Accidental Tech Podcast593: Not a European Lawyer
https://atp.fm/593
The EU giveth, and Apple taketh away.
MarkV@atpfm Living in the EU and listening to the episode. I think the question @siracusa asked "why did they take so long to respond to the steering provision" and the question @marcoarment asked "why didn't they just write X into the DMA" both have the same answer: the EU Commission typically doesn't decide on things with a few bureaucrats sitting in a room alone, there is a LOT of back-and-forth with different stakeholders in the market through industry focus groups (inc. devs), which takes time.
@atpfm @siracusa @marcoarment Also re: the question "Would Apple self-regulating have done prevented the DMA" - I don't think so. Many people in the US see the DMA as directly targeted at Apple, but the EU's whole reason for existence is protecting the Single Market and making sure it is well regulated to enable competition. They regulated rail, energy, lightbulbs and bananas. They would have regulated digital apps and services at some point no matter what, Apple didn't trigger that at all.
John Siracusa@markv …but if Apple had self-regulated, a) the DMA might have been written differently in light of how Apple had chosen to open up its platform on its own, and b) Apple’s self-regulation might have meant that it was already in compliance with what the EC passed later.
Gregnee@Gregnee You’re “not so sure,” but the OP said there’s “no way.” And like I said, either way, Apple could have gotten a head start on all this, and done it uniformly and worldwide.
@siracusa I’m not European. Despite writing a college Econ paper on the EC, I don’t follow them closely enough to have that level of certainty. Given how poorly they’ve regulated web cookies, I’m not optimistic that this would have turned out any differently.
@Gregnee @siracusa I know cookies and the silly popup banners are the thing everyone keeps pointing to to say how bad EU legislation can be. But by and large, GDPR did what it was supposed to do: define what kind of data companies are allowed to store on people and what their responsibilities are in terms of keeping that data safe and up to date.
Yes it can be a hassle, but the hassle means companies default to storing only the data they really need for the job. It works pretty well imho.
@siracusa Agree on both points, especially the second. But there’s been sentiment in various podcasts that interprets the DMA as being targeted at Apple, which I think is a misreading.
The EU has always been against closed vertical integration in the Single Market (see also: Fourth Rail Package, Third Energy Package for reference). This is more at odds with Apple’s “whole widget” mindset and less with Google and Microsoft, but that doesn’t mean it was written in response to Apple specifically.
illustro@markv @siracusa I think the article linked by @ridogi here: https://mastodon.social/@ridogi/112690752890830323 sums things up perfectly.
In the EU producing regulation is more like a group discussion with the teacher than an edict from on high. I work in the insurance industry in the EU. We are (necessarily) heavily regulated both nationally and at the EU level. All changes to regulations are flagged multiple years in advance with pre-implementation discussions *with* the regulators.
1/
@markv @siracusa @ridogi the DMA wasn't written in a vacuum. There was an initial proposal made about it in 2020. Two years later it was passed and entered into force in November 2022, and was effective from May 2023. I guarantee before there was a proposal there were attempts to engage with relevant parties.
That's at least two years Apple had to engage and effect change in the regulation, and a further year during which they had the opportunity to push for necessary amendments.
2/
@markv @siracusa @ridogi Apple chose, instead of engagement, to say "we don't need to change and you are wrong to try make us change". That is on Apple, not the EC.
Fundamentally the EU is protective of its market as a whole not individual companies. It doesn't make regulation to spite non-EU companies or to favour EU companies. See insurance regulation, the bulk of the insurers to who this regulation applies are European.
EU company preference is effected through trade negotiations. 3/3
@illustro @siracusa @ridogi I work in the EU chemical industry and have seen very similar things. Current ongoing industry working groups are about regulations expected for 2027/2028. There are working groups on every piece of regulation from chemical safety (REACH) to carbon tax (eg CBAM) and sustainability (Green Deal). This includes customers, suppliers, academics, etc.
My guess is Apple saw the DMA as a threat and used all their lobbying power to try stopping it instead of shaping it.