3 ms·

On the contrary, the DMA explicitly provides for this. Article 6 sub 4, second and third paragraph: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to th

On the contrary, the DMA explicitly provides for this. Article 6 sub 4, second and third paragraph: > The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper. According to Apple, the notarization requirement and the soft requirements for “software application stores” to be able to ensure users are safe, fall within this exception that the DMA provides. Other than that, the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, so Apple would be in the clear here with the fees they intend to charge. Especially when the new fee structure is similar to (or I’d argue, a little bit more competitive than) current market rates.

toyg 3y ago
According to Apple, which doesn't happen to be a court of law. See the anti-circumvention clauses in Article 13: > 4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design. [...] > 6. The gatekeeper shall not [...] make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making, or free choice via the structure, design, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof. > 7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement. Applying an unfair price structure might well be considered a contractual measure that undermines effective compliance, as it imposes an unfair burden on businesses and consumers. Notarization might also be considered "making the exercise of rights unduly difficult". This is going to be a long process, and Apple starting it in an adversarial manner (as they did) is not going to help their case.

toyg 3y ago

According to Apple, which doesn't happen to be a court of law. See the anti-circumvention clauses in Article 13: > 4. The gatekeeper shall not engage in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with the obligations of Articles 5, 6 and 7 regardless of whether that behaviour is of a contractual, commercial or technical nature, or of any other nature, or consists in the use of behavioural techniques or interface design. [...] > 6. The gatekeeper shall not [...] make the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making, or free choice via the structure, design, function or manner of operation of a user interface or a part thereof. > 7. Where the gatekeeper circumvents or attempts to circumvent any of the obligations in Article 5, 6, or 7 in a manner described in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of this Article, the Commission may open proceedings pursuant to Article 20 and adopt an implementing act referred to in Article 8(2) in order to specify the measures that the gatekeeper is to implement. Applying an unfair price structure might well be considered a contractual measure that undermines effective compliance, as it imposes an unfair burden on businesses and consumers. Notarization might also be considered "making the exercise of rights unduly difficult". This is going to be a long process, and Apple starting it in an adversarial manner (as they did) is not going to help their case.