Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

consilium.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#561

Post by spywaregorilla »

ekianjo wrote: post #544
spywaregorilla wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always see comments like this and they're so confusing. They just kind of assume that nobody has thought about these questions. Did you even check if they were addressed? If not, why are you asserting that these questioned are opened? For one, it's not about devices, it's about digital market platforms. That's why it's called the digital markets act. Let's see what we get when we google this? Here's one: https://ww…

All these numbers and criteria seem to be completely cherry picked to fit specific companies. So bad.

Which specific companies have they been cherry picked for? Are there any set of numbers that you would like more to generally capture the concept of large tech giants?

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#562

Post by creato »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #408
judge2020 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the first two are very important questions. For example, if I make $500 “unhackablePhone”, where it literally doesn’t run web apps and every app is vetted by top-talent security researchers for weeks, and then I sell billions of these devices, do I then have to open up the ecosystem to allow anyone to be able to take a phone, punch in the passcode, and install a third party App Store? This is synonymous with the curr…

>For example, if I make $500 “unhackablePhone”, where it literally doesn’t run web apps and every app is vetted by top-talent security researchers for weeks, and then I sell billions of these devices, do I then have to open up the ecosystem to allow anyone to be able to take a phone, punch in the passcode, and install a third party App Store? Well that would depend, are you a "gatekeeper", as defined in the Regulatio…

It seems clear that the hypothetical company would meet this definition, and the regulation would completely defeat the purpose of the proposed company.

I don’t know how useful this particular hypothetical is, but it’s definitely a “code smell” that the proposed company’s seemingly only options would be to limit sales to retain the “not a gatekeeper” status or stop doing business in the EU.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#563

Post by phoe18 »

lapetitejort wrote: post #390
fbanon wrote: post #192

What HackerNews thinks will happen: "zomg, I will finally be able to run Arch on my iPhone!" What will actually happen: "honey, something is wrong with my phone, whenever I unlock it, a popup jumps up that says 'Please update the Adobe™ Updater™ to get up to date Adobe™ Software Updates', could you take a look at it?"

So true. On my Pixel phone, which allows alternate app stores, I had to update the Adobe Updater to update Adobe Reader, Epic EpicStore to update Fortnite Update Store to update Fortnite, TenCent Store to update Grindr, and finally F-Droid Pro Max Store to update Signal. Why do I have to download so many app stores on Android!!

missed the /s.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#564

Post by dane-pgp »

kmeisthax wrote: post #184
losvedir wrote: post #143

I'm sort of surprised at the positive tone here. Sure, it's nice for non-technical people to enumerate a lot of nice to haves, but just asserting something doesn't make it true or possible. As one example, making "core messaging functionality interoperable". How exactly does that work with end-to-end encryption? I suppose we'd need some sort of open system and protocol for all the tricky key sharing stuff? That would…

There's no particular reason preventing us from having interoperable E2E; we could already have interoperable E2E e-mail today if we wanted. Securely bootstrapping key exchange could be done through having one phone take a picture of a QR code on the other phone. Though, to be fair, I have no idea if any existing E2E services actually let you do this. "In-band"/electronic key introduction does require the message ser…

> E-mail was an absolute disaster because there was no barrier to entry for someone who just wants to send unsolicited garbage to everyone.

Email spam is possible because of the expectation that you can contact someone you've had no prior interaction with. (Also, it at least used to be quite easy to spoof the sender address because participants couldn't cryptographically prove their identities, but we now rely on tech like DKIM to mitigate this).

Messaging apps have an easier job because the services can refuse to deliver messages to people who haven't already received your public key (or some short, per-contact, pre-shared secret).

In fact, email encryption could also work this way, if users first had to send a standardised introduction message, and servers rejected any further messages until the recipient had marked the sender as trusted.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#565

Post by golemotron »

capableweb wrote: post #166
golemotron wrote: post #162

At what point does it just become cheaper and more prudent to leave the EU market?

Considering that the EU is the second largest consumer market in the world (at least according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_consumer_marke... ), it seems like that point is kind of far away.

Could be as early as winter. Things are not very bullish for the EU right now given their energy situation.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#566

Post by from »

PoignardAzur wrote: post #538
from wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

"I don't mean to be presumptuous, but here's a sweeping statement about the entire world economy that assumes Google is representative of every industrial sector there is. Also, any criticism of monopoly power can only possibly come from how jealous other countries are of our American Innovation."

No post body was provided.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#567

Post by Apocryphon »

giantrobot wrote: post #557
Apocryphon wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think that setting up an alternative app store is more difficult than one can imagine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31991394 Out of the ones you've listed, I think Epic has the highest likelihood to do it, not just because they were the only one to take substantiative legal action to try to force it, but because theirs is a platform that might actually offer compelling content that would give users a…

Facebook took a huge revenue hit when Apple started enforcing permissions on app spying. I see them definitely creating a "Metaverse" App Store filled with their spyware. They have the leverage to push users to their store between Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Don't forget Facebook used to be a huge games platform for Flash games. Running an App Store is hard but companies like Facebook and ByteDance already run…

> I see them definitely creating a "Metaverse" App Store filled with their spyware.

They could do that from a technical/engineering level, but I question their product/business capability to woo users to such a store. Meta is an old tech dinosaur at this point, and their Metaverse initiatives have yet to bear any fruit. Users at this point are all juggling nearly a dozen of social media, email, e-commerce, streaming entertainment, and so on accounts. Dealing with another Meta App Store account to manage is going to be inherently a source of friction unless Meta presents a lot of compelling new content to win them over, which I completely question their product ability to execute on.

> They have the leverage to push users to their store between Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

Right- I understand that taking their existing offerings and moving it to their store is a way to artificially boost demand. But it will come with blowback. Users will be annoyed at dealing with another account, most will see it as a transparent attempt to steal their data, and a non-zero amount will not bother to migrate. They'll try to use mobile web or stick to only desktop for some apps. Facebook DAU has dropped in a prior quarter, their continued level of usage is not guaranteed; perhaps Meta will soon find more users than they expected can live without their product.

And if something as crucial as WhatsApp is moved off of its currently largest platform- the App Store- into a scammy Meta App Store exclusively, well I doubt the regulators will sit still for that either. Not only does it also seem like a monopolistic move, that also subjects such a store to scrutiny as well. Regulators aren't happy at big tech for user data tracking. It's another issue they're pursuing, and the idea that they'll let a Meta or Google third party app store off scot-free for doing so is pretty unrealistic.

> Running an App Store is hard but companies like Facebook and ByteDance already run the sort of infrastructure needed.

I mean from a business perspective, not purely technical. I remember how Microsoft desperately tried to get third party developers for the Windows Phone store, and the steady demise of Facebook Apps as a platform. (Not to mention how their one prior mobile play, Facebook Home for Android, was a complete bust.) It's hard to chase after both third party devs and consumers, even if they offer lower margins than 30%. Most app devs will almost certainly keep their apps listed on the App Store and on the Play Store, because that's where the overwhelming majority users will be.

> The wording of the DMA also seems like it would be difficult for Apple to stymie their data collection at the OS level.

We'll see how it goes. I believe regulators can chew gum and walk at the same time. App Store monopolies aren't the only issue that's on their minds right now. Even Google itself is changing Play Store tracking policies:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/16/google-plans-android-privacy...

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#568

Post by expensive_news »

wussboy wrote: post #407
LeanderK wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much welcome this legislation (and I use an iPhone). How would you approach this otherwise? The EU probably can't break up Google or Apple (how would this even look like?) and the walled gardens are clearly a market failure, including apples fat margins. You mention details, but regulation can be well made and just continuing the status quo is also bad. All regulations open up questions but it's not the wild w…

“I oppose this legislation that will bring massive good because I can imagine a few edge cases that have almost certainly been addressed but weren’t explicitly stated in the summary I glanced at.” This type of comment is everywhere on the Internet and completely predictable.

Frankly I don’t see how this legislation could possibly bring massive good. For one I like my iPhone how it is and don’t see how I could possibly benefit from this passing.

As an American I think regulation should only be enacted when absolutely necessary, and these laws seem anything but necessary. I’ve rarely seen convincing cases of innovation being stifled or people being harmed by Apple’s walled garden approach. It’s clearly not a market failure because (1) it is extremely profitable and (2) it is not a monopoly. As you can see in this thread, tons of people prefer differently, and those people can buy Androids. I also don’t like how this EU legislation mainly targets American companies.

Forcing Apple to allow other voice assistants will only strengthen Google and Amazons dominance in the voice assistant ecosystem.

Forcing messaging apps to allow cross compatibility only will give them more of my unencrypted messages.

I could go on, but I’m very curious what all of these “massive goods” that I’m not seeing are.

Re: EU Digital Markets Act, aimed at Google, Apple, Amazon, approved

#570

Post by somethoughts »

brtkdotse wrote: post #185
yoavm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly enough, an iPhone that complies with these demands is actually the first iPhone I'd ever consider paying for. I wonder if this might actually increase adoption.

It’s not a popular opinion around here, but the reason I like my iPhone is _because_ it’s a walled garden. It just works, reliably, without surprises, for years on end.

If I were Apple - the way I would have gone about it was to sell an open developer phone that supported changing the defaults, etc.

That way when the inevitable "Apple has been hacked and is no better than Android" media driven hit pieces come out - Apple can highlight that this is happening on the open developer phone meant for the fringe consumers, not the safe walled garden that most of us normal, non bleeding edge consumers have in our pocket.

And us folks who just want a phone that works can sigh in relief versus having to read a 1000 word article only to find its because some guy went through several hoops to install some obvious malware.

Post reply on HN