EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms

[vipergts2207]

The same way these regulators are trying to force more competition into the market? Why do we have to accept no competition in one market but try and force competition in other markets? Why don't we have regulations that force competition into all these markets?

The market forces limiting competition in these markets are wildly different. In smartphone hardware and OS's those forces are natural. Choices by millions of downstream businesses and billions of consumers have largely given us to the smartphone hardware and OS market we have today. Conversely, the forces limiting competition in app distribution, mobile banking and other markets are artificial and largely the result of choices by two of the largest companies in the world. Consumers didn't dictate to developers that all iOS apps have to go through Apple for distribution, Apple dictated that. Consumers didn't dictate that all NFC mobile payments have to go through Apple's Wallet app, Apple dictated that. When you look at the details it's not difficult to see the glaring differences in the causes of limited competition in these various markets.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Also, the App Store operates much in the same way Sony and Microsoft operates the PlayStation and Xbox stores. They also have market dominance. Why are they not being targeted?

Game consoles aren't the base platform for tens of thousands of business users (developers) across a wide variety of platforms.

You may have noticed how few people use take their game console with them to the next supermarket to pay their groceries with. They don't sit in the parking lot with their and hire a cab on their PlayStation to get home afterwards, and neither do they public transport tickets. They aren't their preferred messaging and social media platforms.

Most people don't do much scanning and OCRing of documents on their PlayStations and Xboxes either, and neither do the engage in online dating on them.

Need more examples?

But for Apple the smartphone hardware and software market are one and the same thing, they aren't 2 separate markets.

They've bundled the two distinct markets into one product.
Same as for Macs, where there clearly exist separate markets for computer hardware and operating systems.

If only having iOS and Android available as operating systems is fine for consumers, why is having iOS and Android as the only options available not fine for developers?

No pricing power and competition.

If iOS is forced to become more like android, which many consumers don’t want

Thankfully, consumers aren't forced to sideload or use other payment methods than Apple Pay.

 

[mrochester]

The market forces limiting competition in these markets are wildly different. In smartphone hardware and OS's those forces are natural. Choices by millions of downstream businesses and billions of consumers have largely given us to the smartphone hardware and OS market we have today. Conversely, the forces limiting competition in app distribution, mobile banking and other markets are artificial and largely the result of choices by two of the largest companies in the world. Consumers didn't dictate to developers that all iOS apps have to go through Apple for distribution, Apple dictated that. Consumers didn't dictate that all NFC mobile payments have to go through Apple's Wallet app, Apple dictated that. When you look at the details it's not difficult to see the glaring differences in the causes of limited competition in these various markets.

Consumers picked both iOS and Android knowing what those products offer. If consumers didn’t want the App Store to be the only place to get apps for iOS they wouldn’t have bought iPhones. Consumers have made their choice and that is the market we now have.

This is why regulators claiming the lack of competition in App Stores is unacceptable but the lack of competition in smartphone operating systems is acceptable is nonsense as both situations are a direct result of consumer choices. Why are they addressing one without addressing the other?

 

[AppliedMicro]

It’s what happens when regulations are formed in favour of business interests rather than consumer interests (with the naive assumption that the business interests ultimately lead to satisfying consumer interests).

The business interests of the many (thousands of developers) outweigh the interests of the few (Google and Apple).

If consumers didn’t want the App Store to be the only place to get apps for iOS they wouldn’t have bought iPhones

This doesn't reflect my personal experience and tales from others. Customers buy iPhones for very different reasons. Having a locked-down app installation system isn't one of them. Personal recommendation by friends, ease of use, design, a support network from friends and family are (according to my experience) much more important.

Having a "secure" and privacy-respecting system is definitely one.
And Apple has been pushing hard lately to sell consumers (and legislators) the idea that only a locked-down, single-authority system (that they and only they control) can be secure.

Some people definitely believe so.

 

[Analog Kid]

"Once it has been formally adopted, the Digital Market Act Regulation will be directly applicable across the EU and will apply six months after entry into force."

Yeah, this is going to go well...

 

[Wanted797]

No way to do it ONLY in the EU. As with any privacy/encryption/sideloading scheme, once it’s out there in any way, it’s effectively available to anyone in the world that wants to obtain and use the method. As that would materially affect how the App Store works worldwide, I doubt that’s something Apple will do.

I can see how the model in the EU changes, though. Developers are no longer allowed to deploy their Apps to an open App Store, they must submit them to Apple and Apple could license them for submission on the store. In the EU, it would just be a first party store. While there are interesting ways to remain in the EU market while being in compliance (and, really, compliance is left to the companies to do for themselves, not difficult to make that work), they’re all a good amount of work which will cut into revenue continually (as, with every change, they’d have to have a separate set of tests to execute to validate those other set of requirements).

I know it becomes available to everyone effectively if they want to jailbreak or something.

Apple already does features only in some countries. I don’t see they would go and comply to this here in Australia just because of the EU.

 

[AppliedMicro]

👉 I suggest Apple sell DMA-compliant iPhones in EU territories only.
Outside of the EU, such as in the US, they should sell only their current locked-down versions of iOS and the App Store.

Public opinion and the grey market should settle the question of what consumers really want, how closed and locked-down they want their platforms and what they consider as benefitting from.

 

[pastrychef]

Game consoles aren't the base platform for tens of thousands of business users (developers) across a wide variety of platforms.

You may have noticed how few people use take their game console with them to the next supermarket to pay their groceries with. They don't sit in the parking lot with their and hire a cab on their PlayStation to get home afterwards, and neither do they public transport tickets. They aren't their preferred messaging and social media platforms.

Most people don't do much scanning and OCRing of documents on their PlayStations and Xboxes either, and neither do the engage in online dating on them.

Need more examples?

These EU rules don't specify how users have to use the devices. As long as the companies are "gatekeepers", the rules should apply to Sony and Microsoft too. Look below, nowhere does it say users must carry the devices to a supermarket or scan documents.

 

[mrochester]

Game consoles aren't the base platform for tens of thousands of business users (developers) across a wide variety of platforms.

You may have noticed how few people use take their game console with them to the next supermarket to pay their groceries with. They don't sit in the parking lot with their and hire a cab on their PlayStation to get home afterwards, and neither do they public transport tickets. They aren't their preferred messaging and social media platforms.

Most people don't do much scanning and OCRing of documents on their PlayStations and Xboxes either, and neither do the engage in online dating on them.

Need more examples?

They've bundled the two distinct markets into one product.
Same as for Macs, where there clearly exist separate markets for computer hardware and operating systems.

No pricing power and competition.

Thankfully, consumers aren't forced to sideload or use other payment methods than Apple Pay.

If iOS is forced to become more like android, consumers cannot then pick an operating system that is not like android, and there’s no regulation forthcoming to allow an iOS like operating system from entering the market. Therefore consumers who don’t want an android like operating system are left with no choice.

 

[vipergts2207]

Consumers picked both iOS and Android knowing what those products offer. If consumers didn’t want the App Store to be the only place to get apps for iOS they wouldn’t have bought iPhones. Consumers have made their choice and that is the market we now have.

Did you consider that app distribution may have been a secondary or tertiary concern when consumers decided which smartphone to buy, rather than a primary concern? Consumers will make clear whether or not they demand distribution of apps through Apple's app store by their decisions in the market. If consumers don't care then we'll see downloading from other sources become a common occurrence. If consumers genuinely care that their apps come through Apple they'll avoid third-party downloads causing those developers to suffer and come to the conclusion that they need to have their app on Apple's app store in order to be successful. But at least it's a choice developers and consumers will have made for themselves, rather than having that choice made for them by Apple. Same thing with mobile payments. Consumers will either demand banks use Apple Pay to retain or win their business, lest they flock to banks who do, or they'll say they don't care and choose to use banking services offered outside of Apple Pay. EU consumers are being given a real choice on these issues for the first time, rather than having their choices forcibly tied to other merely tangentially-related choices.

This is why regulators claiming the lack of competition in App Stores is unacceptable but the lack of competition in smartphone operating systems is acceptable is nonsense as both situations are a direct result of consumer choices. Why are they addressing one without addressing the other?

I've already explained how the lack of competition in one scenario is a result of natural market forces while the artificial lack of competition in the other scenario is because of anti-competitive choices made by huge corporations and is merely coincidental to choices made by consumers.

 

[AppliedMicro]

These EU rules don't specify how users have to use the devices. As long as the companies are "gatekeepers", the rules should apply to Sony and Microsoft too

Who's to doubt they (eventually) will?

(Well, there are criteria to be considered a gatekeeper and they may or may not be one).

Look below, nowhere does it say users must carry the devices to a supermarket or scan documents.

I didn't say that.

But yes, I do agree that, as a matter intention, the law was put in place targeting Apple, Google and Facebook first and foremost. Not Sony's, Microsofts or Nintendo's game console businesses.

And that's what the definition of gatekeepers were tailored to.
For the reasons I laid out above.

👉 Would lawmakers have drafted the same law out of concern for the practises of Sony's, Microsofts or Nintendo's game console businesses?

No.

They saw smartphones and large search engines and social media platforms (Facebook) permeate through our everyday lives - something game consoles didn't and don't. And concluded that these few gatekeeping platform operators have become too powerful to leave them unregulated.

 

[mrochester]

👉 I suggest Apple sell DMA-compliant iPhones in EU territories only.
Outside of the EU, such as in the US, they should sell only their current locked-down versions of iOS and the App Store.

Public opinion and the grey market should settle the question of what consumers really want, how closed and locked-down they want their platforms and what they consider as benefitting from.

But that puts artificial barriers in place of letting consumers make an informed purchase. The actual solution is to let Apple sell both DMA and non DMA compliant phones in the same market and see which one consumers want (better yet, let consumers have both options forever).

 

[pastrychef]

I didn't say that.

 

[mrochester]

Did you consider that app distribution may have been a secondary or tertiary concern when consumers decided which smartphone to buy, rather than a primary concern? Consumers will make clear whether or not they demand distribution of apps through Apple's app store by their decisions in the market. If consumers don't care then we'll see downloading from other sources become a common occurrence. If consumers genuinely care that their apps come through Apple they'll avoid third-party downloads causing those developers to suffer and come to the conclusion that they need to have their app on Apple's app store in order to be successful. But at least it's a choice developers and consumers will have made for themselves, rather than having that choice made for them by Apple. Same thing with mobile payments. Consumers will either demand banks use Apple Pay to retain or win their business, lest they flock to banks who do, or they'll say they don't care and choose to use banking services offered outside of Apple Pay. EU consumers are being given a real choice on these issues for the first time, rather than having their choices forcibly tied to other merely tangentially-related choices.


I've already explained how the lack of competition in one scenario is a result of natural market forces while the artificial lack of competition in the other scenario is because of anti-competitive choices made by huge corporations.

If a consumer didn’t make an informed decision when purchasing a device, on their head be it. I have no sympathy for that.

So if an app leaves the Apple App Store, and as consumer I want to use nothing but the apple App Store, how do I enforce that with app developers? You’re saying these regulations give me the choice to use nothing but the apple App Store, which means every app I want or need needs to be in the apple App Store. How do I ensure that they are if the power to decide that is with app developers and not me?

I think your mistake is thinking that your choice of smartphone operating system and your choice of app store are two separate decisions. They are one decision. Android proves this.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

It’s what happens when regulations are formed in favour of business interests rather than consumer interests (with the naive assumption that the business interests ultimately lead to satisfying consumer interests).

Or this is what happens when money clouds judgement. When founders are gone, companies interests are solely in making money … given enough market power than exploit customer dependencies that often go against their broader interests … leading to lose lose choices … aka … the ilusion of choice. This is why regulators as intervening … in my opinion a bit heavy handed … nothing that I have not predicted.

The reason why we have say the M1 … it’s not because of customers interests … but indeed fortifying Apple interests in building a taxable private wall garden . The reason why ’privacy‘ becomes a marketing instrument, again its not because of customers interests … it’s because such perception sells. Take for instance what was Apple position in China which is in the opposite extreme of privacy … institutionalising mass state survsiiance deep into the workings of the ecossystem … the way i see it. It was against their interests in that market not doing it.

 

[AppliedMicro]

@pastrychef : I didn't say they "must".

But as a matter of fact, many or most users do purchase third-party apps and use their smartphones for retail payments, ticket purchases, restaurant choice and reservations, etc.

Let's get back to the original question:

Also, the App Store operates much in the same way Sony and Microsoft operates the PlayStation and Xbox stores. They also have market dominance. Why are they not being targeted?

Look, it's very simple:

- You render all game consoles unusable tomorrow: gamers will curse, the public will get on with their lives.
- You render all smartphones and tables unusable: hell will break loose.

👉 When I say "smartphones are much more important to our everyday lives, countless businesses and people's livelihoods - and that's why they're being primarily targeted, not the game consoles", that should be really, really obvious and self-explanatory.

PS: I'm not even disputing that it may seem "inconsistent" if they aren't targetting or pursuing game console manufacturers whose business models share quite some similarity to the App Store and Play Store.

 

[vipergts2207]

If a consumer didn’t make an informed decision when purchasing a device, on their head be it. I have no sympathy for that.

Do you fully comprehend what I said? Do you understand what it means for a concern to be secondary or tertiary? Consumers may have made an informed decision knowing they were going to have to compromise on their desires in one way or another whether they went with an iPhone or an Android. Now the EU is telling their folks that they may no longer have to compromise on certain things.

So if an app leaves the Apple App Store, and as consumer I want to use nothing but the apple App Store, how do I enforce that with app developers? You’re saying these regulations give me the choice to use nothing but the apple App Store, which means every app I want or need needs to be in the apple App Store. How do I ensure that they are if the power to decide that is with app developers and not me?

Then you vote with your wallet, exactly what you're telling folks to do when you tell them to buy an Android. If enough people agree with you and demand that their apps come through Apple, then these developers will either choose success and bend to that will or they'll choose mediocrity and failure to adapt to market demands, allowing other developers to take the spoils that would otherwise have been theirs. Clearly what you've left unspoken is that you're afraid consumers largely don't agree with your stance that apps need to come through Apple and that these companies will be able to be successful without Apple's app store.

Look, if consumers agree with you you'll be fine and nothing will really change for you. If consumers disagree with you, well I'm sorry to say that you'll just have to deal with it, as the the EU no longer allows the desires of the minority and Apple's desire for more profit to come at the expense of the majority of consumers.

 

[pastrychef]

@pastrychef : I didn't say they "must".

But as a matter of fact, many or most users do purchase third-party apps and use their smartphones for retail payments, ticket purchases, restaurant choice and reservations, etc.

Let's get back to the original question:

Look, it's very simple:

- You render all game consoles unusable tomorrow: gamers will curse, the public will get on with their lives.
- You render all smartphones and tables unusable: hell will break loose.

👉 When I say "smartphones are much more important to our everyday lives, countless businesses and people's livelihoods - and that's why they're being primarily targeted, not the game consoles", that should be really, really obvious and self-explanatory.

PS: I'm not even disputing that it may seem "inconsistent" if they aren't targetting or pursuing game console manufacturers whose business models share quite some similarity to the App Store and Play Store.

There's nothing in the rules that limit them to just smartphones.

Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act. Sony and Microsoft both fall in to this category.

The rules don't care what our opinions are. They don't care what's "more important to our every lives". As long as these companies act as gatekeepers, they are subject to the same rules.

 

[Ethosik]

Have any evidence to back this up?

I'd like to see viruses, worms, and backdoors, not trojans or phishing attacks because no OS can protect against stupid users.

It’s just basic thinking. Using private APIs and really obvious malicious code/practices gets shot down by Apple’s review process. Is it 100% in catching everything? No. But it catches a good amount. With no review by Apple you can do whatever you want.

 

[nerdo]

Apple under Cook aren't smart as if they were they would have stopped this!

How would you know? Your guess is as good as anyone else's. You're not Apple management or a EU politician. The best thing we can do is look at the historical record where people screamed "oh no those politicians!" and it turned out to be a godsend for the consumer. Breaking up AT&T comes to mind, no roaming charges for EU citizens in any EU country seems like an excellent deal. All this panic about the fate of one of the smartest companies, I think it is all getting rather silly!

 

[AppliedMicro]

There's nothing in the rules that limit them to just smartphones.

Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act. Sony and Microsoft both fall in to this category.

The rules don't care what our opinions are. They don't care what's "more important to our every lives". As long as these companies act as gatekeepers, they are subject to the same rules.

We'll see about that.

See for example the Digital Markets Act, which carries a definition of a gatekeeper (only "operating system" would likely apply to game console manufacturers) and continues...

"An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:
(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;"

👉 Debatable.

"An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:

(a) as regards paragraph 1, point (a), where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value ▌ amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States;

(b) as regards paragraph 1, point (b), where it provides a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union, identified and calculated in accordance with the methodology and indicators set out in the Annex;"

👉 Microsoft as a whole? Likely. Their gaming / Xbox division? Guess that may fail at the "10 000 yearly active business users" already...

"The Commission shall designate as a gatekeeper, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 17, any undertaking providing core platform services that meets each of the requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article, but does not satisfy each of the thresholds in paragraph 2 of this Article.

For that purpose, the Commission shall take into account some or all of the following elements, insofar as they are relevant for the undertaking providing core platform services under consideration:

(a) the size, including turnover and market capitalisation, operations and position of that undertaking;

(b) the number of business users using the core platform service to reach end users and the number of end users;

(c) ▌ network effects and data driven advantages, in particular in relation to that undertaking’s access to, and collection of, personal data and non-personal data or analytics capabilities;

(d) any scale and scope effects from which the undertaking benefits, including with regard to data, and, where relevant, to its activities outside the Union;

(e) business user or end user lock-in, including switching costs and behavioural bias reducing the ability of business users and end users to switch or multi-home;

(f) a conglomerate corporate structure or vertical integration of that undertaking, for instance enabling that undertaking to cross subsidise, to combine data from different sources or to leverage its position; or

(g) other structural business or service characteristics.

In carrying out its assessment under this paragraph, the Commission shall take into account foreseeable developments in relation to the elements listed in the second subparagraph, including any planned concentrations involving another undertaking providing core platform services or providing any other services in the digital sector or enabling the collection of data."

👉 Again, debatable if they'd include "Xbox" or "Playstation" with that.

 

[pastrychef]

We'll see about that.

See for example the Digital Markets Act, which carries a definition of a gatekeeper (only "operating system" would likely apply to game console manufacturers) and continues...

"An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:
(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;"

👉 Debatable.

"An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:

(a) as regards paragraph 1, point (a), where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value ▌ amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States;

(b) as regards paragraph 1, point (b), where it provides a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union, identified and calculated in accordance with the methodology and indicators set out in the Annex;"

👉 Microsoft as a whole? Likely. Their gaming / Xbox division? Guess that may fail at the "10 000 yearly active business users" already...

"The Commission shall designate as a gatekeeper, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 17, any undertaking providing core platform services that meets each of the requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article, but does not satisfy each of the thresholds in paragraph 2 of this Article.

For that purpose, the Commission shall take into account some or all of the following elements, insofar as they are relevant for the undertaking providing core platform services under consideration:

(a) the size, including turnover and market capitalisation, operations and position of that undertaking;

(b) the number of business users using the core platform service to reach end users and the number of end users;

(c) ▌ network effects and data driven advantages, in particular in relation to that undertaking’s access to, and collection of, personal data and non-personal data or analytics capabilities;

(d) any scale and scope effects from which the undertaking benefits, including with regard to data, and, where relevant, to its activities outside the Union;

(e) business user or end user lock-in, including switching costs and behavioural bias reducing the ability of business users and end users to switch or multi-home;

(f) a conglomerate corporate structure or vertical integration of that undertaking, for instance enabling that undertaking to cross subsidise, to combine data from different sources or to leverage its position; or

(g) other structural business or service characteristics.

In carrying out its assessment under this paragraph, the Commission shall take into account foreseeable developments in relation to the elements listed in the second subparagraph, including any planned concentrations involving another undertaking providing core platform services or providing any other services in the digital sector or enabling the collection of data."

👉 Again, debatable if they'd include "Xbox" or "Playstation" with that.

Yup. Nowhere do they mention how important these devices have to be in our everyday lives.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

While I agree with some of these (browser engine flexibility!), most go way overboard.

Not to mention, if Apple were a French or German company, we all know these rules would be very different.

It would be just as harsh as the other 26 member states would force it.

And it already is. The rules covers EU companies

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I welcome these regulations because we need to try something. I hope they also introduce regulationsns to keep our right not to be overruled by algorithms, like some sort of right to be "chronological".

Apple will probably need to make it clear that you will void your warranty if you sideload, loose access to Secure Enclave features, loose access to upgrades, etc. There's a lot they can do to demote sideloading wishes. It will be good to be able to use chrome to access websites, since some of them just don't work in safari.

I know some of the regulations seems like overstretch, but I am looking forward to be able to use iMessage to read Whatsapp msgs... Meta absolutely dominates communications in my country.

Almost all of that is impossible. Especially the warranty part. Companies are bound to give warranty of minimum 2 years. Rights can’t be contracted away.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This shows that people behind EU legislations are no real tech guys and dont understand how giants work in this segment...probably old people behind EU that thinks like in the 80'

Apple...please charge EU consumers each apps they use....€150 per annual for iOS, each upgrade will be €50. Also install App Store should be charge for €150 also.... service = charges....APPLE entitled to all the charges and fees.

Lol, instant death to the apple market xD

We'll see about that.

See for example the Digital Markets Act, which carries a definition of a gatekeeper (only "operating system" would likely apply to game console manufacturers) and continues...

"An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:
(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;"

👉 Debatable.

"An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:

(a) as regards paragraph 1, point (a), where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value ▌ amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States;

(b) as regards paragraph 1, point (b), where it provides a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union, identified and calculated in accordance with the methodology and indicators set out in the Annex;"

👉 Microsoft as a whole? Likely. Their gaming / Xbox division? Guess that may fail at the "10 000 yearly active business users" already...

"The Commission shall designate as a gatekeeper, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 17, any undertaking providing core platform services that meets each of the requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article, but does not satisfy each of the thresholds in paragraph 2 of this Article.

For that purpose, the Commission shall take into account some or all of the following elements, insofar as they are relevant for the undertaking providing core platform services under consideration:

(a) the size, including turnover and market capitalisation, operations and position of that undertaking;

(b) the number of business users using the core platform service to reach end users and the number of end users;

(c) ▌ network effects and data driven advantages, in particular in relation to that undertaking’s access to, and collection of, personal data and non-personal data or analytics capabilities;

(d) any scale and scope effects from which the undertaking benefits, including with regard to data, and, where relevant, to its activities outside the Union;

(e) business user or end user lock-in, including switching costs and behavioural bias reducing the ability of business users and end users to switch or multi-home;

(f) a conglomerate corporate structure or vertical integration of that undertaking, for instance enabling that undertaking to cross subsidise, to combine data from different sources or to leverage its position; or

(g) other structural business or service characteristics.

In carrying out its assessment under this paragraph, the Commission shall take into account foreseeable developments in relation to the elements listed in the second subparagraph, including any planned concentrations involving another undertaking providing core platform services or providing any other services in the digital sector or enabling the collection of data."

👉 Again, debatable if they'd include "Xbox" or "Playstation" with that.

It’s close to impossible to include consoles as they fail every criteria, and console games can be sold outside their digital store.

Yup. Nowhere do they mention how important these devices have to be in our everyday lives.

Importance have zero impact. Only marked impact.