They don’t want a litigious bad mouthing customer onboard so they fired them. It’s a story as old as time that happens daily.
It’s not a great look when your first action in that gatekeeper role is to block access to a competitor because of actions the competitor’s parent company took years ago in another country and a different jurisdiction.
Although I don’t necessarily think it’s a good thing to allow external appstores, this is the law now and they have to comply with it.
lol ugh, it’s the law to wear a seatbelt, I can choose to ignore it. One ironic part I like to mention about this is that tractors tell you not to wear a seat belt. That lets you bail if it’s tipping over. The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt. Ironically, riding a motorbike requires no seatbelt… and overall is more unsafe, but totally fine apparently.
The point I’m making is laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs and you can choose to ignore them. There may be consequences to ignoring them. But the calculus for Apple is that it’s worth it to them and to ignore.
Much like the farmer with the tractor, minimal risk to ignore. High risk to follow law.
Your analogy is not relevant here.
As is Apple, the company. It only exists on paper. It can be barred from existing in a jurisdiction by another human construct, a court ruling. It can choose to ignore EU laws, but there would be consequences.
Check if the law in your state actually applies to a tractor. Some states explicitly list which motor vehicles the law applies to.
It's clearly meant to stall the creation of Epic's own App Store. All the processes still require an Apple developer account. This is malicious enough that I hope the EU regulators pull all strings to make Apple's fine for this not just aedequate to the money they're saving, but also to account for the disregard of the law itself.
The EU isn't the boring cyberpunk future where corporations can do whatever they want Apple thinks it is.
The law went into effect november 1st 2022[0]. Until yesterday has been a grace period to allow big companies time to implement the law - I must say that 1 year and 4 months is generous.
Many of Apple's customers are also customers of Epic.
Apple is trying to prevent those shared customers from accessing Epic.
It is this relations that is the core of DMA, and which DMA seeks to change.
Are you also one of the people, who would argue, that you can build you own road network, if you don't like the terms on the current road network?
Luckily it is not you who are going to work on these regulations, but people who actually care about free markets (how ironic that the EU is the progressive one on the question of freedom).
As a matter of practical advice, there are optional filter lists for uBlock Origin that block the vast majority of consent popups. I barely see any these days.
It was not part of GDPR, GDPR also says that giving and removing consent should be equally easy and not remove functionality (like disabling the whole website with a transparent black background) hence the vast majority of the cookie banners are illegal.
Blame companies for illegal behaviour, the EU's rules are supposed to give you the information about how/where your private information is being shared. That's genius, and you should be grateful that now you know how much your personal information leaks.
Yep, but not interstate roads. You can also buy a pocket calculator, which in your analogy is the private road.
You go with you conspiracy theories.
The explicit goal of the DMA is to open up the market. I can only recommend you to read a bit more about it: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en
The deeper point is companies get rid of litigious business partners whenever possible. It's one reason why you end up regulating utilities, nobody wants the electric company to have excessive control over the local economy. Where exactly digital platforms sit on this spectrum is probably a question for legislators not the courts.