avon b7

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

ericthehalfbee said:

eeks the EU has done nothing about this. I’ve seen no investigation or even a suggestion of one. Yet this Epic ban apparently needed to be looked at immediately by the EU?

The fact nothing has been done about Apple’s rules suggests that Apple is, in fact, in compliance with the DMA and these rules are staying.

It's only been two days, not weeks, since the EU DMA rules went into effect. The commission announced in advance that March 7th was the day that active examinations of the gatekeepers compliance would begin.

 I fully expect a few knocks on doors, and a bit of fine-tuning from the affected big techs, preferably without fines being the driving reason for the requisite changes.

That’s quite the spin. There’s no stipulation that says the EU has to wait until the DMA comes into effect before they investigate any potential issues. Especially with the complaints from Epic & Spotify.

If the EU fine tunes the DMA it exposes them as the utter incompetent and idiotic lawmakers they truly are.

foregoneconclusion said:

IMO, a calculated move by Apple to increase the odds that Epic actually follows the terms in the EU. It’s likely the outcome they were expecting. Epic will get it’s store but now has more pressure to play by the rules due to the EU going up to bat for them.

williamlondon said:

lam92103 said:

India is also working on a similar law and can fine companies based on global turnover. It is not long till Apple will be forced to allow competition by laws world over. They should be using this as a PR opportunity to get customers on their side, by offering some concessions, rather trying to fight the legislation

They already have customers on their side, you think all Apple customers were ignorant about the devices they bought or that they lied in those surveys that consistently put Apple at the top of customer service rankings? The EU is ignoring all of them by kowtowing to greedy, whiny corporate bitches like Epic and Spotify. The world is truly upside down on this.

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

gatorguy said:

EU Commissioner Thierry Breton yesterday:

"Under the DMA, there is no room for threats by gatekeepers to silence developers."

Sounds like a line in the sand.

Poorly designed and implemented, dare I state, authoritarian, legislation at work. There should be mechanisms available to both parties to mitigate conflicts.

It went through all the typical phases before reaching its final state. That included industry consultantation. 

What conflicts are you referring to? 

Once passed, you either comply or you don't. If you're on the hook for something you have a voice. You will be heard. 

Even right now the EU has asked Apple to explain its position. Nothing authoritarian here.

As with any new legislation, kinks will have to be ironed out. We aren't talking about some little by-law. There are plenty of intricacies that will need to be dealt with along the way.

No different to any other EU Directive. 

That said, IMO, Apple's first stab at compliance has been deliberately confrontational. 

The confrontation is wrt Epic. The Architect of the DMA made the comment "there is no room for threats by gatekeepers to silence developers". Yet, Apple has a valid point wrt to Epic, not a threat.

Thierry is not involved in enforcement, so should have avoided meddling in public. More to the point, and as I stated, this is untested legislation, so expectation are that it will have to be evolved over time.

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

spock1234 said:

avon b7 said: As for violating a contract clause, that doesn't mean much. The presence of a clause doesn't make it legal. A clause itself can be challenged in court. 

Obviously, you are not a lawyer or a Judge. Violating a contract is everything! Challenging a clause in court is different than violating it blatantly, and then launching a pre-planned marketing blitz about it. That's the very definition of 'acting in bad faith'. Courts don't look too kindly on that. 

You mean like what Apple did with Qualcomm on patents? 

Signing a contract, violating the terms by refusing to pay and then making a very public fuss about why it was violating the contract. 

Oh dear.

Comparing two completely different cases, one of contract law, and other of intellectual property, isn't the snappy retort that you believe it is, but by all means continue your undying support of Epic.