Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules

[Stuwil]

If your response to me pointing out that you're making a logical fallacy is to continue to repeat the logical fallacy then I don't think we have any more to say here.

Do you have actual proof that the DMA
Is an innovation killer or is it an opinion
Like for example the DMA is an innovation killer because in this insert name of country that doesn’t have the DMA innovation is alive and well regarding mobile OS’s
That is not iOS or android
Because if you can’t then it’s just hearsay
Then isn’t

 

[I7guy]

Ok so there is no evidence then that you can offer just opinions that’s all?

There is evidence. The eu regulated rather than innovated. That’s the evidence. Where is that Apple competitor? It’s buried under the DMA.

 

[I7guy]

Do you have actual proof that the DMA
Is an innovation killer or is it an opinion
Like for example the DMA is an innovation killer because in this insert name of country that doesn’t have the DMA innovation is alive and well regarding mobile OS’s
That is not iOS or android
Because if you can’t then it’s just hearsay
Then isn’t

Proof is not a requisite for citing an opinion. That’s disingenuous debate and moving the goalposts. I’ll also throw in this is a straw man.

 

[surferfb]

Do you have actual proof that the DMA
Is an innovation killer or is it an opinion
Like for example the DMA is an innovation killer because in this insert name of country that doesn’t have the DMA innovation is alive and well regarding mobile OS’s
That is not iOS or android
Because if you can’t then it’s just hearsay
Then isn’t

It's very hard to prove a negative. Especially when you're limiting "innovation" to one very specific definition of "multiple mobile OSes" and then saying two countries where innovation is happening (US and China) don't count and insisting on repeating a logical fallacy over and over again to the point where I'm beginning to wonder if you understand what a logical fallacy is and why using one repeatedly would lead you to fail a "Intro to Arguments" class.

My argument is the DMA limits innovation because (among other reasons):
1) Mandatory API-sharing requirements mean that once a gatekeeper invents something, rivals can free-ride on that investment, a risk the Commission itself admits could "could have a direct negative impact on the innovation incentives" of gatekeepers (see paragraph 286 of that link). This changes the ROI of every new feature; now Apple has to consider whether a feature is worth it, and worth forking the codebase over. In many cases, it may determine "nope, that's not worth it" - and I'll never be able to point to a feature that doesn't exist and say "that would exist if the DMA didn't" unless Apple explicitly gives us that example (and at which point you and other DMA defenders would say "Apple is just saying that because they don't like the DMA.")

2) Heavy compliance costs and fines divert engineering time from innovation. Apple has to dedicate thousands of engineering hours on things that no one is asking for, like the ability to remove the Camera app from the phone and browser choice screens that just give Chrome a larger monopoly, rather than focus on new features and innovations, Meta reported it assigned 11,000 staff and 600,000 engineering hours to DMA work, a bill estimated at €6 billion. That money would be much better spent on other tasks that actually innovate, not complying with draconian regulations that give IP away to competitors.

3) Because the "gatekeeper" label triggers sweeping, fixed obligations, fast-growing platforms now have an incentive to stall growth once they near the designation thresholds, chilling follow-on investment in late-stage scale-ups. In short, ironically, the EU has made it harder for a third OS to emerge because once it gets popular enough it has a bunch of compliance requirements, including giving its special sauce away to Apple and Google, and at that point, why not just use Apple or Google.

Any specific thoughts as to why I am wrong on those three points?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's very hard to prove a negative. Especially when you're limiting "innovation" to one very specific definition of "multiple mobile OSes" and then saying two countries where innovation is happening (US and China) don't count and insisting on repeating a logical fallacy over and over again to the point where I'm beginning to wonder if you understand what a logical fallacy is and why using one repeatedly would lead you to fail a "Intro to Arguments" class.

My argument is the DMA limits innovation because (among other reasons):
1) Mandatory API-sharing requirements mean that once a gatekeeper invents something, rivals can free-ride on that investment, a risk the Commission itself admits could "could have a direct negative impact on the innovation incentives" of gatekeepers (see paragraph 286 of that link). This changes the ROI of every new feature; now Apple has to consider whether a feature is worth it, and worth forking the codebase over. In many cases, it may determine "nope, that's not worth it" - and I'll never be able to point to a feature that doesn't exist and say "that would exist if the DMA didn't" unless Apple explicitly gives us that example (and at which point you and other DMA defenders would say "Apple is just saying that because they don't like the DMA.")

2) Heavy compliance costs and fines divert engineering time from innovation. Apple has to dedicate thousands of engineering hours on things that no one is asking for, like the ability to remove the Camera app from the phone and browser choice screens that just give Chrome a larger monopoly, rather than focus on new features and innovations, Meta reported it assigned 11,000 staff and 600,000 engineering hours to DMA work, a bill estimated at €6 billion. That money would be much better spent on other tasks that actually innovate, not complying with draconian regulations that give IP away to competitors.

3) Because the "gatekeeper" label triggers sweeping, fixed obligations, fast-growing platforms now have an incentive to stall growth once they near the designation thresholds, chilling follow-on investment in late-stage scale-ups. In short, ironically, the EU has made it harder for a third OS to emerge because once it gets popular enough it has a bunch of compliance requirements, including giving its special sauce away to Apple and Google, and at that point, why not just use Apple or Google.

Any specific thoughts as to why I am wrong on those three points?

Can you refer wher within the document? Considering they say it’s the opposite here, and the studies when asking the people seems they have some interest

 

[surferfb]

Can you refer wher within the document? Considering they say it’s the opposite here, and the studies when asking the people seems they have some interest
View attachment 2519402

 

[Sophisticatednut]

View attachment 2519409

This do adress the innovation of smaller gatekeepers. So does it adress non gatekeepers? Or potentiall improvements to innovation as a whole if the largernplayers aren’t allowed to potentially stifle it?

 

[surferfb]

This do adress the innovation of smaller gatekeepers. So does it adress non gatekeepers? Or potentiall improvements to innovation as a whole if the largernplayers aren’t allowed to potentially stifle it?

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that the same government who just commissioned a study that blamed “burdensome regulation” as a primary factor for the region’s innovation shortfall will somehow spark new innovation by imposing even more complex regulations. That makes about as much sense as my fellow Americans who argue that the best way to reduce gun violence is to put more guns on the streets.

It's the same magical thinking that assumes the same regulators who gave the world a plague of "you know websites use cookies" pop-ups and the Crowdstrike fiasco (and who still don't seem to realize they've broken the user experience or that they are at all responsible for the outage) are now telling Apple and Google how to redesign their mobile operating systems somehow are going to do all of this without making things worse. That officials who could not predict banner spam or "third parties having kernel access is bad" will somehow calibrate deep OS-level interoperability without collateral damage to users' security, privacy, or experiences?

Simply citing an Impact Assessment that was clearly written in advance to justify the EC's preferred option does not change anything. You know the first draft failed the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board for “weak evidence”, right? And then on the second try it passed with a "positive-with-reservations" verdict that still listed “significant shortcomings” in the evidence base. Even after the rewrite the EC admits that innovation “cannot be reliably quantified,” so it relies almost entirely on qualitative scoring.

Economists have pointed out that the document never even tries to model the specific prohibitions it proposes, instead assuming they will double R&D and magically raise EU GDP (Seriously, just read the two-and-a-half page executive summary of that PDF). The “do-nothing” baseline is there only because EU rules require it; it predicts fragmentation and entrenched “unfair practices” and then drops the idea in a paragraph. It wasn't seriously considered. Why not? Because the EC had already decided to act.

The DMA was based on an assessment that was initially panned by the EU’s own watchdog, that leans on cherry-picked complainants (lets pretend to be shocked that when asked if Apple's policies harmed innovation, Spotify said yes!), and that replaced cost-benefit analysis with magical assumptions is hardly a gold-standard, option-neutral report. It's clearly justification for a policy Brussels had already decided to push.

 

[Stuwil]

There is evidence. The eu regulated rather than innovated. That’s the evidence. Where is that Apple competitor? It’s buried under the DMA.

So where is the competition for iOS and android outside of the EU?
There is no DMA outside of the EU so where is the competition and innovation for iOS and android

 

[Stuwil]

Proof is not a requisite for citing an opinion. That’s disingenuous debate and moving the goalposts. I’ll also throw in this is a straw man.

Again if the DMA is an innovation killer as some people claim within the EU
Then what is the reason for no competition outside of the EU regarding mobile OS’s
If the DMA is a problem for innovation?

 

[Stuwil]

It's very hard to prove a negative. Especially when you're limiting "innovation" to one very specific definition of "multiple mobile OSes" and then saying two countries where innovation is happening (US and China) don't count and insisting on repeating a logical fallacy over and over again to the point where I'm beginning to wonder if you understand what a logical fallacy is and why using one repeatedly would lead you to fail a "Intro to Arguments" class.

My argument is the DMA limits innovation because (among other reasons):
1) Mandatory API-sharing requirements mean that once a gatekeeper invents something, rivals can free-ride on that investment, a risk the Commission itself admits could "could have a direct negative impact on the innovation incentives" of gatekeepers (see paragraph 286 of that link). This changes the ROI of every new feature; now Apple has to consider whether a feature is worth it, and worth forking the codebase over. In many cases, it may determine "nope, that's not worth it" - and I'll never be able to point to a feature that doesn't exist and say "that would exist if the DMA didn't" unless Apple explicitly gives us that example (and at which point you and other DMA defenders would say "Apple is just saying that because they don't like the DMA.")

2) Heavy compliance costs and fines divert engineering time from innovation. Apple has to dedicate thousands of engineering hours on things that no one is asking for, like the ability to remove the Camera app from the phone and browser choice screens that just give Chrome a larger monopoly, rather than focus on new features and innovations, Meta reported it assigned 11,000 staff and 600,000 engineering hours to DMA work, a bill estimated at €6 billion. That money would be much better spent on other tasks that actually innovate, not complying with draconian regulations that give IP away to competitors.

3) Because the "gatekeeper" label triggers sweeping, fixed obligations, fast-growing platforms now have an incentive to stall growth once they near the designation thresholds, chilling follow-on investment in late-stage scale-ups. In short, ironically, the EU has made it harder for a third OS to emerge because once it gets popular enough it has a bunch of compliance requirements, including giving its special sauce away to Apple and Google, and at that point, why not just use Apple or Google.

Any specific thoughts as to why I am wrong on those three points?

It’s not that I discount china I actually welcome it because in china you have actually innovation in 3 different mobile OS’s
For a start that leads to better products
Google is not number 1 in search and that’s a good thing it’s unhealthy for 1 company to corner the market
Yet this only happens in china.

Maybe the question should be why is there innovation in china and no where else in the world?
Like a 3rd competitor for iOS and Android
Then that will give you the answer as to why
The DMA exists

 

[I7guy]

So where is the competition for iOS and android outside of the EU?
There is no DMA outside of the EU so where is the competition and innovation for iOS and android

Where is the competition for iOS and android within the eu?

Again if the DMA is an innovation killer as some people claim within the EU
Then what is the reason for no competition outside of the EU regarding mobile OS’s
If the DMA is a problem for innovation?

Why is there no competition for alternative mobile phone operating systems in the eu?

 

[Stuwil]

Where is the competition for iOS and android within the eu?

Why is there no competition for alternative mobile phone operating systems in the eu?

You can’t have it both ways one minute
Your claiming that the DMA is an innovation killer in the EU
So where is the competition outside the EU then as the DMA doesn’t exist so what’s the reason then?

 

[I7guy]

You can’t have it both ways one minute
Your claiming that the DMA is an innovation killer in the EU
So where is the competition outside the EU then as the DMA doesn’t exist so what’s the reason then?

You can’t have it both ways either. That there is an opinion from credentialed sources the eu is losing the innovation has nothing to do with Cambodia.

 

[Stuwil]

You can’t have it both ways either. That there is an opinion from credentialed sources the eu is losing the innovation has nothing to do with Cambodia.

Your argument is the DMA is an innovation killer and that is why there is no innovation in the EU
Then where is the innovation in New Zealand for example with no DMA

 

[I7guy]

Your argument is the DMA is an innovation killer and that is why there is no innovation in the EU
Then where is the innovation in New Zealand for example with no DMA

The eu is a heck of a lot bigger than Norway. Innovation can’t be like a prize in a cracker box. The eu has further hamstrung innovative efforts with the DMA.

 

[Stuwil]

The eu is a heck of a lot bigger than Norway. Innovation can’t be like a prize in a cracker box. The eu has further hamstrung innovative efforts with the DMA.

I suppose the EU could be like china then when innovation is alive and well
So much so that google is not number 1 in china maybe they should be like china
Because they don’t have the DMA there and iOS is in 3rd place
So maybe the EU should be like china then

 

[surferfb]

Your argument is the DMA is an innovation killer and that is why there is no innovation in the EU
Then where is the innovation in New Zealand for example with no DMA

For the millionth time, the absence of your definition of “innovation” in places like New Zealand doesn’t prove the DMA isn’t a barrier, it just shows that other countries may lack the scale, capital, or ecosystem to support new mobile OSs.

Pointing to one country without the DMA and seeing “no innovation” there doesn’t refute the fact that the DMA makes innovation harder.

 

[Stuwil]

For the millionth time, the absence of your definition of “innovation” in places like New Zealand doesn’t prove the DMA isn’t a barrier, it just shows that other countries may lack the scale, capital, or ecosystem to support new mobile OSs.

Pointing to one country without the DMA and seeing “no innovation” there doesn’t refute the fact that the DMA makes innovation harder.

I could insert 98% of countries there
That’s the point.
The only country where competition exists is in china so unless you’re advocating that what they do is correct and how in that country they challenge iOS and android
Plus have a search engine called baidu that is better than google there
Then you certainly have a point regarding the DMA because china certainly proves your point

 

[surferfb]

I could insert 98% of countries there
That’s the point.

Again, just because something is already hard doesn’t mean a law can’t make it even harder. (Or that a law could be so onerous it could chill innovation in other countries).

The only country where competition exists is in china so unless you’re advocating that what they do is correct and how in that country they challenge iOS and android

China did lots of things to encourage innovation, some of which I would recommend the EU do, and some I wouldn’t. China is also an autocracy that can do things that the EU couldn’t (and shouldn’t!) do.

Plus have a search engine called baidu that is better than google there

You know Google doesn’t compete in China, right? Like isn’t available at all and hasn’t been in 15 years. Google refused to censor search results and so China blocked them. (Google should be commended for sticking to their guns here).

 

[I7guy]

I suppose the EU could be like china then when innovation is alive and well

Sure if it comes to pass but the Wall Street Journal isn’t confident about that.

So much so that google is not number 1 in china maybe they should be like china

Sure. Taking the positive aspects, and throwing away the DMA, would benefit the EU.

Because they don’t have the DMA there and iOS is in 3rd place

iOS is never in first place. Globally it’s around 25% ish.

So maybe the EU should be like china then

That’s up to the EU.

 

[Stuwil]

Sure if it comes to pass but the Wall Street Journal isn’t confident about that.

Sure. Taking the positive aspects, and throwing away the DMA, would benefit the EU.

iOS is never in first place. Globally it’s around 25% ish.

That’s up to the EU.

Why do you take what I say and chop them into bits to suit your argument?

So your in favour in how the Chinese government operates then as it encourages innovation That’s interesting that you think they now have the correct approach compared with the EU

 

[Stuwil]

Again, just because something is already hard doesn’t mean a law can’t make it even harder. (Or that a law could be so onerous it could chill innovation in other countries).


China did lots of things to encourage innovation, some of which I would recommend the EU do, and some I wouldn’t. China is also an autocracy that can do things that the EU couldn’t (and shouldn’t!) do.


You know Google doesn’t compete in China, right? Like isn’t available at all and hasn’t been in 15 years. Google refused to censor search results and so China blocked them. (Google should be commended for sticking to their guns here).

I know the reason why google is not number 1 there and that’s the point about your innovation killer remark
The ONLY country where competition exists is in china and nowhere else and that is because of how that country is setup
So unless you’re in china it makes no difference from being in Australia to the uk
The choice is the exact same in regards to things on offer regarding mobile
Now again someone people might not like the DMA however other countries don’t have this regulation and it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference because of how the mobile market is setup worldwide and fundamentally this is not going to change anytime soon.
So that is why the DMA exists choice in china and nowhere else in the world

 

[surferfb]

I know the reason why google is not number 1 there and that’s the point about your innovation killer remark
The ONLY country where competition exists is in china and nowhere else and that is because of how that country is setup
So unless you’re in china it makes no difference from being in Australia to the uk
The choice is the exact same in regards to things on offer regarding mobile
Now again someone people might not like the DMA however other countries don’t have this regulation and it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference because of how the mobile market is setup worldwide and fundamentally this is not going to change anytime soon.
So that is why the DMA exists choice in china and nowhere else in the world

Again, repeating the fallacy that “innovation doesn’t happen elsewhere, elsewhere doesn’t have the DMA, therefore the DMA doesn’t harm innovation” would get you flunked out of Intro to Logic.

And with that, I am absolutely and positively done with this thread 😀

See you in the next one.

 

[I7guy]

Why do you take what I say and chop them into bits to suit your argument?

?

So your in favour in how the Chinese government operates then as it encourages innovation That’s interesting that you think they now have the correct approach compared with the EU

The Eu doesn’t seem to have the correct approach according to credentialed sources. The DMA is an example of that.