undefined | Better HN

0 pointspavlov2y ago0 comments

Things are different when you’re in antitrust crosshairs and have been designated a “gatekeeper” by new legislation that explicitly intends to force you to open your product to competitors.

It’s not a great look when your first action in that gatekeeper role is to block access to a competitor because of actions the competitor’s parent company took years ago in another country and a different jurisdiction.

0 comments

8 comments · 2 top-level

zuppy2y ago· 4 in thread

I would add that nobody asked them to create the need to have a business relation with the external appstore.

Although I don’t necessarily think it’s a good thing to allow external appstores, this is the law now and they have to comply with it.

lettergram2y ago

> this is the law now and they have to comply with it.

lol ugh, it’s the law to wear a seatbelt, I can choose to ignore it. One ironic part I like to mention about this is that tractors tell you not to wear a seat belt. That lets you bail if it’s tipping over. The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt. Ironically, riding a motorbike requires no seatbelt… and overall is more unsafe, but totally fine apparently.

The point I’m making is laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs and you can choose to ignore them. There may be consequences to ignoring them. But the calculus for Apple is that it’s worth it to them and to ignore.

Much like the farmer with the tractor, minimal risk to ignore. High risk to follow law.

prmoustache2y ago

The farmer do whatever he wants within its field, the road laws don't apply there. But he has to follow the laws when he is on the road where a tractor has no reason to tip over.

Your analogy is not relevant here.

tpm2y ago

> laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs

As is Apple, the company. It only exists on paper. It can be barred from existing in a jurisdiction by another human construct, a court ruling. It can choose to ignore EU laws, but there would be consequences.

josefx2y ago

> The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt

Check if the law in your state actually applies to a tractor. Some states explicitly list which motor vehicles the law applies to.

_cenw2y ago· 2 in thread

Last action, they terminated Epic one day before the DMA went into effect (today).

It's clearly meant to stall the creation of Epic's own App Store. All the processes still require an Apple developer account. This is malicious enough that I hope the EU regulators pull all strings to make Apple's fine for this not just aedequate to the money they're saving, but also to account for the disregard of the law itself.

The EU isn't the boring cyberpunk future where corporations can do whatever they want Apple thinks it is.

madsbuch2y ago

> Last action, they terminated Epic one day before the DMA went into effect (today).

The law went into effect november 1st 2022[0]. Until yesterday has been a grace period to allow big companies time to implement the law - I must say that 1 year and 4 months is generous.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act

_cenw2y ago

Sure, if you want to be pedantic about it. Though this is pretty normal for EU law to give a lot of preparation time. The GDPR had 2 entire years - and I still got some emergency compliance tickets in the week before (worked at the eCommerce arm of a major German retailer).

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse