Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrtranscendence | Hacker News Reader

> I agree with mobile app business guru Eric Seufert that the impact of Apple's ATT (anti-ad-tracking) policy on Shopify's stock price raises concerns about how small and medium-sized businesses (many of which rely on Shopify) suffer under the Apple tyranny.

Cry me a river. Letting people control how they're tracked isn't "tyranny".

> I think Apple's conduct following the ACM decision is above board. Sort of hardball, but not out of line--and not entirely without merit.

Really? "Sort of" hardball? Apple's absolutely giving the finger to Dutch authorities. They're not even complying with the letter of the ruling, let alone its intent. C'mon.

View on HN

They did comply with the ruling by allowing companies to submit apps for the Dutch market that use third party payment processors (albeit with the 27% fee which the ruling did not seem to have an issue with).

The Dutch ACM is now trying to make its ruling apply extraterritorially by rejecting Apple’s solution of allowing a Netherlands-specific app.

What about dutch developers trying to publish outside the Netherlands? Shouldn't the Netherlands still have jurisdiction based on the Nationality Principle?

No. The authority is for the Dutch consumer market. Hence why the US-based Match Group was able to bring this complaint in the first place.

If tech companies and nation states started enforcing/obeying laws based on the Nationality Principle, then FB/Google/AMZN and other data collecting firms would be allowed to ignore GDPR on the principal that the developers are in the US and thus they don't have to follow local laws.

That's one example, but there are numerous others, some worse and some harmless. Either way, it's a problem for everyone. What laws do you follow, which laws are enforced, how many laws are being broken by a developer that is just trying to publish a fun app.

There are ways for a government to project their laws on another nation, but Nationality Principle is not one of them. An example of one country projecting laws onto other countries are the US Anti-Money Laundering laws that the US doesn't even follow but they demand every foreign government that uses USD to follow.

> If tech companies and nation states started enforcing/obeying laws based on the Nationality Principle, then FB/Google/AMZN and other data collecting firms would be allowed to ignore GDPR on the principal that the developers are in the US and thus they don't have to follow local laws.

The developers are in the US. They don't have to follow local laws anywhere else. This is a fundamental principle of international relations dating back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This international order is a major reason why we can have nice things, like peace, instead of unending war.

It is, of course, possible for the nation to ban these entities from conducting business in their jurisdiction. If such entities preferred to stay out of Europe and lose that business, it would be further possible for the nation to ban its citizens from accessing Facebook and similar businesses via the Internet; the general pursuit of liability consequences which Europe has attached to the GDPR has produced a sort of soft-ban, as any European who has seen a notice from a US newspaper can attest. This is of course quite ugly, but typical GDPR-boosters sometimes seem to think that anyone who doesn't kowtow to the European order is fundamentally Evil and would like to distract you with this fact, while they seek stronger ways to protect their citizens from treacherous foreign newspapers.

We are able to maintain a stable global system with international trade in no small part because most jurisdictions don't try to do the same, legislating what foreign actors may and may not do in their own countries as a condition of their business. This system is eroding — the GDPR didn't actually start it, the US did — and it is likely to have many unfortunate consequences in years to come. Among other things, Europe is of the opinion that GDPR and its fines must be enforced in future trade agreements, but it is fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution and its first amendment (the "Right to be Forgotten" in particular).

The Westphalian regime is long dead. Minor breaches haves happened before. Then major ones, like the Nuremberg trials. The internet finally killed it. Nation states routinely engage in internet crimes, for theft of money and IP, denial of service, and (still rare) property damage.

This is the world we built together, where we can cause harm to anyone across the world without leaving home.

> dating back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This international order is a major reason why we can have nice things, like peace, instead of unending war

Westphalian sovereignty has been a myth for centuries. It is incompatible with international trade. It is incompatible with Nuremberg. And it’s internally inconsistent, giving no guidance as to which historical borders are the correct ones nor what counts as domestic versus international concern. (Spoiler: anyone can find some point in time when they had legitimate claim to almost anything, and anyone can deem almost anything domestic or international.)

None of the Treaties’ signatory states exist today. None of them were democracies. Citing it is akin to bringing up the elements of fire and earth in a physics lecture.

People being what they are, of course that the result wasn't perfect. But compared to the previous 150 years of intermittent religiously motivated wars, some of them fairly long (the 30 Year War really took 30 years from start to finish), Westphalian peace was a major improvement in quality of life. In 1648, many regions of Central Europe were essentially depopulated by the incessant fighting and looting.

> We are able to maintain a stable global system with international trade in no small part because most jurisdictions don't try to do the same, legislating what foreign actors may and may not do in their own countries as a condition of their business.

This is literally nonsense. All countries do this, and have done for the entire modern era.

> The Dutch ACM is now trying to make its ruling apply extraterritorially by rejecting Apple’s solution of allowing a Netherlands-specific app.

Requiring multiple completely separate apps for different payment methods is insane - the reasonable way is to have the same app support both and show the non-Apple method only for Dutch customers.

> The Dutch ACM is now trying to make its ruling apply extraterritorially by rejecting Apple’s solution of allowing a Netherlands-specific app.

I didn't read anywhere where the ACM suggests an extra-territorial solution, only that it was not adequate. Perhaps lowering that 27% fee could be the ticket, since it Apple's last action appears obstinate/playing number games.

The decision has absolutely nothing to do with the fee, but apple having to allow other payment providers.

This decision is about the fee Apple proposed when using other payment providers (27%. Add 2-3% for payment processor and you're back at 30%). Unsurprisingly, this arrangement was found wanting.

The single market is a core part of the European Union. Requiring separate apps for Netherlands versus the rest of the EU is likely unlawful.

They really should issue Apple a 27% fine on all sales in the Netherlands. That isn’t too much, right?

They would just charge people 27% more like every other tax.

If I'm a user of Shopify, how much am I really affected by a change in its stock price?

Over the short term or over the longer term?

In one day - not at all.

Over the longer term? If it makes shopify unable to function and shopify collapses, or if shopify loses many of its shops (due to worse terms) - then you get less choice in the market place. Those shops don’t necessarily open elsewhere, vendors stop selling and go back to whatever they did before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com