Edit: more subtle choice of words to indicate what I meant
- Implement a conversion layer from our internal representation so we can keep it stable.
- Complicate all further feature work because we have to consider how it will affect existing customers of the API.
- Write and maintain documentation for the API.
- Keep the API working even after we no longer use it.
- Maintain multiple versions of the API in parallel.
- Make sure our error messages make sense to people not familiar with our internal systems.
- Be more careful with validation - for our internal APIs it's not the end of the world if a bad request results in a 500 rather than a 400, but it matters a lot for public APIs.
- Be more careful with rate limiting and other defenses against API misuse.
And this is to name just a few. A requirement that everyone expose a public API is pointless if it doesn't include a stability guarantee, and overly burdensome if it does.
Also relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAlTOfl9F2w
> Included in the rules' scope will be platforms with a market capitalization of €75 billion or turnover in the European Economic Area equal to or above €7.5 billion. [0]
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-digital-markets-act-adop...
This isn’t a requirement that everyone expose a public API . https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/24/22994234/eu-antitrust-leg...:
“The DMA will force new obligations on companies deemed to be “gatekeepers” — a category defined by the legislation as firms with a market capitalization of at least €75 billion ($82 billion); at least 45 million monthly users; and a “platform” like an app or social network. Companies covered by this classification include well-known tech giants like Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and Apple, but also smaller entities like Booking.com.”
It’s hard for me to muster up even the smallest amount of sympathy for these vampires.
I expect this will take a decade to shake out as US tech firms work tirelessly to protect their spyware walled garden models.
What’s going to happen, if this ever goes through, is that the networks will open some kind of api so outsiders can send and be sent basic messages. And you will never be happy using it because you’ll always look like an outsider.
And there is no way to fix this because a big draw of these networks is that they keep adding new features and they are not in the old api so you can’t use them.
And of course it’s going to be a big source of spam so users will get the ability to block the outside from sending messages to them, which means you can’t reach half the people you want.
Disagree, and disagree. Access to friends and family is why people use these apps. Once these tech companies are forced to tear down those walls people will be free to use the app of their choosing to communicate with whomever they prefer. Spyware is harvesting data without the explicit consent of the user.
>What’s going to happen, if this ever goes through, is that the networks will open some kind of api so outsiders can send and be sent basic messages. And you will never be happy using it because you’ll always look like an outsider.
They'll be fined 10% of their global revenue for trying to play such an obvious and silly game.
[arbitrarily deciding what is and isn’t allowed] Everything so arbitrary. Either allowing everything or nothing is not sustainable for anything on the internet so you need arbitrary rules to stop arbitrary things.
>Either allowing everything or nothing is not sustainable for anything on the internet so you need arbitrary rules to stop arbitrary things.
It doesn't need to be so complicated. Allow lawful content and maintain your neutral status, or only allow content you choose and become a publisher.
If you want a free, private, modern communication network, build it, don't steal it. In this case we are already very close to having a very nice solution in the form of Matrix. Throw some money and devs for things at Matrix/Element for issues we want to solve there. Push it as a government sanctioned solution. Offer services over Matrix, avoid WhatsApp.
These rules only apply to platforms with a market cap of over €75 billion or European Economic Area turnover of over €7.5 billion.[0] No one is proposing that we require single developers work with Apple and Facebook to make their apps interoperable.
[0] https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-digital-markets-act-adop...
There is no forcing necessary in other, imo preferred, scenarios. Like pushing Matrix. The solution, which uses the law to force a company will just block new attempts at creating similar but better products.
While I'm against walled gardens, I can see why these companies want to keep them closed. And if I'd work for e.g. snap, I would probably have this opinion as well.
Sawing off the branch you are sitting on is usually not a good idea.
iMessage's advantages are a feature of the Apple ecosystem. WANTING it to interoperate with Facebook or whatever is one thing, but legally REQUIRING it seems to me to be very, very dangerous.