3 ms·
There is a provision in the act that gatekeepers can still restrict access if it that required to maintain the platform's security. If Apple will continue bloc
by gmueckl 3y ago
There is a provision in the act that gatekeepers can still restrict access if it that required to maintain the platform's security.
If Apple will continue blocking on device compilation and other app functionality, they may well have their interpretation of what is and isn't a security measure tested in court. If there are competent lawyers involved, it will likely come down to the question of which rules are technically meaningful vs. present only to stifle competition.
- CogitoCogito 3y agoBut it obviously isn’t required to maintain security of the platform. Apple manages to run MacOS in a more open fashion. Is the argument that MacOS is illegally insecure or something? If the enforcers of the DMA allow a company to simply build their security policy in a way to avoid the rules enforcing the opening of the platform, then what’s the point of the DMA in the first place? Honestly I don’t think Apple will talk their way out of this. EU regulators seem to be much less forgiving of such shenanigans. It’s obvious the point of the DMA is for Apple to open up their platform. That said only time we’ll tell how this plays out.
- gmueckl 3y agoI tend to agree with you. But things that seem obvious to us techies may not be that obvious to laymen. Also, legal interpetations of a situation may be abstracted a lot from the underlying facts. So if this goes to court, the likelihood of a very bizarre ruling is not 0.