[alphabettsy]

This smells like malicious compliance.

It’s also possible that given the timeline, this was the only way to comply with the law and allow a different default browser and it’ll be fixed in the future?

[PlutoIsAPlanet]

It's not even like Apple is hiding that they hate their DMA when they're announcing their compliances with it.

Looking forward to the EU Commission taking Apple to the ECJ over this, I strongly suspect the EU Commission will win, because even if it doesn't, it will just propose legislation changes to outlaw Apple's behaviour anyway.

[rad_gruchalski]

So much for „free market”.

> You can do it your own way

> If it’s done just how I say

[andersa]

Indeed, you can do it in your own way that complies with the intention of the law. We don't do this malicious compliance weasel wording game in the EU.

[deaddodo]

Intention leaves room for interpretation.

Despite common belief in Europe, there is plenty of strongly binding consumer and labor protection legislation in the US (especially at the state level). It just happens to be much more verbose and specific to take "interpretation" out of the equation. And when companies slither around some loophole, it gets amended, ideally; if some corporate lobbyist doesn't get their way (something that also, definitely occurs in the EU).

That being said, I'm rooting for the ECJ to win here. Maybe it would kickstart a change that's also sorely needed in the US.

[rad_gruchalski]

Yeah, and when you don’t like a workaround, just shift the goal posts once again. Sovereign weasel.

[kuschku]

Why are you trying to find a workaround? Circumventing a law is the same as breaking it.

[rad_gruchalski]

Well, you just made something I have been working on for two decades and told me I need to do it in a different way so what the fuck are you wondering about.

Legal and illegal is a human concept. In Nazi Germany it was illegal for Jewish doctors to treat non-Jewish people.

A workaround isn’t necessarily circumventing.

[surgical_fire]

Yes, that is called regulation.

It's the reason why they can't sell you food poisoned with lead in the supermarket.

"But but muh free market".

[rad_gruchalski]

Don’t read about your ground turmeric.

[stop50]

They EU had never a free market, at least not in the US sense.

[Lammy]

Neither did the US https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#ar...

“The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

[pseudocomposer]

I’ll take a fair market over a free market any day.

[rad_gruchalski]

Fair for who. Fair is different for you from the next one in the line. You obviously mean an „ideological market”. Fair is a weasel word.

[surgical_fire]

Fair for the people that live in EU, obviously.

"Fair" is not any less weasel than "free" in "free market". There's no free market when monopolistic corporations abuse their power.

[rad_gruchalski]

There are 450m people in this bloc. How can you confidently say something is equally „fair” to everyone? It’s obviously somewhat „fair” by your definition but that’s just your definition.

So then, who’s „fair” and who isn’t. Are you implying that I’m not „fair”? Can you please clarify how am I „not fair”? Tell me where it hurts you.

Am I not „fair” because I spent a couple of decades building something and it worked, or are you not „fair” because you clearly can’t compete so you you use legislation to force your „fair”.