the same is also true of a console, and there's no reason that app stores can't prove (eg) productivity apps like word processing on console platforms. Just plug in a keyboard, or use wireless.

People already use their phones for everything in our modern society, so they have simply declared them to be that, regardless of what Apple thinks about it.

Even if I'd personally like it, I don't think the same argument makes much sense for a PS5 - when have you last used it to order groceries or new furniture? Apple would love to get a cut of those purchases, by the way.

Starting by dealing with the devices that have the highest impact on the largest number of people, due to a runaway capitalistic empire trying to add an additional tax to everything that vaguely gets near it, has a higher chance of actually succeeding.

> Starting by dealing with the devices that have the highest impact on the largest number of people, due to a runaway capitalistic empire trying to add an additional tax to everything that vaguely gets near it, has a higher chance of actually succeeding.

This is the worst approach, I think. Lawmaking shouldn't work where a juicy fineable target is spotted, singled out, and milked for all it's worth. Laws should set out rules that everyone has to follow.

Also, it might be hard to order groceries on a PS5, but it's much simpler to make a PS5 able to browse the Web than it is to open up an iPhone to any HTML-rendering code, or background tasks, without compromising the seamless experience reasons many people bought one for in the first place.

> due to a runaway capitalistic empire trying to add an additional tax to everything that vaguely gets near it

It's not due to a runaway capitalistic empire. It's because it made stuff people really want, so they'll pay for it. You're thinking of political structures, where people are forced to pay taxes regardless of the outcomes. Apple are rich because they make things people want. That's not a runaway empire. That's just being really, really useful. This gross mischaracterisation of useful structures as empires is astonishing and unhelpful to any clarity of thought.

The point of the law isn't to fine Apple. The point is to ban their tax collection entirely, relieving society of this pointless money drain. Most people currently don't have a choice to not pay an extra fee to Apple - we'll see how many will once it's optional?

Once the device has been sold to you (for a profit, even!), Apple has no business interfering in relationships between you and a separate business trying to sell you additional software for it, much less to collect a tax on entirely unrelated things like streaming video subscriptions.

The point of GP is double standards.

If you really believe that "once a device has been sold to you, the manufacturer has no business interfering in relationships between you and a separate business trying to sell you additional software for it", then you'd want to apply that principle to gaming consoles, to car infotainment systems, etc.

But no, the EU legislation basically restricts their coverage to only the largest companies (which are incidentally not EU companies). It's not based on principles, but on opportunistically targeting the companies that can afford to pay and can't afford to lose the EU market.

And we should feel bad for the largest corporations on earth... Why, exactly? These companies would sell you oxygen if the market was there for it, why on earth shouldn't we target these megalithic parasites?

If they want access to EU citizens, then they have to play by the EU's rules, otherwise they can get bent and say goodbye to that whole market.

>when have you last used it to order groceries or new furniture? Apple would love to get a cut of those purchases, by the way.

You can, though. There's no particularly convenient way to do most of those things, but that's largely because of manufacturer limitations. Nothing stopping you from using the browser on your Switch to go do instacart.com, tho.

>Starting by dealing with the devices that have the highest impact on the largest number of people

Why would this need to be addressed so singularly? Is that how the EU approaches most problems? It seems pretty sensible that they'd just regulate computing devices to allow for this sort of thing and then be able to pretty easily bring into compliance any who don't. Isn't that more or less what they did with the GDPR? It seems like regulating this would be even easier as non-compliance would be entirely visible to the consumer.

> Why would this need to be addressed so singularly?

I don't know, I didn't write the law. They must have thought this is the better approach to start with. Perhaps they consider fighting one gigacorp at a time to be easier. After all, Apple has been left to grow unchecked until became larger than many countries.

Sure wish the US would just handle Apple the same way China has handled Alibaba growing too large. One can dream, right?

For context, they basically just said "you had your fun, it's over" and forcibly split the company in many smaller ones under new leadership.

I only have an Xbox and I can tell you it's super easy. Just open "Edge".

I know (glad microsoft did this from late 360 onwards) I should have mentioned it in my comment.