2 ms·

Basically, the first point of the summary of what the DMA is for basically invalidates anything Apple is doing: > Example of the “don'ts” - Gatekeeper platform

by Aeolun 3y ago

Basically, the first point of the summary of what the DMA is for basically invalidates anything Apple is doing: > Example of the “don'ts” - Gatekeeper platforms may no longer: > treat services and products offered by the gatekeeper itself more favourably in ranking than similar services or products offered by third parties on the gatekeeper's platform I find it hard to see what is not 'more favorable' about staying within the walled garden. All their rules are made to terrify people that would step outside it. At least that's my reading of it.

turquoisevar 3y ago
I’ll preface this with saying that this is not a dig at you personally. That said, when I still practices law, one of the things I hated most were clients who “did their own research”. If I was lucky they’d at least got a hold of something that tangentially applicable to their situation at hand. But even in those cases people just seemingly stopped reading once they thought they read something that supported what they wanted. On that note, your quoted part has a couple of issues. Most important for this debate is that it doesn’t pertain to the topic at hand. It talked about a gatekeeper favoring itself more in rankings. So if you search for “Music” in the App Store and Apple shows the Apple Music app before showing Spotify, Deezer, and the like, then this non-legally binding layperson’s explanation of the DMA would apply. Although even in the case of the example Apple might get away with pointing out that a query for the term “music” is expected to favor results with “music” in their name, but that’s neither here nor there.
musictubes 3y ago
I am getting flashbacks to when Google was found to be abusing their monopoly and people went crazy because “Apple is so much worse.” In my brief look at the DMA it looks like Apple was targeted for specific things but sideloading as most people think of it wasn’t one of those things. It’s very possible that Apple has addressed all of the things that were brought to bear on them. It certainly doesn’t seem like the DMA directly addressed sideloading on iOS.
albert180 3y ago
I don't see how they don't discriminate Netflix or Spotify with this rules against Apple Music or TV+

by Aeolun 3y ago

turquoisevar 3y ago

I’ll preface this with saying that this is not a dig at you personally. That said, when I still practices law, one of the things I hated most were clients who “did their own research”. If I was lucky they’d at least got a hold of something that tangentially applicable to their situation at hand. But even in those cases people just seemingly stopped reading once they thought they read something that supported what they wanted. On that note, your quoted part has a couple of issues. Most important for this debate is that it doesn’t pertain to the topic at hand. It talked about a gatekeeper favoring itself more in rankings. So if you search for “Music” in the App Store and Apple shows the Apple Music app before showing Spotify, Deezer, and the like, then this non-legally binding layperson’s explanation of the DMA would apply. Although even in the case of the example Apple might get away with pointing out that a query for the term “music” is expected to favor results with “music” in their name, but that’s neither here nor there.

musictubes 3y ago

I am getting flashbacks to when Google was found to be abusing their monopoly and people went crazy because “Apple is so much worse.” In my brief look at the DMA it looks like Apple was targeted for specific things but sideloading as most people think of it wasn’t one of those things. It’s very possible that Apple has addressed all of the things that were brought to bear on them. It certainly doesn’t seem like the DMA directly addressed sideloading on iOS.

albert180 3y ago

I don't see how they don't discriminate Netflix or Spotify with this rules against Apple Music or TV+