3 ms·

Well played by Apple, I guess. I really thought there would have been consequences for so blatantly ignoring the DMA. Instead they got to do so for over a year

by jsnell 2y ago

Well played by Apple, I guess. I really thought there would have been consequences for so blatantly ignoring the DMA. Instead they got to do so for over a year for absolutely free, and since I'm seeing no kind of timeline for implementation of this decision, I'm guessing that Apple managed to squeeze out an extra 18-24 months of benefit from the uneven playing field. There were no monetary penalties for doing that. The measures imposed appear to not be onerous in any way, but the pure minimum that Apple would have needed to do from the start. If this is the way DMA is going to be enforced, why would any company try to be compliant in good faith?

threeseed 2y ago
None of what you said is true. Apple didn't ignore the DMA they complied with most of it. And for the parts they didn't the EU announced a modest fine: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/eu-considers-fining-apple-over-dma-yet-again/ar-AA1ADG7N https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/eu-considers-fining-ap...
- bigyabai 2y ago
  > Apple didn't ignore the DMA they complied with most of it. If you comply with "most of" a law, you can still be complicit in ignoring it.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Hardly. So far the enforcement has been overwhelmingly disappointing. They are still charging the Core technology fee for alternative app stores which undermines the very essence of what the DMA is about.
  - shuckles 2y ago
    Maybe you don't understand the essence of what the DMA is about? There certainly seems to be a lot of wishcasting in these parts.
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      Enlighten us. The DMA is about improving competition by forcing gatekeepers to share their toys and play nicely with other companies. Imposing a fee on your direct competitors that you don't have to pay when competing in the same segment is exactly the kind of anti-competitive behavior the DMA is meant to address. There's a separate ongoing investigation into the Core technology fee.
      - shuckles 2y ago
        Mostly it seems to me that the DMA is about Spotify being upset they don’t have an even bigger monopoly on music streaming and EU bureaucrats feeling annoyed that tech companies didn’t take them out to nice dinners in Brussels before releasing products. Spotify pays Apple no money for inventing and distributing the product upon which their entire business is premised (internet connected mobile computer). That seems pretty unfair to Apple, though quite pro-competition!
- jsnell 2y ago
  Your source does not support the claim of the EU having announced a fine. It's an anonymous source saying that the EU will fine Apple and Meta later this month. You'd expect any fines to be announced along with the corrective measures. Here we only got the corrective measures, which implies that (at least for the domains that these decisions are scoped to, i.e. wearables and the process for handling interop requests) that's all we're getting.
ankit219 2y ago
This isn't true. They complied with most of it. This is a guidance in EU-DMA parlance, where EU is specifying[1] how it wants Apple to comply, not that apple hasnt complied and getting punished. Those woudl have been fines. From the document itself, strangely, EU also announced expectations on how long every part should take. > Apple must follow a structured timeline for handling interoperability requests. Eligibility assessments must be completed within 20 working days, project plans communicated within 40 working days, and development cycles must be completed within 6, 12, or 18 months, depending on complexity. > After development, solutions must be released in the next relevant iOS or iPadOS update, with, in any case, a maximum total timeline of 24 months. Solutions requiring minor or mild engineering efforts will be included in the next interim (“dot”) release, while more complex solutions will be part of the next major release. This is for third party requests. As Apple is required to comply with every reasonable interoperability requests it gets. [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answers/interoperability_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe...

by jsnell 2y ago

threeseed 2y ago

None of what you said is true. Apple didn't ignore the DMA they complied with most of it. And for the parts they didn't the EU announced a modest fine: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/eu-considers-fining-apple-over-dma-yet-again/ar-AA1ADG7N https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/eu-considers-fining-ap...

bigyabai 2y ago
> Apple didn't ignore the DMA they complied with most of it. If you comply with "most of" a law, you can still be complicit in ignoring it.
dns_snek 2y ago
Hardly. So far the enforcement has been overwhelmingly disappointing. They are still charging the Core technology fee for alternative app stores which undermines the very essence of what the DMA is about.
- shuckles 2y ago
  Maybe you don't understand the essence of what the DMA is about? There certainly seems to be a lot of wishcasting in these parts.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Enlighten us. The DMA is about improving competition by forcing gatekeepers to share their toys and play nicely with other companies. Imposing a fee on your direct competitors that you don't have to pay when competing in the same segment is exactly the kind of anti-competitive behavior the DMA is meant to address. There's a separate ongoing investigation into the Core technology fee.
    - shuckles 2y ago
      Mostly it seems to me that the DMA is about Spotify being upset they don’t have an even bigger monopoly on music streaming and EU bureaucrats feeling annoyed that tech companies didn’t take them out to nice dinners in Brussels before releasing products. Spotify pays Apple no money for inventing and distributing the product upon which their entire business is premised (internet connected mobile computer). That seems pretty unfair to Apple, though quite pro-competition!
jsnell 2y ago
Your source does not support the claim of the EU having announced a fine. It's an anonymous source saying that the EU will fine Apple and Meta later this month. You'd expect any fines to be announced along with the corrective measures. Here we only got the corrective measures, which implies that (at least for the domains that these decisions are scoped to, i.e. wearables and the process for handling interop requests) that's all we're getting.

ankit219 2y ago

This isn't true. They complied with most of it. This is a guidance in EU-DMA parlance, where EU is specifying[1] how it wants Apple to comply, not that apple hasnt complied and getting punished. Those woudl have been fines. From the document itself, strangely, EU also announced expectations on how long every part should take. > Apple must follow a structured timeline for handling interoperability requests. Eligibility assessments must be completed within 20 working days, project plans communicated within 40 working days, and development cycles must be completed within 6, 12, or 18 months, depending on complexity. > After development, solutions must be released in the next relevant iOS or iPadOS update, with, in any case, a maximum total timeline of 24 months. Solutions requiring minor or mild engineering efforts will be included in the next interim (“dot”) release, while more complex solutions will be part of the next major release. This is for third party requests. As Apple is required to comply with every reasonable interoperability requests it gets. [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answers/interoperability_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/questions-and-answe...