[JohnGB]

Wow, that's going to teach them a lesson! A whole $8.5M - That's literally only 23 minutes of 2022 revenue lost (I did the maths). I'm sure they will never do it again, despite the fact that they likely made way more than $8.5M from doing it.

If we want companies to stop doing illegal things, then the punitive consequences need to be so high that they prioritise not doing it. If a person steals $100, they could spend a decent amount of time in jail for it. Time that is worth a lot more than then $100 benefit they received. Companies want all the benefits of being a "person", so let's apply the same principles to them.

[daveguy]

It will cause more damage to their brand than $8.5M ... Apple has been positioning themselves as "privacy focused" for years. They're obviously still better than Google in this respect, but it will hurt them more than $8.5M.

[still_grokking]

> They're obviously still better than Google

Really? Google spies on their users. But everybody knows that.

Apple lies to their users telling them they not spying on them despite doing exactly that.

So who's more dishonest?

(This question is independent from the question whether it's morally OK to spy on people in the first place.)

[Mikeb85]

> They're obviously still better than Google in this respect

Are they? Google is probably the most open company about what they collect and how they use it and I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that they ever sell you out ie. do more than simply link you to contextual ads.

All their apps and services also ask for permission pretty explicitly.

[notatoad]

people like news stories that reinforce their perceptions, not news that tells them they're wrong. this isn't going to be widely reported on, because "you were wrong to like that company that everybody likes" isn't a nice story.

if the fine was huge, it would be news. but this fine is an amount that's easily ignored, so it will be.

[rendaw]

Repeated anti-privacy moves, like CSAM scanning, haven't affected public discourse yet. And I'd imagine that a small fine would instead convince people that it wasn't a serious violation.

[eldaisfish]

No, this will not make a noticeable dent.

Apple's branding and marketing are too powerful for that to happen. An obscure court ruling matters to people on HN. To the average consumer, it never happened.

[FireBeyond]

> It will cause more damage to their brand than $8.5M

You say that, but a non-negligble number of comments here are outright defending Apple saying "just a wrong default setting", "nothingburger", etc.

[still_grokking]

It needs to hurt more than just costing the company money.

Finally people from high management need to land in jail on a regular basis for the missteps of big companies. Because those people actually don't care if they loose money they don't own themself anyway.

[gtvwill]

^^^this. Apple illegally collected data. How many kids did they just commit that crime against? Jail time for c-suite management needs to happen. This whole crime is the cost of doing business is gross af.

[null_object]

> Finally people from high management need to land in jail on a regular basis for the missteps of big companies

Amazing number of people baying for prison time for this pretty trivial mis-step.

As I said in another comment, just finished reading a book where one of the chapters was about the Diamond Alkali works near Newark, where executives knowingly covered-up the intentional leaking of dioxin (the most lethal chemical known to man - the smallest dose will cause cancer) for decades.

But people on HN want to put Apple employees in prison for some trivial, minor EU law contravention.

[gruez]

>That's literally only 23 minutes of 2022 revenue lost

Right, because apple is a conglomerate that does much more than just serve ads.

>despite the fact that they likely made way more than $8.5M from doing it.

What makes you think that?

> If a person steals $100, they could spend a decent amount of time in jail for it.

Realistically speaking in most parts[1] of the US you won't get any jail time unless you're a repeat offender.

[1] saying this as a hedge in case there's some crazy judge/sheriff somewhere that's bucking the trend.