• Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 days ago

    I mean they kind of are? It’s not like M$ couldn’t just pay the fines and keep things as is.

    • Goretantath@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      No its not, the object of a corp in this modern era we live in is to milk as much money out of the customer without caring about them. The EU laws are the only thing protecting their customers from microsofts greed. microsoft IS being forced to do this and thats a GOOD thing.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        The only mechanism of “enforcement” that the EU is levying is fees/fines. M$ can absorb a large amount of fees/fines pretty readily if it means complete market capture.

        There is no “force” here when it’s just the “cost of doing business”.

        The EU isn’t raiding M$'s headquarters and capturing board members/C-suites. There is no “force”.

        • ugo@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I don’t think you understand the fact that the DMA allows fines of up to 20% of a company’s global total turnover for repeated infractions.

          Global, as in worldwide. Turnover, as in not profits, but revenue.

          For chronic cases, non monetary fines can be applied, including divestiture of parts of the corporation operating in the european union.

          No, microsoft can’t just absorb the fines, because the DMA was formulated from the beginning with the specific goal of making it impossible to just absorb the fines.

          • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 days ago

            I don’t think you understand the fact that the DMA allows fines of up to 20% of a company’s global total turnover for repeated infractions.

            And how many times has that happened?

            None? Great, we’re on the same page now.

            • Knuschberkeks@leminal.space
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 days ago

              because no company has dared to ignore it yet. Those high fines are for repeated infractions, As in if you just pay the fine but don’t change the behaviour your fine goes up.

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/first-fines-issued-eu-digital-markets-act

                Yes… it’s only been 1.1 months since they’ve first issued fines under the DMA… What a long and litigated history! Definitely shows what you claim it does over it *checks notes* 2 issued fines ever.

                Funny part is, DMA has been law since MAY 2023. So in 2 years… it issued 2 fines ever… less than 2 months ago.

                But right! NO COMPANY EVER DARES IGNORE IT!

                LMFAO. Right.

                https://www.theverge.com/news/627522/apple-meta-eu-dma-antitrust-fines

                The Financial Times reported in January that the EU was planning to soften its regulatory practices around Big Tech following an increase in pressure from the US, with the new EU Commission that took office in December reportedly being more focused on enforcing compliance than issuing hefty fines.

                Weird… Doesn’t sound like the commission even wants to issue fines at all!

            • ugo@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              And you’re suggesting what, that msft tests the waters to risk a fine of potentially 25 billions (10% of 2024 revenue) rather than letting EU users uninstall stuff. I mean I’d love for them to try and get smacked by a huge fine, but they’re not that stupid. And the fact that they have no intention of testing the waters means that the DMA is working. The goal of the DMA is not fining corporations, it’s to force them to behave. And it’s working.

              No, I don’t think we are on the same page

    • unautrenom@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Microsoft is also after those juicy administrative contracts, and right now, with US-skepticism sky-rocketing everywhere in Europe, they are terrified that the EU might mandate that administrations have to use (or, at least, have to use more in the coming years) European-made software.

      Loosing those EU contracts wouldn’t just be lost money at a time where Microsoft is pumping more and more money into AI with not a single cent of profit on the horizon, it’s also leaving the door open for a competitor to gain worldwide legitimacy and challenge their monopoly in business software.

      And that is worst case scenario for them. That’s why every tech giant has been pourring billions into trying to capture the chinese market. Because where they did not succeed, another brand started taking their place.

      How would you feel if, in the coming years, a good chunk of the EU administration were to switch to Nextcloud? If, following that move, ISPs started providing those same services to end user? If more and more people switched from MS Office to other office suites that ACTUALLY follow standards and are interoperable? Would one’s reasons for staying with the MS Ecosystem in general crumble?

      And if you think that’s not possible, remeber where Yahoo was, and where they are now. In the recent Google trial, there were internal memos showing that Google was actually concerned about DuckDuckGo, and had to prepare a strategy to ripost just in case. DDG has 0.3% percent marketshare.

      All giants have clay legs, it’s just a matter of making them bend the knee :)