That is not my understanding. They have suggested that you can not offer an Ad-free tier as the way to not have your personal data used for advertising. Fb can offer an ad free tier, but in the tier with ads you need to be able to run off personalization of the ads.
This means the distinction between being a popular and legally running entity is when the EU makes an arbitrary decision on whether your service is now a "Core Platform Service".
I see how this makes sense for services which can be deemed as an essential service such as obtaining apps for a device, news, and internet search, but I am cynical when it is applied to completely optional services such as "Social Networks", or "Video" platforms. Using such broad arbitrary categorisation "Music" platforms should also be included, I.E. Spotify, but we don't see that and the optics of that don't look good.
I am not pro-tracking whatsoever, I think it is fair for a consumer to be able to opt out of site-to-site tracking (heck out-lawing that would be a better step) but this contradiction exists and it doesn't sit well with me because it doesn't actually look pro-consumer at all, and I have a problem when protectionist legislation is decorated in political marketing for "competition" and "consumer-welfare" wrapping paper, because it leads to two things:
1. Retaliatory legislation: Foreign legislators aren't stupid, they don't buy into that marketing. One can expect the notably absent Music services to be on reciprocal legislation from the USA. Globally this has the run on effect of patch-work inconsistencies in services across the globe - i.e. we're back to protectionism.
2. Vague laws stifle legitimate data-use functionality, but this only applies for services which the rule-maker arbitrarily chooses through specifically tailored criteria. I.E. It's a forced home-advantage to competitors who can use the data to provide new types of services. The vagueness of the laws need to be stamped out and applied to all providers equally: that would be a true consumer protection. Consumers need protection from everyone, not just big entities.
It's not arbitrary.
> but I am cynical when it is applied to completely optional services such as "Social Networks", or "Video" platforms.
These social networks are no longer "optional", and form a huge part of people's lives. Just because they are not running nuclear reactors or sewage plants doesn't absolve them of responsibilities.
> I think it is fair for a consumer to be able to opt out of site-to-site tracking (heck out-lawing that would be a better step) but this contradiction exists and it doesn't sit well with me because it doesn't actually look pro-consumer at al
How is "we don't want Facebook to continue pervasive and invasive tracking of everyone across the entire internet" not prosumer?
Here's what Facbook says about its tracking in the various help and settings pages: https://mastodon.nu/@dmitriid/112180885099177982
How about "For example, if you buy a pair of shoes at your local shopping centre, you might later see an ad for more shoes from that same company or a similar company." Is this really prosumer? Or is this surveillance capitalism that even very few dystopias could imagine?
> i.e. we're back to protectionism.
Yes, EU is about protectionism, but not the one you're thinking about: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-e...
> Vague laws stifle legitimate data-use functionality
Laws in general are vague because it's impossible to perfectly describe and encapsulate the entirety of human endeavours in any given field.
That said, there's very little that is vague about European laws curbing the unfettered unregulated unlimited-growth-at-all-costs US-brand of capitalism. For example, here's a look inside DMA: https://ia.net/topics/unraveling-the-digital-markets-act Note how different it is from the bullshit that US corporations spew about it and that gullible people buy into?
Also I think you've missed the point as you've pasted in quite a bit of information that confirms or agrees with my views.
Isn't it the exact same that you did?
> Particularly the comedy around the suggestion that a social network is a requirement
I never said it was a requirement. You could try and actually read what I wrote instead of imagining what I wrote.
> Also I think you've missed the point as you've pasted in quite a bit of information that confirms or agrees with my views.
Again, you could try and read that information instead of imagining what this information is.
I'm hope this makes it clear for you. Since I don't see any value in conversations where people can't stand behind their personal ideas.
They currently view the spat with Apple as advantageous to them. As soon as this is no longer the case, they will turn around and find someone else to pick a fight with.
1. Are 3rd party stores popular on Android? How about preinstalled vendor-run stores such as the Samsung Galaxy Store?
2. Small developers are the primary beneficiary of unified stores. On the desktop Steam is a good example of that, while large developers can afford the costs of generating direct sales via ATL marketing and support, small developers largely rely on in-store discovery/visibility to reach a larger audience.
3. However a Steam-like store hasn't eventuated on Android likely because Google's store is already good enough. Steam largely benefits from being early and maintains that position despite the numerous copycat stores having compelling offers (e.g. the Epic store is largely a dud despite regularly giving away popular gaming titles.)
4. If the final legislated position for Apple's App Store is simply to be a Steam-esque add-on store, i.e. merely a place of convenience but not at all necessary, Apple will no longer be beholden to accomodating hostile competitors.
5. The EU is still discovering how they can balance strict control versus existing commercial freedoms, and we're about to see this play out with Facebook. Since the EU has suggested that Facebook cannot charge for an Ad-free tier. Which has a few obvious run on implications, i.e. that a company cannot set the price of their own product and ad-supported "free" services (such as Google, etc.) are not in compliance.
6. Don't expect any of the "gatekeepers" to self-regulate their actions, because they can't read the mind of the EU. Instead they'll now sit and wait to be told what to do.
All of these thoughts obviously point in different directions, but there are some themes that apply to all of them.
1. Large software developers are pushing for independent stores because it benefits them, and protects them from disruption from emergent competitors.
2. Small developers will still need to rely on hive/halo visibility (i.e. Steam, Google Play, Apple App Store). Even though this costs them more than direct sales.
3. Either Apple has no control and thus no responsibility, or they have full control and can wield that against hostile competitors. There is no scenario where Apple has no control and full responsibility.
4. People don't like that last point, and that mental disconnect is on display - but that's where all of this takes us. It's a case of careful what you wish for.