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

[AppliedMicro]

The minute I need to install After Effects, or Photoshop (not some obscure program you know), I need to leave the walled garden and download it from Adobe's website

No, you don’t “need” to. You can use a competitor’s app. I’m very sure there’s more than one - a greater choice than in mobile operating systems!

I also fail to see your problem:
1. Sideloading is available today, so execution of third-party code isn’t the security issue. They’re just preventing the good developers from making an honest living on it.
2. You clearly trust Adobe and its software - so why is downloading and installing it from Adobe’s website such a problem?
3. Are you using Photoshop on a desktop operating system? If so, how did you install it - from Apple’s App Store?
4. Also, how did you pay for your Adobe software on a desktop operating system? From your Apple iTunes/App Store balance? Or did you ardously figure out if and how to securely pay Adobe their price/subscription fees?

👉 Why don’t you stop making a mountain out of a molehill by blowing up the “normal” way of installing software into a huge problem?

You and I, we’ve done it countless times on other operating systems. It’s a lot smaller issue than people face who want to run something that Apple doesn’t allow outright in the App Store.

And this will make it worse. Its just common sense. If a walled garden OS is this insecure, removing the walled garden will not INCREASE the security but DECREASE it. So expect more stories due to this.

Read the article!
They’re reporting about a browser-based security hole.
The EU legislation is doing nothing to decrease browser security.
We could, in fact, get more secure browsers on iOS that don’t just execute anything that Apple’s Webkit does.

But, both of you fail to realize that Apple is NOT the dominate player here. There is a dominate player. One with greater than 50% marketshare.

...which, for mobile app downloads, reportedly is Apple.

I found the following to be great.. They just have to convince a jury that removing the walled garden will harm public interest which is too costly to society as a whole.

You may or may not noticed the word “in exceptional circumstances” prefacing the clause and the limited remedy. With regard to the App Store and sideloading, it is going fail for multiple reasons:

1. It would suspend a very core part of the legislation, that the law was designed to tackle
2. It would require Apple to demonstrate that their OS isn’t secure.
3. They’re allowing sideloading today - that’s a massive contradiction to your plan.
4. Google does it too on Android - and it isn’t a huge problem.

 

[pastrychef]

You may or may not noticed the word “in exceptional circumstances” prefacing the clause and the limited remedy. With regard to the App Store and sideloading, it is going fail for multiple reasons:

1. It would suspend a very core part of the legislation, that the law was designed to tackle
2. It would require Apple to demonstrate that their OS isn’t secure.
3. They’re allowing sideloading today - that’s a massive contradiction to your plan.
4. Google does it too on Android - and it isn’t a huge problem.

1. That's perfect. Suspending any part of this insanity is a positive.
2. Removing the walled garden will not help security.
3. Why? They just have convince a jury that removing the walled garden will weaken security. These rules cover more than just side loading.
4. It is to me. But that doesn't matter. Apple just has to convince a jury.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I still don't see where willingly disqualifying yourself is not allowed. The first part you highlighted specifically says, "beyond revenue or market cap" and focuses on core platform services. The second part you highlighted talks about suspension of being considered a gatekeeper. The third part you highlighted talks about emerging gatekeepers.

It’s not willingly disqualifying yourself it’s the “systemic infringement of the rules”

It’s the “potential to be a gate keeper”
Or as they call it, emerging gatekeeper”

I found the following to be great.. They just have to convince a jury that removing the walled garden will harm public interest which is too costly to society as a whole.

View attachment 2028450

Good luck on that part as there will be zero juries to convince but the judge.
A judge is active in Civil law systems.

Why would how much a company amasses in other parts of the world have any bearing on the EU?
Why is their worth outside of the EU relevant to EU regulation?

Economic influence as what they earn outside of eu they can use inside EU

Whether or not the rules are talking about the NASDAQ or EU exchanges?
Are they talking about what Apple's EU operations is worth? if so, how would they they calculate it?

They calculate their subsidiaries that exist inside EU. Irrespective it’s irrelevant

In the text, they talk of €7.5B EU turnover then they move to €75 market cap without clearly specifying from which exchange. And they didn't specify global market cap.

Anything can be argued. It may even be done with issues they know they'll lose to drag things out.

Doesn’t matter as they fulfill the revenue criteria.

You're generous. I think people working at Apple HQ are doing just fine though.

It's not about what they would kill for. I'm sure they would kill for double their current market share. Go earn it.
And if for some reason Google is doing something that is preventing (in the illegal sense) DDG from growing. Then they should bring it to the courts. If they just suck at search, then they deserve their share in life.

So even big bad M$ can't crack the search engine nut. Clearly they are trying harder than DDG. So is Google once again doing something illegal to prevent the power house that is M$ from gaining ground? If so, please inform us.

Yes google is doing something illegal and have been convicted for anti competitive practices with their search engine. And how they abuse android.

I don't have to portray anything. IT IS. When the next one up is over 2x larger!!! WT Living F. Yeah, it's not that much when the next one up is twice your size and your NOT going to gain much ground. Single digit % points here and there.

Only when comparing it to something real, like you know a significantly larger company in the same business as Apple. If Apple is 30%, and google is 60%+. What are we doing wasting our time with Apple for?

Market share is not legally defined or regulated. A monopoly is completely legal to operate.

Break up Google. Make Android as an OS a new separate business. License it out like Microsoft does to handset manufactures. Let them put whatever they want on it. Seems to work for Microsoft just fine, and you get everything you want. Plus, plus! You don't even need to alter the OS much. It already does everything you and the EU want.

They already have ( in the process of) taken care of google, and you are free to look up why they have been fined 10-15 billion euros. And the only thing that matters is the EUs legal definition of DOMINANT UNDERTAKING. And I have posted it.

No I can't. The minute I need to install After Effects, or Photoshop (not some obscure program you know), I need to leave the walled garden and download it from Adobe's website.

So use another program on the Mac AppStore. Adobe have refused to have their program on the store as it would fundamentally break the program and make it useless compared to their website version

And this will make it worse. Its just common sense. If a walled garden OS is this insecure, removing the walled garden will not INCREASE the security but DECREASE it. So expect more stories due to this.

We have zero evidence the security isn’t more or less the same between iOS and MacOS. Apple have argued it’s less secure but refused to provide evidence as they didn’t have the data available.

I didn’t write the EU legislation. I am simply pointing out that "market cap" is going to be the same regardless of country, exchange, etc.

Given Apple's massive market cap, even if were to be tied to just their EU operations it would still be well over 75 billion euros anyway. Apple generates significant revenue and profits from EU countries.

Their market cap is irrelevant to the law. They already earn 83 billion more than the revenue qualifier of 7.5bilion.

Not putting words in your mouth... Just listing some possible arguments Apple lawyers can raise in court.

Apples market cap is irrelevant. I don’t understand why you both argue about the market cap. In the text apples market cap could be negative 75 billion. The part they already fulfill is 7.5billion a year revenue

 

[AppliedMicro]

3. Why? They just have convince a jury that removing the walled garden will weaken security.

No.
They‘d have to convince that the societal cost and harm in public security or health of enforcing very specific provisions would be disproportionately high.

That‘s a whole different requirement than merely „Oh, it will weaken security - so do we get a pass, please?“

3. Why? They just have convince a jury that removing the walled garden will weaken security.
4. It is to me. But that doesn't matter. Apple just has to convince a jury.

Where does it say in your quote (or elsewhere( that they‘d have to convince ”a jury” - and what jury would that be?

I can see nowhere where this would allow you to go jurisdiction-shopping to the place/court that‘s most sympathetic to your case and convince some random bunch of jurors.

That part you quotes states that „the commission should be able to decide…“.
That refers to the European Commission: the very same body - or in more American terms, the same (quasi) „government“ / „administration“ - that drafted this bill in the first place.

 

[pastrychef]

It’s not willingly disqualifying yourself it’s the “systemic infringement of the rules”

It’s the “potential to be a gate keeper”
Or as they call it, emerging gatekeeper”

Good luck on that part as there will be zero juries to convince but the judge.
A judge is active in Civil law systems.


Economic influence as what they earn outside of eu they can use inside EU

They calculate their subsidiaries that exist inside EU. Irrespective it’s irrelevant

Doesn’t matter as they fulfill the revenue criteria.

So, if Apple decided to end all sales of everything in the EU, how can they still be considered a gatekeeper? What is synthetic infringement? There's nothing being infringed. They just decided say bye-bye. Forcing Apple to continue selling to meet those criteria would be "synthetic".

How do you know how a jury or judge will decide anything? Without any knowledge of even the arguments, you don't know anything.

 

[pastrychef]

No.
They‘d have to convince that the societal cost and harm in public security or health of enforcing very specific provisions would be disproportionately high.

That‘s a whole different requirement than merely „Oh, it will weaken security - so do we get a pass, please?“


Where does it say in your quote (or elsewhere( that they‘d have to convince ”a jury” - and what jury would that be?

I can see nowhere where this would allow you to go jurisdiction-shopping to the place/court that‘s most sympathetic to your case and convince some random bunch of jurors.

That part you quotes states that „the commission should be able to decide…“.
That refers to the European Commission: the very same body - or in more American terms, the same (quasi) „government“ / „administration“ - that drafted this bill in the first place.

Who determines what is "high" societal cost? This is a matter of opinion.

In MY opinion, weakening security will have extremely high societal cost. So, if the jury and/or judge thinks like me, they win.

You are asking why judges and/or juries decide these things? Really? The whole thing is "interpreted by the Court of Justice". If you can't understand this, then it's a waste of time and there's nothing to talk to you about anymore.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Who determines what is "high" societal cost? This is a matter of opinion.

I‘m sure that the European Commission will have an opinion on the matter.
After all, their opinion was also what moved them to bring forward this bill.

In MY opinion, weakening security will have extremely high societal cost.

Not every „weakening security“ will have „extremely high“ cosst.
Otherwise ordinary people wouldn‘t drive their own cars and the population of the U.S. wouldn‘t be allowed to bear arms in public.

So, if the jury and/or judge thinks like me, they win.

Again, which judge or jury?

You are asking why judges and/or juries decide these things? Really?

No, I‘m not asking why judges or juries decide things.

You claimed that Apple „just have to convince a jury“ to suspend certain provisions of this law - along with a screenshot that does not state or support what you claim.

The text you cited yourself states that the European Commission „may“ (not: „has to“!) decide on suspending such provisions on an exceptional basis.

The European Commission is not a judge or jury in a court of law.
To emphasise it in other words: they are the ones that wrote that law and will execute it.
And the paragraph you quoted gives them an excuse not having to follow their own law when it would be too detrimental.

It is not a provision or intention of allowing a legal objection to Apple and be heard in a court of law, before a jury or judge.

So, if Apple decided to end all sales of everything in the EU, how can they still be considered a gatekeeper? What is synthetic infringement? There's nothing being infringed. They just decided say bye-bye. Forcing Apple to continue selling to meet those criteria would be "synthetic".

Look, if Apple end all sales and distribution in the EU, they won‘t be a gatekeeper anymore.
If they made a clear cut by withdrawing from the EU, they should and will get a break on the law.
I don‘t think there‘s anyone here - me, Sophisticatednut or you - that would disagree with that.

It‘s just that the premise - Apple ending all EU sales - is utterly ridiculous.

PS: And, honestly, we‘ve been circling around these silly suggestions on how Apple could or should undermine or circumvent that law for too long. It’s getting tiresome.

 

[webkit]

Not putting words in your mouth... Just listing some possible arguments Apple lawyers can raise in court.

Even if Apple was somehow able to successfully argue that "market cap" should only be based on their EU operations, it wouldn't change anything as it would still be over 75 billion euros. It might help some smaller companies but not Apple.

Apple would also still have the over 7.5 billion euros in annual turnover anyway.

 

[webkit]

Their market cap is irrelevant to the law. They already earn 83 billion more than the revenue qualifier of 7.5bilion.

Right, it's an "and/or" situation.

 

[pastrychef]

I‘m sure that the European Commission will have an opinion on the matter.
After all, their opinion was also what moved them to bring forward this bill.

Not every „weakening security“ will have „extremely high“ cosst.
Otherwise ordinary people wouldn‘t drive their own cars and the population of the U.S. wouldn‘t be allowed to bear arms in public.

Again, which judge or jury?

No, I‘m not asking why judges or juries decide things.

You claimed that Apple „just have to convince a jury“ to suspend certain provisions of this law - along with a screenshot that does not state or support what you claim.

The text you cited yourself states that the European Commission „may“ (not: „has to“!) decide on suspending such provisions on an exceptional basis.

The European Commission is not a judge or jury in a court of law.
To emphasise it in other words: they are the ones that wrote that law and will execute it.
And the paragraph you quoted gives them an excuse not having to follow their own law when it would be too detrimental.

It is not a provision or intention of allowing a legal objection to Apple and be heard in a court of law, before a jury or judge.


Look, if Apple end all sales and distribution in the EU, they won‘t be a gatekeeper anymore.
If they made a clear cut by withdrawing from the EU, they should and will get a break on the law.
I don‘t think there‘s anyone here - me, Sophisticatednut or you - that would disagree with that.

It‘s just that the premise - Apple ending all EU sales - is utterly ridiculous.

PS: And, honestly, we‘ve been circling around these silly suggestions on how Apple could or should undermine or circumvent that law for too long. It’s getting tiresome.

Yup. Both parties will just stand on a street corner screaming at each other to determine who's right.

You must learn what "if" means.

 

[avz]

After all, their opinion was also what moved them to bring forward this bill.

This is not a fact unfortunately. In a perfect world it would be but in a real world decision making is much more complex than you seem to think. There is a reason why this topic is rightfully placed in a Political News section.

 

[webkit]

Moving this away from an "avoidance" discussion to more of a "compliance" discussion, I am curious about how the following would need to be handled.

Gatekeepers can no longer:

• Pre-install certain software applications and require users to use any important default software services such as web browsers.
• Give their own products, apps, or services preferential treatment or rank them higher than those of others.

What apps won't be able to be pre-installed on an iPhone? What would be considered giving preferential treatment to Apple apps on an iPhone?

Is this what an EU iPhone home screen would look like out of the box??

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So, if Apple decided to end all sales of everything in the EU, how can they still be considered a gatekeeper?

If they decide to end their business in EU, then there won't be anything for EU to do. And will likely just be designated a potential gatekeeper or emerging gatekeeper under review if they return to the market.

What is synthetic infringement? There's nothing being infringed. They just decided say bye-bye. Forcing Apple to continue selling to meet those criteria would be "synthetic".

Synthetic infringement= systemic infringement. This means you are rule skirting.
Apple tried this in the Netherlands and was smacked.
Google have tried it every time and gotten record fines every time.
Microsoft tried it and was smacked.

One big difference in EU compared to the USA, is the fact you have to convince the judge who is the one who brings the charges. The Judge is't impartial.

How do you know how a jury or judge will decide anything? Without any knowledge of even the arguments, you don't know anything.

how?
1: there is no jury. They don't exist.
2: the criteria is crystal clear. Market capitalization is 100% ignored for one simple reason.
, their revenue already fulfill the first criteria. You don't need to fulfill both. Only one of them.

 

[pastrychef]

If they decide to end their business in EU, then there won't be anything for EU to do. And will likely just be designated a potential gatekeeper or emerging gatekeeper under review if they return to the market.

Synthetic infringement= systemic infringement. This means you are rule skirting.
Apple tried this in the Netherlands and was smacked.
Google have tried it every time and gotten record fines every time.
Microsoft tried it and was smacked.

One big difference in EU compared to the USA, is the fact you have to convince the judge who is the one who brings the charges. The Judge is't impartial.

how?
1: there is no jury. They don't exist.
2: the criteria is crystal clear. Market capitalization is 100% ignored for one simple reason.
, their revenue already fulfill the first criteria. You don't need to fulfill both. Only one of them.

You call it rule skirting, I call it business decision.

Who's to say?

Juries don't exist, right?

This is getting stupid. You are now denying the existence of juries. I'm out of this discussion.

 

[mrochester]

Moving this away from an "avoidance" discussion to more of a "compliance" discussion, I am curious about how the following would need to be handled.

Gatekeepers can no longer:

• Pre-install certain software applications and require users to use any important default software services such as web browsers.
• Give their own products, apps, or services preferential treatment or rank them higher than those of others.

What apps won't be able to be pre-installed on an iPhone? What would be considered giving preferential treatment to Apple apps on an iPhone?

Is this what an EU iPhone home screen would look like out of the box??
View attachment 2028611

I wonder if we’ll end up with a ballot screen for every app or service that meets this definition?

 

[AppliedMicro]

You must learn what "if" means.

I prefer to live in and dicsuss reality.
And circumstances or reactions that are probably or at least plausible.
Not purely hypothetical "ifs" like you.
There is no indication whatsoever that Apple would cease to do business in the EU.

Juries don't exist, right?

This is getting stupid. You are now denying the existence of juries.

You're either trolling or purposely misunderstanding with a complete disregard for context (in this case, being that the paragraph you quoted.

I'm out of this discussion.

Considering how you're either misunderstanding things despite them having been explained to you at length - or purposely misunderstanding things wholeheartedly welcome your decision!

I will, however, take the time to address one thing:

View attachment 2028450

The whole thing is "interpreted by the Court of Justice". If you can't understand this, then it's a waste of time and there's nothing to talk to you about anymore.

It's not. The "interpreted by the Court of Justice" only refers to the "grounds of public health and security laid down in union law" - not the commission deciding on exemptions:

"(67) In exceptional circumstances, justified on the limited grounds of public health or public security laid down in Union law and interpreted by the Court of Justice, the Commission should be able to decide that a specific obligation does not apply to a specific core platform service. If harm is caused to such public interests that could indicate that the cost to society as a whole of enforcing a certain obligation is, in a specific exceptional case, too high and thus disproportionate. Where appropriate, the Commission should be ableto facilitate compliance by assessing whether a limited and duly justified suspension or exemption is justified. This should ensure the proportionality of the obligations in this Regulation without undermining the intended ex ante effects on fairness and contestability.Where such an exemption is granted, the Commission should review its decision every year."

Where is this actually codified in the law?

👉 In Article 10:

"Exemption for grounds of public health and public security

1. The Commission may, acting on a reasoned request by a gatekeeper or on its own initiative, adopt an implementing act setting out its decision, to exempt that gatekeeper, in whole or in part, from a specific obligation laid down in Article 5, 6 or 7 in relation to a core platform service listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9), where such exemption is justified on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of this Article (‘the exemption decision’). The Commission shall adopt the exemption decision within 3 months after receiving a complete reasoned request and shall provide a reasoned statement explaining the grounds for the exemption. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 50(2).

2. Where an exemption is granted pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall review its exemption decision if the ground for the exemption no longer exists or at least every year. Following such a review, the Commission shall either wholly or partially lift the exemption, or decide that the conditions of paragraph 1 continue to be met.

3. An exemption pursuant to paragraph 1 may only be granted on grounds of public health or public security."

👉 No, not by a jury or judge. The decision follows the advisory procedure that tasks the so-called "Digital Markets Advisory Committee" - which is comprised of representatives of member states. In effect just like the commission itself.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You call it rule skirting, I call it business decision.

Tell that to google. And it didn’t work out that well, they tried to settle and the EU commission didn’t even take their callls

Who's to say?

The literal legal text. There is nothing but the text of the law to interpret. There is zero other laws or precedents to respect.

Civil law(EU) is extremely different from common law(USA/UK)

Juries don't exist, right?

In EU? Nope trial by jury is not a thing
European court of justice ( Supreme Court)
And the commission are rules by legal and subject experts

This is getting stupid. You are now denying the existence of juries. I'm out of this discussion.

Not everyone uses the American systems.


Distinction between adversarial and inquisitorial system. The adversarial system aims to get the truth through the open competition between the prosecution and the defence. The inquisitorial system is generally aims to get the truth of the matter through extensive investigation and examination of all evidence.

 

[Ethosik]

No, you don’t “need” to. You can use a competitor’s app. I’m very sure there’s more than one - a greater choice than in mobile operating systems!

Ah I love this counter argument. Then you dont “NEED” an open iOS. Just leave it like it is. Just don’t use emulators or whatever you want to “side load”

I love how you can have it your way but I can’t. That’s what drives me crazy about this counter argument. You are basically saying “I want open OS and if Apps leave the App Store you are out of luck I just want it my way”

 

[mrochester]

Ah I love this counter argument. Then you dont “NEED” an open iOS. Just leave it like it is. Just don’t use emulators or whatever you want to “side load”

I love how you can have it your way but I can’t. That’s what drives me crazy about this counter argument. You are basically saying “I want open OS and if Apps leave the App Store you are out of luck I just want it my way”

It’s the ‘to hell with what anyone else wants’ mentality.

 

[vipergts2207]

It’s the ‘to hell with what anyone else wants’ mentality.

In the next episode of Pot Meets Kettle…

 

[mrochester]

In the next episode of Pot Meets Kettle…

I’m not demanding any changes.

 

[vipergts2207]

I’m not demanding any changes.

Whether or not you're demanding changes has no bearing or not whether it also fits the philosophy of "to hell with what anyone else wants."

 

[mrochester]

Whether or not you're demanding changes has no bearing or not whether it also fits the philosophy of "to hell with what anyone else wants.

You can try and justify it however you like. I’m not here to debate the attitude, I’m telling you what it is.

 

[vipergts2207]

You can try and justify it however you like. I’m not here to debate the attitude,

It’s the ‘to hell with what anyone else wants’ mentality.

Actually, it kind of sounds like you are.

I’m telling you what it is.

Same here as well.

 

[mrochester]

Actually, it kind of sounds like you are.


Same here as well.

Glad you agree that’s the attitude you’ve taken.