5 ms·

Can you please point out specifically which regulation Apple is infringing. Because DMA was designed not to be explicit so relies on interpretation.

chgs 2y ago
Laws are not designed to be explicit, they aren’t code.
thfuran 2y ago
That is hardly unique to DMA. Law is rife with things requiring interpretation. See, for example, the reasonable person standard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
- threeseed 2y ago
  Not arguing it is unique to DMA. But my point is that you can't say "just comply with the law" when compliance has been a much more interactive process.
- joe_the_user 2y ago
  Yes, and laws involve intent. A lot of laws "when you do a thing that has a result and you intend that result to happen, you're guilty of creating the result". It doesn't matter the thing you do. If you invent some new way of killing someone, and kill someone with it, you're guilty of murder even if the never heard of this particular way of killing someone, etc. In Apple's case, the edict was to create competition by opening up the app stores. Apple "opened" its app store in a way that failed to actually allow competition and so it is subject to the fine. This is exactly why laws work this way - to prevent what is now called "gaming" the system.
  - darklion 2y ago
    The edict was intentionally vague and overbroad. It’s a law that establishes no measurable compliance guidelines, while providing absolutely no limitations on what the EU can decide counts as a violation retroactively. It’s basically “We’re not going to tell you what we want you to do. You need to guess what we want you to do, and fuck you if you guess wrong.”
    - 0xf8 2y ago
      incisive, if not optimally reductive, summary of the underlying reality.
    - duskwuff 2y ago
      And it's a law which was crafted with the intent that it apply to a small number of specific companies. How Apple is supposed to comply is hardly an unexpected question.
surgical_fire 2y ago
Are you telling me that a trillion dollar company cannot hire proper lawyers to make sure they comply with the laws? You may think you are defending Apple, but in truth you are just saying they are horribly incompetent. If that is the case, they deserve to keep being fined.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

chgs 2y ago

Laws are not designed to be explicit, they aren’t code.

thfuran 2y ago

That is hardly unique to DMA. Law is rife with things requiring interpretation. See, for example, the reasonable person standard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

threeseed 2y ago
Not arguing it is unique to DMA. But my point is that you can't say "just comply with the law" when compliance has been a much more interactive process.
joe_the_user 2y ago
Yes, and laws involve intent. A lot of laws "when you do a thing that has a result and you intend that result to happen, you're guilty of creating the result". It doesn't matter the thing you do. If you invent some new way of killing someone, and kill someone with it, you're guilty of murder even if the never heard of this particular way of killing someone, etc. In Apple's case, the edict was to create competition by opening up the app stores. Apple "opened" its app store in a way that failed to actually allow competition and so it is subject to the fine. This is exactly why laws work this way - to prevent what is now called "gaming" the system.
- darklion 2y ago
  The edict was intentionally vague and overbroad. It’s a law that establishes no measurable compliance guidelines, while providing absolutely no limitations on what the EU can decide counts as a violation retroactively. It’s basically “We’re not going to tell you what we want you to do. You need to guess what we want you to do, and fuck you if you guess wrong.”
  - 0xf8 2y ago
    incisive, if not optimally reductive, summary of the underlying reality.
  - duskwuff 2y ago
    And it's a law which was crafted with the intent that it apply to a small number of specific companies. How Apple is supposed to comply is hardly an unexpected question.

surgical_fire 2y ago

Are you telling me that a trillion dollar company cannot hire proper lawyers to make sure they comply with the laws? You may think you are defending Apple, but in truth you are just saying they are horribly incompetent. If that is the case, they deserve to keep being fined.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]