5 ms·

> The DMA requires free interoperability, and Apple has imposed a very anti-competitive fee. From comments I read, quite a few people want it to require free i

> The DMA requires free interoperability, and Apple has imposed a very anti-competitive fee. From comments I read, quite a few people want it to require free interoperability, but I don’t see how it does. I even think it sort-of explicitly allows gatekeepers to keep charging for access. The pre-amble, point 62 starts with “For software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision, gatekeepers should publish and apply general conditions of access that should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.” so that point is about application stores. Its second paragraph starts (emphasis added) “PRICING or other general access conditions should be considered unfair if they lead to an imbalance of rights and obligations imposed on business users or confer an advantage on the gatekeeper which is disproportionate to the service provided by the gatekeeper to business users or lead to a disadvantage for business users in providing the same or similar services as the gatekeeper.” To me, that points to them at least considering that. Can you point me to where https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj “requires free interoperability”? If you think article 6.7 says that, I disagree. IMO, it only talks about access to SDKs, specs of device ports, ability to make the same system calls as the applications of the gatekeeper can make, etc. Here’s article 6.7: “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.”

Gareth321 3y ago
> If you think article 6.7 says that, I disagree. IMO, it only talks about access to SDKs, specs of device ports, ability to make the same system calls as the applications of the gatekeeper can make, etc. It doesn't mention "SDK" or "system call" anywhere in the text. A6.7 uses plain language, not technical, to require "effective interoperability." It doesn't place limitation on that, as you just implied there are. I've no doubt Apple will attempt to argue that "effective interoperability" is in fact "limited interoperability," but they will fail. The text is crystal clear on intent: > A1.1: The purpose of this Regulation is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by laying down harmonised rules ensuring for all businesses, contestable and fair markets in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present, to the benefit of business users and end users. Charging for "effective interoperability" is clearly contrary to both the letter and spirit of this Act. It's important to remember too that the EU operates under the principle of the spirit of the law, as opposed to the U.S. which operates under the letter of the law. Judges have a very short fuse when it comes to semantic games over here. I am heartened to read that Vestager has repeatedly urged gatekeepers to test their business plans with developers prior to the March 7 deadline, suggesting she is using the feedback of competitors to form the basis for both determining suitable compliance, and further legislative changes, for which the DMA provides swift provision.
chacham15 3y ago
> it only talks about access to SDKs, specs of device ports, ability to make the same system calls The Apple App store uses SDKs + system calls to install other apps, right? So, if you're allowed to sideload your own app store it should be able to do the same freely. So, the question then becomes about sideloading which I think you're supposed to be able to do freely as well.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  No. Said APIs can be restricted by the platform through entitlements, which are cryptographically locked APIs that must be granted access via Apple. Sideloading may give you access to non-entitlement private APIs, or be able to use a vulnerability to give you access to those APIs without an entitlement.
- Someone 3y ago
  I would think the App Store asks the OS to install apps. More importantly, you can argue about the interpretation of that text, but in the end, it will be how the EU interprets it, and I don’t think there’s any way they ever intended it to mean “the DMA requires free interoperability”, or that they will in the future decide that to be the case. Of course, future legislation may say different things, but that won’t make the statement true.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

Gareth321 3y ago

> If you think article 6.7 says that, I disagree. IMO, it only talks about access to SDKs, specs of device ports, ability to make the same system calls as the applications of the gatekeeper can make, etc. It doesn't mention "SDK" or "system call" anywhere in the text. A6.7 uses plain language, not technical, to require "effective interoperability." It doesn't place limitation on that, as you just implied there are. I've no doubt Apple will attempt to argue that "effective interoperability" is in fact "limited interoperability," but they will fail. The text is crystal clear on intent: > A1.1: The purpose of this Regulation is to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market by laying down harmonised rules ensuring for all businesses, contestable and fair markets in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present, to the benefit of business users and end users. Charging for "effective interoperability" is clearly contrary to both the letter and spirit of this Act. It's important to remember too that the EU operates under the principle of the spirit of the law, as opposed to the U.S. which operates under the letter of the law. Judges have a very short fuse when it comes to semantic games over here. I am heartened to read that Vestager has repeatedly urged gatekeepers to test their business plans with developers prior to the March 7 deadline, suggesting she is using the feedback of competitors to form the basis for both determining suitable compliance, and further legislative changes, for which the DMA provides swift provision.

chacham15 3y ago

> it only talks about access to SDKs, specs of device ports, ability to make the same system calls The Apple App store uses SDKs + system calls to install other apps, right? So, if you're allowed to sideload your own app store it should be able to do the same freely. So, the question then becomes about sideloading which I think you're supposed to be able to do freely as well.

madeofpalk 3y ago
No. Said APIs can be restricted by the platform through entitlements, which are cryptographically locked APIs that must be granted access via Apple. Sideloading may give you access to non-entitlement private APIs, or be able to use a vulnerability to give you access to those APIs without an entitlement.
Someone 3y ago
I would think the App Store asks the OS to install apps. More importantly, you can argue about the interpretation of that text, but in the end, it will be how the EU interprets it, and I don’t think there’s any way they ever intended it to mean “the DMA requires free interoperability”, or that they will in the future decide that to be the case. Of course, future legislation may say different things, but that won’t make the statement true.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]