EU Lists First 7 Potential "Gatekeepers" Under The Digital Markets Act (DMA)

[RejZoR]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I feel like you didn't understand my analogy.

You have observed that walled gardens functions better, and the conclusions you drew were that they work better because they are walled garden. You are attributing correlation with causation, just like I did in my analogy with blue and red cars.

 

The problem with your way of thinking is that it is based on assumptions that are not correct. Apple could release the code and patents related to how their watch syncs with their phones tomorrow and it's not like it would all of a sudden not work as well anymore. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to draw is that it is not that walled gardens work better than open standards. It is all down to the implementation.

 

It might be (I am making a big assumption here) that functions and features in walled gardens oftentimes work better because they are followed more rigorously when there are fewer companies involved. But I am not even sure that said assumption is even true. There are plenty of closed and proprietary standards/protocols that work really poorly and a lot of open ones that work wonderfully.

 

Your post is just assumptions based upon assumptions, based upon even more assumptions.

The idea that walled gardens work better than more open standards is an assumption that hasn't been quantified in any measurable way. It's just you making a very limited observation on a handful of products.

The idea that they work better because they are walled gardens is also an assumption that hasn't been proven. In fact, some very simple logic disproves this, because it is based on implementation (the actual code) and not the licensing.

It's not an assumption, it's pretty much a fact at this point. Show me one other ecosystem of devices and software solutions that works in such reliable harmony as Apple's. There isn't one. Android is a trainwreck from Google's implementation for most part down to own implementations like Samsung own ecosystems on top of Google's, Windows is a trainwreck, Linux is a trainwreck. The example of something as simple as phone and smartwatch seamlessly connect to eachother with BT and WiFi is example of how other ecosystems are failing at most basic things. And that is a definition of a walled garden with Apple where their watch just won't work with anything but iPhone. It could work with Android, but with a lot of hassle and "if" conditions making subpar experience. So they just don't play that game.

[Brooksie359]

35 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's not an assumption, it's pretty much a fact at this point. Show me one other ecosystem of devices and software solutions that works in such reliable harmony as Apple's. There isn't one. Android is a trainwreck from Google's implementation for most part down to own implementations like Samsung own ecosystems on top of Google's, Windows is a trainwreck, Linux is a trainwreck. The example of something as simple as phone and smartwatch seamlessly connect to eachother with BT and WiFi is example of how other ecosystems are failing at most basic things. And that is a definition of a walled garden with Apple where their watch just won't work with anything but iPhone. It could work with Android, but with a lot of hassle and "if" conditions making subpar experience. So they just don't play that game.

I definitely agree. for all that is good about open source there is a reason for the saying too many cooks in a kitchen aren't a good thing. I mean if you have a ton of different groups of people with different ideas as to what they want to see all contributing to a piece of software it's going to end up not being able to achieve any of their goals well. I mean apple leadership can easily set goals on what they want with their software and hardware and then have their team work on achieving that goal. You can't really do that nearly as well with open source where it's usually not one leadership dictating what is being done with the software.

[hishnash]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's how a lot of open source software works and it's really not a huge problem. You do however need to publish support lifecycles for major versions though.

 

Yes and those support lifecycles are much longer than every 3 months (apples point update cycle).  And you very quickly have support overlapping that is an issue for HW products that are running an OS,  say you provides support for 3 years on a given major os version that means the watch would need to be able to talk 3 to 12 different api revisions.  

[HenrySalayne]

8 hours ago, hishnash said:

The reason the walled garden approach works better in many cases is that the interface between things (like the watch and the phone) does not need to be static and does not need to be backward compatible.  Apple can update the way the phone talks with the watch with each minor iOS and watchOS update.    This massively reduces the amount of work that the teams need to do when implementing new features or even fixing bugs in existing features.  

Not really. Apple doesn't just "do things" like small dev teams might do. They have the API and the necessary documentation in their intranet. They have changelogs and they have feature requests. There is some overhead to make it public, there is some overhead to publish API changes and updates with a time frame. But the fundamentals are already in place for their own developers.

At the scale Apple operates, anything else would be just incredibly stupid.

[hishnash]

25 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Not really. Apple doesn't just "do things" like small dev teams might do. They have the API and the necessary documentation in their intranet.

From those that I know that work at apple internal apis change (all the time) they do not do documentation for these at best devs are told to go find the header files.  What they do have are tools to detect what other internal apps/services within apples larger codebase are using a given api so devs know what they re going to break and can reach other to those respective teams.  But it is common practice for internal private apis to change multiple times a year with breaking changes. The teams do not have backwards compiabilty with private apis, they would rather each into the code of the other team and fix it up to use the new api.. this is also why almost all of apples apps (even user facing apps that use private apis) ship within the OS and are pinned to a given os version.   

This also massively simplifies testing as you rumouring the entire combnaitral multination factors. 

[LAwLz]

21 hours ago, hishnash said:

The reason the walled garden approach works better in many cases is that the interface between things (like the watch and the phone) does not need to be static and does not need to be backward compatible.  Apple can update the way the phone talks with the watch with each minor iOS and watchOS update.    This massively reduces the amount of work that the teams need to do when implementing new features or even fixing bugs in existing features.  

As soon as you have a public api that others are using and you have no ability to controle their software update cycle you are stuck with either providing backwards compatibility or breaking things all the time.   Even fixing a small bug can have issues when your working with a public api as other devs may well have written thier code paths to expect this beavoir in effect turning the bug into feature for them.  

Minimising the API surface you publish publicly reduces your future headaches massively and improves that stability for users as the surface area of the api the apps users depend upon is smaller and more maintainable. 

That is a somewhat valid concern, but realistically it isn't much of an issue.

As leadeater said, you just need to create major and minor branches, which closed protocols already do (including Apple). If it didn't, then backward compatibility would constantly break. Apple likes to dump backward compatibility, but it's not like they make for example an Apple watch stop working from one version to another. They have their compatibility matrixes (internal or public) with feature availability depending on the software from both devices that are pairing. That's just how software projects work in general, even in closed ecosystems.

 

Making them more open does impose some additional challenges, but in general, it isn't much different. What is important to remember is that Apple (and other big companies) isn't a single entity that has full control over everything they do. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking of Apple has a single person who does everything, but in reality they have hundreds of different working groups that need to coordinate with each other using standardized procedures. I can't find many sources, but I've seen some claim they have somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 engineers. The people working on the software stack for Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, the pairing protocol, the watch software and iOS software might belong to 10 different teams and may or may not work to varying degrees of independence from one another. As a result, they absolutely need to have established procedures and change boards in place to control and coordinate, just like you would have on an open standard.

 

 

  

18 hours ago, RejZoR said:

It's not an assumption, it's pretty much a fact at this point. Show me one other ecosystem of devices and software solutions that works in such reliable harmony as Apple's.

I am not even sure what you are asking for. I get the impression that you are talking about some very specific thing you have noticed, and are missing the bigger picture. If you are asking for when open standards became better than closed standards then I got a ton of examples.

 

The various standards we use to communicate right now would be good examples. TCP/IP, HTTP, HTTPS, HTML, BGP, USB, the Internet, ASCII, PDF, DVD (vs VHS), Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, ODF, various media formats (like MP3, JPEG, MP4), GPS, the CAN bus, OAuth, AES, RSA, and the list goes on and on and on.

The list of things we use on a daily basis that are only possible because of consortiums and open standards is truly staggering. I don't think people realize that. Even the specific functions you are talking about are only possible because they rely on open standards like Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.

 

But I suspect those are not the type of things you are talking about, because you have some very particular thing in mind.

 

 

But I feel like this discussion won't go anywhere because you are still assuming correlation implies causation. It's like with the car example. You seem determined that all blue cars you have seen have been slower than the red cars, so you seem convinced that it is because of the color that they are slower. Right now you are basically just giving me examples of blue cars that are slower than red cars. I can't really deny it, but my argument is that it is not because of the color (or in this case, the fact that one is closed and one is "open", if you can call Windows and Android open which I certainly wouldn't).

[LAwLz]

18 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I definitely agree. for all that is good about open source there is a reason for the saying too many cooks in a kitchen aren't a good thing. I mean if you have a ton of different groups of people with different ideas as to what they want to see all contributing to a piece of software it's going to end up not being able to achieve any of their goals well. I mean apple leadership can easily set goals on what they want with their software and hardware and then have their team work on achieving that goal. You can't really do that nearly as well with open source where it's usually not one leadership dictating what is being done with the software.

I don't think you understand how open-source projects work. It's not the wild west. They absolutely have someone in the leadership role, and there are countless of examples where they are able to come together, set goals and work on them.

Also, I feel like this conversation has gone way off the rails. This really has nothing to do with open source. The DMA never even as much as mentions open source or anything like it. I feel like there is a lot of confusion of what is being said in the news here, and how software and software developments work in general.

[wanderingfool2]

  

On 7/9/2023 at 10:15 AM, HenrySalayne said:

Such a mature response, instead of saying anything useful or trying to make counterpoints.  Whether or not you like it, companies will try maintaining a certain amount of profits and retain revenue streams.

 

The Netflix example is a good example, whether you want to accept the fact or not, the birth of other competing services to Netflix has caused an overall rise in costs.  Netflix for example now has to bid more for streaming rights, $30m/year for Friends originally in 2015...they got into a bidding war in 2018/2019 and it ballooned to $100m/year (and later being outbid with $500m).  The amount they would have had to pay would be over $2/subscriber.

 

So try facepalming all you want, the simple fact is Netflix when it had an monopoly was able to dictate the lower prices for streaming rights.

 

Or do you seriously think that adding in things like HBO Max, Disney+, etc, didn't increase the overall cost to consumers by increasing the cost of the underlying rights costs (those old shows  that people want to watch, they all now have companies who have to bid to try retaining/attracting customers and those customers now have to sign up for additional services).

 

 

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Also, I feel like this conversation has gone way off the rails. This really has nothing to do with open source. The DMA never even as much as mentions open source or anything like it. I feel like there is a lot of confusion of what is being said in the news here, and how software and software developments work in general.

I agree it doesn't necessarily relate to open source...but it does have sort of a knock-down effect I think.

 

Consider a company like Google when creating Android.  While they were making things "open source", with key apps locked effectively behind a paywall, in the current rules of DMA I'm not sure they would have gone the approach of making it open source...and maybe in general not even create Android if they knew they wouldn't be able to stick things like Google searches into Android.

 

  

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I am not even sure what you are asking for. I get the impression that you are talking about some very specific thing you have noticed, and are missing the bigger picture. If you are asking for when open standards became better than closed standards then I got a ton of examples.

If I had to guess, it seems like maybe he's talking more about the aspect of being able to deprecate standards and essentially switch (breaking compatibility) because they can.  Similar to how x86_64 has so many bloated instruction sets that some are hardly ever used that effectively is wasted instructions.

 

So a hypothetical because I don't feel like looking up examples at the moment.  If Apple decided to update the communication between the iWatch and and iPhone to be more efficient...but by doing so ruins some behavior of the API's (i.e. Some 3rd party stuff would break, but the 1st party stuff wouldn't as they utilized the API differently...but still used the same API).  Under the DMA, if I read some of the rules correctly they wouldn't be able to push the update.  Instead they would have to introduce a new API, leave the old one and require an update for both watch and phone (instead of maybe just the phone).

[HenrySalayne]

16 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Such a mature response, instead of saying anything useful or trying to make counterpoints.  Whether or not you like it, companies will try maintaining a certain amount of profits and retain revenue streams.

The Netflix example is a good example, whether you want to accept the fact or not, the birth of other competing services to Netflix has caused an overall rise in costs.  Netflix for example now has to bid more for streaming rights, $30m/year for Friends originally in 2015...they got into a bidding war in 2018/2019 and it ballooned to $100m/year (and later being outbid with $500m).  The amount they would have had to pay would be over $2/subscriber.

So try facepalming all you want, the simple fact is Netflix when it had an monopoly was able to dictate the lower prices for streaming rights.

Or do you seriously think that adding in things like HBO Max, Disney+, etc, didn't increase the overall cost to consumers by increasing the cost of the underlying rights costs (those old shows  that people want to watch, they all now have companies who have to bid to try retaining/attracting customers and those customers now have to sign up for additional services).

Your misguided sentimentality for "the good ol' days of Netflix" and your complete disregard of basic market rules are staggering. Do you actually think "Netflix is so expensive because they have to bid insane sums for streaming rights" is a good argument? They have to? Why? Or their idiot customers wouldn't swallow their price hikes?

Your simple mind believes to have found a pattern, it mistakes correlation for causation and the very next thing is you're advocating for monopolies. Wow, just wow...

Do yourself and everybody else a favour and cancel your Netflix subscription - that's the only thing that works.

 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Consider a company like Google when creating Android.  While they were making things "open source", with key apps locked effectively behind a paywall, in the current rules of DMA I'm not sure they would have gone the approach of making it open source...and maybe in general not even create Android if they knew they wouldn't be able to stick things like Google searches into Android.

They will still be allowed to "stick things like Google search into Android". They will probably not be allowed to block others from changing the search provider however. The idea is that Google will have to compete by being the best search engine, and the one people willingly choose to use, instead of it being the one people are forced to use because they are blocking and using underhanded tactics to prevent others from becoming better.

 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If I had to guess, it seems like maybe he's talking more about the aspect of being able to deprecate standards and essentially switch (breaking compatibility) because they can.  Similar to how x86_64 has so many bloated instruction sets that some are hardly ever used that effectively is wasted instructions.

I think he is underestimating how many things Apple has to take into consideration when designing their products and how they aren't able to just break compatibility however they want, but I also think people are overestimating how "locked down" open standards are. It is possible to have an open standard and break backward compatibility. It happens all the time. Especially with software, where a lot of big projects have rolling releases with limited support periods and break backward compatibility. 

 

It's interesting that you are bringing up x86 because that is what I would consider a closed standard, while Arm is far more open. Which one has been more flexible and gone through the most major changes over the years? The more open one...

 

I also don't think the amount of times compatibility is broken is a good measurement of how flexible/agile a protocol/ecosystem is. Maybe the walled gardens have to break the compatibility more often (this is a big assumption but let's go with it) because they aren't as well designed to begin with? When you have multiple companies chipping in while designing it might just be that the protocol becomes more flexible and well thought out, and thus doesn't need to be revised as often. I feel like some people are measuring the wrong things and then drawing incorrect conclusions based on very limited observations.

 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So a hypothetical because I don't feel like looking up examples at the moment.  If Apple decided to update the communication between the iWatch and and iPhone to be more efficient...but by doing so ruins some behavior of the API's (i.e. Some 3rd party stuff would break, but the 1st party stuff wouldn't as they utilized the API differently...but still used the same API).  Under the DMA, if I read some of the rules correctly they wouldn't be able to push the update.  Instead they would have to introduce a new API, leave the old one and require an update for both watch and phone (instead of maybe just the phone).

I think you are reading the DMA incorrectly in that case. I mean, I am not a lawyer but I have read a large chunk of the law now (even though a lot of it probably goes over my head) and the various official posts from the EU commission about their intention. There are a lot of things that are unclear right now, but I don't see any indication that their intentions would be what you are describing.

 

I have not found anything in the DMA about having to support APIs for a certain amount of time. What the DMA would say in such a situation might be that Apple wouldn't allowed to change the APIs thus breaking support, and then keep the new and improved APIs to themselves. If they allowed others to use the new APIs then it would be fine. They don't even have to make it open source or take input from others about the APIs. 

In regards to something like syncing a watch with a phone, the DMA seems to basically just says they aren't allowed to give themselves an unfair advantage over others. If others have the same opportunities as Apple gives themselves, then everything is fine.

They need to compete by making their products as good as possible on a level playing field. Not by handicapping their competitors and winning that way.

[Thaldor]

IMO this thing is coming way too late, there's just too much "evil" in the tech world stemming from the ultimate greed of the corporations.

 

With these huge corporations there should be minimum level of compatibility and usability that pretty much all of these companies undercut. It's not even about open or closed source or licenses or anything like that, it is just pure greed not to implement even the minimum level of compatibility.

 

- Google: Putting the basic phone features behind the paywall. No one would have zero problems if it was just Google search, Play store and and other extended features of phone OS that were behind the paywall. The Evil-Google part is when the SMS and calling are behind the paywall, as in, the Android without features behind Google paywall isn't even on the level of a functioning phone OS, hell, calling it even an OS is a stretch.

 

- Apple: You cannot even use the basic functions of iExcrement without having iGarbage. How much it would cost Apple to implement the basic functions of BT connectivity so you could at least set up and use the basic functions of a watch and/or headphones without owning iPhone? It wouldn't cost them anything but they don't do that because they are evil and greedy. Probably no one is demanding them to provide the full "Already eaten fruit experience" on their competitors platform, but Apple delivers products that cannot even function on the basic level.

 

With these both the question is like Electrolux having a fridge with ability to communicate with Electrolux AC unit and them together figuring out how to save power by not running the fridge compressor when the room is too hot or some other shit. But if the consumer has Mitsubishi AC unit the Electrolux fridge doesn't even power on because the consumer doesn't have the Electrolux AC unit with which the fridge could have extra features.

 

The fridge that doesn't even work as a fridge without the extra features isn't a fridge, it's just hot garbage.

 

- Samsung: Kind of falls with the other two but mostly just because they are incompetent and try to mimic Apple. Their main problem is the force feeding garbage to consumers. Also probably the under the table deals with the Alphabet, they could completely make Android phone without paying the Google fee and using all of their own hot garbage apps but I guess Google either gives them a deep discount or even pays them to include Gapps.

At least their headphones and watches work as headphones and watches even with iProducts, that's like 100% more competent development than Apple has (if it doesn't work = completely incompetent development, period).

 

- Microsoft: Well, they clearly didn't learn the first time, better take the round two.

 

- Social media corporations: If it wasn't clear with the GDPR, "One's profits do not go before another's privacy."

 

- Amazon: I cannot say much about this since I live in on country where it's more Amazoff. As in, Finland doesn't have own Amazon site, ordering from Amazon is possible but a hassle and you wanna make sure you are visiting the German Amazon and not the UK or US site. Prime is pretty much just the streaming service, free deliveries and whatever other stuff isn't included or at least doesn't work, except the Twitch and other digital stuff.

But that can also be a reason for punishing them as they do not serve the whole EU the same.

 

Are these corporations going to drop this on the consumers, most likely, but with the restrictions and setting the sandbox fair at least there's going to be working/compatible competition. Also if these corporations didn't see this coming kilometers away, they really should take a good evaluation of their management and their ability to foresee where their decisions will lead.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

Your misguided sentimentality for "the good ol' days of Netflix" and your complete disregard of basic market rules are staggering. Do you actually think "Netflix is so expensive because they have to bid insane sums for streaming rights" is a good argument? They have to? Why? Or their idiot customers wouldn't swallow their price hikes?

Your simple mind believes to have found a pattern, it mistakes correlation for causation and the very next thing is you're advocating for monopolies. Wow, just wow...

Do yourself and everybody else a favour and cancel your Netflix subscription - that's the only thing that works.

I have talked about it prior to netflix getting competition and while the competition was starting, and I correctly assessed what would happen.

 

Your whole "simple mind" argument is an asinine ego petting for your inability to comprehend what I said.  You are too dense if you think $30m/year to $500m/year wouldn't create issues, because that's what Netflix would have to pay because it literally became bidding wars.   As a note, that equates to about $2/account.  You do realize the stupidity of the argument you also make, that they have to bid higher to keep their "idiot customers"...congratulations, you just described the scenario which happens when you have multiple streaming platforms bidding for streaming rights.

 

It's not correlation, it's well documented they got into a bidding war to suggest otherwise is just stupid.  From there it's simple to make the conclusion that Netflix having to pay more for streaming rights means having to raise costs.

 

28 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

They will still be allowed to "stick things like Google search into Android". They will probably not be allowed to block others from changing the search provider however. The idea is that Google will have to compete by being the best search engine, and the one people willingly choose to use, instead of it being the one people are forced to use because they are blocking and using underhanded tactics to prevent others from becoming better.

But that's where the issues start happening though, which is why I do find the bill overall concerning.

 

To clarify, I think it's good that Google shouldn't be allowed for force Samsung into exclusive Google branded Android.  I do think it's good overall what they are essentially forcing Apple to do...but it does create issues nonetheless.

 

For lets say Samsung, what if they wanted to do Play Store and not do Google's suite, or as a whole use the Google Services but exclude the PlayStore and ads (so Samsung has their own store and their landing page).  From what I gathered from the DMA is that this is now something that could happen, and Google wouldn't be allowed to stop it (having Samsung make the decision).  This does create an issue in that Google essentially created Android to monetize things like the ads (and their services).

 

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

think you are reading the DMA incorrectly in that case. I mean, I am not a lawyer but I have read a large chunk of the law now (even though a lot of it probably goes over my head) and the various official posts from the EU commission about their intention. There are a lot of things that are unclear right now, but I don't see any indication that their intentions would be what you are describing.

I think it's vague enough that you will see challenges to what is and isn't allowed.  That's why I am hesitant of things like this where it's a massive blob of regulations that could potentially have consequences.

 

From how I've read it, I think a business could effectively argue that a change to an API that effects others but not Apple (because lets say Apple tested their devices and didn't find an issue), Apple wouldn't be allowed changing it; as it would breach the interoperability portion.  Whether or not practically they could or not is something, but having the threat of such things becomes the issue if lets say future lawmakers decide to use such clauses to punish companies.

 

Similar to the effect how the computer hacking laws technically allow the prosecution of someone click ctrl-u and decode base64.  Intentions of a law doesn't really matter if the law itself isn't properly worded and specifies with precision what it's trying to do.

[hishnash]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If it didn't, then backward compatibility would constantly break.

So the watch currently does not have backwards protocole compatibility. If you upgrade your watch you must pair it with a phone that is running the corresponding version of iOS or newer.   The phone has backwards compatibly with some older watchOS versions, but with the watch even minor bug fix updates require the phone to be updated to the version that shipped at the same time as the bug fix or newer. 

If apple were to open up this protool with the correct support system it would mean all third party tools that talk to the watch would break on every minor watchOS update. Or the devs and testing teams would have a good bit more work for each watchOS update so that it maintained the older apis and behaviours. 

 

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

As a result, they absolutely need to have established procedures and change boards in place to control and coordinate, just like you would have on an open standard.

They have an internal process were they can check if a given private api is being used and they they include the dev that is using it in the email that proposes the change.    But there is no internal promise that a private api will continue working for X number of months let along years.  Anything within the OS that is all built at the same time can changes at any point and it does. 

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

just like you would have on an open standard.

They have coordination yes but the difference is they do not need to provide some promise to support things longer than needed.  Support for given legacy apis is on a case by case basis were they person using it explicitly needs to make a fuss if its going away. 

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Your whole "simple mind" argument is an asinine ego petting for your inability to comprehend what I said.  You are too dense if you think $30m/year to $500m/year wouldn't create issues, because that's what Netflix would have to pay because it literally became bidding wars.   As a note, that equates to about $2/account.  You do realize the stupidity of the argument you also make, that they have to bid higher to keep their "idiot customers"...congratulations, you just described the scenario which happens when you have multiple streaming platforms bidding for streaming rights.

 

It's not correlation, it's well documented they got into a bidding war to suggest otherwise is just stupid.  From there it's simple to make the conclusion that Netflix having to pay more for streaming rights means having to raise costs.

Why do they have to pay insane amounts of money for streaming rights?!?

Or do they want to pay this amount for the streaming rights, because they well know they can still make a good profit with this investment?

 

Which percentage of the payment do the $2/account account for?

[LAwLz]

10 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

For lets say Samsung, what if they wanted to do Play Store and not do Google's suite, or as a whole use the Google Services but exclude the PlayStore and ads (so Samsung has their own store and their landing page).  From what I gathered from the DMA is that this is now something that could happen, and Google wouldn't be allowed to stop it (having Samsung make the decision).  This does create an issue in that Google essentially created Android to monetize things like the ads (and their services).

It's only an issue if you believe that Google's services aren't good enough to compete on their own and thus Google has to make money by essentially forcing users to use their services.

The reason why Samsung ships their phones with Google Play Store shouldn't be "because they are forced to", it should be because "the users want to use the best app store, which is Google Play". What you are saying is basically "it's unfair that Google can't force users to use their service, because the users might not want to use them unless forced". What you are describing is a terrible situation for users that might now be fixed, and you are just worried that the companies might make less money if their services are so bad people won't use them unless forced.

 

 

10 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

From how I've read it, I think a business could effectively argue that a change to an API that effects others but not Apple (because lets say Apple tested their devices and didn't find an issue), Apple wouldn't be allowed changing it; as it would breach the interoperability portion.  Whether or not practically they could or not is something, but having the threat of such things becomes the issue if lets say future lawmakers decide to use such clauses to punish companies.

This is FUD. There is nothing in the bill that suggests this would be a case.

The text literally says:

Quote

If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.

It also says:

Quote

Furthermore, the gatekeeper should not be allowed to engage in any behaviour undermining interoperability as required under this Regulation, such as for example by using unjustified technical protection measures, discriminatory terms of service, unlawfully claiming a copyright on application programming interfaces or providing misleading information. Gatekeepers should not be allowed to circumvent their designation by artificially segmenting, dividing, subdividing, fragmenting or splitting their core platform services to circumvent the quantitative thresholds laid down in this Regulation.

If the APIs used by both first and third-party software are the same, then a change to the API will affect both or neither. All these scenarios being painted right now when Apple might end up in trouble are kind of ridiculous and indicates a lack of understanding of how software development is done and works.

It really is a non-issue. How do I know that? Because pretty much every single software company in the world, including Apple, already has to deal with providing APIs, it is not an issue. As I said earlier, even internally for their private APIs they have to treat it the same way they treat public APIs because their various developer teams contain thousands upon thousands of people that have to be able to rely on the APIs working a certain way without being the ones writing them.

The relationship and administrative portion of APIs is 99% the same regardless of whether or not an API is private or public at these large companies.

 

All of this is also a massive assumption because the EU hasn't actually given an indication that they will force anything like what is being discussed and described right now. All of this is currently speculation of what could potentially happen, but the EU so far hasn't given any indication of actually wanting to do.

But let's say that is what does end up happening, we have already been in that exact situation in the past with Microsoft. In 2001 Microsoft was forced by the US court to make their APIs public information, as well as information about some of their proprietary protocols public as well. The case is called United States v- Microsoft Corp if you want to read up about it. People made the same kind of FUD claims back then too, that this would stifle innovations, that companies wouldn't want to develop APIs if others had access to them, and so on. All of those turned out to be false. All the potential fears have been disproven by time. Microsoft just made their APIs public, and that was it. They didn't stop developing them. And before someone brings it up, no, the public APIs are not the reason why Windows is stuck with backward compatibility and a bunch of legacy things. That's because of Microsoft's own decisions. We know this for a fact because they did ditch a bunch of legacy stuff in products like Windows RT and those products failed. There wasn't any law that prevented them from doing whatever they wanted, except give themselves unfair advantages over their competitors.

[wanderingfool2]

17 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Why do they have to pay insane amounts of money for streaming rights?!?

Or do they want to pay this amount for the streaming rights, because they well know they can still make a good profit with this investment?

 

Which percentage of the payment do the $2/account account for?

Your second argument is plainly foolish, I'm literally making a point that it was cheaper for them to operate while they were the only one in the game.  Of course they want to make profits, but the fact is if they now have to bid 10x - 20x more for shows you get a few things that happen, less variety of shows or increased prices to consumers.  Which was my general point that there are scenarios where lack of competition did manage to help.

 

Based on 2019 numbers, when the $500m happened; there were ~151m users.  So $3.30/user/year, or 2.5% of revenue.  (The $2/account was me rounding down, but even if we use that number it still is 1.5%)

Based on 2015 numbers, $30m (which at the time was still considered steep); $0.42/user/year, 0.4% of revenue.

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

This is FUD. There is nothing in the bill that suggests this would be a case.

If the APIs used by both first and third-party software are the same, then a change to the API will affect both or neither. All these scenarios being painted right now when Apple might end up in trouble are kind of ridiculous and indicates a lack of understanding of how software development is done and works.

It really is a non-issue. How do I know that? Because pretty much every single software company in the world, including Apple, already has to deal with providing APIs, it is not an issue. As I said earlier, even internally for their private APIs they have to treat it the same way they treat public APIs because their various developer teams contain thousands upon thousands of people that have to be able to rely on the APIs working a certain way without being the ones writing them.

The relationship and administrative portion of APIs is 99% the same regardless of whether or not an API is private or public at these large companies.

It's not FUD; devils in the details and how things can get interpreted.

 

Changing an API can 100% have an effect on 3rd parties and not the first party.  The fact that you don't know that shows that you are the one lacking understanding.  Changes happening internally, like lets say bug fixes, are only tested against devices you "care" about.  So in Apples case, first party applications.

 

If people use API's in a way that Apple didn't necessarily expect, or internally doesn't use, but is within the behavior of the API changing then applying a bug fix that changes it could break a 3rd party app/device.

 

Speaking from experience, private API's have a tendency to be a different standard then publicly released API's.

 

Similar to if MS fixed the Lotus Leap Year Bug (it's still kept alive in Excel for "compatibility" reasons).  None of the functionality would break really for 1st party stuff, but there would be some applications/data out there that would be messed up due to that.

 

Even MS has issued some patches that effectively break some levels of API (but of course tested against MS products and major products so those didn't break).  How do I know, my system updated while I was in development of an inhouse access application; I got in in the morning thinking the code I wrote but hadn't tested yet broke the app.  I reverted the changes to discover it was still broken, MS had unintentionally introduced a specific call to an API where iirc the WHERE clause was no longer handled correctly in this particular scenario (so had to rewrite SQL statements to fix it, and then push a patch to everyone as some of the other inhouse applications we used used a similar statement...albeit in a portion of the apps that were not likely to be  used).  *The patch occurred sometimes in 2019, can't remember and don't feel like looking it up*

 

The point is, issuing "patches" or similar can break 3rd party programs that use the API; and like it or not if that happens the EU could then go after them...even if it's very petty.  Just like how people tried calling me out for saying decoding Base64 on an HTML page technically constitutes breaking the law...while it might be a stupid scenario which no one thinks could apply, the fact is it could apply (and can be weaponized)...like switching barcodes and getting charged for hacking because of it (it sounds stupid, but the fact is it happened)

 

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It's only an issue if you believe that Google's services aren't good enough to compete on their own and thus Google has to make money by essentially forcing users to use their services.

The reason why Samsung ships their phones with Google Play Store shouldn't be "because they are forced to", it should be because "the users want to use the best app store, which is Google Play". What you are saying is basically "it's unfair that Google can't force users to use their service, because the users might not want to use them unless forced". What you are describing is a terrible situation for users that might now be fixed, and you are just worried that the companies might make less money if their services are so bad people won't use them unless forced.

It's funny that you think that somehow the quality of the service is what dictates what people would use.

 

If Samsung released their flagship phones without Google Store, or Google search the majority of people who purchase phones would end up just using the Samsung equivalents.  Look at Bing, it was terrible yet by switching the default search people started using it.  Or Apple Maps originally, it was garbage for the longest time.

 

Also, don't put words in my mouth when you clearly don't understand what I am saying.  I never said that Google should be able to force users to only use their service.  They can uninstall it for all I care, and it should be allowed to uninstall...BUT you lack any business sense if you seriously think that allowing Samsung to strip out all of Google's stuff from Android (except for the services they want) is a good plan.

 

What should be allowed is Samsung can still make stock android without Google services, and android with google services...not a pick and choose what benefits them.  Do you not see the problem with what you are currently suggesting?  Under what you are suggesting there would have never been a will to release Android as Open Source.  Instead they would have just kept everything close propriety and then Google would have had their way, as the others wouldn't have been able to make stuff without Google's services.

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Your second argument is plainly foolish, I'm literally making a point that it was cheaper for them to operate while they were the only one in the game.  Of course they want to make profits, but the fact is if they now have to bid 10x - 20x more for shows you get a few things that happen, less variety of shows or increased prices to consumers.  Which was my general point that there are scenarios where lack of competition did manage to help.

 

Based on 2019 numbers, when the $500m happened; there were ~151m users.  So $3.30/user/year, or 2.5% of revenue.  (The $2/account was me rounding down, but even if we use that number it still is 1.5%)

Based on 2015 numbers, $30m (which at the time was still considered steep); $0.42/user/year, 0.4% of revenue.

And still you have no argument why they have to pay so much.

 

Your entire argument is just a fallacy. Ask youself what will happen, if there were no competing streaming services. Could Netflix pay less for streaming rights? Maybe, but that's completely irrelevant. Customers right now don't care about the price. They will probably stomach even higher prices. So if Netflix can justify their pricing even with competition around, you must be mad to suggest it would be any lower without competition.

 

It's worrying how many people lately advocate for monopolies and autocraties. We're heading strsight into a distopian future.

[Vilacom]

17 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

And still you have no argument why they have to pay so much.

 

Your entire argument is just a fallacy. Ask youself what will happen, if there were no competing streaming services. Could Netflix pay less for streaming rights? Maybe, but that's completely irrelevant. Customers right now don't care about the price. They will probably stomach even higher prices. So if Netflix can justify their pricing even with competition around, you must be mad to suggest it would be any lower without competition.

 

It's worrying how many people lately advocate for monopolies and autocraties. We're heading strsight into a distopian future.

I mean..they have to pay a lot because the way you attract customers to a streaming service is by having large amounts of content people want consistently.  The rights to that content is very valuable, the sitcoms people just like on in the background of what they’re doing in particular like the office/parks and rec/Seinfeld, so the people who own the rights charge a premium for it.  People also want exciting original content and the game has been pushed hard up by game of thrones.  The Witcher season 1 cost just under $100 million to make, for 8 episodes, and that was largely a passion project so you got someone like Henry Cavill for fairly cheap.

I promise you, if they could maintain good profitability without spending that kind of money, they happily would.  If you could make a billion dollars on a character drama with no VFX in Hollywood the MCU would vanish over night, if Tom Cruise’s name didn’t immediately give a movie 100 times the visibility and draw his salary per film would drop like a stone.

No business wants to spend a single penny more than they absolutely have to, so if they’re spending $500 million it’s because they have to and they think it’s a good business decision, same with increasing prices and cracking down on password sharing.  It’s because they think it’s the best move financially for them.  

 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's not FUD; devils in the details and how things can get interpreted.

It is. Let's not pretend like your posts aren't made with the intention of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding this.

The last sentence you wrote was written to make people doubt this legislation.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Changing an API can 100% have an effect on 3rd parties and not the first party.  The fact that you don't know that shows that you are the one lacking understanding.  Changes happening internally, like lets say bug fixes, are only tested against devices you "care" about.  So in Apples case, first party applications.

This assumes API changes will even happen... Which there is so far no indication of actually being true. Just keep that in mind for the rest of the conversation. This entire conversation about APIs is based on an assumption of something that MIGHT happen, but so far we don't have any indication of actually happening.

 

The likelihood of a bug fix to an API breaking things is a minimal risk. Why? Because:

1) The point of APIs is that they can be relied on and are fairly stable. Once an API is implemented and used then it most likely won't change much (the underlying code might, but the way it works won't). This is true for both APIs exposed to third-party developers as well as first-party developers. Why? Because the first-party developers are also teams that rely on the documentation being correct because several things are being worked on at the same time by different departments. Apple isn't a single developer that has control and knows everything. They have to read documentation too, and that documentation has to be accurate and up to date, and somewhat stable.

 

2) If it doesn't break things for Apple (which is something they already have to be considerate of) then the likelihood of it breaking something for everyone else is extremely small. APIs aren't like fully fledge programs that suddenly work a completely different way. They are fairly static, and they need to be because they are often called and used in several different places by several different things. Changing them is already annoying and risky even if they are only for internal use, so that is usually avoided.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If people use API's in a way that Apple didn't necessarily expect, or internally doesn't use, but is within the behavior of the API changing then applying a bug fix that changes it could break a 3rd party app/device.

Yes, and? That's not against the law, even if the DMA is in effect. But as I said earlier this is very unlikely to begin with for several reasons.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Speaking from experience, private API's have a tendency to be a different standard then publicly released API's.

I agree with that, but I don't agree that it is necessary for things to be that way, and I disagree with the picture you're trying to paint that this would somehow be a big issue, even if we assumed that this would become a thing which we, as I said earlier, have zero indication as of right now.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Similar to if MS fixed the Lotus Leap Year Bug (it's still kept alive in Excel for "compatibility" reasons).  None of the functionality would break really for 1st party stuff, but there would be some applications/data out there that would be messed up due to that.

[Citation Needed]

And even if it is true that some applications would be messed up, you're implying that:

1) It would actually be a big deal.

2) That they wouldn't be allowed to make this change under the DMA.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The point is, issuing "patches" or similar can break 3rd party programs that use the API; and like it or not if that happens the EU could then go after them...even if it's very petty.  Just like how people tried calling me out for saying decoding Base64 on an HTML page technically constitutes breaking the law...while it might be a stupid scenario which no one thinks could apply, the fact is it could apply (and can be weaponized)...like switching barcodes and getting charged for hacking because of it (it sounds stupid, but the fact is it happened)

You sure like bringing up old times when you think you were smart and then retelling it as if you were right.

I still think you were absolutely wrong and just fearmongering about the .zip domain by the way. And so far we still haven't seen any uptick in scams because of that domain, despite what the handful of (non-security people) doomsday sayers without were saying. 

 

The whole "the EU might go after them!" is once again just FUD and fearmongering. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's funny that you think that somehow the quality of the service is what dictates what people would use.

I don't think that at all. In fact, I think the opposite is true right now, because of all the vendor lock-in. The point of this law is to make it so that people choose services based on quality. Right now, that is often not possible because of the shady ways companies force users into using certain services.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If Samsung released their flagship phones without Google Store, or Google search the majority of people who purchase phones would end up just using the Samsung equivalents.  Look at Bing, it was terrible yet by switching the default search people started using it.  Or Apple Maps originally, it was garbage for the longest time.

I am not sure why you think Bing was a good example because that's a thing that is clearly failing even though it is being really aggressively pushed and forced. Even the more Bing-favorable numbers I can find put it at below 10%.

I also doubt that people would suddenly start using Samsung's store app if they were given a choice between it and Google Play, which is the scenario we are in today.

I am not sure what argument you are trying to make here because you are clearly talking about a scenario that the EU wants to avoid. They don't want Samsung to block the Google Play Store from their devices. They want the users to have a choice in which store they want on their phone. The scenario you are describing, where Samsung pushes their own store instead of the Play Store, is exactly what this law is supposed to prevent. Remember, Samsung is also on the list. 

You're currently making arguments for why this law is necessary.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Also, don't put words in my mouth when you clearly don't understand what I am saying.  I never said that Google should be able to force users to only use their service.  They can uninstall it for all I care, and it should be allowed to uninstall...BUT you lack any business sense if you seriously think that allowing Samsung to strip out all of Google's stuff from Android (except for the services they want) is a good plan.

I don't think Samsung stripping out all of Google's stuff in Android is a good plan. Thankfully, the DMA would not allow that to happen.

Sorry but it's hard to understand what you are saying when you seem to be arguing against yourself without realizing it.

 

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

What should be allowed is Samsung can still make stock android without Google services, and android with google services...not a pick and choose what benefits them.  Do you not see the problem with what you are currently suggesting?  Under what you are suggesting there would have never been a will to release Android as Open Source.  Instead they would have just kept everything close propriety and then Google would have had their way, as the others wouldn't have been able to make stuff without Google's services.

Ehm, what? I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what this law says. If you think that Google would have been allowed to "had their way" if they had just made Android closed source then you are wrong. That is the path Apple chose and they will arguably be more heavily affected by this law than Google. Why do you think making things closed source would somehow shield you from this law?

You are right, they shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose what benefits them. That's what this law is intending to prevent. It puts control back in the hands of users. The users gets to pick and choose what they want to use, without roadblocks being put up by companies like Samsung, Google and Apple.

Most of what you are writing right now are arguments for why this law is a good thing.

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

And still you have no argument why they have to pay so much.

 

Your entire argument is just a fallacy. Ask youself what will happen, if there were no competing streaming services. Could Netflix pay less for streaming rights? Maybe, but that's completely irrelevant. Customers right now don't care about the price. They will probably stomach even higher prices. So if Netflix can justify their pricing even with competition around, you must be mad to suggest it would be any lower without competition.

 

It's worrying how many people lately advocate for monopolies and autocraties. We're heading strsight into a distopian future.

"Customers right now don't care about the price" That's a stupid argument, they do care.  I cut my service because of it.  Honestly I'm done arguing with you, as it's like arguing at a wall.  You obviously don't understand that they had to pay $30m before competition and $500m after competition started.    The loss in profit margin has to be made up, and that is by increasing prices.

 

I don't like monopolies, but incessant over regulations is not the way to go.

 

43 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is. Let's not pretend like your posts aren't made with the intention of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding this.

The last sentence you wrote was written to make people doubt this legislation.

Saying something factual does not make it FUD.  Your kind of response is exactly the same type when I was pointing out the Missouri journalist could actually be charged if the prosecutor so chose to.  It doesn't matter if you don't think it applies in broad situations, if it still does apply if they so choose it to.

 

46 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You sure like bringing up old times when you think you were smart and then retelling it as if you were right.

I still think you were absolutely wrong and just fearmongering about the .zip domain by the way. And so far we still haven't seen any uptick in scams because of that domain, despite what the handful of (non-security people) doomsday sayers without were saying. 

And you like to bring out "I'm qualified listen to me", ignore everything someone who is "lesser says".  Those security researchers actually did mention it was a security risk, but you conveniently just chose the bit they mentioned it was overblown in terms of media and not the bit that they still recognized it's a bad move adding a tld that matches a common file type.  I stand by what I said in that topic, if you don't believe that it's easier to ask someone to hit windows key and type updates.zip, then you have never experienced what users are like.  As for your whole "upticks", yes I have seen it come through in some of the emails

 

I bring up things like that law because it fits with this case.  It's the same type of attitude I got then as well, the whole "your wrong", "laws don't work like that"...and yet they do work like that.

 

It's funny that you bring up the whole don't know software stuff, when you are making the absurd claim that companies don't change API's that occasionally break 3rd party stuff.

 

58 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

[Citation Needed]

And even if it is true that some applications would be messed up, you're implying that:

1) It would actually be a big deal.

2) That they wouldn't be allowed to make this change under the DMA.

And point #2 is exactly the point that was being made.  It's a restriction to how they can change API.  They effectively need to then test a bunch of additional cases, and can't break interoperability...even if it means leaving in a "bug".

 

While not the exact one, I know this is a similar one
KB3085368

 

It didn't really break anything with MS, but it sure caused issues as some things used that.  Was I fuming at MS when that update got released, sure, but I don't think MS should get in trouble for releasing it.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think Samsung stripping out all of Google's stuff in Android is a good plan. Thankfully, the DMA would not allow that to happen.

Sorry but it's hard to understand what you are saying when you seem to be arguing against yourself without realizing it.

I'm not, I'm trying to point out that there is a fine line that this law isn't doing to discern.  You just are viewing it as though it's a binary thing.

 

Here's a way of looking at it then:

What I'm against

Google's forced contract that producing Android products with Google Store and services PREVENTS those same makers from making Android with zero Google stuff in it. (Just using standard Android Open Source).

 

What I'm against, and what DMA seems to now allow

Samsung ditching all of Google Store, Google ads etc. but still being allowed to use the Google Services that they want (or can negotiate Google to pay them for).

 

If DMA was a thing back in the day, I could very well see Google not going Open Source because the instant they do that they lose so much of what they stand to gain.  I view this as a way that companies like Alphabet, Meta, and Apple will close down almost more of their ecosystem adding in extra measures to make sure they can maintain the same levels of profits as before.

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

"Customers right now don't care about the price" That's a stupid argument, they do care.  I cut my service because of it. 

"I'm not a customer anymore because I care about the price, but your argument is stupid."- congratulations on this incredibly smart point literally just confirming what I said. Who would have thought customer choice might be the tool to regulate a market and to tell a company that their current pricing is too high...

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Saying something factual does not make it FUD.  Your kind of response is exactly the same type when I was pointing out the Missouri journalist could actually be charged if the prosecutor so chose to.  It doesn't matter if you don't think it applies in broad situations, if it still does apply if they so choose it to.

Yes, it can still be FUD even if it's factual. Because there are varying degrees of certainty.

Saying that something might happen, and therefore we should do X can absolutely be FUD. It was popularized by IBM in the technology sphere when they started telling companies that "nobody got fired for buying IBM". That might have been true, but that doesn't mean the potentially scary scenario their salespeople painted was actually something that was going to happen. This conversation lacks any and all consideration of what the likelihood of things actually happening is.

It's not enough to just think of a plausible scenario and then go we shouldn't do this because this might happen". You also have to consider how probable the scenario is. That's why I called your posts FUD, because you haven't done that.

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you like to bring out "I'm qualified listen to me", ignore everything someone who is "lesser says". 

Only when you try and sound credible by bringing up past things that may or may not have happened, or are retold a potentially incorrect way.

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Those security researchers actually did mention it was a security risk, but you conveniently just chose the bit they mentioned it was overblown in terms of media and not the bit that they still recognized it's a bad move adding a tld that matches a common file type. 

Which is exactly what I said in that topic as well. that it was way overblown and not actually a serious threat. But enough about that topic now. If you want to keep that topic going then respond to that thread instead, where I clearly time and time again said that it was not a serious threat, and I am even sure I said "not a serious threat doesn't mean it isn't a threat, just that it isn't a big one" or something along those lines).

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

As for your whole "upticks", yes I have seen it come through in some of the emails

I'm sure you have...

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's funny that you bring up the whole don't know software stuff, when you are making the absurd claim that companies don't change API's that occasionally break 3rd party stuff.

Stop with the strawman arguments. I never said, "Companies don't change APIs that occasionally break 3rd party stuff".

Of course they do. You will not find me ever saying that it doesn't happen in this thread. What I have said is that it doesn't happen very often (relative term, compared to how often changes don't break things) and that there are several ways around it. Plus that we have not even once heard the EU say they will go after APIs using this law. That's a scenario you have come up with and keep hammering on despite it not even being a confirmed risk. It's just "something that has a possibility of happening", once again ignoring the "probability" aspect of risk assessment.

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And point #2 is exactly the point that was being made.  It's a restriction to how they can change API.  They effectively need to then test a bunch of additional cases, and can't break interoperability...even if it means leaving in a "bug".

[Citation Needed]

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

What I'm against, and what DMA seems to now allow

Samsung ditching all of Google Store, Google ads etc. but still being allowed to use the Google Services that they want (or can negotiate Google to pay them for).

It's more nuanced than that. Remember, Samsung is also on the list and as a result won't be allowed to do whatever they want, such as unfairly favoring its own services.

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If DMA was a thing back in the day, I could very well see Google not going Open Source because the instant they do that they lose so much of what they stand to gain.  I view this as a way that companies like Alphabet, Meta, and Apple will close down almost more of their ecosystem adding in extra measures to make sure they can maintain the same levels of profits as before.

Open vs closed source has nothing to do with the DMA. It has absolutely zero impact on how it gets treated under the DMA.

You highlighting how companies are moving towards more and more closed-source ecosystems is just further evidence that this kind of law is needed. The things you say which are just completely wild make me think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what this law is about. Again, it has absolutely zero to do with open vs closed source. Google would have been in the exact same situation even if Android wasn't open source (assuming it would have gotten as popular despite being closed source). 

It sounds like you think closing down the Android source would have somehow shielded Google from the effects of the DMA, but it wouldn't, because it doesn't take open vs closed source into consideration. It doesn't take into consideration what is vs what isn't part of the OS either. If anything, Google might have been forced to make MORE changes if they had bundled things as "part of their closed source OS" from the get go.

 

The entire point of this legislation is to make sure companies don't "close down more of their ecosystems".

[Dracarris]

Not sure if this has already been discussed: As much as I hate TikTok, why is ByteDance on this list? I can see that they match the criteria, but IMHO none of the rules applied to them really make much sense as they seem to target OSes (mostly mobile ones).

[Thaldor]

13 hours ago, Vilacom said:

I mean..they have to pay a lot because the way you attract customers to a streaming service is by having large amounts of content people want consistently.  The rights to that content is very valuable, the sitcoms people just like on in the background of what they’re doing in particular like the office/parks and rec/Seinfeld, so the people who own the rights charge a premium for it.  People also want exciting original content and the game has been pushed hard up by game of thrones.  The Witcher season 1 cost just under $100 million to make, for 8 episodes, and that was largely a passion project so you got someone like Henry Cavill for fairly cheap.

I promise you, if they could maintain good profitability without spending that kind of money, they happily would.  If you could make a billion dollars on a character drama with no VFX in Hollywood the MCU would vanish over night, if Tom Cruise’s name didn’t immediately give a movie 100 times the visibility and draw his salary per film would drop like a stone.

No business wants to spend a single penny more than they absolutely have to, so if they’re spending $500 million it’s because they have to and they think it’s a good business decision, same with increasing prices and cracking down on password sharing.  It’s because they think it’s the best move financially for them.  

 

On the other hand nothing forces Netflix to pay the $500m for Friends instead of producing The Witcher 5 times.

At the same time competition does what it promises to do, while Netflix could probably pay $1b per MCU movie to Disney, Disney doesn't need to pay itself extra for the rights to show MCU movies on Disney+ which is why it is around half the price of Netflix with same features (4K, Dolby Atmos, "the full package"). Of course Disney still needs to produce them but with their backlog having a massive streaming service is mainly all about the infrastructure costs.

 

Is it unfair for Netflix? Probably but that's what the world is.

The question with DMA is more about that Disney shouldn't be able to take the choice from Netflix to either pay the $500m for the series or produce it themselves, neither Disney should be able to block Netflix from Samsung or Apple TVs through some exclusivity deals or other anti-competitive stuff. Same time Disney, as huge as they are, shouldn't be able to market Disney+ as free service if the free tier was "Disney-" service that just lets the customer to scroll through the content of Disney+ but cannot even play trailers, as in market service as free when the free tier isn't basicly even the service (this is about Android which really isn't the marketed "free phone OS" without company paying Google for the GApps which include phonebook, phone and message services which are basic features of a phone and without them you really cannot call a device phone).

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

Not sure if this has already been discussed: As much as I hate TikTok, why is ByteDance on this list? I can see that they match the criteria, but IMHO none of the rules applied to them really make much sense as they seem to target OSes (mostly mobile ones).

They are on the list because they match the criteria. If the rules don't match the things they do then they won't have to change anything.

It's kind of like how a theoretical law might say "Grocery stores that sell things by weight have to have scales accessible by customers". A store that doesn't sell anything by weight will not be affected by that law, even though it is still classified as a grocery store. It is also a good idea to have them on the list of "grocery stores" in case they start selling things by weight in the future.