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

[graograman]

Netflix wasn't so cheap in the early days because they had a monopoly. They were a monopoly and cheap because nobody, especially not the content right holders, thought streaming would be as profitable as it is. They sold their shows for cheap under the assumption that a few thousand people would see them, not millions of subscriptions. 

 

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 7/8/2023 at 4:49 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

By essentially eliminating a way that carriers used to keep customers, they introduced a need to make more money.  Therefore it hurt the consumers more in the long run.

Till the 70s and the 80s, AT&T was the market monopoly in telephony. MCI and others existed, but the space was dominated by AT&T. However, AT&T was regulated and then broken up in the early 80s and there was a flood of newcomers. Despite the breakup, the prices of services actually increased for a few years before going down. This was because the AT&T/Bell system was tightly controlled and quite efficient, however due to the breakup, the system now often had to go through multiple vendors, most of which tried to squeeze profitability out of customers. However, in the longer run,(by the 90s, prices had fallen. Another important thing. Since AT&T controlled the entire network in the 70s, modems couldn't be hooked up without paying a lot of money.  Post breakup, these costs went down drastically, and modem usage spread, leading to the widespread adoption of the internet.

 

 

Typically, when market consolidation is broken, prices go up for a few years. But it is necessary to break open these markets still, else product innovation is controlled by a single body.

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Typically, when market consolidation is broken, prices go up for a few years. But it is necessary to break open these markets still, else product innovation is controlled by a single body.

When we did the same with our Telco we also put in place market pricing regulation as well so there wasn't going to be a price sting or retaliation from being broken up or being forced to provide wholesale network access (at the time the bigger part of the effort and country needs).

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 7/11/2023 at 10:56 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

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.

the netflix example is a great one.

 

When film was first invented, it was quickly monopolized by the Edison film trust. The edison film trust worked to eliminate losses by standardizing the quality of movies put out.

Quote

The MPPC eliminated the outright sale of films to distributors and exhibitors, replacing it with rentals, which allowed quality control over prints that had formerly been exhibited long past their prime. The trust also established a uniform rental rate for all licensed films, thereby removing price as a factor for the exhibitor in film selection, in favor of selection made on quality, which in turn encouraged the upgrading of production values.

However, they also:

Spoiler

he MPPC also established a monopoly on all aspects of filmmaking. Eastman Kodak owned the patent on raw film stock, and the company was a member of the trust and thus agreed to sell stock only to other members. Likewise, the trust's control of patents on motion picture cameras ensured that only MPPC studios were able to film, and the projector patents allowed the trust to make licensing agreements with distributors and theaters – and thus determine who screened their films and where.

Spoiler

The MPPC also strictly regulated the production content of their films, primarily as a means of cost control. Films were initially limited to one reel in length (13–17 minutes),^[4] although competition by independent and foreign producers by 1912 led to the introduction of two-reelers, and by 1913, three and four-reelers.^[5]

If you want monopoly for cheaper prices, get ready for degraded and increasingly homogenized bland content. Because that maximizes profits.

[Crazybrainman]

the problem i have with this is that its forcing companies to do what parents should be doing themselves not the government or companies the security they should be doing shouldn't be against laws out there but stop taking the childrens securioty and control totally away from parents this is a start

[WolframaticAlpha]

On 7/9/2023 at 11:25 AM, RejZoR said:

History has shown time and time again that open stuff just never works right even if it's the best shit ever on paper.

>Makes a vague and bullshit statement
>provides no proof or data for it

>leaves.

Underlying technologies are all largely open. ''Open stuff'' doesn't work for consumer electronics, because ''Open stuff'' makes less money for corporations than closed and tied down ''stuff'' and the consumer electronics space requires large investments, which only these corporations can make.

On 7/9/2023 at 2:18 PM, RejZoR said:

don't even think of whining I'm an Apple fanboy coz I have Galaxy S23 Ultra and Galaxy Watch 4 and they don't work even remotely as well as Apple's ecosystem did.

subjective

On 7/9/2023 at 2:18 PM, RejZoR said:

The wonderful open Android ecosystem that everyone has their own flawed take on that never actually works right or even actually well.

>my experience is applicable for everyone else too!

bravo. Why do you use anecdotal evidence to make absolute statements?

[LAwLz]

On 7/15/2023 at 11:42 PM, Crazybrainman said:

the problem i have with this is that its forcing companies to do what parents should be doing themselves not the government or companies the security they should be doing shouldn't be against laws out there but stop taking the childrens securioty and control totally away from parents this is a start

I recommend you read what I wrote in the OP and what the law says because this has nothing to do with parental control. Unless you are saying that Apple's parents (Tim Cook's mom maybe?) should have told Apple to allow side-loading apps in iOS.

[HenrySalayne]

On 7/15/2023 at 11:42 PM, Crazybrainman said:

the problem i have with this is that its forcing companies to do what parents should be doing themselves not the government or companies the security they should be doing shouldn't be against laws out there but stop taking the childrens securioty and control totally away from parents this is a start

16 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I recommend you read what I wrote in the OP and what the law says because this has nothing to do with parental control. Unless you are saying that Apple's parents (Tim Cook's mom maybe?) should have told Apple to allow side-loading apps in iOS.

You are both talking about the DMA, but different parts of it. Amazon is considered a VLOP (very large online platform) and a gatekeeper at the same time. The latter is discussed in this topic, while the first one was discussed in WAN show.

Quote

A VLOP designation requires companies to do more to tackle illegal online content, undertake risk management, conduct external and independent auditing and share data with authorities and researchers.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/amazon-challenges-eu-online-content-rules-says-unfairly-singled-out-2023-07-11/

 

The WAN show did an abysmal job in this regard. Even knowing what they were talking about, it was hard to follow the show since they gave absolutely no background information. The entirety of DMA needs to be a topic for discussion, not just the snipped of little Amazon complaining about being a VLOP.

 

 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

You are both talking about the DMA, but different parts of it. Amazon is considered a VLOP (very large online platform) and a gatekeeper at the same time. The latter is discussed in this topic, while the first one was discussed in WAN show.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/amazon-challenges-eu-online-content-rules-says-unfairly-singled-out-2023-07-11/

 

The WAN show did an abysmal job in this regard. Even knowing what they were talking about, it was hard to follow the show since they gave absolutely no background information. The entirety of DMA needs to be a topic for discussion, not just the snipped of little Amazon complaining about being a VLOP.

I don't know what was said on the WAN show, but the part you are quoting is a different law. This topic is about the DMA (Digital Markets Act). The link you posted is about the DSA (Digital Services Act).

 

Very similar sounding, but very different.

[HenrySalayne]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't know what was said on the WAN show, but the part you are quoting is a different law. This topic is about the DMA (Digital Markets Act). The link you posted is about the DSA (Digital Services Act).

 

Very similar sounding, but very different.

You are right, my bad. WAN show was talking about the DSA which has the same criteria as the DMA to classify something as a VLOP or gatekeeper respectively.