EU Opens Non-Compliance Investigations into Apple, Meta, and Google

[wbeasley]

Then let the corporates learn. You have to learn modern tools, not keep working with junk Mainframes and COBOL. Now that phones will be allowed to install any apps, let them disallow non-corporate phones to connect to their networks. It’s not rocket science.

Most companies today have a secure internal network and a guest network. All non-licensed devices can only connect to guest networks.

hahaha.

the company saved heaps by not providing phones to workers. heaps. so welcome to the real world ...

our system already had secure and guest.
the issue was the user was granted access to the secure wifi when they shouldnt have been told the password by their manager. you cant get around user stupidity.

 

[Abazigal]

You and Gruber are both essentially advocating for a society in which our privacy is for sale, think on that for a moment.

The problem isn't that one's privacy is for sale, but that the majority of users are not willing to pay for an option which would be more respectful of one's privacy. Why do people feel entitled to use a service like Facebook for free?

If a company cannot be profitable when engaging in an illegal business model that company shouldn't exist.

Apple's business model was never illegal under the original antitrust laws in the EU, that's the whole point. That's why a new law had to be created in the form of the DMA.

Apple sells iPhones with a copy of iOS that contains a set of APIs and tools
Once the consumer owns their iPhone Apple has already collected its fee for the API and tooling
Developers can sell to users who own the copy of iOS
Apple cannot charge for access to those users

You just described the business model of every game console in existence.

I made a whole post pointing out the FRAND problems with the CTF. It is very easy to see why it was rejected. Apple has done one proposal, not many, so how could they have rejected "every" proposal?

I have a growing suspicion that the EU is going to reject every proposal by Apple which entails them collecting any amount of money from developers who publish apps outside of the App Store. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's protectionism, and it's the right of the EU to engage in it. Just be honest that it's really about propping up their own local businesses, especially a particular music streaming company who happens to command over two-thirds of the entire market.

 

[wbeasley]

The problem isn't that one's privacy is for sale, but that the majority of users are not willing to pay for an option which would be more respectful of one's privacy. Why do people feel entitled to use a service like Facebook for free?


Apple's business model was never illegal under the original antitrust laws in the EU, that's the whole point. That's why a new law had to be created in the form of the DMA.


You just described the business model of every game console in existence.


I have a growing suspicion that the EU is going to reject every proposal by Apple which entails them collecting any amount of money from developers who publish apps outside of the App Store. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's protectionism, and it's the right of the EU to engage in it. Just be honest that it's really about propping up their own local businesses, especially a particular music streaming company who happens to command over two-thirds of the entire market.

that "EU popular music streamer" is not profitable and could fail soon. Debts mounting.
poor management decisions like Podcasts that cost a lot and didnt drive new subscriptions.

such a pity they didnt deliver promised higher quality streams.

i've taken my subscription back to Apple Music and it's much better than the last time i used it.
perhaps more people might make the jump and see how they react when all they have are little used free accounts.
(i tried the free version - you lose play anything feature but it's pleasant enough for background music and requires little interaction. when i have Search ability i love discovering new artists, songs and playlist from suggestions).
Apple Music video playlists are a great use of my projector as well.

 

[Abazigal]

i've taken my subscription back to Apple Music and it's much better than the last time i used it.

I have been on a bit of a subscription purge this year (cancelled Netflix, disney+ and Apple One), but just because I have stopped using Apple Music doesn't mean I will switch to Spotify anytime soon either. 👍

that "EU popular music streamer" is not profitable and could fail soon. Debts mounting.

Not saying that Spotify will fail, but one date to look out for would be March 2026, when their debt becomes due.

Spotify Takes on $1.3B in Debt

Spotify is offering $1.3 billion in exchangeable notes it can pay off with cash or stock, while building its war chest for acquisitions or other purposes.

www.billboard.com

Simply rolling over the debt alone could well cost them approximately $100 million a year, and Spotify doesn't exactly have a lot of free cash flow to play around with. Whatever they are hoping to take advantage of with the app store loosening up thanks to the DMA, they better do it fast, and they better hope it works.

 

[bcortens]

The problem isn't that one's privacy is for sale, but that the majority of users are not willing to pay for an option which would be more respectful of one's privacy. Why do people feel entitled to use a service like Facebook for free?


Apple's business model was never illegal under the original antitrust laws in the EU, that's the whole point. That's why a new law had to be created in the form of the DMA.

I wasn’t talking about Apple, and neither were you, we were talking about Facebook. If the EU wants to try and make it harder to sell user‘s privacy that is a good thing. Changing the laws and requiring compliance with new laws isn’t some weird abnormal thing, it is perfectly normal government behaviour.

You keep saying users should have to pay for privacy, the EU disagrees, I think that the EU is right, privacy shouldn’t be for sale. Also, no one is saying facebook can’t serve ads, they are saying they can’t serve targeted ads without consent. If they can’t get that consent freely they don’t deserve to get that consent.

You just described the business model of every game console in existence.

Game consoles themselves are largely not profitable. Unlike iPhones the primary means of monetizing the investment in a game console is through its software. Apple monetizes iOS software development with hardware.
Also Has been pointed out many times: Game consoles are not smartphones and do not have the importance or influence of smartphones. Bringing up game consoles is just a red herring and has nothing to do with the DMA. It’s just an attempt at distraction.

I have a growing suspicion that the EU is going to reject every proposal by Apple which entails them collecting any amount of money from developers who publish apps outside of the App Store. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's protectionism, and it's the right of the EU to engage in it. Just be honest that it's really about propping up their own local businesses, especially a particular music streaming company who happens to command over two-thirds of the entire market.

That’s your suspicion, and as I’ve said, the EU has a reasonable case as to why they might limit Apple’s ability to double monetize the IP.

Analogy time (I don’t normally like them but since the EU seems to be moving towards treating the iPhone more like a utility i think this one works).

Your internet utility charges you a fee to use their services.
Your internet utility then doesn’t also get to charge all of the big data consumers on their network (Netflix, Amazon Prime etc…) a second charge for access to the utilities customers.

Apple charges you a fee to buy your iPhone
Apple also charges developers a fee to access users who have iPhones

This second charge may be found to be illegal under the DMA.

I just don’t believe the argument that Apple is insufficiently monetizing their IP when they can afford to pay out 3 times as much on share buybacks as they spend on R&D (and that R&D includes the ridiculous 10 billion dollar car project)


I also don’t buy it because they only monetize those who have no other choice or are smaller. They can’t force their IP monetization on Uber, Lyft, Amazon, Walmart etc.. because those companies are too important. So they clearly don’t actually need to monetize their IP, they want to do so for everyone (as we’ve seen by leaked emails) but they can’t when the company is important enough. This is not FRAND. This is exactly the problem with their current IP licensing. They (Apple) seem to know that devs are already important enough to give them SDK access for the mere $100 per year. They only extract additional revenue from developers who are small, the exact opposite of what a FRAND term would do.

 

[DaPhox]

Whether or not Apple is a monopoly is up to governments and/or courts to decide but the fact that other companies exist does not mean Apple couldn't be a monopoly.

How so? I mean if its a "monopoly", no competing manufacturers exist. It's up to the judicial system to decide linguistics or are we still allowed to know for ourselves?

 

[Abazigal]

Also Has been pointed out many times: Game consoles are not smartphones and do not have the importance or influence of smartphones. Bringing up game consoles is just a red herring and has nothing to do with the DMA. It’s just an attempt at distraction.

So where's the rule that states the difference between a smartphone and a game console? I am certainly not aware of one which exists. The only reason the Nintendo Switch and the Sony playstation don't come under the DMA is because their user base in the EU is too small for them to be considered gatekeepers, not because gaming consoles are somehow exempt from it. Then again, the thresholds were likely selected specifically to target Apple and Google, to the exclusion of everyone else.

I also don’t buy it because they only monetize those who have no other choice or are smaller. They can’t force their IP monetization on Uber, Lyft, Amazon, Walmart etc.. because those companies are too important. So they clearly don’t actually need to monetize their IP, they want to do so for everyone (as we’ve seen by leaked emails) but they can’t when the company is important enough. This is not FRAND. This is exactly the problem with their current IP licensing. They (Apple) seem to know that devs are already important enough to give them SDK access for the mere $100 per year. They only extract additional revenue from developers who are small, the exact opposite of what a FRAND term would do.

It has nothing to do with size or importance of companies, but with their business models.

The iOS App Store makes a distinction between content that is consumed directly on your device (because digital content tends to have zero or very low marginal costs) vs content like food delivery or ride sharing that you access through your phone, but often entail the physical delivery of goods or services (and which have high marginal costs).

For example, if you subscribe to Twitter Blue via the App Store, Apple gets a 30% cut, but Apple otherwise doesn't get a cut of ad revenue from said platform. That it's owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world didn't seem to have earned it any special treatment. If Facebook were to do the same (eg: introduce a subscription plan to do away with ads and tracking, Apple would similarly be entailed to a cut of said revenue as well).

You can also be a small developer with a free app like flappy bird and Apple won't get a cent of your ad revenue. Size has nothing to do with it.

I suspect that when Steve Jobs unveiled the App Store, he was operating under the assumption that the primary model would be upfront-paid apps (which explains the 30% cut). You buy an app, pay once, and that's it. End of story. You are right in that Facebook makes a ton of money while paying Apple next to nothing, but at the same time, how exactly do you go about billing an ad-supported company who does not conduct any of their transactions through your platform? iTunes was never designed with that in mind.

The only answer I can think of is something like the CTF, but that ship has long sailed, and even then, it's likely a rounding error on Facebook's balance sheet.

ou keep saying users should have to pay for privacy, the EU disagrees, I think that the EU is right, privacy shouldn’t be for sale. Also, no one is saying facebook can’t serve ads, they are saying they can’t serve targeted ads without consent. If they can’t get that consent freely they don’t deserve to get that consent.

I am not saying one must pay for privacy. I am saying that it is unreasonable to expect that a company must provide a service for free, much less provide its services using a business model of the EU's choosing (ie: serve non-targeted ads). What is this? Nationalisation of a foreign company?

Don't want to be tracked by Facebook? Then don't use the service. I certainly don't.

I don't see Facebook pulling out of the EU either, but if there was one other company with even less of a financial incentive to continue operating in the EU compared to Apple, it's probably Facebook. They certainly have no hardware sales to be concerned about.

And now that I think about it, there does not seem to be anything in the DMA which says anything about data collection either.

 

[bcortens]

So where's the rule that states the difference between a smartphone and a game console? I am certainly not aware of one which exists. The only reason the Nintendo Switch and the Sony playstation don't come under the DMA is because their user base in the EU is too small for them to be considered gatekeepers, not because gaming consoles are somehow exempt from it. Then again, the thresholds were likely selected specifically to target Apple and Google, to the exclusion of everyone else.

So you do understand that there is a reason Game Consoles are not targeted then. Game consoles are also both different and less important than smartphones because of the way people use them. I simply do not believe you don’t understand this.

It has nothing to do with size or importance of companies, but with their business models.

The iOS App Store makes a distinction between content that is consumed directly on your device (because digital content tends to have zero or very low marginal costs) vs content like food delivery or ride sharing that you access through your phone, but often entail the physical delivery of goods or services (and which have high marginal costs).

For example, if you subscribe to Twitter Blue via the App Store, Apple gets a 30% cut, but Apple otherwise doesn't get a cut of ad revenue from said platform. That it's owned by one of the wealthiest men in the world didn't seem to have earned it any special treatment. If Facebook were to do the same (eg: introduce a subscription plan to do away with ads and tracking, Apple would similarly be entailed to a cut of said revenue as well).

You can also be a small developer with a free app like flappy bird and Apple won't get a cent of your ad revenue. Size has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with size and importance!
Apple wanted to charge Uber the same 30% commission, by the time they had figured out how they were going to try it was too late and Uber had preempted them.

The reader exemption proves that it is partly about importance because that is content consumed on device that is not paying into Apple’s fee structure. It exists primarily because Amazon and Netflix want it. Not because it is good for consumers.

If Apple is required to offer its IP on FRAND terms it cannot discriminate based on the business model of the company it is selling that IP to.

You’ve brought marginal costs up before, and I’ll say now as I and others have said then, it doesnt matter because the distribution costs don’t actually matter to whether or not a business model is profitable. Apple deciding that digital businesses can somehow bear this cost while physical ones can’t is just make believe. There are plenty of physical businesses which could bear this cost while there are also plenty of digital ones that cannot.

The reader exemption is again just another way Apple is offering non FRAND terms. There is no reason a cross platform game shouldn’t be able to take advantage of the same reader exemption.

I suspect that when Steve Jobs unveiled the App Store, he was operating under the assumption that the primary model would be upfront-paid apps (which explains the 30% cut). You buy an app, pay once, and that's it. End of story. You are right in that Facebook makes a ton of money while paying Apple next to nothing, but at the same time, how exactly do you go about billing an ad-supported company who does not conduct any of their transactions through your platform? iTunes was never designed with that in mind.

I would be quite willing to bet that these companies already track how much money they make on iOS vs other platforms. Taking a percentage of that would be fine.

The only answer I can think of is something like the CTF, but that ship has long sailed, and even then, it's likely a rounding error on Facebook's balance sheet.

How has that ship sailed? The CTF is being investigated because Apple’s first try is clearly non compliant.

I am not saying one must pay for privacy. I am saying that it is unreasonable to expect that a company must provide a service for free, much less provide its services using a business model of the EU's choosing (ie: serve non-targeted ads). What is this? Nationalisation of a foreign company?

The EU isn’t asking a service for free, the EU is saying if you want to run targeted ads you must do so with freely given user consent. Countries dictate business models all the time, they dictate how businesses can sell services, they dictate the height of headlights on cars, the content of drugs, etc… Your business model must operate within the law, if the law requires consent then your business model needs to work around that. If Facebook can’t operate profitably within the law then Facebook doesn’t deserve to exist.

 

[webkit]

How so? I mean if its a "monopoly", no competing manufacturers exist. It's up to the judicial system to decide linguistics or are we still allowed to know for ourselves?

What do you mean "how so?" I already gave you two tech examples of companies (Microsoft and Google) being declared monopolies despite other companies existing in the market. Governments and/or courts ultimately decide if a company is a "monopoly" but a monopoly doesn't have to mean only one company in a market.

 

[DaPhox]

What do you mean "how so?" I already gave you two tech examples of companies (Microsoft and Google) being declared monopolies despite other companies existing in the market. Governments and/or courts ultimately decide if a company is a "monopoly" but a monopoly doesn't have to mean only one company in a market.

You cannot "declare" something that doesnt exist.

 

[ric22]

The problem isn't that one's privacy is for sale, but that the majority of users are not willing to pay for an option which would be more respectful of one's privacy. Why do people feel entitled to use a service like Facebook for free?


Apple's business model was never illegal under the original antitrust laws in the EU, that's the whole point. That's why a new law had to be created in the form of the DMA.


You just described the business model of every game console in existence.


I have a growing suspicion that the EU is going to reject every proposal by Apple which entails them collecting any amount of money from developers who publish apps outside of the App Store. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's protectionism, and it's the right of the EU to engage in it. Just be honest that it's really about propping up their own local businesses, especially a particular music streaming company who happens to command over two-thirds of the entire market.

I agreed with a lot of that, but definitely not the bit about Spotify. I think that has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with it. Mobile phones are the personal computers of our day, and the EU (and most people) agree that restrictions shouldn't be in place that charge companies to develop software to run on them, and limit the type and scope of software. Essentially there's no need to treat mobile phones like children's toys- they're fully functional computers.

 

[d686546s]

hahaha.

the company saved heaps by not providing phones to workers. heaps. so welcome to the real world ...

our system already had secure and guest.
the issue was the user was granted access to the secure wifi when they shouldnt have been told the password by their manager. you cant get around user stupidity.

If the company decides to prioritise saving money then this still sounds very much like a company problem "in the real world."

How is it anyone's fault but your (the company's) fault for letting employee devices on their network and not putting in place processes that prevent individuals providing access when they shouldn't?

Why should this have any bearing on whether or not people should be able to install apps outside of the App Store?

There's easy and straightforward ways to avoid any of that, even with Android devices. The fact that it wasn't used is a company failure.

 

[d686546s]

It has nothing to do with size or importance of companies, but with their business models.

The iOS App Store makes a distinction between content that is consumed directly on your device (because digital content tends to have zero or very low marginal costs) vs content like food delivery or ride sharing that you access through your phone, but often entail the physical delivery of goods or services (and which have high marginal costs).

Which is a reasonable yet entirely arbitrary distinction that also doesn't make a lot of sense when you take into account the main arguments that are being deployed in terms of compensating Apple for its IP.

Does Apple really add more value through APIs etc to a company like Netflix, which probably relies on its own technology and servers to provide content to its users, than it does to Amazon and Uber? What difference does it make if the service is consumed on the device or enabled by the device when Apple (or Google on Android, for that matter) didn't contribute to either?

Size and importance certainly matter, because realistically companies like Amazon would have simply walked away from apps and exclusively relied on their websites if Apple wanted a cut, which Apple wants to prevent.

Apple makes these decisions entirely on business reasons, which is entirely understandable, but that doesn't mean that there's any logic other than opportunity.

I am not saying one must pay for privacy. I am saying that it is unreasonable to expect that a company must provide a service for free, much less provide its services using a business model of the EU's choosing (ie: serve non-targeted ads). What is this? Nationalisation of a foreign company?

Don't want to be tracked by Facebook? Then don't use the service. I certainly don't.

I don't see Facebook pulling out of the EU either, but if there was one other company with even less of a financial incentive to continue operating in the EU compared to Apple, it's probably Facebook. They certainly have no hardware sales to be concerned about.

And now that I think about it, there does not seem to be anything in the DMA which says anything about data collection either.

I haven't followed Facebook's paid proposals very closely, but I very much doubt that there is an expectation to provide services for free.

There are pretty established and tested models where websites have restricted access unless you pay for a subscription or disable ad-blockers, which have been found GDPR compliant.

More generally, the response would probably be that just because a business model exists doesn't mean it has to persist.

If you can't pressure people into volunteering their data and no one is willing to pay, then your business simply isn't viable. I don't fundamentally see a difference between rights under the GDPR to not consent to data collection and being able to limit tracking on the iPhone, other than one being a law (obviously bad) and the other being Apple (obviously good).

 

[webkit]

You cannot "declare" something that doesnt exist.

A gave you two tech examples where it was done so, yes, a company can be declared a monopoly even though other companies existed. Once again, whether or not Apple is a monopoly is up to governments and/or courts to decide but the fact that other companies exist does not mean Apple couldn't be a monopoly.

 

[Abazigal]

So you do understand that there is a reason Game Consoles are not targeted then. Game consoles are also both different and less important than smartphones because of the way people use them. I simply do not believe you don’t understand this.

This is not what I am arguing. What I am saying is - even if I do agree that smartphones and game consoles are fundamentally very different devices and one ought to be regulated more heavily than the other, where exactly is the legislation stating this?

Both are integrated devices with one company controlling every aspect of the tech chain, from hardware to the OS running on it to what can and cannot be installed on it. Where's the law that delineates the differences between these two product categories? Is it even possible to distinguish between the two, other than very arbitrary definitions like "one is a pocket computer that you use for everything while the other rests in your living room"?

I don't think one exists, that's my point. Right now, this argument basically rests on "I think, you feel" territory. That's not how a law should work.

 

[bcortens]

This is not what I am arguing. What I am saying is - even if I do agree that smartphones and game consoles are fundamentally very different devices and one ought to be regulated more heavily than the other, where exactly is the legislation stating this?

Both are integrated devices with one company controlling every aspect of the tech chain, from hardware to the OS running on it to what can and cannot be installed on it. Where's the law that delineates the differences between these two product categories? Is it even possible to distinguish between the two, other than very arbitrary definitions like "one is a pocket computer that you use for everything while the other rests in your living room"?

I don't think one exists, that's my point. Right now, this argument basically rests on "I think, you feel" territory. That's not how a law should work.

Ummmm, the DMA is the law that says one is subject to the regulation right now and one isn’t? If Game Consoles grow in the number of end users and business users then they are more likely to fall under regulation as well. Not guaranteed of course, but more likely. As long as their numbers are as low as they are then they are going to avoid regulation for the time being.

 

[Abazigal]

Ummmm, the DMA is the law that says one is subject to the regulation right now and one isn’t? If Game Consoles grow in the number of end users and business users then they are more likely to fall under regulation as well. Not guaranteed of course, but more likely. As long as their numbers are as low as they are then they are going to avoid regulation for the time being.

That’s my point. Right now, the only difference between smartphones and Nintendo switches in the EU is the current number of users. Does that not strike you as a totally arbitrary way of attempting to distinguish between the two in terms of utility and importance to society?

If we are going to say that smartphones ought to be regulated differently because of XYZ, shouldn’t this be stated somewhere explicitly?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This is not what I am arguing. What I am saying is - even if I do agree that smartphones and game consoles are fundamentally very different devices and one ought to be regulated more heavily than the other, where exactly is the legislation stating this?

Both are integrated devices with one company controlling every aspect of the tech chain, from hardware to the OS running on it to what can and cannot be installed on it. Where's the law that delineates the differences between these two product categories? Is it even possible to distinguish between the two, other than very arbitrary definitions like "one is a pocket computer that you use for everything while the other rests in your living room"?

I don't think one exists, that's my point. Right now, this argument basically rests on "I think, you feel" territory. That's not how a law should work.

It is quite easy, in many instances when it comes to antitrust regulations and the DMA, a company can meet the criteria and provide a legitimate argument why their conduct that would normally be considered unfair, illegal and classified as antitrust violation, is actually a legitimate business conduct that doesn’t cause any of the harms.

Consoles are allowed to sell at a loss and recuperate the cost through other sales such as licensed games. Just how printers, vacuum cleaners etc sell bellow cost and earns revenue from more expensive inc and vacuum bags.

And just how a printer isn’t legally allowed to prevent 3rd party inc from being used or prevent other vacuum bags from working etc etc. the same thing applies to Apple. They can sell their phone and apps, but can’t prevent 3rd party software from working without paying a commission

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That’s my point. Right now, the only difference between smartphones and Nintendo switches in the EU is the current number of users. Does that not strike you as a totally arbitrary way of attempting to distinguish between the two in terms of utility and importance to society?

If we are going to say that smartphones ought to be regulated differently because of XYZ, shouldn’t this be stated somewhere explicitly?

The law says nothing about smartphones, it talks about operating systems, application storefronts and messaging systems etc.

If the iPod touch was still a thing and as popular as the iPhone it would also be covered.

There separate laws covering radio devices such as phones and smartphones, dictating that they aren’t allowed to be carrier locked.

 

[wbeasley]

If the company decides to prioritise saving money then this still sounds very much like a company problem "in the real world."

How is it anyone's fault but your (the company's) fault for letting employee devices on their network and not putting in place processes that prevent individuals providing access when they shouldn't?

Why should this have any bearing on whether or not people should be able to install apps outside of the App Store?

There's easy and straightforward ways to avoid any of that, even with Android devices. The fact that it wasn't used is a company failure.

when a user owns a phone they can install whatever they like.
a company cant stop them.

but their actions can, and did, affect the company IT system.

this is the same potential future we face if iOS opens up and allows bad agent code onto one phone.
Apple already release regular updates to fix exploits. it's code, it's complex, and hackers push the limits every day to find new ways to cause chaos.

 

[wbeasley]

That’s my point. Right now, the only difference between smartphones and Nintendo switches in the EU is the current number of users. Does that not strike you as a totally arbitrary way of attempting to distinguish between the two in terms of utility and importance to society?

If we are going to say that smartphones ought to be regulated differently because of XYZ, shouldn’t this be stated somewhere explicitly?

So how many Smart TVs are in the EU?

These are basically computers as well given the power of chips to process image and sound.
They connect to wifi and the internet.
They have browsers (of sorts), they run apps (or a limited group of apps).

Do Samsung have an installed base of more than 45m units?
Why do they get to control the OS and apps available?
They already sell a 4K monitor that can signin and use Microsoft 365.
So it is a computer.

Topic: TV sets in Europe

Find the most up-to-date statistics on the TV set market in Europe

www.statista.com

That would put it into the 60m+ category...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You are right in that Facebook makes a ton of money while paying Apple next to nothing, but at the same time, how exactly do you go about billing an ad-supported company who does not conduct any of their transactions through your platform? iTunes was never designed with that in mind.

Paying royalties? How does every other industry and business do it without their revenue going through their platform?

How does Epic, Unity, adobe or the millions of physical products that are paid in royalties based on price of devices sold etc etc do it?

The only answer I can think of is something like the CTF, but that ship has long sailed, and even then, it's likely a rounding error on Facebook's balance sheet.

Well I do agree with you the CTF was dead in the water.
Article 5
3. The gatekeeper shall not prevent business users from offering the same products or services to end users through third-party online intermediation services or through their own direct online sales channel at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper.

4. The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.

5. The gatekeeper shall allow end users to access and use, through its core platform services, content, subscriptions, features or other items, by using the software application of a business user, including where those end users acquired such items from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper.

I am not saying one must pay for privacy. I am saying that it is unreasonable to expect that a company must provide a service for free, much less provide its services using a business model of the EU's choosing (ie: serve non-targeted ads). What is this? Nationalisation of a foreign company?

Don't want to be tracked by Facebook? Then don't use the service. I certainly don't.

I don't see Facebook pulling out of the EU either, but if there was one other company with even less of a financial incentive to continue operating in the EU compared to Apple, it's probably Facebook. They certainly have no hardware sales to be concerned about.

And now that I think about it, there does not seem to be anything in the DMA which says anything about data collection either.

The DMA talks about data collection, but we have also other privacy laws that deals with consent
Article 5

Obligations for gatekeepers
2. The gatekeeper shall not do any of the following:

(a)	process, for the purpose of providing online advertising services, personal data of end users using services of third parties that make use of core platform services of the gatekeeper;

(b)	combine personal data from the relevant core platform service with personal data from any further core platform services or from any other services provided by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services;

(c)	cross-use personal data from the relevant core platform service in other services provided separately by the gatekeeper, including other core platform services, and vice versa; and

(d)	sign in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data,

unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has given consent within the meaning of Article 4, point (11), and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Where the consent given for the purposes of the first subparagraph has been refused or withdrawn by the end user, the gatekeeper shall not repeat its request for consent for the same purpose more than once within a period of one year.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So how many Smart TVs are in the EU?

These are basically computers as well given the power of chips to process image and sound.
They connect to wifi and the internet.
They have browsers (of sorts), they run apps (or a limited group of apps).

Do Samsung have an installed base of more than 45m units?
Why do they get to control the OS and apps available?
They already sell a 4K monitor that can signin and use Microsoft 365.
So it is a computer.

Topic: TV sets in Europe

Find the most up-to-date statistics on the TV set market in Europe

www.statista.com

View attachment 2363111

That would put it into the 60m+ category...

Samsung doesn’t have the required 10.000 business users, monthly revenue. And it’s very unlikely they have 45 million active end users of the the smartTV stores and the OS tends to be a flavor of android.

and by the word of the EU commission
…the Commission considers that the specific circumstances of Samsung’s ecosystem of services do not indicate that SIB would constitute an important gateway for business users to reach end users. In the first place, none of the other CPSs provided by Samsung currently meets the thresholds in Article 3(2) DMA, nor is there any indication that they meet the requirements of Article 3(1) DMA. …

Third, while Samsung provides several services, including CPSs, in the Union, and is one of the leading OEMs with regard to mobile devices on which these CPSs can be accessed by end users, the Commission considers that the specific circumstances of Samsung’s ecosystem of services do not indicate that SIB would constitute an important gateway for business users to reach end users. In the first place, none of the other CPSs provided by Samsung currently meets the thresholds in Article 3(2) DMA, nor is there any indication that they meet the requirements of Article 3(1) DMA. In the second place, Samsung devices run on the Google Android operating system. The latter enables the functioning of the software applications that run on them. Furthermore, Samsung displays a browser choice screen, and ships its smart mobile devices with an additional third party browser pre-installed.

(13)

Therefore, the Commission considers that SIB is not an important gateway for business users to reach end users within the meaning of DMA and that Samsung should not be a designated gatekeeper in relation to SIB.

5. CONCLUSION

(14)

For the reasons set out above, the Decision accepts the rebuttal arguments raised by Samsung

 

[wbeasley]

Samsung doesn’t have the required 10.000 business users, monthly revenue. And it’s very unlikely they have 45 million active end users of the the smartTV stores and the OS tends to be a flavor of android.

and by the word of the EU commission
…the Commission considers that the specific circumstances of Samsung’s ecosystem of services do not indicate that SIB would constitute an important gateway for business users to reach end users. In the first place, none of the other CPSs provided by Samsung currently meets the thresholds in Article 3(2) DMA, nor is there any indication that they meet the requirements of Article 3(1) DMA. …

Third, while Samsung provides several services, including CPSs, in the Union, and is one of the leading OEMs with regard to mobile devices on which these CPSs can be accessed by end users, the Commission considers that the specific circumstances of Samsung’s ecosystem of services do not indicate that SIB would constitute an important gateway for business users to reach end users. In the first place, none of the other CPSs provided by Samsung currently meets the thresholds in Article 3(2) DMA, nor is there any indication that they meet the requirements of Article 3(1) DMA. In the second place, Samsung devices run on the Google Android operating system. The latter enables the functioning of the software applications that run on them. Furthermore, Samsung displays a browser choice screen, and ships its smart mobile devices with an additional third party browser pre-installed.

(13)

Therefore, the Commission considers that SIB is not an important gateway for business users to reach end users within the meaning of DMA and that Samsung should not be a designated gatekeeper in relation to SIB.

5. CONCLUSION

(14)

For the reasons set out above, the Decision accepts the rebuttal arguments raised by Samsung

every smart tv updates software and hence uses the backend store to do so. it's just transparent and automatic for most users. which is fine. they dont want to make decisions. we often get notifications the OS is updated.

whether it is a flavour of Android should play no part of an EU decision.
it's a device part of an ecosystem that meets most, if not all, of the general computing device definition.

you like to split hairs to prove Apple are evil.

IoT devices with smart features have some level of computing power as well.
Robot vaccums? they learn and adapt. they run an OS. the use vision and feedback.

Every day more devices become smarter.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

every smart tv updates software and hence uses the backend store to do so. it's just transparent and automatic for most users. which is fine. they dont want to make decisions. we often get notifications the OS is updated.

Don’t fall under the active monthly user threshold

whether it is a flavour of Android should play no part of an EU decision.
it's a device part of an ecosystem that meets most, if not all, of the general computing device definition.

If it’s a flavor of android means it falls under googles as the gatekeeper, not Samsung.

you like to split hairs to prove Apple are evil.

Where have I split hairs? I would say they are neatly divided 😌. And apple isn’t evil, they are just like any other business perusing their business interests.

IoT devices with smart features have some level of computing power as well.
Robot vaccums? they learn and adapt. they run an OS. the use vision and feedback.

Every day more devices become smarter.

Sure and unless they fall under any of these categories :
For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply:

(1)	‘gatekeeper’ means an undertaking providing core platform services, designated pursuant to Article 3;

2)

‘core platform service’ means any of the following: (a) online intermediation services; (b) online search engines; (c) online social networking services; (d) video-sharing platform services; (e) number-independent interpersonal communications services; (f) operating systems; (g) web browsers; (h) virtual assistants; (i) cloud computing services; (j) online advertising services

And can satisfy the criteria of a gatekeeper:
An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:

(a)	it has a significant impact on the internal market;

(b)	it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and

(c)	it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.

2. An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:

(a)

as regards paragraph 1, point (a), where it achieves an annual Union turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States;

(b)

as regards paragraph 1, point (b), where it provides a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union, identified and calculated in accordance with the methodology and indicators set out in the Annex;

Otherwise you can sleep tight knowing your smart washing machine won’t be opened up by EU 😉