I guess they were hoping that the EU's rules apply everywhere?
But, by the same token, the laws as put into place outline none of the specifics of how that should actually function. All the EU did was wave its hand, say “browsers, please” and assumed that magically a perfect outcome would occur.
Well, now that lack of clarity is biting the EU in the ass, because it left Apple a ton of wiggle room. What Apple has announced of 17.4 changes is essentially a lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying.
do you think that the regulators did that on purpose, or are they simply not competent enough to understand the implications?
The more specific they get and the more prescriptive they are in how a business should do business, the easier it is to get it overturned in court.
That’s also the reason why the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, because the first question a judge will ask is why is necessary and how they landed in the price.
The inverse is also true though. By using vague terminology like “reasonable”, they have more wiggle room to argue one way or another once it gets before a court.
At that point you then have to cross your fingers that the court not only finds that your reading of the vague language is the one true reading, but also that the reading itself is in line with the rest of the laws.
Contrary to what people seem to think about the EU, it isn’t some benevolent dictatorship that can put a wishlist to paper and then it’s some law of nature that can’t be contested.
The makers of the DMA are legislative bodies and the EC that enforces it is an executive body. Both need to work within the limitations of the law and the European courts will be the arbiters of that.
That gives Apple an "advantage"...but the nature of the advantage originates outside the EU.
What does your app do that's so special it needs more than a console game?
Every year there is some excuse (usually missing API X) why they aren't a success.
I also think ad tech companies will prefer native apps for major markets (iOS) because it is tougher to block ads. PWAs tend not to support content blockers at the moment, but there certainly can.
I’ve never once heard anyone say “you know Electron is such a great experience on the desktop, I would love to have all my mobile apps to be web based too”.
How many different versions of the operating system do they need to support because of how soon Android phones are abandoned by the manufacturers?
But this still doesn’t answer the question, if PWAs are so great on Android, then why are the same companies who are making iOS apps making Android apps instead of just telling Android users to use the web version?
Only one of these definitions just cost Google $5 billion settlement for tracking Chrome incognito mode users.
From investigation to enforcement to adjudication all the way to the ECJ you’ll be looking at roughly 10 years.
Once all of that has played out, maybe some other jurisdiction might then decide to copy some parts.
We haven’t even entered the pre-investigation phase in which the EU will wag their fingers.
Agree or disagree with the changes, but this is a non-sensical line to take. If you want to play on the world stage, this is how it goes.
It’s up to Apple to decide how it complies with the rules of each market it does business in.