[flagged]
They should've fined every company that does that into the ground. Tbf it's mostly non EU company sites' terrible implementation of it.
"Oh no the EU is stopping me from being tracked by cookies how terrible"
I am a dev in EU. What you are calling "malicious compliance cookie popup" is what every single lawyer is advising every single company with a regular website to implement. Even if they have no ads and do no tracking. Just to be safe from from a badly written law. To avoid being "fined into the ground".
Even official EU websites have that "malicious compliance cookie popup". Try using the web from inside the EU. EVERY site has that, ads or not, tracking or not.
And, BTW, ads are still there. Tracking still there. Just with cookie popups on top now. The very definition of a bad law: it solved none of the problems it was supposed to fix while adding new ones.
But not because they're fully aligned with me or my employer's interests — I've collected examples and anecdotes since before smartphones existed where the big players have killed off smaller businesses in their ecosystems — no, my lack of fear is because this whole sector is dynamic chaos with new opportunities appearing almost as soon as the old ones disappear, and generally in greater quantity.
> A market with healthy competition always provides alternatives.
Isn't the whole argument here that there isn't enough healthy competition?
And I don't know of a single example where regulation created more competition. The more barrier of entry you add to a market (of course for good intentions, to protect customers etc) the less competition you'll have and the fewer startups.
Only incumbents love regulation. Paradoxically, Apple will gain more from DMA on the long term, even if everybody is cheering they got slapped.
Does antitrust fall under regulation? If yes, Standard Oil is a perfect example. If they had their way there would only oil company. Microsoft is another example. You still want to use Internet Explorer?
The regulation game is always a careful balance and govs should err on the less regulation side but regulation is a powerful instrument that protects customers and competition. It’s there to prevent a single company snowballing everyone else.
Common example (dug from over 100 years ago), quite flawed one too. By the time of the anti-trust regulation the free market was already pushing Standard Oil out - healthy competition evolved. Read up on it.
I can easily believe this being repeated for most of the Big Tech firms.
Copyrights and trademarks are important though to prevent fraud and deception. The government has the role of upholding the rule of law and gentlemanly competition - I am not advocating for anarchy.
I haven't heard of an ISP startup in ages. Only multinational Telecom providers, well protected by regulation.
It's how the founder's mind works, sorry. This is (one of the reasons) why Europe gets fewer startups than freer places like the US.
For example, you don't like Apple so you leave and join Google's platform.
Regulation is the same, you don't like the EU so you leave to the US.
Moreover, DMA does exactly what you say. It keeps competition free. It protects startups from "regulation" by the platforms they sell on.
The competition was free. Now startups have regulation to contend with. This logically results fewer startups. You can plainly see that too, comparing the EU startup scene with the US one. Just take a look at all the European platforms the DMA is regulating: ...?
Startups have lots of room to grow before they hit those limits.
(Whether other regulations are perhaps overly restrictive doesn't matter for the discussion at hand)
When those dreams are illegal, startups don't get created and the founders simply choose to get a cushy job at some FAANG.
Just compare how few talented people in EU choose to build startups instead of working for the bureaucracy. The more regulation we have, the more founders-to-be say "why bother?!"
Regulation plays a factor in the amount of startups in a country but it isn't the only factor and I would argue it is not even the biggest factor. There are plenty of countries out there that have about as much regulation as the US yet much fewer startups.
And regulation isn't a black-and-white thing either. There are many cases where regulation would hurt startups (e.g. GDPR) and many cases where regulation basically exclusively targets larger companies (e.g. DMA).
Who? The other company that they specifically colluded with to keep their offerings and policies largely the same?
> GDPR made a shittier Web experience for all of us here in Europe.
No, advertisers made a shittier web experience, GDPR just exposed the issue.
> Now DMA will make a shittier Mobile experience as well.
No, Apple made a shittier mobile experience, and DMA is an attempt to fix it, because clearly the market hasn't in.. 17 years.
> AI looks like something that will need government approval to work on.
Uh, good?
But GDPR didn't get rid of the ads. It just added another unbeatable popup I have to understand and agree to - on top of them.
> Apple made a shittier mobile experience
Shittier than what?! Apple made the mobile experience. Not the EU. The marked fixed it just fine: there are alternative platform with different policies. Apple users were quite happy with how things worked. The EU is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - for political gain.
> Uh, good?
Ugh bad - other countries don't kneecap their AI developers and if China wins the AI race... ugh really bad.
Besides we are facing a civilization-level threat: climate change. We need AI to solve it. And we need it yesterday since another boneheaded governmental regulation (nuclear) kept us burning fossil fuels way longer than we should've.
monopoly for 2-6 years, elected in by the people of the country they represent. So it's a weird angle to say "complete monopoly". Elections aren't perfect, but ultimately regulations like this come from the will of the people in that country to enforce such rules, and government's goals are to make sure stuff benefits their society.
>GDPR made a shittier Web experience for all of us here in Europe.
no it didn't. It means corporations can't just litter their websites with trackers to sell to whatever 3rd parties bid for it. Companies retaliate by asking within the law; they are not obligated to collect cookies for free and can choose to not have popups.
If you really don't like clicking pop-ups, you are free to install an add-on to do it for you.
>Now DMA will make a shittier Mobile experience as well.
As an android user; people and apple are freaking out way too much about this. the lion's share of apps on Android are on the Google Play store. There are plenty of stores, but Google still gets most of the apps. Exceptions come from apps they don't allow anyway, so they may as well not exist to those who only use Google Play.
The result here probably won't be different. If you don't want apps off the App store, don't install other stores, it's that simple. I really don't see what downsides there are to people who want to continue to put their trust in Apple over this decision, that simply gives more options. Malware still exists, so that's not a unique issue.
>Keep competition free, keep innovation free, keep startups alive and creation possible.
how is the ability to spam cookies on your website "innovation"? How does the option to use a different app store kill a startup? How does more options on distribution limit creativity?
You're making an appeal to a crowd that fundamentally don't care about such topics, as all the above is marketing/sales problems, not technical ones. I don't care where my app is hosted as long as I can point to it and say "hey I made this" for my next gig. And as someone obsessed with optimization, I despise trackers will all my heart. Good riddance (not really, but I appreciate making them easier to filter out).