Rather than protecting the interests of users, they are more interested in obstructing the DMA and its attempt to promote competition and protect consumers from monopolistic practices.
Rather than protecting the interests of users, they are more interested in obstructing the DMA and its attempt to promote competition and protect consumers from monopolistic practices.
Like leveraging other mandatory services provided by Apple to incur fees.
[0]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?toc=OJ%3AL%3...
I mean it's like saying that having a choice before being educated by one of the parties among the choices is a bad thing and it looks bad.
The only people who might be influenced by this popup are people who don't know that other browsers are an option. Are these the people that is makes sense to drop them into a random browser, are they going to be able to make a good choice from this popup do you think?
Is there a benefit to dropping some unsuspecting user into Opera, for example, and letting them deal with the myriad of incompatibility issues for the sake of an illusion of choice?
Is there a benefit to you, the expert user, to getting this popup when the first place you're going in Safari is the Chrome download page anyway?
Ostensibly, you're right; why give the uninformed masses an imperative browser decision? If Apple was willing to make it optional or put it behind a Developer Mode, they wouldn't be faced with such stark regulation. Blame whoever you want, but the writing has been on the walls for years - Apple sabotaged themselves if they weren't prepared for sideloading.
This is an overbroad generalization and false for me at least. I will always take the two seconds to disable non-necessary cookies, or just bail on the site if it doesn't have the option or isn't absolutely necessary.
The EU doesn't decide how Apple complies with their regulation. If Apple wants to throw a temper tantrum and degrade the user experience, it is nobody's fault but theirs.