This might be their strategy. There’s no way they could come to the conclusion they’d be allowed to continue charging a fee for access. The DMA is explicit:
(57) If dual roles are used in a manner that prevents alternative service and hardware providers from having access under equal conditions to the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used by the gatekeeper in the provision of its own complementary or supporting services or hardware, this could significantly undermine innovation by such alternative providers, as well as choice for end users. The gatekeepers should, therefore, be required to ensure, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features that are available or used in the provision of its own complementary and supporting services and hardware. Such access can equally be required by software applications related to the relevant services provided together with, or in support of, the core platform service in order to effectively develop and provide functionalities interoperable with those provided by gatekeepers. The aim of the obligations is to allow competing third parties to interconnect through interfaces or similar solutions to the respective features as effectively as the gatekeeper’s own services or hardware.
(7) The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services.
It’s an incredibly risky strategy, as the fine is payable immediately. That’s up to $38B for the first offence. They’ve had years to check compliance with the EU, so leaving it to the last minute then claiming “confusion” won’t be a valid defence. If Apple continues to renege on their legal responsibilities, a second fine of up to $76B can be levied. There are additional fees for late payments and other infractions too. The EU legal system uses the principle of the spirit of the law. This is contrasted with the US system which is the “letter of the law.” As such, constructive evasion isn’t taken lightly in the EU. Anything but free access is clearly intentional non-compliance.
So it must be like this:
They see a way to interpret what the EU means in the worst way possible, BUT it’s only so they can go to court.
Why would they? Because they would be able to keep their monopoly until the case is done. Basically, buying time.
They’re probably confident that they can get away with this cheap (or by paying less than what they’ll gain).
Extremely shitty done by Apple, but a common strategy among shitty companies.
This might be their strategy. There’s no way they could come to the conclusion they’d be allowed to continue charging a fee for access. The DMA is explicit:
It’s an incredibly risky strategy, as the fine is payable immediately. That’s up to $38B for the first offence. They’ve had years to check compliance with the EU, so leaving it to the last minute then claiming “confusion” won’t be a valid defence. If Apple continues to renege on their legal responsibilities, a second fine of up to $76B can be levied. There are additional fees for late payments and other infractions too. The EU legal system uses the principle of the spirit of the law. This is contrasted with the US system which is the “letter of the law.” As such, constructive evasion isn’t taken lightly in the EU. Anything but free access is clearly intentional non-compliance.
Must say, I’m a fan of “spirit of the law”.
Then there’s no “bUt tHiS wOrD cOuLd mEaN tHiS iF tRaNsLatEd 50 tImEs tHroUgH gOoGle TrAnSlaTe iN 1874”
Exactly. Avoiding the clear intent of a law by using weasel words has always pissed me off about the U.S. legal system.