Thierry Breton: Under DMA, there is no room for threats by gatekeepers
twitter.com
twitter.com
Especially since Apple has given one of the easiest examples of gatekeeper abuse just by doing this; I kinda expected them to not be this boneheaded but they're really just going "we personally don't trust you, so piss off" because of the US lawsuit. Like, that doesn't fly anymore in the EU. Legally speaking, Apple has reached the size where regulators are recognizing that their gatekeeping has the potential to ruin the EUs free market and here we see that in action.
And mind - I don't like Epic Games in the slightest. They still shouldn't be gatekept from iOS because Apple personally dislikes them over the lawsuits.
You mean single market. It’s very far from free.
There are many ways to weaken them using lobbying, or manipulate the laws by threatening MPs with the help of the CIA… The USA has a legendary set of tools for this, and why wouldn’t they use them — Europe is threatening the US corporate hegemony on European soil.
Which means soon those benevolent laws that we’re cheering as EU citizen will turn back upon us, and we’ll once again enjoy the same fate as our other public sectors.
They can but it's too little, too late now. The EU is very slow to move but once it's moving it's equally as hard to stop and change course.
Epic wants to play the long game. They want the Epic Games store on PC and mobile and Apple is half of mobile. Having an opportunity to become the Steam of mobile is a very valuable proposition, especially given that IOS was apparently less than 10% of Fortnite income.
I see it as the opposeite of emotive; it's a cold calculation playing a very long game with hopes of market capture in a scene where no one else seems to care about premium games (including Epic. But who knows how that will turn out over the decade).
Like Google in its past “don’t do evil” life, Apple still strongly believes that they are the good guys by default, simply by existing. That kind of culture can make a corporation oblivious to the influence they’re actually having.
AFAIK the only reason anyone uses Epic Games Store is for Fortnite. Can Epic really count on that to carry them? It’s been a lasting fad for sure, but all fads end.
I'd love to know just as much as you do. Valve just hasn't shown much interest in mobile ever. Even the few games they have on mobile are older games that Nvidia decided to port for them once upon a time. They've shown interest in Linux and VR, but never mobile.
If that demand does exist, and Valve just doesn't want to invest, I can see where Epic wants to come in.
>an Epic really count on that to carry them? It’s been a lasting fad for sure, but all fads end.
I'm not sure. It's a risk but there's multiple ways to approach it. I imagine such a model would have a mix of large f2p games that can advertise itself and premium games to try and attract core gamers or those who do not want to be nickle and dimed by f2p games.
But at the same time that justifies the attempt. Fortnite probably won't last forever, so the need to find a more stable financial stream while they have the money flowing in makes sense.
But Apple really should have handled this better. Being made to look like the bad guys against Epic seems impossible, but they’ve done it.
I guess private toll operators can’t prevent repeat drunk drivers using their roads, even if they do the same “trust us, just because” nonsense Sweeney has written.
Their restrictions are the only reason why Epic can do what they are doing. If a developer account was not necessary to publish anything on iOS no one would care.
Tim Sweeney can (or hopes he can) get away with it because the DMA really doesn't care about feeling and limits the contractual freedom of the gatekeeper (aka Apple) at least in the spirit and quite likely also in the letter of the law after this goes to court (or if Apple folds of course)
I have no opinion whether Epic was a good customer or not. 'They were asking for it' sometimes isn't enough... maybe?
The shareholder models isnt about de facto or de jure duties, it's about the practice of governance. Should boards regard shareholder interests as the primary setters of company goals (assuming all other required obligations are met).
This was tried, but wen't terribly, as customer interests dont align with shareholder interests-- and customers were lost.
This is, another lens on enshittification -- a switch back from customer to shareholder alignment
We know that the system of collectivisation called "businesses" produces incredible levels of cooperation between people at massive scales; we know that making businesses in the same market compete on a level playing field reduces the power of owners, increases the power of labour, and delivers what customers want. We know that when the playing field isnt level, ie., competitive, then all those benefits disappear.
What's remarkable about much far-left analysis of markets is their arguments are usually to make markets less competitive, and the markets they choose to demonstrate problems (eg., of wage-setting, of unfair practices, etc.) are always those with a massive lack of compeition.
One great irony of what the left most decry (monopoly, wage-setting, wage-deprivation, top-down control, etc. etc.) is that these are found most extremely in the state.
As ever, the far left project all the problems with the state on to the market; and the far right, all the problems of the market on to the state.
The most useful approach is profoundly empirical: you actually have to spend years of study and research on a case-by-case basis to know what the answer is. Of course, no ideologue wants to hear that.
If you subscribe to marxism, you're on the far left.
Many intellectuals who are left wing are far-left. Being center-left (or center-right) is a sign of some contact with actual power and responsibility wherein ideological fairy stories fall apart (unless they end in mass murder; another option).
Much of far-left and far-right propaganda is passed around by people who have never studied any serious empirical works of modern science, nor ever imagined that they need to in order to understand anything.
Talking about "trickle down" effects strongly indicates this. Just as much as a far-right racist talking about "replacement theory". None of this appears in any serious research of anything. It's just ideological slurs passed around on blogs and newspapers.
It turns out if you haven't spent a long time studying economics, politics, statistics, policy, etc. -- then you're unlikely to have any accurate opinions in these matters. This applies to everyone, including the right.
Everything passed around by newspapers is agitprop for their side; and the journalists repeating it are dumber than their readers.
I’m sure you’re the exception here
Insofar as it sounds arrogant its because it's a knowledge claim against the ideologue who regards their own ideology as prima facie obvious, knowledge-conferring, and reliving them of any duties to serious study.
In other-words my arrogance, such as it is, is skin deep and explicitly stated. But its in reply to the deep-seated lack of humility and profound ideological arrogance of those who think you can use soundbites to describe perhaps the most complex object anywhere in the universe (ie., a modern political economy).
Maybe it should sometimes be said that when a person is replacing thinking with soundbites, that they arent thinking at all. Maybe this is a less-bad form of arrogance than the alternative.
Here I was speaking very literally, and yet by using phrases like 'far left' taken to be signalling something non-literal. In doing this I was splitting the audience into those looking for dogwhistles and those reading what i've said.
If someone replied having read what i'd said, i'd take quite a different tone. That someone reacted superficially, to supposed implications that didn't exist -- well, that doesnt great any obligation on me to be anything other than ironic.
Dunno. The argument is usually that capitalists and the ruling class cooperate to the detriment of the other classes.
The competition mechanism at the heart of capitalism is a requirement that capitalists compete until their profit margins are very limited.
This is why apple etc. are so ugly in their replies to the EU.
So insofar as we regard the capitalist class as co-opting the ruling class its so they can stop capitalism, not so they can promote it.
A threat to capitalists could also be that there could become too many of them. That would increase competition.
I wonder how public traded companies should be regarded in this manner. Do capitalists have enough of an edge in voting power to not be threatened by pleb owners? Or maybe is it easier to make us hold the bag with better access to gossip and insider knowledge?
We should also add that public trading of companies leads boards to ever more aggressive and socially destructive forms of competition which might not be permitted if not be for their shareholders.
On balance I'd say we'd be better of getting rid of public ownership in this sense, and i'd also be inclined for very high marginal taxes on high profit margins and much more radical competition regulation.
This would bring capital's power more in line with labour's.
But on this i've really no idea; and the analysis here is too thin
(It's less common and therefore confusing for some. Probably best to write it out in full)
Given this legislation was specifically created to tackle the Apple problem, and Apple is clearly intentionally failing to comply, they may want to make an example out of them and go straight for the maximum.
The stuff happens on technical interop, client and server alike. Namely simple but able to do a good enough job, stable in time open protocols.
(smtp/irc/noscript&basic (x)html/etc)
Only regulation and legal can do things here as technically, eveything has always been there.
Can the EU compel two companies to do business with each other under the DMA?
Like let’s forget about this preemptive block, and say that hypothetically either:
1. An app from a third party store does something malicious
2. A third party store does something against the system terms of use
Does the DMA compel the gatekeeper to continue enabling them? Or does it have some provisions for blocking them and under what terms those might be?
Edit to clarify: Put another way, Does the DMA allow for terms of service in the first place? If it doesn’t explicitly allow for it, does it explicitly disallow it.
And please, I am not asking for opinions on this, of which there are many I could have just read. I am legitimately asking for what the law says with regards to this specific point. I can’t find it myself so I asked here.
I am not asking whether TOS <> Laws or not. That is perhaps one step beyond what I’m asking.
I’m asking whether the Laws under the DMA have any mention in either direction on whether the gatekeepers have the ability to set (reasonable) terms and act against violation of those terms. Or is that undefined?
I guess the malicious part will have to be decided by judges. The TOS are absolutely irrelevant. If Apple goes to a government body saying "we have to remove consumer choice, those people are breaking our terms!" they will be laughed out of room.
Yes, terms of service can’t go against the law. That is NOT what I’m asking.
I’m asking if the DMA allows for terms of service in the first place and what the bounds of those are.
These are different questions.
but I would read Article 6 (7) and (12) as such.
"7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.
The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. "
"12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9)."
"They insulted us", "we have a (now unenforcable) contract" or "we have a US judgment" does probably not count as a justifiable exception. It doesnt seem fair or reasonable at all given that the underlying "violations" of their TOS are now explicitely legal under the DMA.
If you feel that the DMA primarily binds Apple instead of Epic in this case that is because it does. It was written to limit the control gatekeepers have over "their" plattform.
Courts will decide in the end.
Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
NB: I would also recommend everyone read the recitals (aka explenations and justifications) preceding the actual articles. While they are not law directly they also are (it's difficult).
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/eu-cra-recitals-comments-c...
Here you go: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en
(In other works the rules of DMA preempt whatever rules are in the ToS.
If the law explicitly says that parties can agree to opt-out of specific rules, then the ToS can say - in those specific questions - something different. More/less strict, better for one or the other party, etc.)
As linked by `johnnyanmac`, the DMA summary site explicitly says that gatekeepers have to allow 3rd parties to inter-operate with their services.
I think in the US it's refusal to deal.
And the EU can make companies do _anything_ they want to, within the jurisdiction of the EU. If they want to ban phones that are coloured green then they bloody well could, with the repercussions being fines, legal action and bans from the market.
Here it's an EU official making a statement about Apple actions.
If anything people in the US should be glad the EU is doing this, since it might also benefit them in the long term.
... that actually tracks pretty well.
It probably started with public companies not paying dividends and instead rewarding the shareholders by share price increases.
This means they have to grow indefinitely. The logical outcome is having one all-encompassing monopoly that handles everything. Kinda like a state economy, but they don't get the irony.
Unregulated free market capitalism that so many people seem to root for (knowingly or unknowingly) is just a degenerate version of the system that invariably results in cartels, price-fixing, rent seeking, thought policing, human exploitation and suffering, which is really just a different version of the "communist" boogeyman that they fear for the same reasons.
Heck, limited liability corporations can only exist because laws make them possible.
To be clear, fining is not stealing except in some kind of liberal dystopian fantasy.
And fining based on global revenue is necessary because it's all too easy otherwise to artificially shift revenue between various places to evade these kind of fines.
The fine is limited by law to 10% of global revenue, and the EU market is more than 10% of Apple's revenue, so there's nothing particularly egregious here. Also, obviously Apple is not forced to do business in the EU if they don't like the rules.
Many countries have fines relative to the income of the perpetrator. If you get caught speeding as a tourist in Norway do you expect to get away without having to pay anything since you don't have an income in Norway?
Apple is free to do whatever they want that is legal in the US.
Yes but if Apple thinks nobody in the US will look at what's happening to Epic games from a competition point of view, they're wrong
Is it a US/US trade war, too?
Not everything is a trade war; sometimes a naughty company is just a naughty company.
The "Police and thieves in the street" problem as I call it, is that in most discussions we hear about the two big noisy players duking it out for control.
In reality it's a three way struggle. By far the largest and most powerful group is often completely silent and omitted from the analysis.
"Consumers" or "Voters" (although I would prefer the term "people") are subsumed into the other camps, each claiming to "represent" the people.
Yet the silent, overwhelming majority are starting to reclaim a voice of their own. This is a worrying sign. Not because people shouldn't have a voice, but because it shows clearly that at best, governments and commercial markets are failing to represent the actual interests of people. Perhaps we've become complacent allowing plurality of power structures, unions, assemblies, societies etc to weaken?
Citizens?
But many countries do not officially recognise "citizenship". For example, in Britain (UK) we remain "subjects" although "citizen" is used in official documents.
Maybe splitting hairs; but I don't want to assume that everyone in the world enjoys such a privileged status.