Thierry Breton: Under DMA, there is no room for threats by gatekeepers(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Thierry Breton: Under DMA, there is no room for threats by gatekeepers
https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1765793776692326891
12 コメント
I can’t suppose the US, lead by Apple and Google, aren’t preparing a counter-attack on us (the EU).
There are many ways to weaken them using lobbying, or manipulate the laws by threatening MPs with the help of the CIA… The USA has a legendary set of tools for this, and why wouldn’t they use them — Europe is threatening the US corporate hegemony on European soil.
Which means soon those benevolent laws that we’re cheering as EU citizen will turn back upon us, and we’ll once again enjoy the same fate as our other public sectors.
There are many ways to weaken them using lobbying, or manipulate the laws by threatening MPs with the help of the CIA… The USA has a legendary set of tools for this, and why wouldn’t they use them — Europe is threatening the US corporate hegemony on European soil.
Which means soon those benevolent laws that we’re cheering as EU citizen will turn back upon us, and we’ll once again enjoy the same fate as our other public sectors.
> I can’t suppose the US, lead by Apple and Google, aren’t preparing a counter-attack on us (the EU).
They can but it's too little, too late now. The EU is very slow to move but once it's moving it's equally as hard to stop and change course.
They can but it's too little, too late now. The EU is very slow to move but once it's moving it's equally as hard to stop and change course.
What happened to other public sectors and what are those?
Lmao this dude wants the US to invade the EU because consumers are getting more rights.
I have to say, speaking as someone that is generally very happy to live in Apple's walled garden for my phone and couldn't really give a toss about Tim Sweeney's crusade, this most recent continuation of the Epic spat seems like a pretty spectacular own goal from Apple. I can't think of any non-emotive motivation for their actions, and I can see plenty of large downsides.
>I can't think of any non-emotive motivation for their actions, and I can see plenty of large downsides.
Epic wants to play the long game. They want the Epic Games store on PC and mobile and Apple is half of mobile. Having an opportunity to become the Steam of mobile is a very valuable proposition, especially given that IOS was apparently less than 10% of Fortnite income.
I see it as the opposeite of emotive; it's a cold calculation playing a very long game with hopes of market capture in a scene where no one else seems to care about premium games (including Epic. But who knows how that will turn out over the decade).
Epic wants to play the long game. They want the Epic Games store on PC and mobile and Apple is half of mobile. Having an opportunity to become the Steam of mobile is a very valuable proposition, especially given that IOS was apparently less than 10% of Fortnite income.
I see it as the opposeite of emotive; it's a cold calculation playing a very long game with hopes of market capture in a scene where no one else seems to care about premium games (including Epic. But who knows how that will turn out over the decade).
Of course… what’s to stop Valve letting Epic spend all this money on lawyers getting the market set up, and then simply making Steam, with its immense market share, developer support, and positive consumer sentiment, the Steam of iOS?
AFAIK the only reason anyone uses Epic Games Store is for Fortnite. Can Epic really count on that to carry them? It’s been a lasting fad for sure, but all fads end.
AFAIK the only reason anyone uses Epic Games Store is for Fortnite. Can Epic really count on that to carry them? It’s been a lasting fad for sure, but all fads end.
Judging by my nine year old, Epic will be doing fine for some time. They have an ecosystem of other tangentially related games available, including a Lego RPG-type game all built on top of their v-bucks payment system and their account/social network.
>what’s to stop Valve letting Epic spend all this money on lawyers getting the market set up, and then simply making Steam
I'd love to know just as much as you do. Valve just hasn't shown much interest in mobile ever. Even the few games they have on mobile are older games that Nvidia decided to port for them once upon a time. They've shown interest in Linux and VR, but never mobile.
If that demand does exist, and Valve just doesn't want to invest, I can see where Epic wants to come in.
>an Epic really count on that to carry them? It’s been a lasting fad for sure, but all fads end.
I'm not sure. It's a risk but there's multiple ways to approach it. I imagine such a model would have a mix of large f2p games that can advertise itself and premium games to try and attract core gamers or those who do not want to be nickle and dimed by f2p games.
But at the same time that justifies the attempt. Fortnite probably won't last forever, so the need to find a more stable financial stream while they have the money flowing in makes sense.
I'd love to know just as much as you do. Valve just hasn't shown much interest in mobile ever. Even the few games they have on mobile are older games that Nvidia decided to port for them once upon a time. They've shown interest in Linux and VR, but never mobile.
If that demand does exist, and Valve just doesn't want to invest, I can see where Epic wants to come in.
>an Epic really count on that to carry them? It’s been a lasting fad for sure, but all fads end.
I'm not sure. It's a risk but there's multiple ways to approach it. I imagine such a model would have a mix of large f2p games that can advertise itself and premium games to try and attract core gamers or those who do not want to be nickle and dimed by f2p games.
But at the same time that justifies the attempt. Fortnite probably won't last forever, so the need to find a more stable financial stream while they have the money flowing in makes sense.
Nothing. Having multiple competing stores will be good for the market.
Fortnite's annual revenue was $6 billion last year. Assume operating an app store costs $10 million/year/platform they only need to sell $30 million of Fortnite to break even relative to the world where they're giving Apple 30% of their profits. They're not "competing" with Steam they're doing in-house publishing, which likely saves tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars which would otherwise be free profit for Apple.
Fads end, but some have real lasting power, like LEGO or Minecraft. I haven't played Fortnite but from what I know of it, it may have similar lasting power.
I always thought Epic wanted to push Apple's button until they showed their true face which, by the way, it seems to have worked wonders on EU upon DMA.
We should be thankful that somebody stuck out their neck and paid the price to challenge the world’s richest corporation this way, regardless of Epic’s motivations.
Like Google in its past “don’t do evil” life, Apple still strongly believes that they are the good guys by default, simply by existing. That kind of culture can make a corporation oblivious to the influence they’re actually having.
Like Google in its past “don’t do evil” life, Apple still strongly believes that they are the good guys by default, simply by existing. That kind of culture can make a corporation oblivious to the influence they’re actually having.
I think you misread the comment, no? The comment isn't about Epic, it's about Apple being temperamental & emotional & digging themselves into deeper and deeper trouble.
My guess would be greed and totalitarian power fantasies as motivations.
I have sympathy for Apple. They are essentially being forced to do business with a known bad actor, and that bad actor has continually demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that is unreliable and untrustworthy.
But Apple really should have handled this better. Being made to look like the bad guys against Epic seems impossible, but they’ve done it.
I guess private toll operators can’t prevent repeat drunk drivers using their roads, even if they do the same “trust us, just because” nonsense Sweeney has written.
But Apple really should have handled this better. Being made to look like the bad guys against Epic seems impossible, but they’ve done it.
I guess private toll operators can’t prevent repeat drunk drivers using their roads, even if they do the same “trust us, just because” nonsense Sweeney has written.
The stance of EU is clearly that you should not have to do business with Apple to publish to the iPhone. As such, no one forces Apple to do any business with Epic.
In a post DMA world they are forcing themselves to do business with Epic.
Their restrictions are the only reason why Epic can do what they are doing. If a developer account was not necessary to publish anything on iOS no one would care.
Tim Sweeney can (or hopes he can) get away with it because the DMA really doesn't care about feeling and limits the contractual freedom of the gatekeeper (aka Apple) at least in the spirit and quite likely also in the letter of the law after this goes to court (or if Apple folds of course)
Their restrictions are the only reason why Epic can do what they are doing. If a developer account was not necessary to publish anything on iOS no one would care.
Tim Sweeney can (or hopes he can) get away with it because the DMA really doesn't care about feeling and limits the contractual freedom of the gatekeeper (aka Apple) at least in the spirit and quite likely also in the letter of the law after this goes to court (or if Apple folds of course)
Apple is a bad actor lmao. They're selling houses and then setting up a bouncer at the door of the house you own to turn away people you invited, that Apple doesn't like and not giving you a choice in the matter.
IOW if you're a developer in EU you can now voice your stance (whatever it might be) about whether companies have only duties to their shareholders (not an easy sell in this case anyway) or perhaps they have some duties to the society they provide services to and benefit from.
I have no opinion whether Epic was a good customer or not. 'They were asking for it' sometimes isn't enough... maybe?
I have no opinion whether Epic was a good customer or not. 'They were asking for it' sometimes isn't enough... maybe?
IOW = "In other words"
(It's less common and therefore confusing for some. Probably best to write it out in full)
(It's less common and therefore confusing for some. Probably best to write it out in full)
There is also this one: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/events-poolpage/app...
Pretty much every gov in the world regards there being a collective duty on markets to benefit society, and some duties on some companies.
The shareholder models isnt about de facto or de jure duties, it's about the practice of governance. Should boards regard shareholder interests as the primary setters of company goals (assuming all other required obligations are met).
This was tried, but wen't terribly, as customer interests dont align with shareholder interests-- and customers were lost.
This is, another lens on enshittification -- a switch back from customer to shareholder alignment
The shareholder models isnt about de facto or de jure duties, it's about the practice of governance. Should boards regard shareholder interests as the primary setters of company goals (assuming all other required obligations are met).
This was tried, but wen't terribly, as customer interests dont align with shareholder interests-- and customers were lost.
This is, another lens on enshittification -- a switch back from customer to shareholder alignment
The reason/pretext/excuse for governments to benefit companies is also the society - like providing jobs, trickle down, all that, of course with various degrees of efficiency and believability.
I don't find believability difficult. Leftwing marxist analysis seems to live in a pre-20th c. non-empirical environment where we havent learnt anything about markets, and should just engage in speculation.
We know that the system of collectivisation called "businesses" produces incredible levels of cooperation between people at massive scales; we know that making businesses in the same market compete on a level playing field reduces the power of owners, increases the power of labour, and delivers what customers want. We know that when the playing field isnt level, ie., competitive, then all those benefits disappear.
What's remarkable about much far-left analysis of markets is their arguments are usually to make markets less competitive, and the markets they choose to demonstrate problems (eg., of wage-setting, of unfair practices, etc.) are always those with a massive lack of compeition.
One great irony of what the left most decry (monopoly, wage-setting, wage-deprivation, top-down control, etc. etc.) is that these are found most extremely in the state.
As ever, the far left project all the problems with the state on to the market; and the far right, all the problems of the market on to the state.
The most useful approach is profoundly empirical: you actually have to spend years of study and research on a case-by-case basis to know what the answer is. Of course, no ideologue wants to hear that.
We know that the system of collectivisation called "businesses" produces incredible levels of cooperation between people at massive scales; we know that making businesses in the same market compete on a level playing field reduces the power of owners, increases the power of labour, and delivers what customers want. We know that when the playing field isnt level, ie., competitive, then all those benefits disappear.
What's remarkable about much far-left analysis of markets is their arguments are usually to make markets less competitive, and the markets they choose to demonstrate problems (eg., of wage-setting, of unfair practices, etc.) are always those with a massive lack of compeition.
One great irony of what the left most decry (monopoly, wage-setting, wage-deprivation, top-down control, etc. etc.) is that these are found most extremely in the state.
As ever, the far left project all the problems with the state on to the market; and the far right, all the problems of the market on to the state.
The most useful approach is profoundly empirical: you actually have to spend years of study and research on a case-by-case basis to know what the answer is. Of course, no ideologue wants to hear that.
> As ever, the far left project all the problems with the state on to the market
Dunno. The argument is usually that capitalists and the ruling class cooperate to the detriment of the other classes.
Dunno. The argument is usually that capitalists and the ruling class cooperate to the detriment of the other classes.
Capitalism is anti-capitalist, so any cooperation here is against a backdrop in which capitalists are being vs. feudalism (etc.) screwed.
The competition mechanism at the heart of capitalism is a requirement that capitalists compete until their profit margins are very limited.
This is why apple etc. are so ugly in their replies to the EU.
So insofar as we regard the capitalist class as co-opting the ruling class its so they can stop capitalism, not so they can promote it.
The competition mechanism at the heart of capitalism is a requirement that capitalists compete until their profit margins are very limited.
This is why apple etc. are so ugly in their replies to the EU.
So insofar as we regard the capitalist class as co-opting the ruling class its so they can stop capitalism, not so they can promote it.
You've got an interesting point I haven't thought too much about.
A threat to capitalists could also be that there could become too many of them. That would increase competition.
I wonder how public traded companies should be regarded in this manner. Do capitalists have enough of an edge in voting power to not be threatened by pleb owners? Or maybe is it easier to make us hold the bag with better access to gossip and insider knowledge?
A threat to capitalists could also be that there could become too many of them. That would increase competition.
I wonder how public traded companies should be regarded in this manner. Do capitalists have enough of an edge in voting power to not be threatened by pleb owners? Or maybe is it easier to make us hold the bag with better access to gossip and insider knowledge?
There are two forces i can think of here: 1) public traded is good because it broadens the ownership base of a company; 2) public traded is bad because it compromises the interests of labour to align with capitalists.
We should also add that public trading of companies leads boards to ever more aggressive and socially destructive forms of competition which might not be permitted if not be for their shareholders.
On balance I'd say we'd be better of getting rid of public ownership in this sense, and i'd also be inclined for very high marginal taxes on high profit margins and much more radical competition regulation.
This would bring capital's power more in line with labour's.
But on this i've really no idea; and the analysis here is too thin
We should also add that public trading of companies leads boards to ever more aggressive and socially destructive forms of competition which might not be permitted if not be for their shareholders.
On balance I'd say we'd be better of getting rid of public ownership in this sense, and i'd also be inclined for very high marginal taxes on high profit margins and much more radical competition regulation.
This would bring capital's power more in line with labour's.
But on this i've really no idea; and the analysis here is too thin
But does public trading really widen the ownership base? Or the buyers are in a sufficient majority the same, so the 1-2 shares bought by "the pleb" don't actually count in any decision?
I think it's important to differentiate between corporatism (rule of corporations, also known as crony capitalism or cronyism) and capitalism (existence of private property and enterprise). IMO the former is bad, the latter is good.
"far left", "marxism"... I think I know where you live.
I think "center-left" would be defined by the belief that there are solutions to problems outside of far left ideologues; likewise center-right. So i'd expect center-left, center, center-right to all be people who'd deny both anarcho-cap and marxism, for example.
If you subscribe to marxism, you're on the far left.
Many intellectuals who are left wing are far-left. Being center-left (or center-right) is a sign of some contact with actual power and responsibility wherein ideological fairy stories fall apart (unless they end in mass murder; another option).
Much of far-left and far-right propaganda is passed around by people who have never studied any serious empirical works of modern science, nor ever imagined that they need to in order to understand anything.
Talking about "trickle down" effects strongly indicates this. Just as much as a far-right racist talking about "replacement theory". None of this appears in any serious research of anything. It's just ideological slurs passed around on blogs and newspapers.
It turns out if you haven't spent a long time studying economics, politics, statistics, policy, etc. -- then you're unlikely to have any accurate opinions in these matters. This applies to everyone, including the right.
Everything passed around by newspapers is agitprop for their side; and the journalists repeating it are dumber than their readers.
If you subscribe to marxism, you're on the far left.
Many intellectuals who are left wing are far-left. Being center-left (or center-right) is a sign of some contact with actual power and responsibility wherein ideological fairy stories fall apart (unless they end in mass murder; another option).
Much of far-left and far-right propaganda is passed around by people who have never studied any serious empirical works of modern science, nor ever imagined that they need to in order to understand anything.
Talking about "trickle down" effects strongly indicates this. Just as much as a far-right racist talking about "replacement theory". None of this appears in any serious research of anything. It's just ideological slurs passed around on blogs and newspapers.
It turns out if you haven't spent a long time studying economics, politics, statistics, policy, etc. -- then you're unlikely to have any accurate opinions in these matters. This applies to everyone, including the right.
Everything passed around by newspapers is agitprop for their side; and the journalists repeating it are dumber than their readers.
People should not have strong opinions on things they know nothing about. Extra scrutiny on people who insist they know a lot, and everyone else knows little.
I’m sure you’re the exception here
I’m sure you’re the exception here
I'm no exception. The only thing i've claimed knowledge of is that knowing the benefits or harms of the state, market, etc. is circumstantial, empirical and requires a lot of study.
Insofar as it sounds arrogant its because it's a knowledge claim against the ideologue who regards their own ideology as prima facie obvious, knowledge-conferring, and reliving them of any duties to serious study.
In other-words my arrogance, such as it is, is skin deep and explicitly stated. But its in reply to the deep-seated lack of humility and profound ideological arrogance of those who think you can use soundbites to describe perhaps the most complex object anywhere in the universe (ie., a modern political economy).
Maybe it should sometimes be said that when a person is replacing thinking with soundbites, that they arent thinking at all. Maybe this is a less-bad form of arrogance than the alternative.
Insofar as it sounds arrogant its because it's a knowledge claim against the ideologue who regards their own ideology as prima facie obvious, knowledge-conferring, and reliving them of any duties to serious study.
In other-words my arrogance, such as it is, is skin deep and explicitly stated. But its in reply to the deep-seated lack of humility and profound ideological arrogance of those who think you can use soundbites to describe perhaps the most complex object anywhere in the universe (ie., a modern political economy).
Maybe it should sometimes be said that when a person is replacing thinking with soundbites, that they arent thinking at all. Maybe this is a less-bad form of arrogance than the alternative.
If we're at presenting our backgrounds, I cannot speak for what goes in the US under the name of "capitalism" but being raised behind the iron curtain I had to study marxism in school. Also as European I think I can pretty well see what labels itself as left or far left (because we do have all of that). So please understand my smirk when I see those labels used by people with only ideological motivation but little to none demonstrated knowledge about the meanings. Smirk, because in this age of ChatGPT when the knowledge is even more right there under our noses, some still prefer to align instead of learn.
The words mean all what they ought
You might want to look into 'deep-seated lack of humility'
I just find it an amusing way to talk, circumstantially. Since it places a sort of ironic lack of humility against the supposed humility and good-faith of another, and there's an interesting dynamic there. I have an extremely dry sense of humor that does get me intro trouble.
Here I was speaking very literally, and yet by using phrases like 'far left' taken to be signalling something non-literal. In doing this I was splitting the audience into those looking for dogwhistles and those reading what i've said.
If someone replied having read what i'd said, i'd take quite a different tone. That someone reacted superficially, to supposed implications that didn't exist -- well, that doesnt great any obligation on me to be anything other than ironic.
Here I was speaking very literally, and yet by using phrases like 'far left' taken to be signalling something non-literal. In doing this I was splitting the audience into those looking for dogwhistles and those reading what i've said.
If someone replied having read what i'd said, i'd take quite a different tone. That someone reacted superficially, to supposed implications that didn't exist -- well, that doesnt great any obligation on me to be anything other than ironic.
Looks also like a Dunning Kruger effect. Luckily it's only a HN storm in a teacup.
DMA = Digital Markets Act
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
This is a good start, but they'll need to lay a pretty hefty fine on Apple if they want a result different from another malicious compliance shell game. As long as it's profitable for Apple to continue doing this kind of stuff, Apple's shown they'll keep doing it.
In this case, the DMA theoretically allows a $38 billion fine for every year in which Apple shows any non-compliance (10% of global revenue, assuming it does not change from 2023 numbers)
Given this legislation was specifically created to tackle the Apple problem, and Apple is clearly intentionally failing to comply, they may want to make an example out of them and go straight for the maximum.
Given this legislation was specifically created to tackle the Apple problem, and Apple is clearly intentionally failing to comply, they may want to make an example out of them and go straight for the maximum.
It can even go up to 20% for repeated infringement:
https://www.eu-digital-markets-act.com/#:~:text=The%20Commis....
This is only a small part of the pb.
The stuff happens on technical interop, client and server alike. Namely simple but able to do a good enough job, stable in time open protocols.
(smtp/irc/noscript&basic (x)html/etc)
Only regulation and legal can do things here as technically, eveything has always been there.
The stuff happens on technical interop, client and server alike. Namely simple but able to do a good enough job, stable in time open protocols.
(smtp/irc/noscript&basic (x)html/etc)
Only regulation and legal can do things here as technically, eveything has always been there.
Well, that escalated quickly.
Maybe Thierry Breton has picked a good fight this time… That would certainly be a first.
Genuine question, and I’m not trying to sealion:
Can the EU compel two companies to do business with each other under the DMA?
Like let’s forget about this preemptive block, and say that hypothetically either:
1. An app from a third party store does something malicious
2. A third party store does something against the system terms of use
Does the DMA compel the gatekeeper to continue enabling them? Or does it have some provisions for blocking them and under what terms those might be?
Edit to clarify: Put another way, Does the DMA allow for terms of service in the first place? If it doesn’t explicitly allow for it, does it explicitly disallow it.
And please, I am not asking for opinions on this, of which there are many I could have just read. I am legitimately asking for what the law says with regards to this specific point. I can’t find it myself so I asked here.
Can the EU compel two companies to do business with each other under the DMA?
Like let’s forget about this preemptive block, and say that hypothetically either:
1. An app from a third party store does something malicious
2. A third party store does something against the system terms of use
Does the DMA compel the gatekeeper to continue enabling them? Or does it have some provisions for blocking them and under what terms those might be?
Edit to clarify: Put another way, Does the DMA allow for terms of service in the first place? If it doesn’t explicitly allow for it, does it explicitly disallow it.
And please, I am not asking for opinions on this, of which there are many I could have just read. I am legitimately asking for what the law says with regards to this specific point. I can’t find it myself so I asked here.
If Apple doesn't want to do business with Epic, they don't have to. Epic doesn't have to do business with Microsoft to provide a Windows installer. Apple is the one who is insisting that Epic is required to do business with them if they want to provide an iOS installer.
Is Windows documentation unencumbered by copyright? Certainly you have to agree to Microsoft’s license for their documentation.
If Apple's reason to refuse to do business with Epic is explicitly and specifically forbbiden by DMA, why not? Otherwise what is DMA for?
"Malicious" is debatable, "against the terms" is meaningless since laws > TOSes.
You’re not really answering the question I’m asking though.
I am not asking whether TOS <> Laws or not. That is perhaps one step beyond what I’m asking.
I’m asking whether the Laws under the DMA have any mention in either direction on whether the gatekeepers have the ability to set (reasonable) terms and act against violation of those terms. Or is that undefined?
I am not asking whether TOS <> Laws or not. That is perhaps one step beyond what I’m asking.
I’m asking whether the Laws under the DMA have any mention in either direction on whether the gatekeepers have the ability to set (reasonable) terms and act against violation of those terms. Or is that undefined?
I am NOT a lawyer or a court.
but I would read Article 6 (7) and (12) as such.
"7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.
The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. "
"12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9)."
"They insulted us", "we have a (now unenforcable) contract" or "we have a US judgment" does probably not count as a justifiable exception. It doesnt seem fair or reasonable at all given that the underlying "violations" of their TOS are now explicitely legal under the DMA.
If you feel that the DMA primarily binds Apple instead of Epic in this case that is because it does. It was written to limit the control gatekeepers have over "their" plattform.
Courts will decide in the end.
Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
but I would read Article 6 (7) and (12) as such.
"7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.
The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. "
"12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9)."
"They insulted us", "we have a (now unenforcable) contract" or "we have a US judgment" does probably not count as a justifiable exception. It doesnt seem fair or reasonable at all given that the underlying "violations" of their TOS are now explicitely legal under the DMA.
If you feel that the DMA primarily binds Apple instead of Epic in this case that is because it does. It was written to limit the control gatekeepers have over "their" plattform.
Courts will decide in the end.
Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
Thank you so much, this was the kind of answer I was looking for.
You are welcome. I think your question was reasonable although it sometimes can be difficult for us laypeople to correctly interpret laws and the context in which they apply.
NB: I would also recommend everyone read the recitals (aka explenations and justifications) preceding the actual articles. While they are not law directly they also are (it's difficult).
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/eu-cra-recitals-comments-c...
NB: I would also recommend everyone read the recitals (aka explenations and justifications) preceding the actual articles. While they are not law directly they also are (it's difficult).
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/eu-cra-recitals-comments-c...
The GP is answering your question. It seems that you don't like the answer.
I guess the malicious part will have to be decided by judges. The TOS are absolutely irrelevant. If Apple goes to a government body saying "we have to remove consumer choice, those people are breaking our terms!" they will be laughed out of room.
I guess the malicious part will have to be decided by judges. The TOS are absolutely irrelevant. If Apple goes to a government body saying "we have to remove consumer choice, those people are breaking our terms!" they will be laughed out of room.
No they are not answering my question, and I very clearly explained why.
Yes, terms of service can’t go against the law. That is NOT what I’m asking.
I’m asking if the DMA allows for terms of service in the first place and what the bounds of those are.
These are different questions.
Yes, terms of service can’t go against the law. That is NOT what I’m asking.
I’m asking if the DMA allows for terms of service in the first place and what the bounds of those are.
These are different questions.
TOS are allowed, as long as they don't illegally stifle competition and consumer choice.
>I can’t find it myself so I asked here.
Here you go: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
Here you go: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
There are already existing laws to compel one company to do business with another, in America and in the EU, even before DMA...
I think in the US it's refusal to deal.
And the EU can make companies do _anything_ they want to, within the jurisdiction of the EU. If they want to ban phones that are coloured green then they bloody well could, with the repercussions being fines, legal action and bans from the market.
I think in the US it's refusal to deal.
And the EU can make companies do _anything_ they want to, within the jurisdiction of the EU. If they want to ban phones that are coloured green then they bloody well could, with the repercussions being fines, legal action and bans from the market.
It's a general principle that the ToS has to conform to the law.
(In other works the rules of DMA preempt whatever rules are in the ToS.
If the law explicitly says that parties can agree to opt-out of specific rules, then the ToS can say - in those specific questions - something different. More/less strict, better for one or the other party, etc.)
As linked by `johnnyanmac`, the DMA summary site explicitly says that gatekeepers have to allow 3rd parties to inter-operate with their services.
(In other works the rules of DMA preempt whatever rules are in the ToS.
If the law explicitly says that parties can agree to opt-out of specific rules, then the ToS can say - in those specific questions - something different. More/less strict, better for one or the other party, etc.)
As linked by `johnnyanmac`, the DMA summary site explicitly says that gatekeepers have to allow 3rd parties to inter-operate with their services.
nickpp(5)
This is not a dupe.
The post you linked is an article based on another paywalled article about EU starting an investigation.
Here it's an EU official making a statement about Apple actions.
Here it's an EU official making a statement about Apple actions.
Sounds like the eu-us trade war 2.0 (?).
> Apple could soon be the subject of a federal antitrust lawsuit, according to a report from The New York Times. The publication says that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is in the “late stages” of an investigation into Apple and its moves to keep customers locked into its ecosystem.
Is it a US/US trade war, too?
Not everything is a trade war; sometimes a naughty company is just a naughty company.
Is it a US/US trade war, too?
Not everything is a trade war; sometimes a naughty company is just a naughty company.
This is not a trade war, it's about the power balance between consumers, corporations and governments.
Can't give upvotes, but +1 for this insightful framing.
The "Police and thieves in the street" problem as I call it, is that in most discussions we hear about the two big noisy players duking it out for control.
In reality it's a three way struggle. By far the largest and most powerful group is often completely silent and omitted from the analysis.
"Consumers" or "Voters" (although I would prefer the term "people") are subsumed into the other camps, each claiming to "represent" the people.
Yet the silent, overwhelming majority are starting to reclaim a voice of their own. This is a worrying sign. Not because people shouldn't have a voice, but because it shows clearly that at best, governments and commercial markets are failing to represent the actual interests of people. Perhaps we've become complacent allowing plurality of power structures, unions, assemblies, societies etc to weaken?
The "Police and thieves in the street" problem as I call it, is that in most discussions we hear about the two big noisy players duking it out for control.
In reality it's a three way struggle. By far the largest and most powerful group is often completely silent and omitted from the analysis.
"Consumers" or "Voters" (although I would prefer the term "people") are subsumed into the other camps, each claiming to "represent" the people.
Yet the silent, overwhelming majority are starting to reclaim a voice of their own. This is a worrying sign. Not because people shouldn't have a voice, but because it shows clearly that at best, governments and commercial markets are failing to represent the actual interests of people. Perhaps we've become complacent allowing plurality of power structures, unions, assemblies, societies etc to weaken?
>"Consumers" or "Voters" (although I would prefer the term "people") are subsumed into the other camps, each claiming to "represent" the people.
Citizens?
Citizens?
Yes "citizens" is good - hence "civic cybersecurity" as a placeholder
for what I believe in [0].
But many countries do not officially recognise "citizenship". For example, in Britain (UK) we remain "subjects" although "citizen" is used in official documents.
Maybe splitting hairs; but I don't want to assume that everyone in the world enjoys such a privileged status.
[0] http://www.icicte.org/assets/icicte2019_5.4_farnell.pdf
But many countries do not officially recognise "citizenship". For example, in Britain (UK) we remain "subjects" although "citizen" is used in official documents.
Maybe splitting hairs; but I don't want to assume that everyone in the world enjoys such a privileged status.
[0] http://www.icicte.org/assets/icicte2019_5.4_farnell.pdf
Why do (mostly Americans) always make this out to be an EU vs. US thing? This is about getting large companies to stop abusing their market dominance.
If anything people in the US should be glad the EU is doing this, since it might also benefit them in the long term.
If anything people in the US should be glad the EU is doing this, since it might also benefit them in the long term.
There's a strong "large" fetish which I think is mostly an US cultural problem.
It probably started with public companies not paying dividends and instead rewarding the shareholders by share price increases.
This means they have to grow indefinitely. The logical outcome is having one all-encompassing monopoly that handles everything. Kinda like a state economy, but they don't get the irony.
It probably started with public companies not paying dividends and instead rewarding the shareholders by share price increases.
This means they have to grow indefinitely. The logical outcome is having one all-encompassing monopoly that handles everything. Kinda like a state economy, but they don't get the irony.
Why do people criticize the idea of unionizing? Why do people defend any action of big companies? Why do dictators have followers? Why do people act against their own interest? There are entire sciences dedicated to answering this...
Well relatively a lot of people on HN have worked at big tech companies, hope to work there in the future, or are currently working there - anyone matching one of those criteria might be more inclined to view it as an EU vs. U.S thing and arguing that it is the EU being mad because they can't make any of that U.S big tech magic happen in their area.
Wait, are you saying that all HN readers are temporarily embarrassed FAANG employees?
... that actually tracks pretty well.
... that actually tracks pretty well.
No not all, but if say 10% were that would still explain a lot.
Agree. That rhetoric is mostly used to defend multi-bilions companies, even when that's against consumer and market interest.
Part of the reason seems to be that a significant chunk of them have apparently forgotten that antitrust laws and enforcement are hard requirements for capitalism to actually work and deliver on any of its touted benefits.
Unregulated free market capitalism that so many people seem to root for (knowingly or unknowingly) is just a degenerate version of the system that invariably results in cartels, price-fixing, rent seeking, thought policing, human exploitation and suffering, which is really just a different version of the "communist" boogeyman that they fear for the same reasons.
Unregulated free market capitalism that so many people seem to root for (knowingly or unknowingly) is just a degenerate version of the system that invariably results in cartels, price-fixing, rent seeking, thought policing, human exploitation and suffering, which is really just a different version of the "communist" boogeyman that they fear for the same reasons.
Is that why in the free market capitalism the shelves were overflowing were people are spoiled for choice while in communist countries people were starving and being killed while trying to leave?
Where in the world is it anywhere close to "free market capitalism" at scale? Most economies have a vast number of regulations on markets, products, capital, labor, ...
Heck, limited liability corporations can only exist because laws make them possible.
Heck, limited liability corporations can only exist because laws make them possible.
[deleted]
Many Americans do not like foreign governments attempting to take control of American corporations by government fiat. For instance, the EU insisting they can steal money from Apple based on its global revenue, rather than EU revenue, is obscene.
> the EU insisting they can steal money from Apple based on its global revenue, rather than EU revenue, is obscene.
To be clear, fining is not stealing except in some kind of liberal dystopian fantasy.
And fining based on global revenue is necessary because it's all too easy otherwise to artificially shift revenue between various places to evade these kind of fines.
The fine is limited by law to 10% of global revenue, and the EU market is more than 10% of Apple's revenue, so there's nothing particularly egregious here. Also, obviously Apple is not forced to do business in the EU if they don't like the rules.
To be clear, fining is not stealing except in some kind of liberal dystopian fantasy.
And fining based on global revenue is necessary because it's all too easy otherwise to artificially shift revenue between various places to evade these kind of fines.
The fine is limited by law to 10% of global revenue, and the EU market is more than 10% of Apple's revenue, so there's nothing particularly egregious here. Also, obviously Apple is not forced to do business in the EU if they don't like the rules.
You can attempt to justify this bureaucratic overreach to yourself if you wish, but an American company should not have its global revenue taxed by foreign governments. Future American administrations more interested in protecting American profits will ensure this is the case.
This is not a tax it's a fine.
Many countries have fines relative to the income of the perpetrator. If you get caught speeding as a tourist in Norway do you expect to get away without having to pay anything since you don't have an income in Norway?
Many countries have fines relative to the income of the perpetrator. If you get caught speeding as a tourist in Norway do you expect to get away without having to pay anything since you don't have an income in Norway?
Profit and expenses can be shifted. I’m not aware of how they can shift revenue.
This has nothing to do with the US. This has something to do with a small set of companies (less than 10) and how they act in the EU.
Apple is free to do whatever they want that is legal in the US.
Apple is free to do whatever they want that is legal in the US.
> Apple is free to do whatever they want that is legal in the US.
Yes but if Apple thinks nobody in the US will look at what's happening to Epic games from a competition point of view, they're wrong
Yes but if Apple thinks nobody in the US will look at what's happening to Epic games from a competition point of view, they're wrong
This applies equally to the US and EU companies operating in the EU.
[deleted]
Especially since Apple has given one of the easiest examples of gatekeeper abuse just by doing this; I kinda expected them to not be this boneheaded but they're really just going "we personally don't trust you, so piss off" because of the US lawsuit. Like, that doesn't fly anymore in the EU. Legally speaking, Apple has reached the size where regulators are recognizing that their gatekeeping has the potential to ruin the EUs free market and here we see that in action.
And mind - I don't like Epic Games in the slightest. They still shouldn't be gatekept from iOS because Apple personally dislikes them over the lawsuits.