They will or there will be a repetition of Microsoft Corp. v. Commission, but with much higher fines.
Of course they will try not to. They will do everything to prolong the appeal process and so on - it's unthinkable they would allow any other app store on their devices, that's the very core of their identity - to be as closed and unified as possible. I don't believe the EU has enough power to fight Apple. I'll believe it when I see the first iPhone with an USB-C charger.
Of course they do. EU Commission, with parlament and member state approval (which they have), has supreme sovereign power over these matters. Market regulation is basically the main point of EU. Because it's a new targeted law, Apple has zero chance of appealing this to a higher court.
Thank god that companies don't have "power" over countries and sovereign bodies. I don't want to live in a cyberpunk world.
Snow Crash was like that, companies > countries.
Kind of hard to claim you're all unicorns and rainbows, when you're actively involved in a court case to defend anti-user practices...
1. EU bureaucrats are threatening one of the most successful business models ever.
2. Jealous EU tries to punish successful American tech companies as they can't compete with them in the market.
3. The EU attempts to lower the value of tech stock, threatening pensions of millions of Americans.
4. Apple will need to fire thousands if the malicious plan of EU bureaucrats succeeds.
Etc. etc.
2. see point 1
3. see point 1
4. see point 1
Yeah. That has been going on since 2005, and the US started it. It even adopted the whitepapers of think-thanks that advocated that exact trade war, elaborating how to sink the Eu's economy. This has been escalating since then.
This law basically says that the Eu is going full-out.
2. If true that is an argument in favor of the EU. That means no member countries will undermine the act.
3. The EU buteacrats do not care.
4. The EU buteacrats do not care.
When Chelsea Manning released her cables, there were too many of them for any journalist to read or even glance not to mention understanding what is going on. But I spent several weeks grepping and reading many fragments. My conclusion is that the US government cares a lot about their business in other countries, especially in Europe. Ambassadors reported a great deal about how things are going for American companies, what threats are (like European citizens realizing what's better for them), how to neutralize them and so on.
Which should never have happened and those companies should have never been let to dominate the Internet and everyone's lives to this extent. Especially considering how they are private tyrannies that decide whatever is the best for them, not their users.
Actually they do - thats the reason why that law was passed. That kind of thing may fly in the US, but not elsewhere.
1) Appeal to infinity, using all resources they can.
2) Comply but make things so difficult for the user that they effectively retain the control over the device as before. (Anybody remembers browserchoice.eu?)
3) Convince the US government the law goes too far and they should intervene. Given the war in Ukraine, it would be extremely easy to convince the countries bordering with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine they should support the USA in this case.
By forcing message passing platforms to submit to sharing private encryption keys? And that interoperability entailing the possibility of passing messages to government eavesdropping schemes? Sounds like a utopian paradise!
Why assume that requirement? For E2E encrypted messaging services all that needs to be shared are public keys for interoperability to work.
In the case of middleman encrypted messaging you already trust the provider not to sell you out. If they interoperate then you trust N providers, where N is the number of providers engaged in a particular chat thread.