Last week the six biggest operators – Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and ByteDance – were forced to toe the line on competition, advertising, interoperability and more. It was a gamechanger
The act doesn’t apply to all tech companies, only to those with either a market capitalisation of more than €75bn (£64bn), or having at least 45 million users and €7.5bn annual turnover in the EU.
In effect, this means just Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and ByteDance (owner of TikTok). The fact that five of the six are US companies has, of course, led to complaints that the pesky Europeans have it in for poor defenceless American giants. Cue violins.
The act imposes serious obligations: companies will have to allow third-party apps and app stores on their platforms; provide transparent advertising data; allow users to easily uninstall pre-installed software or apps; enable interoperability between different messaging services, social networks, and other services, allowing users to communicate seamlessly across platforms; and be more transparent about how their algorithms rank and recommend content, products and services.
It also prohibits certain practices by gatekeepers: favouring their own services over third-party ones, for example; engaging in self-preferential activities; and using private data from business users to compete against them. In other words, an end to tech business as usual.
Sweet. What the corrupt US departments couldn’t - and refused to - do.
Member that time micro$quash was in court for a decade to prove they weren’t a monopoly despite being a monopoly, and then after all that the court declared they were a monopoly? Member? And then absolutely sweet fuck-all happened and they’re still out there monoply-ing without any care or hindrance? Yeah.
It actually did, solve it, unironically. The concern was that Microsoft was going to de facto take over the HTML standard and make it so that you had to use Internet Explorer and proprietary Microsoft extensions if you wanted to browse the web, eliminating all competition.
Now, more than 20 years later, Internet Explorer is defunct. Microsoft’s current browser is built on Chromium, an open source engine that was created by one of its competitors. If anything it’s Google that’s now the problematic one.
This happened in 2009, when IE had a market share of 56% and declining. IE is (arguably) defunct because it sucked, not because of a one-time, court-mandated popup.
Back then Chrome didn’t exist and they didn’t implement the pop up, just assigned some overview and opened some APIs.
However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor did it prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.
Seems to me they continued to take actions in 2009 as a result of their loss in 2001. “Some overview” continued after the case was decided. Unless there was a subsequent court case I’m unaware of?
Sweet. What the corrupt US departments couldn’t - and refused to - do.
Member that time micro$quash was in court for a decade to prove they weren’t a monopoly despite being a monopoly, and then after all that the court declared they were a monopoly? Member? And then absolutely sweet fuck-all happened and they’re still out there monoply-ing without any care or hindrance? Yeah.
US, you fucked that up royal. As usual.
I mean, we got this “choose your default browser” screen for a few years. That solved it, right?
It actually did, solve it, unironically. The concern was that Microsoft was going to de facto take over the HTML standard and make it so that you had to use Internet Explorer and proprietary Microsoft extensions if you wanted to browse the web, eliminating all competition.
Now, more than 20 years later, Internet Explorer is defunct. Microsoft’s current browser is built on Chromium, an open source engine that was created by one of its competitors. If anything it’s Google that’s now the problematic one.
This happened in 2009, when IE had a market share of 56% and declining. IE is (arguably) defunct because it sucked, not because of a one-time, court-mandated popup.
It happened in 2001, you’re off by 8 years.
Back then Chrome didn’t exist and they didn’t implement the pop up, just assigned some overview and opened some APIs.
The popup came in 2009.
Seems to me they continued to take actions in 2009 as a result of their loss in 2001. “Some overview” continued after the case was decided. Unless there was a subsequent court case I’m unaware of?