Tech: where immigrants are industry leaders, workers are multi-millionaires, companies respond to employee concerns on social issues, and everyone competes to be the greenest.
It's the most progressive industry in the world.
Unfortunately, following today's discussion, and despite some of the positive signs in the DMA Review, it looks like the EC is unwilling to try to bridge that second gap, and it's going to have to take an intervention at the Court to get to a better place.
Does "effective interoperability" mean sitting in the shoes of the gatekeeper in every respect? Does it mean if the GK has access to something, even if they're not using it, then everyone else should have access to it as well?
There might be a gap between the companies and the regulatory vision, but I think there's also a gap between what the DMA can do well, and what the DMA teams seem to want to have the DMA do.
The problem is that we're not creating opportunities by removing obstacles set there by gatekeepers, we've got enforcers looking to create new opportunities by carving new terrain in previously unearthed layers of hardware and software.
That's not hyperbole. It's effectively what Bonova said, when defending the innovation effects, that it was about creating opportunities for third parties.
What is that "vision", well, I'm not saying for sure, but earlier today one of the DGs enforcing the DMA published its open source strategy, and from some of the DMA specification decision, it does seem like the two are working hand-in-hand https://t.co/OSaucthtBr
I think the Commission wants Core Platform Services (and beyond), via Article 6(7) to be designed in a way that is "open public infrastructure", i.e. move the gatekeepers upstream, make them middleware providers, let all the innovation happen elsewhere.