts don't make it right or wrong.
| linhns wrote:
| I'm on the fence on this matter however they need to look at
| other actions of fellow big companies, for equality under the
| laws.
| ursAxZA wrote:
| I might be missing some procedural detail, but if there's no
| formal "warning - fixed-window for correction - penalty"
| sequence, isn't that just state overreach?
|
| If the issue has existed for years, retroactively jumping
| straight to fines feels less like regulation and more like the
| government exploiting its timing advantage.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-22 23:01 UTC)