6 ms·

And yet, Apple can still charge software companies whatever they want to allow software to run on the phones. Nothing says anything about the business elements

And yet, Apple can still charge software companies whatever they want to allow software to run on the phones. Nothing says anything about the business elements of these user experiences. So if anyone thinks this law is going to take money from gatekeepers and put it into the pockets of app publishers they are kidding themselves

the_duke 4y ago
I think you might want to read up on the law in question...
Gareth321 4y ago
>And yet, Apple can still charge software companies whatever they want to allow software to run on the phones. This is explicitly disallowed in the legislation. See page 131: >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
- enos_feedler 4y ago
  The simple work around is to provide lower quality of service to all of the platforms features and claim it is the only way to achieve _effective_ interoperability without jeopardizing the user experience
  - Gareth321 4y ago
    They have lots of qualifiers around access and service standards. It's 230 pages and quite comprehensive. I'm sure Apple and Google will try to get creative, but these simple examples of potential malicious compliance are already covered.
    - enos_feedler 4y ago
      I am not speaking with regards to malicious intent. I actually mean the scenario where providing a certain level of access does in fact degrade the user experience. Take for instance if US carriers were required to give all MNVO full 5G access with unlimited data simply because the carriers themselves sell this kind of capability directly to customers. This might put burden onto the network that just makes it terrible for everyone. We wouldn’t want that kind of regulation. I am just wondering if this will degrade the phone experience in a material way and the only recourse will be to uninstall apps.
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    > The simple work around is to (lie) That seems like dubious advice.
    - enos_feedler 4y ago
      Nobody said lie
      - diffeomorphism 4y ago
        Intentionally claim untruth (for personal benefit) == lie So, yes they very much did.

the_duke 4y ago

I think you might want to read up on the law in question...

Gareth321 4y ago

>And yet, Apple can still charge software companies whatever they want to allow software to run on the phones. This is explicitly disallowed in the legislation. See page 131: >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

enos_feedler 4y ago
The simple work around is to provide lower quality of service to all of the platforms features and claim it is the only way to achieve _effective_ interoperability without jeopardizing the user experience
- Gareth321 4y ago
  They have lots of qualifiers around access and service standards. It's 230 pages and quite comprehensive. I'm sure Apple and Google will try to get creative, but these simple examples of potential malicious compliance are already covered.
  - enos_feedler 4y ago
    I am not speaking with regards to malicious intent. I actually mean the scenario where providing a certain level of access does in fact degrade the user experience. Take for instance if US carriers were required to give all MNVO full 5G access with unlimited data simply because the carriers themselves sell this kind of capability directly to customers. This might put burden onto the network that just makes it terrible for everyone. We wouldn’t want that kind of regulation. I am just wondering if this will degrade the phone experience in a material way and the only recourse will be to uninstall apps.
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  > The simple work around is to (lie) That seems like dubious advice.
  - enos_feedler 4y ago
    Nobody said lie
    - diffeomorphism 4y ago
      Intentionally claim untruth (for personal benefit) == lie So, yes they very much did.