I’ll preface this with saying that this is not a dig at you personally.
That said, when I still practices law, one of the things I hated most were clients who “did their own research”.
If I was lucky they’d at least got a hold of something that tangentially applicable to their situation at hand.
But even in those cases people just seemingly stopped reading once they thought they read something that supported what they wanted.
On that note, your quoted part has a couple of issues. Most important for this debate is that it doesn’t pertain to the topic at hand.
It talked about a gatekeeper favoring itself more in rankings.
So if you search for “Music” in the App Store and Apple shows the Apple Music app before showing Spotify, Deezer, and the like, then this non-legally binding layperson’s explanation of the DMA would apply.
Although even in the case of the example Apple might get away with pointing out that a query for the term “music” is expected to favor results with “music” in their name, but that’s neither here nor there.
That said, when I still practices law, one of the things I hated most were clients who “did their own research”.
If I was lucky they’d at least got a hold of something that tangentially applicable to their situation at hand.
But even in those cases people just seemingly stopped reading once they thought they read something that supported what they wanted.
On that note, your quoted part has a couple of issues. Most important for this debate is that it doesn’t pertain to the topic at hand.
It talked about a gatekeeper favoring itself more in rankings.
So if you search for “Music” in the App Store and Apple shows the Apple Music app before showing Spotify, Deezer, and the like, then this non-legally binding layperson’s explanation of the DMA would apply.
Although even in the case of the example Apple might get away with pointing out that a query for the term “music” is expected to favor results with “music” in their name, but that’s neither here nor there.