The wording was imprecise, but to the website owner, this is a distinction without a difference. Just because a civil law system is in use versus common law, you still need judges to interpret what the law is. Their decisions may not be binding in the way precedent is in common law systems, but they are still important in determining what might be legal or illegal in the face of ambiguous laws (that is, all laws)
That's not entirely true. Continental European law tends to be far more detailed than Anglo Saxon law, but still relies on precedents set in previous cases when there are ambiguities in the law, and when it comes to metering out punishment and damages.
Gears of EU grind slowly but finely. IAB just received a fine for promoting horrible banner practices. And it's not like we'd be better off if the gears didn't grind at all. Now just even uBlock will save you a lot of hassle and server-side tracking purely by the virtue of blocking the consent banners (so they can't be approved)
Technically they can ignore the users’ choices on cookie consent as well though. In fact, I would be curious just how many websites honor a user’s selection, and how many of them are just smoke and mirrors by having a consent modal that has zero subsequent value.
> Basically it’s the cookie banner again. Served no-one (at least definitely not the consumers), but annoyed a lot.
Oh no, you have to be given the option to not permit your data to be shared with ~1000 different partners with "legitimate" interests. Honestly, the only thing that is wrong with GDPR is that it came out too late.
Every time you dismiss a "we care for your privacy" banner, you're being made aware that your data is shared with hundreds or thousands of data brokers with "legitimate interest". The fact that vendors prefer to make your experience miserable rather than give up tracking is another example of "malicious compliance".
What happens is that you now have the right to request a copy of the personal information a site has collected and ask them to delete it. You can also sue them if they don't fulfil your request. You're welcome to exercise your rights as an EU citizen at any time.
56: 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
That's not what that means, that's saying Apple can't give themselves special private APIs to do things other apps can't or charge to access them.
Which is funny because you can drive a shipping container through the loophole which is OS components can have special privileges and the boundary between apps and OS for 1st party software is fuzzy.
Using 'Tile' trackers, ios pops a messages up every so often saying 'Tile' has been accessing the Location API from IOS.
But Apple introduced a competing product, 'AirTags', and this doesn't have the same (annoying) regular popup.
Does this mean that Apple's Product will no longer be allowed to use a special Location API bypassing the security/barriers their competitors have?
I understand the need for security, but Apple has no incentive to remove friction from the process when it negatively impacts their competitors and doesn't impact them at all.
It's basically saying the same thing. One thing other apps can't do on iOS is... installing packages on the system. This is only a thing that the App Store app can do. So Apple has to open up to third party the possibility to install packages on the device, exactly how on Android any third party can install apps on the device.
By the way, this will impact Android too, since there are permissions that are limited only to Google applications such as the Google Play Services, that (interpreting this rule) now shall be opened to any apps that require them.
That's a pretty tortured reading of the DMA. Yes, Apple has to allow more than just the App Store to install iOS applications, but nowhere does it stipulate that Apple can't collect fees from apps installed through alternative stores.
This is the tension, people really really want "ability to install apps" or "ability to install from web" to mean "install without Apple being allowed to collect fees" but that's not what the law says.
I think the original reading is pretty damn correct. It says apps should be able to access the platform "free of charge". Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the reading that limits this to special API access is the tortured reading.
Besides, even Apple's reading is not what Apple is doing either. They're saying that ANY API access that is possible should be done free of charge. Ok. That INCLUDES app installation of course. It does not specify WHO doesn't get charged, which Apple then takes to mean those alternative app stores don't get charged, but the app owners do? Now THAT is tortured reading. Obviously that means NOBODY gets charged. Not the alternative app store, not the application being installed. Apple is not complying with their own reading either.
It seems to me pretty clear. Either interpretation, apps should be able to run on ios free of charge.
Y'all really need to read the whole act. The quote that stated this doesn't even come from (56).
> (56) Gatekeepers can also have a dual role as developers of operating systems and device manufacturers, including any technical functionality that such a device may have. For example, a gatekeeper that is a manufacturer of a device can restrict access to some of the functionalities in that device, such as near-field-communication technology, secure elements and processors, authentication mechanisms and the software used to operate those technologies, which can be required for the effective provision of a service provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service by the gatekeeper as well as by any potential third-party undertaking providing such service.
> (57) 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.
They are explicitly talking about gatekeepers that are both app maker and OS maker giving their own apps access to parts of the OS that other apps can't access. You as a 3rd party are able to deeply integrate into iOS with your own apps to the same level as 1st party apps. It does not say that anyone must be allowed to access the platform free of charge. Plus this is the preamble to the actual act, you can write whatever you want in there (and legislators frequently do to use it as a pulpit) none of this is the actual law.
I read that as: if Apple wants to allow installation of programs ("apps") on IOS, it must allow, free of charge, others to do the same. Free of charge to everyone. Free of charge to alternative app stores, free of charge to developers, free of charge to apple customers, ... free of charge to anyone. As I said, I'm no lawyer, but that is definitely a valid interpretation to me.
Petition your representatives to designate those as gatekeepers of a core platform service. But first look up the definitions of those, and the criteria for gatekeeper designation, in the DMA.
Ahh yes, the "all lightbulbs regardless of their manufacture are required to have at least <this> energy efficiency" style regulation where <this> is set "neutrally" at the efficiency of LED bulbs.
Read article 3 paragraphs 1 and 2 and tell me this wasn't written to target like five US tech companies in total.
I have read it. I defines how much money the company needs to be making the EU and how many users they need to have. Sure, it's targeting big companies.
The LED example you gave is actually a great one: I don't think the regulator cares if you're using LED or not. The intention is to reduce the usage of lightbulbs that aren't as energy efficient as modern technology allows them to be. If you can make a incandescent lightbulb that is as efficient, good for you. No one has targeted incandescent light.
Same here. Yes, companies this size are almost only American (and Chinese). That doesn't mean that American companies were the target.
US, with its severe underregulation of oligopolies, allows companies to grow that big. Why do you then complain that they are the ones targeted by laws in countries which are sane enough to understand the need to regulate such things?
Apple is welcome to vacate the EU if it finds it all too onerous.
If a company's profit margins rely on their "employees" not understanding how depreciation leaves them with wages below the minimum, then yes those jobs need to be destroyed via regulation.
In most editors you can type ``fn_name to insert the symbol, and move on to `s single letter shortcuts when you start using the functions enough. If you need to read, just hover over the symbol and it will give you its name; even without that, the surface level is small enough that you can get acquainted with 90% of them in a week with regular use, compared to "more accessible" languages and all their hidden gotchas
