It’s bizarre to see developers effectively siding with Apple over the DMA. The EU is trying to make things better for developers. We can nitpick whether the DMA is well-written, too broad, etc. But there are specific sections that address real problems with the App Store that Apple won’t fix on their own.
@manton None of us is a legal expert who understands the DMA 100%, at the same time we don't know all the details of Apple's implementations and how much effort it would take to make it compliant. We can't judge that. Both Apple & the EU need to talk to each other, which is happening now. I don't know all background information, which is why I try not to take sides.
@manton That's the rub. The DMA from what I have read ranges from very specific (yes, Apple should do this or withdraw from the market) to very generic. Laws are generally written to be very specific and prescriptive so as to leave little room for interpretation. No corporation will choose to interpret it in the "spirit of the law" as seen by an EU bureaucrat or the person that drafted the law. We can only guess on the true intent of the law - is it to genuinely protect privacy, or to help developers, or to help EU companies be more competitive?
@manton It's SUPER bizarre and I think highlights just how much regulation is actually needed. The types of terms and behaviors they've normalized, to the point of folks defending things that are bad for **themselves**, is a little scary honestly. It's similar to how many Americans get duped into voting things that directly harm their own interests.
@manton It is hardly nitpicking to point out when a law is so poorly written that it becomes nearly impossible to avoid significant risks of non-compliance. Regulation can be a good thing, and in Apple’s case it seems like good regulation is sorely needed. But the DMA is not good regulation. It is well-intended but horribly executed regulation.
@dynamitemoth Is it really that poorly written, though? I've read most of the sections related to the App Store and the intent is clear to me. It's not perfect but I don't think it's trash either.
@manton Yeah, I don't get it. The "spirit of the DMA" is pretty easy to figure out. The American legal system is built on loopholes and it seems like they're upset that the European one isn’t.
@dynamitemoth @manton I’d be interested in hearing which parts of the DMA make non-compliance a risk (in a way unintended by the drafters of the law).
@pratik @manton The intent of the DMA is described in the DMA itself. You don’t have to guess. I feel like all this talk about spirit is a red herring: the text of the DMA describes what Apple and other gatekeepers must do and what they must not do. Gatekeepers don’t have to divine the spirit of the rules from the ether, they have to read the document and follow the instructions.
@paulrobertlloyd We've mastered it though :-) -- I live in a State where folks actively vote for folks on "vibes" ... for people that tell them to their face they will do things that don't help the people voting..
@manton Any regulation that assumes proper interpretation of intent is inherently more difficult to comply with. It’s not that Apple can’t glean the intent, but that it can’t do so without a certain degree of uncertainty. That uncertainty adds significant risk to Apple given the large cost incurred if they get it wrong.
I am not currently an iOS developer so I have no experience with the App Store. So I will defer to you and other iOS developers about how reasonable or unreasonable the DMA restrictions are.
That being said, I am a developer with decades of experience in regulated markets (mostly healthcare). I can state with confidence that any large enterprise serving a regulated market would be foolish to plow forward at full speed without an in-depth risk assessment and risk mitigation strategy in place.
Apple’s decision to delay rollout in the EU is the only responsible option given the risks posed by non-specific regulation.
The intent of the DMA is described in the DMA itself.
...they have to read the document and follow the instructions
These two statements are contradictory. People can decipher and do decipher "intent" differently. Hence at least in the U.S. intent is interpreted by the Supreme Court even in statements that would seem obvious to the layperson. There's a reason legislation runs into several hundred pages; something that most conservatives make fun of.
@pratik @manton I think you misunderstand me. The DMA is made up of recitals and articles. The recitals describe why the regulation is being introduced (the intent) and contain examples of the kind of behaviour that is prohibited. The articles contain the proscriptions & requirements of the regulation (the instructions that must be followed).
