There is significant cost associated with complying with the ever increasing demands of the EU. I have seen this personally. It makes sense that they have to recuperate this somehow.
For example, the official EC report on the cost impact of the EU AI Act finds that, for businesses who already have a Quality Management System (QMS), "An enterprise employing 50 persons would pay roughly EUR 159,000-EUR 202,000 for upgrading and maintaining the QMS, and bringing one AI product to market." (Notably, that estimate excludes costs of legal review.)
Around 200000 EUR for one product making use of AI would be seen as a heavy burden on startups and small enterprises in much of the world, but as far as I can tell, it's considered not particularly noteworthy by the EC.
Apple's cost structure announced today probably needs to be assessed in that context. Tech companies doing business in Europe are already used to various additional compliance-related costs of doing business.
Come on now, that is utter nonsense. Apple has simply found a way to make even more money out of what seemed like a bad deal for them. They are not recuperating anything, they are increasing revenue.
That's not at all what I said. These regulations are increasing the cost of business in the EU. I'd much rather have those costs paid by those who democratically (?) decided these regulations that those in other countries who decided otherwise.
edit: Why downvote me for stating a matter of fact?
Fortunately, they aren’t in business anymore. (For unrelated reasons.)
Ultimately existing players always have the advantage.
As a side note: the startup world is thriving in Europe. So EU regulations can’t be that high of a barrier ;)
Also, which startups are thriving in Europe with global appeal? Genuinely, un-sarcastically, curious.
That almost never happens
> Internet providers in the US are a perfect example of this in action: why would these virtual monopolies want to provide a better product if it's so hard for competition to materialize?
Infrastructure costs is why you don’t see hundreds of competitors. New companies either need the capital to build new infrastructure, in which case they are usually more expensive due to economies of scale, or they have to resell someone else’s infrastructure. In which case they can only be as good as the monopolies.
The ironic thing is in the UK there aren’t any monopolies in ISP. There is lots of healthy competition. So your example regarding deregulation proves the opposite of your point.
I beg to differ.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/08/28/undercharged-ipho... https://www.reddit.com/r/Spectrum/comments/ln0id2/spectrum_l... https://www.thisoldhouse.com/home-finances/reviews/worst-hom... https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moo... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/02/01/bad...
Take the last link, for example, United Airlines scores low in customer satisfaction yet people still fly with them. Facebook might be hated yet people still use it.
Most people either too lazy or too cheap to boycott businesses they don’t like. And that’s assuming they even have a choice, because often there really isn’t much of an alternative to choose from.
People don’t have to use Facebook.
Hence why you’re wrong in claiming that people are principled enough to boycott businesses at a scale that makes any difference to that business.
You claim that badly behaved businesses would just lose the custom and yet all the evidence out there proves that just doesn’t happen. Or at least not to the extent that amounts to anything more than a rounding error on their books.
I had said that, “Consumers catch on to dishonest business practices and want [to] choose new market options if/when they become available”.
So you agree then?
And ya know what, I think that’s BS: you definitely have a choice and if you think you can’t follow through you’re weak. You definitely don’t need to use facebook for anything and you don’t need to fly either. It’s a choice, mate, and if you don’t think you have a choice you’re weak.
No, we are arguing the exact opposite.
> And ya know what, I think that’s BS: you definitely have a choice and if you think you can’t follow through you’re weak.
It’s not bullshit. Different people just have different priorities to yourself.
Do you think the average person gives a shit about ethical software? Or even has enough time and/or money to boycott businesses that they don’t like?
No they don’t. Businesses are just services and once they’ve finished using a product they move on with their lives.
You calling people names because they care about different concerns to you is the real issue here.
edit: > worthy of the European market.
Also, what an entitled, elitist thing to say. Maybe the US would be better off pulling out of Nato and letting Europe alone after all.
Don't forget to double-check to make sure you're responding to the right comment!
If for example its just an information website with static content and its putting cookies on the users device, its a you problem, not a EU problem.
Cookie disclosure/consent can be an issue, and again, sometimes companies would rather just not serve EU clients altogether than build a simple disclosure and not set any cookies. Not saying that's good or bad, but that's just what it is.
The apps could be perfectly fine, its just that people will speculate.