home.social

#digitalmarketsact — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #digitalmarketsact, aggregated by home.social.

  1. Apple’s New EU App Store Terms Take Effect October 1: The Full 26/20/15/5 Rate Card

    Apple’s new business terms for apps distributed in the European Union take effect Thursday, October 1, 2026. The…
    #Europe #EU #appstore #AppleDeveloperProgram #DigitalMarketsAct #EuropeanUnion
    europesays.com/europe/136823/

  2. Apple’s EU Link-Out Rule: Only Sales Within 7 Days of a Tap Face a Commission

    Under Apple’s new EU business terms, effective Thursday, October 1, 2026, a purchase made after a customer taps…
    #Europe #EU #appstore #DeveloperFees #DigitalMarketsAct #EuropeanUnion
    europesays.com/europe/136821/

  3. Apple’s New EU App Store Terms Lock In Payment Choices for 12 Months

    Apple’s new EU business terms, effective Thursday, October 1, 2026, require a developer to select its payment options…
    #Europe #EU #appstore #DigitalMarketsAct #EuropeanUnion #In-AppPurchase
    europesays.com/europe/136813/

  4. Apple’s EU App Store Deadline: What Developers Must Do Before October 1

    Apple’s new business terms for apps in the European Union take effect Thursday, October 1, 2026, which by…
    #Europe #EU #appstore #AppleDeveloperProgram #DigitalMarketsAct #EuropeanUnion
    europesays.com/europe/136809/

  5. Apple’s EU Marketplace Rules: The $1,000,000 Letter of Credit Requirement Explained

    From Thursday, October 1, 2026, a company qualifies to run an alternative app marketplace in the European Union,…
    #Europe #EU #AppMarketplaces #appstore #DigitalMarketsAct #EuropeanUnion
    europesays.com/europe/136801/

  6. Apple’s $2,000+ iPhone Duo and the backlash against new EU App Store rules | Week in Mobile Games podcast

    Subscribe on your favourite podcast provider Stay Informed Get Industry News In Your Inbox… Sign Up Today PocketGamer.biz…
    #Europe #EU #EuropeanCommission #appstore #Apple #Charts #DigitalMarketsAct #EuropeanUnion #iPhoneDuo #Jobs #podcast #Regulation #TrailmixGames
    europesays.com/europe/136630/

  7. The Internet Was Built With Public Money

    Its Private Gatekeepers Must Answer to the Public.

    By Cliff Potts | WPS News

    BAYBAY CITY, LEYTE, Philippines, July 27, 2026 — 0005 PhST

    The European Union’s decision to fine Google €890 million—approximately US$1 billion—is more than another regulatory dispute between Brussels and an enormously profitable American corporation. It raises a question governments should have confronted decades ago: How did private companies acquire the power to determine who may be found, heard, read, and economically successful on a communications system built substantially with public money?

    The European Commission imposed €460 million of the penalty because Google allegedly favored its own shopping, hotel, flight, and other commercial services in search results. Another €430 million concerned Google Play restrictions that prevented application developers from freely directing customers toward less expensive purchasing options outside Google’s store (European Commission, 2026; Reuters, 2026).

    Google disputes the European findings and may challenge the penalties. However, the larger issue is not whether one particular search-result design was convenient or whether a developer signed a contract containing restrictive terms. The issue is whether a corporation that controls a primary gateway to information should be permitted to use that position to benefit its own businesses and disadvantage smaller competitors.

    Google is not merely another website competing for attention. It operates infrastructure that determines whether millions of other websites receive attention at all.

    The public built the foundation

    The internet was not created in a Silicon Valley garage.

    Its foundations emerged from decades of publicly funded research, including work by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation. NSFNET became the principal American internet backbone, growing from approximately 2,000 connected computers in 1986 to more than 2 million by 1993. The National Science Foundation retired that publicly supported backbone in 1995 as commercial internet services expanded (National Science Foundation, n.d.).

    Private companies subsequently invested enormous amounts in fiber-optic networks, cellular systems, data centers, software, cloud computing, and consumer services. That investment should not be dismissed. Nevertheless, it was built upon protocols, research, networks, and technical knowledge created with substantial support from American taxpayers, public universities, government laboratories, and publicly funded researchers.

    Tor offers another instructive example.

    The onion-routing research that eventually produced Tor began at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. The technology was designed to permit private communication across public networks by passing encrypted traffic through multiple relays. Its developers later released the software publicly, and the independent Tor Project eventually assumed responsibility for its continued development (Tor Project, n.d.).

    That public release was not merely charity. An anonymity network used only by government personnel would provide little anonymity because participation itself could identify a user as a government agent. A broad civilian network provided the crowd in which official users could disappear. At the same time, the technology became useful to journalists, dissidents, whistleblowers, researchers, abuse survivors, and people living under censorship.

    Tor demonstrates that publicly financed technology can remain broadly available as civic infrastructure rather than becoming a privately controlled tollbooth.

    Private companies became private governments

    The problem is not that businesses were permitted to operate online. Commercial participation helped transform a specialized research network into a global communications system.

    The problem is that elected governments allowed a handful of businesses to become the internet’s unelected governments.

    Google influences what information people discover. Meta determines which publishers and creators reach audiences who have already chosen to follow them. Apple and Google control access to most mobile application users. Major cloud providers control systems upon which businesses, governments, publishers, and public services increasingly depend.

    These corporations establish rules, impose penalties, change algorithms, restrict distribution, collect information, and decide which competing services are visible. Their decisions can destroy a small business or independent publication without a hearing, explanation, meaningful appeal, or democratic accountability.

    An independent publisher such as WPS News does not need to be personally targeted to be harmed. A search company can reduce traffic to thousands of publishers simultaneously by changing an algorithm, placing its own services above independent results, or using artificial intelligence to answer questions directly without sending readers to the original reporting.

    The injury may be impersonal, but it is still real.

    A publisher can conduct research, produce original work, maintain a website, follow technical recommendations, and publish consistently—only to discover that access to readers depends upon machinery controlled by companies that may operate competing news, advertising, video, artificial-intelligence, or information services.

    That is not an open marketplace. It is economic dependence upon a gatekeeper.

    Regulation is not theft

    Corporate defenders frequently describe regulation as government interference with private enterprise. That description ignores both the public origin of the network and the power these companies now exercise over others.

    The public financed much of the road. Private companies built businesses beside it, improved portions of it, and created useful vehicles for traveling upon it. They were then allowed to erect tollbooths, redirect traffic toward their own stores, and decide which smaller operators could place signs along the highway.

    Elected officials have every right—and a public duty—to question that arrangement.

    The European Union’s Digital Markets Act identifies exceptionally powerful technology companies as “gatekeepers” and subjects them to requirements intended to make digital markets fairer and more contestable. The law is explicitly designed to prevent dominant platforms from using control of essential services to suppress competition (European Commission, n.d.).

    The €890 million penalty will not dismantle Google, democratize the internet, or guarantee traffic for independent publishers. Google can absorb a billion-dollar fine more easily than almost any small competitor can absorb a bad month.

    Meaningful regulation must therefore do more than collect money. It must change behavior.

    Dominant search services should not secretly favor their own commercial operations. Application stores should not prevent developers from informing customers about alternatives. Ranking systems that determine economic survival require greater transparency. Publishers should have enforceable rights concerning how their work is copied, summarized, indexed, and used to train or operate artificial-intelligence systems.

    Governments did not spend decades creating a global communications network so that several corporations could privately determine who deserves access to the public.

    American taxpayers paid for the foundation. Their parents paid for it. Their institutions built it. Their elected representatives are entitled to demand that the businesses occupying its most powerful gateways operate fairly.

    The internet may no longer be publicly owned in any simple legal or physical sense. But it remains a public highway in function, necessity, and origin.

    The public has every right to insist that its gatekeepers answer to the people traveling upon it.

    References

    European Commission. (2026). Digital Markets Act enforcement concerning Google Search and Google Play.

    European Commission. (n.d.). Digital Markets Act: Ensuring fair and contestable digital markets.

    National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Birth of the commercial internet.

    Reuters. (2026, July 23). Google hit with $1 billion EU fine in first penalties under landmark rules.

    Tor Project. (n.d.). History of Tor and onion routing.

    #antitrust #ArtificialIntelligence #BigTechRegulation #digitalCompetition #DigitalMarketsAct #EuropeanUnion #Google #GooglePlay #GoogleSearch #independentPublishers #internetGatekeepers #NavalResearchLaboratory #NSFNET #publicInternet #TorProject #WPSNews
  8. Apple blockiert iTorrent-App im alternativen EU-App-Store
    Apple zieht die iTorrent-App aus dem alternativen App-Marktplatz AltStore PAL in der EU zurück. Gründe für diese Entscheidung bleiben zunächst unklar.

    iTorrent verschwindet aus AltStore PAL
    Seit Juli 2024 konnten Nutzer:inn
    apfeltalk.de/magazin/news/appl
    #News #Tellerrand #AltStorePAL #AppStore #Apple #DigitalMarketsAct #EU #iTorrent #Notarisierung #TorrentApp

  9. Apple blokuje aplikację iTorrent w AltStore PAL w UE

    Apple zablokowało możliwość pobierania aplikacji iTorrent z alternatywnego sklepu AltStore PAL w Unii Europejskiej – podaje TorrentFreak.

    iTorrent i podobne aplikacje, jak qBitControl, były dostępne od lipca 2024 r., omijając ograniczenia oficjalnego App Store dzięki przepisom Digital Markets Act.

    Od lipca 2025 r. część użytkowników zgłaszała brak możliwości pobrania aplikacji. Twórca iTorrent, Daniil Vinogradov, poinformował, że Apple cofnęło prawa dystrybucji, nie podając jasnej przyczyny. Firma tłumaczy jedynie, że aplikacje muszą przechodzić proces notaryzacji – kontrolę pod kątem złośliwego oprogramowania i oszustw.

    Na razie nie wiadomo, czy decyzja Apple wynikała z problemów bezpieczeństwa, czy była arbitralna. AltStore PAL również czeka na wyjaśnienia od Apple, które zapowiedziało dalsze „sprawdzenie sprawy”.

    #AltStorePAL #aplikacjeAlternatywneIOS #AppStoreUE #Apple #AppleBlokadaAplikacji #DigitalMarketsAct #iTorrent #torrentIPad #torrentIPhone #torrentNaIPad #torrentNaIPhone

  10. #Apple hat am 9. Juni dieses Jahres während der #WWDC2025- #Keynote zahlreiche #Software- #Updates präsentiert, darunter auch das neue # iOS26 für das #iPhone. Nun hat das Unternehmen allerdings offiziell bestätigt, dass iOS 26 aufgrund von regulatorischen Bedenken für Nutzer und Nutzerinnen in der #EU zunächst ohne einige bestimmte Funktionen ausgeliefert werden wird.

    Alle Infos: appgefahren.de/?p=381977

    #appgefahren #AppleBlog #iPad #Mac #iOS #SoftwareUpdate #EuropeanUnion #DMA #DigitalMarketsAct

  11. First native iPhone porn app "Hot Tub" debuts in the EU via AltStore PAL—made possible by the DMA breaking through Apple's App Store rules. A bold new chapter for digital content! #HotTub #iPhone #AltStorePAL #DMA #EU #DigitalMarketsAct

  12. Approved Corn on Alt EU Appstore?

    I wonder how long this type of advertising will be tolerated. Is the EU as litigious as the USA?

  13. iOS 17.3.1 und mehr steht zum Download bereit
    Apple hat heute Abend iOS 17.3.1 für iPhone und iPadOS 17.3.1 für iPad veröffentlicht, ein notwendiges Update vor der Einführung von iOS 17.4. Diese Aktualisierungen konzentrieren sich au
    apfeltalk.de/magazin/iphone/io
    #iPad #iPhone #News #Watch #Softwareaktualisierung #Apple #IOS174 #IOS1731 #Sicherheitsupdate #IPadOS1731 #Fehlerbehebung #DigitalMarketsAct #EUGesetzgebung #Applekosystem