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

[AppliedMicro]

I think this regulation is far-overreaching and as said above will have some type of tech chilling effect.

The chilling effect in Messengers, App Stores and Apps is not due to EU regulation - it's due to dominant proprietary systems and software.

Apple are prohibiting apps and functionality by withholding tech and signing keys and keeping them to themselves. That's the opposite of innovation.

Why can I hardly do development or even run popular static site generators on an iPad?
Cause Apple prohibits apps from running outside code (even sandboxed) for non-educational purposes.

 

[I7guy]

The chilling effect in Messengers, App Stores and Apps is not due to EU regulation - it's due to dominant proprietary systems and software.

It’s due to EU “overreaching” regulation.

Apple are prohibiting apps and functionality by withholding tech and signing keys and keeping them to themselves. That's the opposite of innovation.

Yes, it’s their App Store and ip.

Why can I hardly do local web development or run popular static site generators on an iPad?

Buy an android or windows.

Cause Apple prohibits apps from running outside code (even sandboxed) for more than educational purposes.

Yes, it’s apples ip and code.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Yes, it’s their App Store and ip.

Yes, and inhibiting innovation.

Yes, it’s apples ip and code.

Yes, and inhibiting innovation.

Restricting the ability to run code for short-term monetary gain isn't innovation. It's anti-innovation. Legislation that removes or restricts the restrictors (gatekeepers) ability to restrict can reward innovators - something that Apple used to be (and has greatly capitalised on) but isn't anymore.

 

[webkit]

Apple it seems has a legal monopoly even in the EU. That’s why the need to regulate posts, messaging, app stores, nfc, etc. the death of innovation in the EU and they will have caused it themselves.

It's a "legal monopoly" in the sense that the EU is not seeking the breakup of Apple but it's rare for a foreign country/region to go down that path. The breakup of an "illegal monopoly" is usually sought by a company's home country which in Apple's case, would be the United States. Whether or not it ever gets to that point here remains to be seen. The DOJ had been looking to breakup Microsoft in the 1990s but it never ended up happening in part because Microsoft agreed to various terms including stopping certain anticompetitive behavior.

Anyway, what the EU is doing is addressing illegal anticompetitive behavior of dominant companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta, etc.

 

[I7guy]

[..].

Anyway, what the EU is doing is addressing illegal anticompetitive behavior of dominant companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta, etc.

What the EU is doing is chilling innovation with these draconian laws giving away other companies’ ip.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, and inhibiting innovation.

No it’s not.

Yes, and inhibiting innovation.

No it’s not.

Restricting the ability to run code for short-term monetary gain isn't innovation. It's anti-innovation. Legislation that removes or restricts the restrictors (gatekeepers) ability to restrict can reward innovators - something that Apple used to be (and has greatly capitalised on) but isn't anymore.

Let the other competitors develop their own innovation and not use free ip given away by the government.” On someone else’s dime.

 

[djphat2000]

I don’t think any bank allows the use of a phone call to set up banking anymore, let alone access it without using a physical device or electronic or electronic banking on your phone
View attachment 2033465

This is an EU thing. We may send text (SMS) for MFA or and email. But you can still bank by phone here.
I haven't seen one of those tokens in a while. We never used them (at my bank).
Additionally, I bank with several other banks including my own. None require a mobile, or a token key device. Nor do any of my credit cards from other major banks.

They aren’t treated as a power hungry monopoly. Read the legal text and you will see they have identified behaviors and actions and harmful trends they want to prevent and walked backwards when making the regulations.
This is Ex-ante regulations, meaning it is to prevent harm before it is caused

As been stated many times. They are treating them as gatekeepers by the rules they came up with. Since Apple already exceeds the new gatekeeper rules. If they don't comply they will be fined. They can either comply, and change the OS. Ruining it for many for the benefit of a few. Or shrink their business within the EU to fall under the thresholds. Or maybe a 3rd option, figure out a way to comply "fully" without too much or many Swiss cheese alterations to the OS. Which will be HARD to do. While, keeping the system easy for most users to manage. AKA it's not just a check box on/off for a user to control.

These rules are creating harm, to those of us (the consumer) that already purchased and plan to continue purchasing Apple iOS/iPadOS products. No matter what you state to the contrary, changing how the OS "works" so that other means of application installation is possible. Will create additional security vulnerabilities and means in which to bypass the protections of the device. It was built to limit that exposure. And while not flawless by any means, it's a better default position than just to treat it as a regular operating system like your desktop OS.

I know you may not care much of my profession, but I'm literally securing my environment by disabling all additional means to which a user(s) could break into it. It's a freaking nightmare, as some of what I'm disabling we also need to be on so we can operate the system. Which means allowing access from LIMITED endpoints within our network. Kind of what the iPhone does by default. And every new OS version update presents additional issues you have to deal with.

The EU is daft to think you get security just by saying make it secure.
I have another solution for the EU. Apple should just sell iPhones with Android OS's on them.

 

[webkit]

What the EU is doing is chilling innovation with these draconian laws giving away other companies’ ip.

What the EU is doing is fostering competition and innovation by preventing companies from restricting access to dominant platforms. It's comparable to what the DOJ did in the 1990s regarding Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in restricting things like browser access on Windows.

Regulating this type of anticompetitive behavior has been a purpose of antitrust laws and regulations for ages.

 

[djphat2000]

Well in EU there is no distinction, and I can’t really say what point there is to have one

Because one happens illegally or is illegally keeping itself a monopoly. Verses becoming a monopoly by natural means, in which case was done because you did a good job and not attainted or maintained by illegal means.

If for example I figured out a way to extract pure clean water (for all uses) from the ocean and seas. That was cheap to do, highly efficient, and even figured out an amazing use of the left over brine. And no one else could do it. I'd have a legal monopoly. I could if I so choose to:
1) License the process and bank billions - A la Microsoft
2) Compete with existing Water sourcing means - Natural springs, Rain, lakes, snow cap run off, reverse osmosis, etc.
3) Undercut existing Water sourcing means - basically put them all out of business
4) Give it away for free - Charity

In the EU with the rules set forth, I'm a monopoly without distinction to Good or Bad. I'd have well exceeded the gatekeeper status. And since it doesn't matter what my company is, or what of those 4 choices I made. I'd have to comply with the rules as they are stated. Which is, open up and allow access to the technologies I created and or used in very specific ways to produce the end product.

Now using that example I would liken Apple to option 2. But the EU treats it as option 3, and wants option 4 with a little option 1 in there too.

 

[djphat2000]

What the EU is doing is fostering competition and innovation by preventing companies from restricting access to dominant platforms. It's comparable to what the DOJ did in the 1990s regarding Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in restricting things like browser access on Windows.

Not exactly. What Microsoft did was integrate Explorer as your means in which to file browse locally & access the internet. Which in and of itself wasn't the real issue. The real issue was preventing 3rd party browsers from being pre-installed by other vendors. Say, Gateway or Packard Bell wanted to include Netscape Navigator with the computer pre-installed. Microsoft didn't want that. That is anti-competitive. Why this is different from an iPhone/iPad is because Apple makes the iPhone and iPad too. If Apple was just to license the OS for any 3rd party mobile device maker to use as they wish (Android). They should have the ability to install what they want as a feature of purchasing said device from that manufacture. I remember my parents purchasing a Packard Bell PC and it was advertised as including Netscape Navigator and all these other add-ons to make using Windows 95 even better.
Having Microsoft remove the dual function of Explorer from being both File and Web browsing did eventually happen.

But in this instance, Apple's prevention from direct access to NFC on the device. Isn't the same as you "could-can" purchase something from Square that will facilitate the same function from a 3rd party competitor and works on your mobile device.
Yes, it would be simpler for Apple to allow access to the tech already within the device. But, many of us argue it shouldn't be required they do that. As there is no law requiring mobile devices have to have NFC. And you have other means.

Regulating this type of anticompetitive behavior has been a purpose of antitrust laws and regulations for ages.

I don't think any of us are arguing regulating real anti-competitive behavior. But, we are arguing creating rules that makes currently legal business practices anti-competitive behavior. And expecting these new rules to usher more innovation. While ignoring the innovation we have gotten and continue to have.

 

[I7guy]

What the EU is doing is fostering competition and innovation by preventing companies from restricting access to dominant platforms. It's comparable to what the DOJ did in the 1990s regarding Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior in restricting things like browser access on Windows.

Regulating this type of anticompetitive behavior has been a purpose of antitrust laws and regulations for ages.

Sure, it’s easy to “foster” competition on the back of someone else’s hard work, someone else’s money, someone else’s r&d, someone else’s intellectual. It’s much harder to “foster” competition if a company had to develop a product legitimately.

 

[djphat2000]

You get to use the same OS as before.

I don't, we have established this.

Take sideloading: requires no technical change to the OS.

Except to allow additional means of software delivery. And additional security measures to prevent as best as possible (on-going by the way) malice apps and settings changes to the device. Yeah, it's the same.

No one forcing you to download from non-App Store sources either.

Just the addition of holes in my device is being forced.

No one forces you to use non-Apple Pay payment applications on your phone either.

Considering I'll save little to nothing by even using alternate payment methods. While gaining additional security holes, I'll stick with my OS as is (as long as possible) and not upgrade to this version whenever it comes my way.

Governments are regulating much more than just the bare essentials to survive and sustain oneself.

I get that. However, I don't believe governments are getting right on this. We will all see how it plays out long term. I've chosen to stick with the last edition of the OS for as long as possible once these rules come into play. Unless the governments will force us to install it. There by proving I have no choice in the matter.

Since you're working for a bank, I don't have to tell you that. In fact, I can guarantee you: Your employer would make much more money if only they were subject to less or no (very specific!) regulation.

Of course. Taxes being one of them. CFPB here would also like banks to eliminate overdraft fees and lower ATM withdraw fees too. Once the world moves to full on crypto, it will be a utopia!

You get around or commute by car - I do it by public transit. I'm often at stations where there's no one and nothing telling me how to get from point A to point B (definitely not once a transfer is needed). And I'm in places where there's no paper maps to buy.

But you got plenty of cell service in these areas. Does the EU issue mobile phones for its citizens?
Our buses and trains have maps on the inside walls. So you "know" what line you're on and where it goes. If there is a detour, the conductor (a person at present) will inform the travelers of any route changes and transfers to make.

No problem, I'll just look it up online - so my phone is an important thing in life.

Again, it's a convenient solution. Gets rid of paper as well.
By the way you describe life in the EU. Every car has GPS, and every citizen that can leave their immediate area has a mobile device. They all know how to use it, and little to no help in managing it. All aspects of life are manageable via a mobile device, and if you forget to take it with you. You're lost in the woods. You will go thirsty, hungry, and perish.

I'm kidding of course, but seriously.

Yes, I know that US are technologically a decade behind the curve on consumer/retail payments.

Agreed. We have only barely gotten our POS systems to have operable CHIP readers. And I do mean operable. Many times that's broken. Applepay is still not accepted everywhere. Which means I'm forced to purchase a Samsung device to make the majority of my purchases at stores if I forget to bring my wallet full of physical cash and credit/debit cards. Thankfully some of my shopping locations still accept physical checks.

Most new "challenger" banks in Europe don't work without a mobile app.

Are you saying the don't have a website in which to perform all your banking needs? You can only use a mobile app?

Even legacy banks are moving their 2-factor authentication systems to mobile apps - some of them (and increasing) exclusively,

So only those "generator" apps like Google or Microsoft, RSA? Do they not offer SMS, Email notifications for password resets and the like?

the others require a physical TAN generator - which sucks as a user experience and is a waste of electronics. And without 2-factor authentication you aren't going to make many online payments anymore.

I agree, why anyone would use those things is silly. 2FA/MFA are all fine and well, but you should have all means in which to get that. Requiring a mobile app "only" doesn't make any sense to me. Unless they are given way to all citizens within the EU. But, then you stated the TAN. So, I'm going with no on that.

I can live and do (and waste time doing) banking like we did 50 years ago.
I can carry dedicated little calculator-like machines with me, just to make a secure online card payment.

Options, not great options in your case, but options.

Thanks to technology I don't have to.

I'll just thank Apple and Google for you. Since none of those other mobile device makers thought of any of this when they existed. Those non-innovative bastards.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This is an EU thing. We may send text (SMS) for MFA or and email. But you can still bank by phone here.
I haven't seen one of those tokens in a while. We never used them (at my bank).
Additionally, I bank with several other banks including my own. None require a mobile, or a token key device. Nor do any of my credit cards from other major banks.

Well yes it’s an EU thing because the security standards makes it impossible to what you describe, and sounds like a security nightmare.

1. Send SMS/MFA
2. Email

Everyone uses ether a digital banking device for full access.
Or tokens on your phone/ card to have full access. But only if granted higher privileges by the digitizer before hand.

You can call your bank or login with a security code, but will have little access outside of paying bills to already approved recipients.

Or you go to your physical bank.

Every card needs you to approve with a token/digitizer for a first time online payment.

As been stated many times. They are treating them as gatekeepers by the rules they came up with. Since Apple already exceeds the new gatekeeper rules. If they don't comply they will be fined.

Not completely true, it’s using existing laws and Supreme Court rulings to write new regulations. Regulations in EU must be legal to be written. You can’t codify anything without verification of it’s legal status.

They can either comply, and change the OS. Ruining it for many for the benefit of a few. Or shrink their business within the EU to fall under the thresholds. Or maybe a 3rd option, figure out a way to comply "fully" without too much or many Swiss cheese alterations to the OS. Which will be HARD to do.

Well if you read the requirements they could comply with little to no change or the OS. Notice that it’s only impacting their services they provide.

1. Side loading

Already exist, only medication needed is that apple sign any app done by a verified developer(like macOS). This is server controlled

1. Message cross comparability

Same thing, it’s just allowing other messaging platforms to connect to their iMessage servers that redistributes the messages to iMessage devices

1. NFC access

They would just need to allow apps using their private APIs on the AppStore

While, keeping the system easy for most users to manage. AKA it's not just a check box on/off for a user to control.

That’s the beauty, unless I missed something everything is controlled server side or just policy for the AppStore.

These rules are creating harm, to those of us (the consumer) that already purchased and plan to continue purchasing Apple iOS/iPadOS products. No matter what you state to the contrary, changing how the OS "works" so that other means of application installation is possible.

You don’t need to change the OS. Apple could also just chose to stop providing the core services and no longer be covered by the DMA

Will create additional security vulnerabilities and means in which to bypass the protections of the device. It was built to limit that exposure. And while not flawless by any means, it's a better default position than just to treat it as a regular operating system like your desktop OS.

Most of the security is on device, and the changes apple would need to do is 99% server side, unless they would grant the ability to run unsigned code. But that can be fixed by just allowing users to sign their own code associated with their account. Or the same mechanism developers can use to signe their own applications for internal use every 365 days would just be expanded and the removal of contractural obligations not to sell the application outside the AppStore

I know you may not care much of my profession, but I'm literally securing my environment by disabling all additional means to which a user(s) could break into it. It's a freaking nightmare, as some of what I'm disabling we also need to be on so we can operate the system. Which means allowing access from LIMITED endpoints within our network. Kind of what the iPhone does by default. And every new OS version update presents additional issues you have to deal with.

I do care deeply for the security of they devices, but it’s not that doom and gloom as you portray it.

The EU is daft to think you get security just by saying make it secure.
I have another solution for the EU. Apple should just sell iPhones with Android OS's on them.

Eu don’t believe this. And apple are free to offer android on their devices, EU won’t ask them to do it.

EU just provide criteria’s that need to be met, how that’s done is completely up to them, if it’s by iPhone android or server changes etc

 

[djphat2000]

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? People who want Jailbreaking is a sizeable community because they want more than what Apple offers. You make statements based on anecdotal evidence whereas the popularity of jailbreaking shows that people want more.

Android enjoys 60% marketshare. So yes, people seemly pick it because it offers (already) what Apple doesn't.
Those that don't like Android enough to jump ship from Apple, may very well choose to Jailbreak. Which they can, clearly. But Apple doesn't have to support you NOR are they enabling that feature for those of us that prefer it as intended. So "break" it if you want to enjoy additional features, while it's not enabled by default for those of us that like it as is.

The limits are not fluid. This is a first attempt, so they have decided on these limits through discussions. These limits may be revisited based on the impact of the regulations. They are not specific to Apple, but GAFAM probably.

Seems like fluid to me. As in, it will change.

It must be a good feeling to be a company that is in the crosshairs of so many governments in the world for being anticompetitive. Apple must be thinking that it is an achievement. That feeling would evaporate once they get fined 10% of their annual worldwide revenue. Trust me.

They paid the Netherlands what they wanted for "breaking" their rules. Maybe they say this far no further. Or maybe they alter the system world wide for alternative payments. As for the rest of the rules, again we will see what they do.

Yes. It will be sorted out over time and things will get better, but only for consumers. Not for Apple, though.

Why not for Apple? They are the ones that made the product. Should they not "win" in some way? Why so Anti-Apple? Hence why we don't believe the EU is being fair, and singling out Apple and US companies with these laws.

It is not a majority in the EU even now. So not sure what you meant by Apple's dominance. It is a majority in just a handful of countries.

Good, even less reason to regulate them to death.

Past actions show that Apple would bend over backwards to protect its market/revenue share. Not sure why you think it will be different this time around.

Apple will do what is in its best interests.

If you think the board will agree to Apple taking 25% haircut on revenue and income because Apple feels it has been wronged is laughable.

If the alternative is a greater haircut to implement the changes and provide on-going S&M within the new rules structure. Yeah, it's the lesser of 2 evils. EU offers a take it or leave it, or fine it approach. So can Apple.

Remember, this is the same board that agreed to handover the data and encryption keys to Chinese Government, which means the suggestion is even more laughable. Even now, with Apple freely available, not everyone is buying iPhones.

16 major iOS 14 features Apple 'borrowed' from Android and Google

Plus one bonus feature for Apple's HomePod

www.androidpolice.com

Twenty features you didn’t know Android and iOS stole from each other

Android and iOS have taken plenty of ideas from each other, resulting in two operating systems that are much more similar than they used to be.

www.popsci.com

China is within China. And for the most part. Apple and others knew that going in. China is also a Walled garden of a country.

Then you must be happy with the decision to give access to hardware the same as Apple has not been left to you or Apple. The EU took it away though the regulation.

I'm not in favor of the EU forcing any tech company to allow access to its proprietary hardware/software. OR other parts of the device (even not created or built by the same company) to any other 3rd party they don't wish to.
You don't like what I built the way I built it. don't buy it.

Apple does not have to help write software so that one can jailbreak it. It just needs to write software such that it obviates the need for a jailbreak.

So just un-write the way you wrote the software. There I fixed it for you.

Once it gives access to all those features that it has kept for itself, the need for jailbreak goes away.

You do realize the Jailbreak is enabled by hacking vulnerabilities in the OS.

Not sure how iPhones can be compared to Macs in this regard.

One was built closed, one was built open. Similar technologies underline both. Use cases and functionality make them "different" devices for different use cases and functions.

If Apple stuff is so easy to use, there would not be so many tutorials available on the net for accomplishing such simple tasks and Android phones would not sell so much.

To each is own. Additionally, you can have an Android phone for less expense than an iPhone. Generally with better overall functionality too.
My child learned on an iPad. Starting at 1 year old. No tutorials needed.

Even I am expecting the same and hence predict Apple capitulating. They may kick and scream for optics, but they know the writing is on the wall.

We will see, when we see it.

Based on past actions, Apple will bend over backwards and comply with the rules once the fines start. They tried this a test case in Netherlands against dating apps and found that they had to pay incremental fines and still comply. So, I am not sure if Apple still has the stamina to withstand 10% fines on Annual worldwide revenue, 5% daily fines on worldwide daily revenues, and so on.

The Netherlands would have a word with you on bend over backwards part. End result of that was Apple paid the fines, and made a change with a whooping 3% less revenue on their app fees.

 

[djphat2000]

Well yes it’s an EU thing because the security standards makes it impossible to what you describe, and sounds like a security nightmare.

1. Send SMS/MFA
2. Email

Everyone uses ether a digital banking device for full access.
Or tokens on your phone/ card to have full access. But only if granted higher privileges by the digitizer before hand.

You can call your bank or login with a security code, but will have little access outside of paying bills to already approved recipients.

Or you go to your physical bank.

Every card needs you to approve with a token/digitizer for a first time online payment.

Not completely true, it’s using existing laws and Supreme Court rulings to write new regulations. Regulations in EU must be legal to be written. You can’t codify anything without verification of it’s legal status.

Well if you read the requirements they could comply with little to no change or the OS. Notice that it’s only impacting their services they provide.

1. Side loading

Already exist, only medication needed is that apple sign any app done by a verified developer(like macOS). This is server controlled

1. Message cross comparability

Same thing, it’s just allowing other messaging platforms to connect to their iMessage servers that redistributes the messages to iMessage devices

1. NFC access

They would just need to allow apps using their private APIs on the AppStore

That’s the beauty, unless I missed something everything is controlled server side or just policy for the AppStore.

You don’t need to change the OS. Apple could also just chose to stop providing the core services and no longer be covered by the DMA

Most of the security is on device, and the changes apple would need to do is 99% server side, unless they would grant the ability to run unsigned code. But that can be fixed by just allowing users to sign their own code associated with their account. Or the same mechanism developers can use to signe their own applications for internal use every 365 days would just be expanded and the removal of contractural obligations not to sell the application outside the AppStore

I do care deeply for the security of they devices, but it’s not that doom and gloom as you portray it.

Eu don’t believe this. And apple are free to offer android on their devices, EU won’t ask them to do it.

EU just provide criteria’s that need to be met, how that’s done is completely up to them, if it’s by iPhone android or server changes etc

Doesn't sound too bad.

 

[webkit]

Not exactly. What Microsoft did was integrate Explorer as your means in which to file browse locally & access the internet. Which in and of itself wasn't the real issue. The real issue was preventing 3rd party browsers from being pre-installed by other vendors. Say, Gateway or Packard Bell wanted to include Netscape Navigator with the computer pre-installed. Microsoft didn't want that. That is anti-competitive. Why this is different from an iPhone/iPad is because Apple makes the iPhone and iPad too. If Apple was just to license the OS for any 3rd party mobile device maker to use as they wish (Android). They should have the ability to install what they want as a feature of purchasing said device from that manufacture. I remember my parents purchasing a Packard Bell PC and it was advertised as including Netscape Navigator and all these other add-ons to make using Windows 95 even better.
Having Microsoft remove the dual function of Explorer from being both File and Web browsing did eventually happen.

Apple doesn't allow Amazon, AT&T, Best Buy, etc. to install things like alternative browser engines on new iPhones they sell. Apple goes even further by even restricting end users. Restricting alternative software, services, etc. on a dominant OS is anticompetitive behavior.

I don't think any of us are arguing regulating real anti-competitive behavior. But, we are arguing creating rules that makes currently legal business practices anti-competitive behavior. And expecting these new rules to usher more innovation. While ignoring the innovation we have gotten and continue to have.

Apple's restrictions on browser engines, app stores, etc. is "real" anticompetitive behavior.

 

[webkit]

Sure, it’s easy to “foster” competition on the back of someone else’s hard work, someone else’s money, someone else’s r&d, someone else’s intellectual. It’s much harder to “foster” competition if a company had to develop a product legitimately.

Just as Apple has been able to achieve success with the iPhone on the back of other's hard work by not having to create a cellular network or carrier business of their own. Apple has no problem taking advantage of the effects of antitrust laws and regulations when it helps them yet chooses to violate same when it potentially impacts their profits, dominance, etc.

 

[Ubuntu]

If the cost to apple to comply with these regulations is close to the revenue, I can see apple exiting the EU and let the citizens use android.

This is absolutely hilarious. There is no way apple is just going to cut off an entire market because they lose control of the App Store.

 

[Ubuntu]

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.

And make android look more enticing? Talk about shooting your self in the foot.

 

[Ubuntu]

Bad decision. Punishes innovators and people who invest in a product or services that make it big, makes it harder for companies to protect their customers from scams and malicious software, and is essentially "tech socialism".

Apple could have conceded more to avoid this outcome.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Apple's restrictions on browser engines, app stores, etc. is "real" anticompetitive behavior.

That's true... if you're a browser engine developer... your options are limited on iOS.

Or you can decide to develop some sort of game, or a to-do app, or anything else. Go forth and prosper!

I hear there are nearly two million apps in Apple's App Store. Clearly those developers figured it out!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Doesn't sound too bad.

Well I understand why fraud is so rampant with such low security standards in USA.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because one happens illegally or is illegally keeping itself a monopoly. Verses becoming a monopoly by natural means, in which case was done because you did a good job and not attainted or maintained by illegal means.

But why would the way they become a monopoly matter? All methods should be legal. The only thing you should be interested in preventing is harmful actions. And as long as they didn’t do harmful actions they will be in the clear.

If for example I figured out a way to extract pure clean water (for all uses) from the ocean and seas. That was cheap to do, highly efficient, and even figured out an amazing use of the left over brine. And no one else could do it. I'd have a legal monopoly. I could if I so choose to:
1) License the process and bank billions - A la Microsoft
2) Compete with existing Water sourcing means - Natural springs, Rain, lakes, snow cap run off, reverse osmosis, etc.
3) Undercut existing Water sourcing means - basically put them all out of business
4) Give it away for free - Charity

In the EU with the rules set forth, I'm a monopoly without distinction to Good or Bad. I'd have well exceeded the gatekeeper status.

You would be a legal business in the eyes of EU. You being a monopoly wouldn’t even register on their radar. Legal=good.

And since it doesn't matter what my company is, or what of those 4 choices I made. I'd have to comply with the rules as they are stated. Which is, open up and allow access to the technologies I created and or used in very specific ways to produce the end product.

Now using that example I would liken Apple to option 2. But the EU treats it as option 3, and wants option 4 with a little option 1 in there too.

Not at all you would have to provide a core platform service product. And your product is just that, a service.

• online intermediation services;
• online search engines;
• online social networking services;
• video-sharing platform services;
• number-independent interpersonal communication services;
• operating systems;
• cloud computing services;
• advertising services;
• web browsers;
• virtual assistants.

DMA covers only digital markets.
Generally covering the business to business end.

DSA only covers digital services.
The proposal gives users the possibility to contest the decisions taken by the online platforms to remove their content, including when these decisions are based on platforms' terms and conditions. Users can complain directly to the platform, choose an out-of-court dispute settlement body or seek redress before Courts.

The Digital Services Act proposes rules on transparency of content moderation decisions.

 

[I7guy]

This is absolutely hilarious. There is no way apple is just going to cut off an entire market because they lose control of the App Store.

Is that what you believe the entire issue is?

 

[I7guy]

Just as Apple has been able to achieve success with the iPhone on the back of other's hard work by not having to create a cellular network or carrier business of their own. Apple has no problem taking advantage of the effects of antitrust laws and regulations when it helps them yet chooses to violate same when it potentially impacts their profits, dominance, etc.

Apple didn’t succeed because of government regulation let them waltz in to use other ip, other r&d etc. this discussion is already going in circles.

Your post is a straw man as every company takes advantage of what’s available.