The iOS version also has nothing to do with their lawsuit of Apple, they lost that one. It's due to an unrelated law in the EU, which is why this is only available in the EU.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There's absolutely no way it is a coincidence and unrelated. Epic drew attention to it. EU followed through.

[–] rowdyrockets@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So your source is just a gut feeling? Back it up

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My source is basic logic and reason, what's yours?

[–] rowdyrockets@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Someone already sent you the link to DMA and you responded with “coincidence”. Your logic has failed you

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I don't need a link to the DMA. I've known about it since before it existed. If you think it is coincidence that it was created shortly after the Epic v Apple lawsuit while addressing the exact same problem, your logic has failed you. Still waiting on your source.

[–] rowdyrockets@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No that’s the point, it’s not a coincidence. Epic games had nothing to do with the rulings of a foreign government. I’m glad we can agree.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think you understand the meaning of "coincidence".

[–] rowdyrockets@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A bit hypocritical given you’ve been the one using “coincidence” as a source. What I’m trying to tell you is there is not any documented proof for what you are saying - fuck, maybe you’re right. But you can’t go around spouting “facts” because you find the timing too coincidental. There has been no mention of Epic Games in any court documentation regarding Apple’s violation of DMA.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

A bit hypocritical given you’ve been the one using “coincidence” as a source.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "hypocritical".

you can’t go around spouting “facts” because you find the timing too coincidental.

I never said it was a "fact". Just an incredibly obvious observation.

there is not any documented proof for what you are saying

Nor is there any for what you're saying. Proof for either doesn't exist but only an irrational person is going to look at the correlation staring you in the face and say it's a coincidence (which is in fact what you're doing, BTW).

[–] rowdyrockets@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ah it’s clear you can’t be communicated with. See you in another life!

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl -2 points 4 months ago

Glad we had this little chat!

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The EU has had digital legislations since long before that lawsuit. Or do you think Epic is also responsible for GDPR?.

So you think that the European commission saw a lawsuit in a different country and decided "We need that" then rushed to write the entirety of DMA in less than 4 months. If you think DMA and Epic lawsuits are related the most possible order of events is that Epic saw what was going to be passed in the EU and decided to suit Apple and Google to get the same in the USA

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

...are you not aware that GDPR and DMA are not the same thing?

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Never claimed they were, I pointed out that DMA is not in a void, EU has multiple laws in that direction, DMA is an extension of GDPR.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Never claimed they were

I think it's pretty clear you were implying they were somehow related when they're clearly not.

DMA is an extension of GDPR.

No it is not.

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Somehow related is pretty far away from claiming they are the same thing.

First of all they're both consumer protection laws related to IT, which was my point that EU already has a track of enforcing these kinds of law, and it has nothing to do with one irrelevant lawsuit in the US.

But also GDPR is a law to protect customers data, after it was enforced and people saw the big companies were not untouchable other laws started to be discussed to further regulate them. Parallel to this the DSM was being enforced, part of which has the P2B Regulations, which regulates unfair contracts and trading practices. After both of these came into effect a new law, which is essentially the child of these two, started being discussed which would regulate how large companies corner the market and other abusive practices. To think that this law has nothing to do with GDPR but instead is because of a random lawsuit some random company lost in some random country is ridiculous.