3 ms·
It’s interesting to observe how detached the discussion here is from the issues created for Europe due to the DMA. A majority of the comments here make the impl
by jlaporte 2y ago
It’s interesting to observe how detached the discussion here is from the issues created for Europe due to the DMA. A majority of the comments here make the implicit assumption that the DMA is good because it will penalize big tech companies and force them to change business models in the EU. This is not what is happening or will happen.
What’s really being destroyed by the DMA is Europe’s access to new technologies and services. It’s almost like a self-embargo on the AI building blocks of their future economy.
When Nvidia GPUs are supply constrained do you really think it matters to Nvidia if they need to redirect the small chunk of their supply constrained volume that they were previously selling into France? Who is harmed in this picture? The only EU AI player of note, Mistral, and other EU businesses.
Does it really harm Apple if the DMA forces them to withhold new AI features in Europe? They still earn their device and services revenues. Who is harmed in this picture? EU consumers and businesses.
We’ve now seen within just a couple months, Apple withhold AI features and Meta withhold multimodal AI models from the EU. Expect this cutting off of the EU from new features to become a recurring event over the next year.
DMA-supporting voices are under a serious misapprehension of what the effect of the DMA is and will be over the next few years. It’s cutting off European access (consumer, business & government) to critical technologies which are all being developed outside the bloc.
The DMA violates a number of longstanding principles of good legislation - it is vague, it’s written to enable arbitrary enforcement, it’s penalties are not designed to be proportionate to damages, or even require actual damages in order to be applied, the regulator’s actions stray into actual takings of property (European Commission opinion that Facebook cannot charge a subscription fee for its ad-free offering… so it must operate as a charity? This is a taking of property. European Commission opinion that Apple cannot charge a platform fee for use of its IP? This is a taking of property).
- Nathanba 2y agoI think the topic is hard to talk about because the EU is technically trying to do the right thing but reality often rewards the conquerors and the US, China etc. (aka the competitors) still believe in the right of tech conquest. They don't stop their companies from taking whatever they want whether it's properly licensed or not. So we are in a situation where the EU is dotting their i's and shaking hands in their moral superiority while not understanding that we have to compete with people who don't care if they steal something or rob you by force. It's similar in all these other areas like the DMA and GDPR... we are competing with markets who simply don't care that they are violating people's privacy and it's more profitable to rob people and sell their stuff. The EU in my opinion has to create regulations that understand this reality and create an even stronger wall for european companies. So please go create these regulations, fine.. but understand that you should make unfair exceptions for european companies. Let european companies that are situated here violate these regulations and make this explicit: As long as the US and China do not have equivalent regulations, EU companies are explicitly allowed to steal US and chinese content. Yes really, make that very explicit. Make laws with the full understanding of what reality we are living in. We are dealing with competitors who will take our last shirt by force, not friends and "partners" as they so lovingly put it in their press releases.