Post #3952001

I wouldn't wish DMA-compliance on my worst enemy. Gatekeeping is bad. But the DMA requirements are IMHO far reaching and too prohibitive. They hinder innovation and don't do much to enable competition. Firstly, I wouldn't requires that any new feature requires immediate API support for third parties. New features are not guaranteed adoption and are subject to strong evolution after first being introduced. Giving a 12-24 months window to come into compliance or remove the feature seems reasonable. Secondly, I would argue that compliance should only be necessary if a third party actually requests access to gated features to build their service, and only if there is no preexisting alternative. I would even go one step further and require some reasonable amount of money to be paid by the requesting companies to the gatekeeper while working on the APIs and then have that money refunded when they actually ship their product to avoid frivolous requests. Finally, and hopefully this is already the case, patents (for all their evil) should be enforced first, before any DMA consideration. These is my unrequested-for and not-a-legal-scholar take. I am however a European citizen, and this has been my sentiment from day one, only to be reinforced since then. The EU really ill defined this; the cure is worse than the remedy. The intent is nice but it really misses the target 😓 I am pro competition and pro sovereign tech. This ain't it. Also I wish Apple & Google had been more reasonable from the start and read the room sooner to avoid all this mess. cc @EUCommission