13 ms·

EU unveils package of laws to curb power of big tech firms

53 points by nemoniac 3y ago

jiofj 3y ago
>For example, now when a consumer sees an app doesn’t do well on their phone, they think immediately it is the app that is not really good. Very often it is not because the challenger app is bad but because the interoperability is missing because it is in the interest of the gatekeeper to make sure the experience is not the same. This happens... when exactly? Do these people even know what they are talking about?
- mqus 3y ago
  For example if background tasks get cut off in one android device but not in others. PS: But I don't see how the DMA covers that specific issue
  - jiofj 3y ago
    This also makes no sense because it's not in the interest of the "gatekeeper" to kill background tasks. It's done in the interest of battery life, ie the user.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      It's sometimes done to game battery benchmarks, thus benefiting the manufacturer. Not sure how much of a thing it is these days, but there was a time when many Android OEMs shipped the phones in a basically broken state in a bid to do well in battery benchmarks; in particular, push notifications often wouldn't work reliably or at all in default configuration. But yeah, I don't think the DMA's particularly relevant here.
    - Gareth321 3y ago
      I have experience with GPS related APIs in iOS. It’s a fucking nightmare to calibrate sensitivity and background activity. They keep changing parameters without warning or documentation. They aggressively suspend applications and services, even those categorised as navigation apps, unless a very particular set of criteria are met. Achieving background navigation was basically black magic. Every time we got it working, something would break. Apple exempts themselves from all of these requirements for their own applications. They have access to the full specs, and have lots of advanced warning when change is on the road map.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  Weather apps are one example that comes to mind .. Perhaps you haven't observed it because, well, it kills the app.
- mirsadm 3y ago
  Sounds like a dig at iMessage
  - jiofj 3y ago
    That would be funny because other apps such as whatsapp or telegram work better than imessage.
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      Only because you live in Europe, where iMessage is useless because everyone picked Whatsapp and Telegram first. In the US it's the opposite: everyone picked iMessage[0]. The irony of this is that iMessage might actually be helped in the EU by the EU trying to break Apple's US monopoly on iPhones. [0] I suspect the reason for this is because free texting was the norm in the US while EU carriers charged per message. While iMessage was free in both cases, it relies on you knowing that green bubbles are green because they cost money, whereas "just install Whatsapp and its free" is easier to know.
- moomin 3y ago
  The difficulty you are experiencing here is that this is so effective people don’t even get started. There used to be non-Apple devices that could sync with iTunes. Apple sued them into the ground.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  "Do these people even know what they are talking about?" I'd suggest they're better advised than you infer as the EU has enormous resources to access. Just because the EU develops policies that are distasteful to many doesn't mean it's ignorant about the issues (I say that as someone who has gripes with many EU polices). Anyway, in this instance, I'm very happy with this policy as I'll be able de-crap my phone without having to root it (rooting phones is often a pain).
- piva00 3y ago
  iOS has private APIs that only Apple apps can use, some of those can give Apple-developed apps an upper hand over competitors.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    It’s not a perfect rule, but a lot of private APIs on iOS are private only as long as it takes Apple to nail down their design, with internal usage serving as dogfooding. That way they don’t end up with scores of third parties dependent on what are basically alpha/beta API designs which frees them to radically change designs until they’re satisfied. In that circumstance I don’t think there’s anything with APIs being private since it’s only temporary.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rsynnott 3y ago
  The classic, most malicious, version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code > Microsoft Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating: "What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS." That's obviously a very extreme example (involving deliberately actively sabotaging interoperability), but private APIs, used to privilege first party software over third party software, are and were common. What you've quoted is an explainer aimed at non-programmers, but I'm pretty sure they're talking about private APIs.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > Do these people even know what they are talking about? Yes, this is actually a good summary, as good as a layman can be expected to produce. Just because they don't use the right jargon doesn't mean they are stupid. We have thousands of examples of big tech firms breaking interoperability on purpose, and it is in their interest to do so.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gumballindie 3y ago
> but because the interoperability is missing because it is in the interest of the gatekeeper Similar issue with running windows binaries on linux, and worse, hardware vendors limit compatibility with only microsoft’s operating systems. This needs to change and vendors must be forced to publish specs and the source of any software required to use their product while microsoft should be forced to publish any documentation needed to make their stuff run smoothly on other os’. Linux for instance already does that and linux specific binaries can be run on windows.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > Linux for instance already does that and linux specific binaries can be run on windows. Also on NetBSD, FreeBSD, and illumos:) There's something there about win32 .exe being the most portable binary format thanks to WINE, but Linux ELF being the second most portable option on account of Linux being popular enough for others to spend effort on supporting it.
thiago_fm 3y ago
Maybe they should force Apple to open their phone APIs as well. Why should they be the only one that can develop phone usage apps? (preventing people to build decent anti-phone addiction apps... I see why Apple does it... but how's that good for drug addicts, cof, consumers?) There are so many things wrong with those companies, in terms of non-competitive practices, that I find that the EU or any regulator have trouble figuring out where to start. I believe that's why things are in that bad situation. People mention that you(developer/company), shouldn't be hostage of any platform and develop ideas that aren't so dependent on them. Which is true, as it isn't worth the risk, or not be entirely dependant on it. Which in business terms, makes sense. But from a regulatory standpoint, why is it acceptable? Imagine if any developer or small company could compete on a fair ground against thos e big tech companies, I bet none of them would be >$1T market cap. It's funny how things are uncompetitive for silly things like weather apps, imagine how it is to compete on a really wide and profitable category. And don't come to me saying regulations are bad to consumers, how's having a monopoly even on weather apps good to consumers? I really fail to see the mental gymnastics americans do to explain why those regulation initiatives from the EU are bad, much less when it comes from a big tech employee. The amount of rugpulls that those platforms have done on the last decade on small players is impossible to count, and they've been mostly left unscathed. This is all a side-effect of companies being able to shove a Terms of Service(ToS) down the throat of everyone, I think platforms need to be heavily regulated. If you build something on top of some other "private property" that would take trillions to build a competitor yourself, and suddenly be unpublished or having an API change completely destroy your business. I can't see that being fair, and this condition is pretty much analogous to slavery and thievery, as many times you are doing actually R&D for those companies, to get rugpulled, copied and increasing their trillions, making their advantage even more unfair.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rozal 3y ago
  [dead]
- bzzzt 3y ago
  > how's having a monopoly even on weather apps good to consumers? Having to pay for development and maintenance for 50 competing weather apps could mean higher prices for everybody. Also, third party apps have a tendency to 'blow up' their importance and be over engineered and distracting. Get ready for Electron Weather, using 2 Gb of memory just to show you if it rains. > If you build something on top of some other "private property" that would take trillions to build a competitor yourself, and suddenly be unpublished or having an API change completely destroy your business. Depends on what that API change tries to accomplish. If it's because an API is abused I prefer my security to your business model. Making companies liable for security _and_ API compatibility could lead to an impossible task. I agree some companies are uncomfortably big, but I see lots of developers having problems with Apple's policies, but as a user I appreciate Apple for taking a stand to make sure your 'right' to get my attention, clicks, ads or use other distracting patterns doesn't impede my ability to actually use my computer.
londons_explore 3y ago
If I buy an iPhone, Apple forces me to use a specific brand of RAM inside the phone. I can't choose my RAM supplier, and can't switch it out even after purchase. Should the EU force RAM to be removable and switchable on phones so the user has a choice? Okay... Now replace RAM with "Weather App". How is the situation different?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  One is software and is explicitly made to be replaceable. Your iPhone will not stop working because you uninstalled the Weather app. It might be slightly more unhappy if you desolder the RAM.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Neither is made to be replaceable by Apple. The EU argues that one ought to be replaceable and not the other. Yet the line of which components should be replaceable and which not is undefined.
    - ohgodplsno 3y ago
      And Apple wasn't planning to use USB-C either, but the EU didn't argue and told them to. Apple does not get to override laws. They either obey, or leave the market.
- pvg 3y ago
  If you replace a term with a completely different term you often get a completely different meaning.
- mellosouls 3y ago
  Okay... Now replace RAM with "Weather App". How is the situation different? Now replace "iPhone" with "Nespresso" and "Weather App" with "Coffee Beans"...
pvg 3y ago
ongoing discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37403592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37403592
Moldoteck 3y ago
They can start by forcing smartwatch/phone companies to open bootloader so that these don't become ewaste when company decides to no longer support them. Maybe ewaste is too harsh, but at least if company decides to no longer support the device/servers that device is using, users should be able to replace the firmware with something different/open source. Some smartphones do this, but watches and many other smartphones...(
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
golemotron 3y ago
I often wonder when it it would cease to be in the interest of US tech firms to serve the EU market. Meta choosing not launch Threads in the EU seems like a bellwether. Everyone seems to assume that it won't happen.. that public companies can't ignore the EU market without shareholder revolt, but if the EU's vision of tech is more restrictive than the rest of the world's, it might just be the way that things go.
- christkv 3y ago
  European competitors will pop up to fill the gap it’s not like these giants are really offering anything outstanding anymore for the general public.
  - xadhominemx 3y ago
    Apple, Meta, Google, Bytedance are not offering anything outstanding to the general public? Ok buddy. I’m sure those European tech competitors are right around the corner. Maybe SAP could partner with Nokia and Wirecard to cobble something together.
    - ivy137 3y ago
      They are not around the corner, but acting like Apple, Meta, Google, and Bytedance can't risk their position it's weird add to that, us tech giant were made in a time where opensource & privacy concerns weren't knew as much as now
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - lnxg33k1 3y ago
      Words say one thing, facts say that they keep paying fines, keep adapting to regulations, and just shut up, what would happen if they went away? We can only speculate, but the fact are facts they're not leaving their spots, kids can only dream
    - eurier_br 3y ago
wpwpwpw 3y ago
The worst limitations, which are missing documentation for good repairability or alternative drivers programming, general hardware unrepairability and firmware/OS replacement aren't addressed. We saw these issues in that FCC post about IoT. Being the owner of my own device and being able to extend it's lifetime is the baseline for freeing people from tyrannical software and hardware practices.
- Y-bar 3y ago
  There is a separate EU law in the works meant to address that: https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/22/new_eu_right_to_repair/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/22/new_eu_right_to_repai...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]

53 points by nemoniac 3y ago

>For example, now when a consumer sees an app doesn’t do well on their phone, they think immediately it is the app that is not really good. Very often it is not because the challenger app is bad but because the interoperability is missing because it is in the interest of the gatekeeper to make sure the experience is not the same. This happens... when exactly? Do these people even know what they are talking about?

mqus 3y ago
For example if background tasks get cut off in one android device but not in others. PS: But I don't see how the DMA covers that specific issue
- jiofj 3y ago
  This also makes no sense because it's not in the interest of the "gatekeeper" to kill background tasks. It's done in the interest of battery life, ie the user.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    It's sometimes done to game battery benchmarks, thus benefiting the manufacturer. Not sure how much of a thing it is these days, but there was a time when many Android OEMs shipped the phones in a basically broken state in a bid to do well in battery benchmarks; in particular, push notifications often wouldn't work reliably or at all in default configuration. But yeah, I don't think the DMA's particularly relevant here.
  - Gareth321 3y ago
    I have experience with GPS related APIs in iOS. It’s a fucking nightmare to calibrate sensitivity and background activity. They keep changing parameters without warning or documentation. They aggressively suspend applications and services, even those categorised as navigation apps, unless a very particular set of criteria are met. Achieving background navigation was basically black magic. Every time we got it working, something would break. Apple exempts themselves from all of these requirements for their own applications. They have access to the full specs, and have lots of advanced warning when change is on the road map.
helpfulContrib 3y ago
Weather apps are one example that comes to mind .. Perhaps you haven't observed it because, well, it kills the app.
mirsadm 3y ago
Sounds like a dig at iMessage
- jiofj 3y ago
  That would be funny because other apps such as whatsapp or telegram work better than imessage.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Only because you live in Europe, where iMessage is useless because everyone picked Whatsapp and Telegram first. In the US it's the opposite: everyone picked iMessage[0]. The irony of this is that iMessage might actually be helped in the EU by the EU trying to break Apple's US monopoly on iPhones. [0] I suspect the reason for this is because free texting was the norm in the US while EU carriers charged per message. While iMessage was free in both cases, it relies on you knowing that green bubbles are green because they cost money, whereas "just install Whatsapp and its free" is easier to know.
moomin 3y ago
The difficulty you are experiencing here is that this is so effective people don’t even get started. There used to be non-Apple devices that could sync with iTunes. Apple sued them into the ground.
hilbert42 3y ago
"Do these people even know what they are talking about?" I'd suggest they're better advised than you infer as the EU has enormous resources to access. Just because the EU develops policies that are distasteful to many doesn't mean it's ignorant about the issues (I say that as someone who has gripes with many EU polices). Anyway, in this instance, I'm very happy with this policy as I'll be able de-crap my phone without having to root it (rooting phones is often a pain).
piva00 3y ago
iOS has private APIs that only Apple apps can use, some of those can give Apple-developed apps an upper hand over competitors.
- jwells89 3y ago
  It’s not a perfect rule, but a lot of private APIs on iOS are private only as long as it takes Apple to nail down their design, with internal usage serving as dogfooding. That way they don’t end up with scores of third parties dependent on what are basically alpha/beta API designs which frees them to radically change designs until they’re satisfied. In that circumstance I don’t think there’s anything with APIs being private since it’s only temporary.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rsynnott 3y ago
The classic, most malicious, version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code > Microsoft Senior Vice President Brad Silverberg later sent another memo, stating: "What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS." That's obviously a very extreme example (involving deliberately actively sabotaging interoperability), but private APIs, used to privilege first party software over third party software, are and were common. What you've quoted is an explainer aimed at non-programmers, but I'm pretty sure they're talking about private APIs.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> Do these people even know what they are talking about? Yes, this is actually a good summary, as good as a layman can be expected to produce. Just because they don't use the right jargon doesn't mean they are stupid. We have thousands of examples of big tech firms breaking interoperability on purpose, and it is in their interest to do so.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gumballindie 3y ago

> but because the interoperability is missing because it is in the interest of the gatekeeper Similar issue with running windows binaries on linux, and worse, hardware vendors limit compatibility with only microsoft’s operating systems. This needs to change and vendors must be forced to publish specs and the source of any software required to use their product while microsoft should be forced to publish any documentation needed to make their stuff run smoothly on other os’. Linux for instance already does that and linux specific binaries can be run on windows.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> Linux for instance already does that and linux specific binaries can be run on windows. Also on NetBSD, FreeBSD, and illumos:) There's something there about win32 .exe being the most portable binary format thanks to WINE, but Linux ELF being the second most portable option on account of Linux being popular enough for others to spend effort on supporting it.

thiago_fm 3y ago

Maybe they should force Apple to open their phone APIs as well. Why should they be the only one that can develop phone usage apps? (preventing people to build decent anti-phone addiction apps... I see why Apple does it... but how's that good for drug addicts, cof, consumers?) There are so many things wrong with those companies, in terms of non-competitive practices, that I find that the EU or any regulator have trouble figuring out where to start. I believe that's why things are in that bad situation. People mention that you(developer/company), shouldn't be hostage of any platform and develop ideas that aren't so dependent on them. Which is true, as it isn't worth the risk, or not be entirely dependant on it. Which in business terms, makes sense. But from a regulatory standpoint, why is it acceptable? Imagine if any developer or small company could compete on a fair ground against thos e big tech companies, I bet none of them would be >$1T market cap. It's funny how things are uncompetitive for silly things like weather apps, imagine how it is to compete on a really wide and profitable category. And don't come to me saying regulations are bad to consumers, how's having a monopoly even on weather apps good to consumers? I really fail to see the mental gymnastics americans do to explain why those regulation initiatives from the EU are bad, much less when it comes from a big tech employee. The amount of rugpulls that those platforms have done on the last decade on small players is impossible to count, and they've been mostly left unscathed. This is all a side-effect of companies being able to shove a Terms of Service(ToS) down the throat of everyone, I think platforms need to be heavily regulated. If you build something on top of some other "private property" that would take trillions to build a competitor yourself, and suddenly be unpublished or having an API change completely destroy your business. I can't see that being fair, and this condition is pretty much analogous to slavery and thievery, as many times you are doing actually R&D for those companies, to get rugpulled, copied and increasing their trillions, making their advantage even more unfair.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rozal 3y ago
[dead]
bzzzt 3y ago
> how's having a monopoly even on weather apps good to consumers? Having to pay for development and maintenance for 50 competing weather apps could mean higher prices for everybody. Also, third party apps have a tendency to 'blow up' their importance and be over engineered and distracting. Get ready for Electron Weather, using 2 Gb of memory just to show you if it rains. > If you build something on top of some other "private property" that would take trillions to build a competitor yourself, and suddenly be unpublished or having an API change completely destroy your business. Depends on what that API change tries to accomplish. If it's because an API is abused I prefer my security to your business model. Making companies liable for security _and_ API compatibility could lead to an impossible task. I agree some companies are uncomfortably big, but I see lots of developers having problems with Apple's policies, but as a user I appreciate Apple for taking a stand to make sure your 'right' to get my attention, clicks, ads or use other distracting patterns doesn't impede my ability to actually use my computer.

londons_explore 3y ago

If I buy an iPhone, Apple forces me to use a specific brand of RAM inside the phone. I can't choose my RAM supplier, and can't switch it out even after purchase. Should the EU force RAM to be removable and switchable on phones so the user has a choice? Okay... Now replace RAM with "Weather App". How is the situation different?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ohgodplsno 3y ago
One is software and is explicitly made to be replaceable. Your iPhone will not stop working because you uninstalled the Weather app. It might be slightly more unhappy if you desolder the RAM.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Neither is made to be replaceable by Apple. The EU argues that one ought to be replaceable and not the other. Yet the line of which components should be replaceable and which not is undefined.
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    And Apple wasn't planning to use USB-C either, but the EU didn't argue and told them to. Apple does not get to override laws. They either obey, or leave the market.
pvg 3y ago
If you replace a term with a completely different term you often get a completely different meaning.
mellosouls 3y ago
Okay... Now replace RAM with "Weather App". How is the situation different? Now replace "iPhone" with "Nespresso" and "Weather App" with "Coffee Beans"...

pvg 3y ago

ongoing discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37403592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37403592

Moldoteck 3y ago

They can start by forcing smartwatch/phone companies to open bootloader so that these don't become ewaste when company decides to no longer support them. Maybe ewaste is too harsh, but at least if company decides to no longer support the device/servers that device is using, users should be able to replace the firmware with something different/open source. Some smartphones do this, but watches and many other smartphones...(

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

golemotron 3y ago

I often wonder when it it would cease to be in the interest of US tech firms to serve the EU market. Meta choosing not launch Threads in the EU seems like a bellwether. Everyone seems to assume that it won't happen.. that public companies can't ignore the EU market without shareholder revolt, but if the EU's vision of tech is more restrictive than the rest of the world's, it might just be the way that things go.

christkv 3y ago
European competitors will pop up to fill the gap it’s not like these giants are really offering anything outstanding anymore for the general public.
- xadhominemx 3y ago
  Apple, Meta, Google, Bytedance are not offering anything outstanding to the general public? Ok buddy. I’m sure those European tech competitors are right around the corner. Maybe SAP could partner with Nokia and Wirecard to cobble something together.
  - ivy137 3y ago
    They are not around the corner, but acting like Apple, Meta, Google, and Bytedance can't risk their position it's weird add to that, us tech giant were made in a time where opensource & privacy concerns weren't knew as much as now
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - lnxg33k1 3y ago
    Words say one thing, facts say that they keep paying fines, keep adapting to regulations, and just shut up, what would happen if they went away? We can only speculate, but the fact are facts they're not leaving their spots, kids can only dream
  - eurier_br 3y ago

wpwpwpw 3y ago

The worst limitations, which are missing documentation for good repairability or alternative drivers programming, general hardware unrepairability and firmware/OS replacement aren't addressed. We saw these issues in that FCC post about IoT. Being the owner of my own device and being able to extend it's lifetime is the baseline for freeing people from tyrannical software and hardware practices.

Y-bar 3y ago
There is a separate EU law in the works meant to address that: https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/22/new_eu_right_to_repair/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/22/new_eu_right_to_repai...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

DueDilligence 3y ago

[dead]