What a difference four years makes
ianbetteridge.com
ianbetteridge.com
How is Spotify not in that position? I see no difference between Facebook, Apple and Spotify in this case, except for the fact that they gatekeep different things.
Even though they're a gateway between business users and condumers, they're not considered an important gateway because the music industry isn't big enough. (Or maybe Spotify's share of the EU music market is just too small.)
Personally I hope it is that they just put that limit at the high number to warm up and then ratchet it down. But then they should say so.
The usual case is that the limit is certainly the result of political discussion, but not arbitrary. What you'd expect is that somebody made a list of targets, and then the thresholds were intentionally defined to include those targets and nobody else.
In political contexts involving purchasing, this is called "single-sourcing". In contexts involving persecution, it is more frowned upon, and I'm not aware of a general name for the practice. But it's not a different practice.
Probably you're right, but the list of targets itself would be arbitrary, and likely was subject to discussion as well.
Where did you get the “far exceeds” figure from?
All fair in love and war; but this article is fooling few on this being a matter of principle. It looks like protectionism.
1. Size. DMA requirement is >=7.5b turnover in the EU, or worldwide market cap >=75b. Not the case for Spotify.
2. Non-provision of core platform services. It's not just "important gateway between business users and consumers", it's "important gateway between businesses and consumers *in relation to core platform services*". Core platform services are e.g. search engines, operating systems, browsers, app stores and so on. This is why Spotify isn't a gatekeeper.
And the exact same reasoning applies to American companies. Video streaming platforms like Netflix are also excluded for example, even though Netflix has a market cap >=75b.
Naming all potential gatekeepers would only set the EU up to look capricious when it still only had enough resources to go after its highest priority targets.
So there will never be an obvious rational line of who is in or out. Just the sued and unsued.
Which is not to say he is right.
> In competition, actions which are legal when you’re not a monopoly become illegal when you are a monopoly.
This sentence represents basic lack of understanding of the monopolistic behavior. See Qualcomm's antitrust case which they won on appeal in both EU and US which they could not have won if this sentence was true.
Burn it all down.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/...
Do you know how your firewall works? I run physical ones. The OS on your Mac is basically wide open. An "ip" "domain" "url" can all change, you own the ports...
I use T/P Shark to store everything in a local graph database and then perform cluster, outlier, etc on it.
IPInfo API for additional details not in the packet. I have scripts that batch process IP addresses.
Because I want to.
There is no way out, the system is build that way. The sheep get milked.
The cheese made with sheep milk is called Pecorino. Very tasty cheese :)
When it’s Apple versus Facebook, John is on Apple’s side.
When it’s Apple versus the EU, John is on Apple’s side.
He’s one of the most overrated and pro-corporation tech personalities out there. And his website’s formatting on mobile is inexcusable.
I just want to run full Mac OS X on an iPad Air :(
https://www.cultofmac.com/717078/run-mac-os-x-iphone-ipad-wi...
It’s literally never been that way. The gilded age had to be ended by regulation just like the tech gilded age needs to be ended by regulation.
The thing about the market is that it doesn’t care if people starve or if every company on the planet merges into a super conglomerate.
> Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
I was supervising a MS student on a project trying to mess with the moderately-targeted ads of the day. We watched this happen in real time as it wrecked our hopes of ever writing our paper. All of the ads we were studying got replaced overnight with much cheaper generic ads for cars or airlines or big-brand liquor. And then websites started going out of business.
I know this was meant to be hyperbole but a quick fact-check shows that faith economy was in the triple-comma club before any of the tech companies. But, that's in aggregate and sidesteps the whole philosophical question of deity and property...
and to address your actual question, "it's the economy." Go to any legislator and show how the business model leverages the internet to unprecedented economic scale, you will get a good decade or two of enthusiastic support. The whole "we can self-regulate" was a stroke of luck and good timing/circumstance (and heavy lobbying, I presume),... and a demonstration of just how much faster tech can move than any legislative effort was enough to convince anyone else.
If the EU simply focused on the open web and privacy they could stay away from these weird rules regarding sizes of markets. I think the the article is disingenuous by equating a platform's popularity with a need for rules to hamper that platform's functionality.
The internet/web is our open resource for communication. I'm all for any all rules that maintain the individual rights to publish and subscribe on the internet. The EU should focus on open protocols and privacy.
I think it's a mistake to equate the internet with an App Store market place. The internet is a place for individual freedoms and app stores are for businesses.
If I'm a five person start-up, compliance with rules can act as a barrier to entry, and keep a market to only established players. If certain rules only kick in when I am established enough to be able to comply, then that's encouraging smaller entities at the expense of larger.
Saying one should encourage open protocols and privacy is all well and good, but how can one do that, and more importantly, how can one enforce it when abusive companies purposefully act contrary to that.
I see this caused by the financial world's excitement for the app Store economy. This same "irrational exuberance" happened during the .com cycle.
Developers/entrepreneurs should be focused on the open web as the delivery mechanism which bypasses all app Store rules. This is freedom to me.
Regulators should be watching the "public space" of the internet and worry less about the "private space" of the app Store economy and platform.
The regulators should make it is simple to publish on port 80 and port 443. I think we have that. A five person start up should do everything they can to minimize the amount of regulated data they collect.
I would worry less how an abusive company might act and more on how to delivery a good experience with one's product.
How abusive can a big company be on the internet?(excluding ISPs). My point is that organic communities on the internet is where freedom happens. Anyone expecting to get freedom from a product in an app Store is mistaken. App stores can provide amazing convenience. Apple essentially built a global store that handled taxes and regulations seamlessly for it's developers. The process is so seamless everyone thinks it should be free.
It is very difficult and costly in time or other resources for most people and businesses to "ignore the FANGs"
Parasitical businesses are generally not just parasitical. They balance providing real value with how much they can extract, in complex ways.
People who want other people to watch their high quality content want to be found by as many people as would benefit from their content. So they post on Youtube which gets them their audience, but now they are helping Youtube funnel their viewers to trash content and to be surveilled.
It is all a sticky rat's nest.
But these tech dinosaurs are looking everywhere around and within us, still we feed them.