4 ms·

I’m confused by this post. Formatting aside, it’s drawing a comparison between something Gruber said and something Microsoft said. Beyond that, there’s not muc

by dagmx 2y ago

I’m confused by this post. Formatting aside, it’s drawing a comparison between something Gruber said and something Microsoft said. Beyond that, there’s not much substance to the post around the assertion of the title? They may very well be correct or not, but the post itself has no real content to it. It also erroneously claims that the browser changes were after the European commission rulings but their own graph ends at 2009 when that commission ruling happened. The prior one for that time frame was around media player. However the quote they point to is around the DOJ investigation which again, does not actually lead to what they claim. Microsoft won the appeal and the later settlement didn’t affect Internet explorer significantly. The loss in browser market share was imho inevitable as a result of the growing Internet and growing competition, as IE6 lagged greatly behind.

blueelephanttea 2y ago
I also don't think the comparison makes sense for a number of other reasons: Microsoft had a real market share monopoly. Apple has a vertically integrated platform that tends to include the most monetarily valuable users. Microsoft was regulated using long standing antitrust law and a court settlement outlining specific compliance steps. Apple is being regulated by a brand new, extraordinarily massive law that is untested with tons of unclear requirements. Certainly, innovation might survive in the EU. But nothing about this post or comparison seems well reasoned.
- dagmx 2y ago
  Yes, great point on the nature of the laws at hand. I’ll add that the other difference is in the nature of the proceedings too. The DOJ brought a case against Microsoft, as they are now bringing a case against Apple. The closest similar case for Apple is the one with Spotify. Where the EU tacked on a massive additional fine on top of the primary damages fine. The DMA, as you state, is a new regulation that has significant room for interpretation. However more importantly, it doesn’t require a full judicial process for someone found in violation of it. The Commission can hand out fines as it sees fit without an external judiciary process and requires the receiver of said fines to bring a case against them instead.
  - generic92034 2y ago
    > However more importantly, it doesn’t require a full judicial process for someone found in violation of it. The Commission can hand out fines as it sees fit without an external judiciary process and requires the receiver of said fines to bring a case against them instead. Do you feel that this makes any difference for corporations like Apple?
    - dagmx 2y ago
      Yes, 100%. Proactive and preventative punishments are a powerful tool for something like speeding tickets. They take the position that you are guilty until proven innocent , versus innocent until proven guilty. But those are limited in scope and clear cut. The DMA by comparison is very far reaching and very loosely scoped by design. However it employs the same guilty until proven innocent model, because it too is trying to prevent the crime before it happens. To bring this back to speeding tickets. Imagine if instead of fixed speed postings, you just had slow/fast etc. but those applied differently based on the vehicle you were in and you can’t ask about it first. Without clear guidelines, everyone would drive slow to avoid fines, making traffic slow to a crawl. That’s the goal of the DMA, but it’s also why I think it will reduce innovation in the EU. To be clear, I think the DMA is well intentioned and I’m personally very pro regulations. I just think it’s poorly implemented and Commission has already used its ability to interpret it as they wish multiple times. A stricter set of rules, better consultation processes and better third party oversight would rectify it in my opinion. Contrast this to the way the DoJ operates against Microsoft/Apple. They make the assertion based on the loose anti-competitive definitions, and have to bring it to a judiciary to prove it. It’s innocent until proven guilty. However for cases like flagrant violation of well specified rules (like the EPA has), the government can bring direct charges. But again, those are well specified.
      - generic92034 2y ago
        I don't know. If Apple or any other large corporation is contesting the "speeding ticket" it goes to the courts, where the financial power to hire the best attorneys, consultants and experts certainly counts. I am also not sure about the alleged lack of specificity. Apple's violations seem rather glaring and obvious to me.
skeledrew 2y ago
IE6 may have lagged, but that didn't matter as it had bundled-by-default status, which meant many wouldn't even become aware of an alternative, and many of those aware wouldn't even bother to try it.
- dagmx 2y ago
  But that browser by default status didn’t change in the time window that the author presents. The decline happened long before browser selection screens were mandated.

by dagmx 2y ago

blueelephanttea 2y ago

I also don't think the comparison makes sense for a number of other reasons: Microsoft had a real market share monopoly. Apple has a vertically integrated platform that tends to include the most monetarily valuable users. Microsoft was regulated using long standing antitrust law and a court settlement outlining specific compliance steps. Apple is being regulated by a brand new, extraordinarily massive law that is untested with tons of unclear requirements. Certainly, innovation might survive in the EU. But nothing about this post or comparison seems well reasoned.

dagmx 2y ago
Yes, great point on the nature of the laws at hand. I’ll add that the other difference is in the nature of the proceedings too. The DOJ brought a case against Microsoft, as they are now bringing a case against Apple. The closest similar case for Apple is the one with Spotify. Where the EU tacked on a massive additional fine on top of the primary damages fine. The DMA, as you state, is a new regulation that has significant room for interpretation. However more importantly, it doesn’t require a full judicial process for someone found in violation of it. The Commission can hand out fines as it sees fit without an external judiciary process and requires the receiver of said fines to bring a case against them instead.
- generic92034 2y ago
  > However more importantly, it doesn’t require a full judicial process for someone found in violation of it. The Commission can hand out fines as it sees fit without an external judiciary process and requires the receiver of said fines to bring a case against them instead. Do you feel that this makes any difference for corporations like Apple?
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Yes, 100%. Proactive and preventative punishments are a powerful tool for something like speeding tickets. They take the position that you are guilty until proven innocent , versus innocent until proven guilty. But those are limited in scope and clear cut. The DMA by comparison is very far reaching and very loosely scoped by design. However it employs the same guilty until proven innocent model, because it too is trying to prevent the crime before it happens. To bring this back to speeding tickets. Imagine if instead of fixed speed postings, you just had slow/fast etc. but those applied differently based on the vehicle you were in and you can’t ask about it first. Without clear guidelines, everyone would drive slow to avoid fines, making traffic slow to a crawl. That’s the goal of the DMA, but it’s also why I think it will reduce innovation in the EU. To be clear, I think the DMA is well intentioned and I’m personally very pro regulations. I just think it’s poorly implemented and Commission has already used its ability to interpret it as they wish multiple times. A stricter set of rules, better consultation processes and better third party oversight would rectify it in my opinion. Contrast this to the way the DoJ operates against Microsoft/Apple. They make the assertion based on the loose anti-competitive definitions, and have to bring it to a judiciary to prove it. It’s innocent until proven guilty. However for cases like flagrant violation of well specified rules (like the EPA has), the government can bring direct charges. But again, those are well specified.
    - generic92034 2y ago
      I don't know. If Apple or any other large corporation is contesting the "speeding ticket" it goes to the courts, where the financial power to hire the best attorneys, consultants and experts certainly counts. I am also not sure about the alleged lack of specificity. Apple's violations seem rather glaring and obvious to me.

skeledrew 2y ago

IE6 may have lagged, but that didn't matter as it had bundled-by-default status, which meant many wouldn't even become aware of an alternative, and many of those aware wouldn't even bother to try it.

dagmx 2y ago
But that browser by default status didn’t change in the time window that the author presents. The decline happened long before browser selection screens were mandated.