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

[AppliedMicro]

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

Literally the first sentence of preambke No. 1:

“Digital services in general and online platforms in particular play an increasingly important role in the economy, in particular in the internal market”

And goes on:

“very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multisidedness of these services, a significant degree of dependence of both business users and end users, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing for the same purpose by end users, vertical integration, and data driven-advantages”

“Gatekeepers have a significant impact on the internal market, providing gateways for a large number of business users to reach end users everywhere in the Union and on different markets.”

And article 1:

“Subject-matter and scope

1. The purpose of this Regulation is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market”

…and 3:

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

👉 The designation process gives the EU some leeway. And I don’t see what prevents them from saying: “We’re not designating a game console manufactureing undertaking as a gatekeeper, since game consoles don’t significantly impact the functioning of our internal market.”

(Note that the definition of internal market is a “broad” economic definition commonly used by the EU and does not refer to particular markets for particular goods/services, such as video games)

 

[TracerAnalog]

Literally almost NO ONE uses Safari man. NO ONE. Even on Mac it has a tiny share of use.

Nonsense. I use it. Literally now.😎

 

[pastrychef]

Literally the first sentence of preambke No. 1:

“Digital services in general and online platforms in particular play an increasingly important role in the economy, in particular in the internal market”

And goes on:

“very strong network effects, an ability to connect many business users with many end users through the multisidedness of these services, a significant degree of dependence of both business users and end users, lock-in effects, a lack of multi-homing for the same purpose by end users, vertical integration, and data driven-advantages”

“Gatekeepers have a significant impact on the internal market, providing gateways for a large number of business users to reach end users everywhere in the Union and on different markets.”

And article 1:

“Subject-matter and scope

1. The purpose of this Regulation is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market”

…and 3:

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

👉 The designation process gives the EU some leeway. And I don’t see what prevents them from saying: “We’re not designating a game console manufactureing undertaking as a gatekeeper, since game consoles don’t significantly impact the functioning of our internal market.”

(Note that the definition of internal market is a “broad” economic definition commonly used by the EU and does not refer to particular markets for particular goods/services, such as video games)

The following sounds like any phone to me:

Btw, video game consoles provide "gateways to reach users through the Union and beyond" too.


The following seeks to blame these devices for the users' dependance. According to this, "multi-sidedness" of services and vertical integration combined with unfair conduct can lead to rapid and potentially far-reaching decreases in business users' and end users' choice.

If the users don't want to rely on a vertically integrated device, they have a choice to go to Android. If they manage to destroy iOS as we know it, that's when there will be no more choice for those who want to use a vertically integrated device.

I'm not sure what they mean by "multi-sided" services. All smartphones are capable of multi-sided services. Why would they want to stop that? Maybe this commission should just go back to using rotary phones.

 

[Analog Kid]

Do you understand what it means for a concern to be secondary or tertiary?

I do. It means not a top priority. This just raises the question then why it’s such a priority to legislate something in the name of a consumer who doesn’t share that prioritization.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Lawsuits against this legislation coming in 3… 2… 1…

On what grounds? You can’t call a law illegal when they are passed by the executive and legislative branches. Unlike USA, laws are made sure to be legal before written, so you don’t end up enforcing a law for 20 years before it’s overturned for being illegal all along.

So the same rules should be applicable in each industry in EU:
1. Medicine

It’s kind of open

2. Car manufacturers

Same

3. Education

You can pick whatever education you want, they all follow the state mandated education plan

4. Work

Worker rights?

5. Providers

You can pick whatever provider you want

Consumers should be given a total freedom in each department. Otherwise no consistency.
It’s biased from EU towards US, period!

Create your own product, promote it, expand it. That’s free market.

And you don’t think this is already applicable or not on its way?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Most of these rules are written and decided by people, that have never received a single vote from a citizen in their career and who doesn’t understand a thing about what the customers really want.

I see 90% of this as a major step backwards in security and privacy

You have no clue.
The commission drafts the rule. Parliament ( directly elected) amends the law, the council( directly elected heads of states) also amends the laws. No law can be passed without parliament and council agreeing

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Huh, people can now use WhatsApp to read their SMS texts...?! Why? Why would you want WhatsApp to be interoperable with your SMS app? Why would you want your SMS app to be interoperable with Facebarf Messenger?

Should each app that can receive a message fire off a notification? Great, so now I'll get notifications for the same message from Messages, WhatsApp, Facebarf Messenger, Signal, Telegram...

Does it mean when WhatsApp introduces some new feature like animated smileys, Apple has to do the same? If they don't implement it within say, six months, do they get fined? Are SMS within WhatsApp backed up within a WhatsApp backup? What are the legal ramifications of this?

Should I be able to book an Uber with a London black cab app? How about we just have apps that do what they're built to do? Apple has Messages which does SMS and iMessage. FBM does FBM messages. WhatsApp does WA messages.

This is a massive can of worms, and I don't see how it helps anyone. All it will do is take engineering and testing time away from companies making sure their own stuff works, and there'll be no secrecy in new features because everyone will already know about them because they've had to implement them.

Why? Very simple. So I don’t need to have 10 apps to communicate with 10 different groups. And instead use one with superior functionality and usability. I would erase messenger, WhatsApp, Supertext, viber immediately and use signal or iMessage exclusively

 

[I7guy]

I’ll repeat: Preventing developers (or competitors) from deploying their own software solutions on widely-deployed hardware doesn‘t incentivise innovation. Quite the contrary.

We will see. Right?

 

[dba415]

Once this regulation takes effect, the number of people who use Siri as the assistant will go down to about 0. Can't wait to be able to say "OK Google" to turn on Google Assistant on my iPhone. No more "Hey Siri"

 

[Michael Scrip]

Once this regulation takes effect, the number of people who use Siri as the assistant will go down to about 0.

Oh no! Then Google Assistant will become "dominant" across both major mobile platforms.

We can't have that! So governments will then have to pass new laws to make it more "fair" to other voice assistants.

🤣

(and before anyone jumps in with serious replies... it was a joke...) 😎

 

[vipergts2207]

I do. It means not a top priority. This just raises the question then why it’s such a priority to legislate something in the name of a consumer who doesn’t share that prioritization.

It’s been laid out in countless threads here ad nauseam. You disagree with those reasons and that’s fine. Doesn’t stop what’s happening though.

 

[Analog Kid]

It’s been laid out in countless threads here ad nauseam. You disagree with those reasons and that’s fine. Doesn’t stop what’s happening though.

“Doesn’t stop what’s happening” reads to me like “you’re right, but are losing anyway.”

 

[vipergts2207]

“Doesn’t stop what’s happening” reads to me like “you’re right, but are losing anyway.”

As the one who wrote it let me tell you it should be read more along the lines of “too bad for you but the outcome I desire is happening and no amount of whining about it will change anything.”

 

[Analog Kid]

As the one who wrote it let me tell you it should be read more along the lines of “too bad for you but the outcome I desire is happening and no amount of whining about it will change anything.”

Equally well reasoned.

 

[Beautyspin]

Yes which is why in my plan you can use any store you want Apple will ask for a pecentage of profit to develop after the first year. Even if you use another appstore you have to pay Apple to have xcode.

Apple isn't losing it's cut.

I think one of the things that Apple needs to allow is to expose the APIs and allow others to develop without using XCODE. Or once Apple becomes more open and alternate Appstores come, the need for XCODE will no longer be there. I mean, if they leave Apple with the leverage to control everything again, then what is the point? In case Apple does not learn and persists with the same kind of behavior, I am sure it will attract penalties that will set its behavior right.

 

[Beautyspin]

Why can't the competition come up with their own phones? Then they can use whatever payment method they like. Why is the EU forcing Apple to include products from the competition?


Are they going to force McDonald's to allow Whoppers to be sold in their stores next?
It's unfair that McDonald's locks out Whoppers, right?

An extension of this logic would be that Apple should come up with its country and run its business there so that it can make all the laws there that suit it completely. Why is it operating in a country built by others formed by expending sweat and blood (literally) and taking advantage of the country's market?

 

[vipergts2207]

Equally well reasoned.

Your mistake was assuming that that remark was intended to be reasoning. It wasn’t. Feel free to go through the hundreds of pages that already exist on this topic and others like it if you genuinely need an answer to your question. You’re also free to peruse my post history if you happen to want my specific take. But I’m not going to rehash it for the 43rd time just for your benefit.

 

[Beautyspin]

I feel like the EU wants to end Phone privacy as we know it in the Apple ecosystem. Glad I don’t live in the EU today.

At this rate, you will run out of countries.

USA: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/04/the-senate-bill-that-has-big-tech-scared/


UK: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-61342576

 

[Beautyspin]

The shareholders do not care about sales - they care about profit. It may take some time for Apple to figure out how to compete in this particular market at an acceptable profit level. The shareholders would be more than happy to wait for that. We have no idea if Apple has even started a version of IOS built to work this way.

But with similar rules coming in most of the countries, I guess Apple has nowhere to run. It can't stop doing business in every country, including the US, which will also come up with similar regulations.

 

[Beautyspin]

I haven't forgotten. I just hope there is a greater chance the UK Parliament will see this as the lunacy that it is. In general I think regulating giant companies is a good thing, but forcing Apple to allow sideloading will kill the app store and the security risks will skyrocket as a consequence as unvetted apps are sideloaded. It might also have implications about whether I can use Apple devices in the same way as I do now for work.

Nothing catastrophic has happened on Mac, Linux, Android, and Windows machines that allow installation from unknown sources (AKA sideloading). So, nothing will happen here also.

 

[pastrychef]

An extension of this logic would be that Apple should come up with its country and run its business there so that it can make all the laws there that suit it completely. Why is it operating in a country built by others formed by expending sweat and blood (literally) and taking advantage of the country's market?

How many companies have formed their own countries in the last millennia?

How many companies have designed and sold their own phones in the last decade?

What a stupid argument.

 

[Beautyspin]

That's a stupid misdirection attempt.

Users are free to add bank ATM cards and credit cards to their Wallets for use with Apple Pay. They don't have to develop their own phones.

Why should Apple be forced to allow competing products like Google Pay or Samsung Pay on to their phones?

Because Apple Pay is not a proprietary tech. Apple is using tech developed by others and locking others out, which is silly. I would prefer an app by my bank rather than rely on Apple, which has a long history of leaking data. On the other hand, banks everywhere, including the EU, are regulated heavily with stringent redressal mechanisms.

The European Union, Cybersecurity, and the Financial Sector: A Primer

Recently, EU cybersecurity regulation has focused on risks to the financial sector. However, complicated, overlapping regulation systems show the growing need for a comprehensive cybersecurity framework.

carnegieendowment.org

 

[pastrychef]

Because Apple Pay is not a proprietary tech. Apple is using tech developed by others and locking others out, which is silly. I would prefer an app by my bank rather than rely on Apple, which has a long history of leaking data. On the other hand, banks everywhere, including the EU, are regulated heavily with stringent redressal mechanisms.

The European Union, Cybersecurity, and the Financial Sector: A Primer

Recently, EU cybersecurity regulation has focused on risks to the financial sector. However, complicated, overlapping regulation systems show the growing need for a comprehensive cybersecurity framework.

carnegieendowment.org

No one is stopping you from using whatever payment method you like. It's your choice.

 

[mrochester]

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


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.

So if it turns out to be true, how do we get rid of these regulations so we can go back to what we had?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The fact that the EU is using a company’s trademarked product in the name of their market definition (iOS App Store) lets one know that they’re not even attempting to make a show of being serious. For anything else, a company’s trademarked product name is “a thing they sell or provide as a service” (I’m sure they don’t have a problem with Airbus having a ‘monopoly’ on the market of Airbus planes).

Wel I have news for you. And you’re not gonna like it. And this is of SAS a big European airplane company.

EU’s top court: APIs can’t be copyrighted, would “monopolise ideas”

The court ruled that functional parts of computer programs can’t be copyrighted.

arstechnica.com

A firm called World Programming created a clone designed to run SAS scripts without modification. In order to do this, they bought a copy of SAS and studied its manual and the operation of the software itself. They reportedly did not have access to the source code, nor did they de-compile the software's object code.