This seems to be the common defense but it's written as if the law existed first, and then Apple created a business model that intentionally broke the law. What happened is the law was written so that Apple would be forced to choose between breaking their business model or paying massive fines.

The EU has entered Catch-22 territory with these regulations, where they're basically saying to these companies, "You have two options, take a big loss this way or take a big loss that way." I find the whole App Store laws to be the most galling because they're forcing Apple to make user-unfriendly decisions because it will appease the shady developers who have lobbied for the changes. The EU likes to boast about their privacy laws, but then they want to force Apple to unlock the phone for every privacy-invading developer because the EU has shady app developers but they don't have a smartphone platform. They only stand for privacy when it presents a convenient excuse to extract money from American tech companies, just like their competition concerns are obvious protectionism.

Greenland isnâ(TM)t in the EU. They left the EEC in 1985 due to a dispute over fishing rights. While they are an overseas territory in the European community, they donâ(TM)t have full privileges of EU membership.

That's an interesting way to rewrite history

The reality being, the EU crafted laws they new would place these companies *specifically* in violation thereof. The services they're now claiming are in violation were in existence long before these cash-grabbing laws were crafted and weaponized.

This is taxation via other means. Let's stop pretending it's anything other.

When you can't compete or innovate, legislate!

saloomy is a bot - don't feed it.

We tried to do an intervention...

I have a iPhone 13 Pro Max. My son bought a new Samsung at the same time. It cost a good deal more.

Apple phones are outrageously expensive when compared to a Motorola Moto G Power 5G @ $179.48 from Amazon. But not all of us want a rock bottom phone.

Yes, that can be the case in a price sensitive market. Remember, Apple has ~120% margin on an iPhone. It can definitely swallow 26% if it chooses too. But I doubt that, given the American consumer will pay anything to own an iPhone.

The article is about local inference.

Can you point out on the doll where the big huge fucking list of vectors touched you?

Nice try. Also from your sources:

https://www.lookout.com/threat....

Yeah; I realized after I included that source that they were trying to sell malware protection.

Not such a reliable source, methinks.

https://www.lookout.com/threat...

https://www.lookout.com/threat...

The product wasn't delayed. That is the point. AI was advertised as launch feature of the latest iPhone and it wasn't.

That's not relevant in a deceptive advertising claim.

No. Your lack of understanding of how the legal system works is why you *think* this suit will get thrown out.

You have an interesting interpretation of "quite low."

From your first source:

https://securelist.com/mobile-....

From your second source:

https://www.lookout.com/threat...

In both cases, these are instances where malware was detected that was already installed on devices, i.e., made it past all of Apple or Google's "screenings."

As for the App evaluation process itself, I've been through this process multiple times. It's a joke. Full stop. Decisions are arbitrary and superficial. They don't do any real analysis of the app or its safety and security.

The only reason there's a 15% tier is because of pressure from regulators. It was 30% for everybody. And 15% is still exorbitant. Shopify's fees, for example, are less than 3%.

It's a law, not a biblical commandment. There are bad laws. This is one of them.