If I remember correctly, it was a us-east-1 issue specifically. Why is everyone hosted in us-east-1, especially in Europe where stable and reliable regions are available (eu-west-1, eu-west-3, ...)?
In such cases the services continue to operate as-is despite problems in us-east-1.
Not saying that’s not a problem, just, clarifying the scope.
Are we soon going to say Spotify, ASML, and Carl Zeiss are also gatekeepers?
Americans may be used to political characterisation by arbitrary whim of the President, but the EU actually has a process. You can read the decisions: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers-portal_...
Rules for gatekeepers: https://www.eu-digital-markets-act.com/Digital_Markets_Act_A...
> turnover equal to or above EUR 7,5 billion in each of the last three financial years, or where its average market capitalisation or its equivalent fair market value amounted to at least EUR 75 billion in the last financial year, and it provides the same core platform service in at least three Member States
> a core platform service that in the last financial year has at least 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and at least 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union
Explainer: https://www.grantthornton.ie/insights/factsheets/determining...
Honestly, I'm fine with just placing extra requirements on very successful companies.
But for Spotify, why not?
> It’s a very thin and a political line between being a gatekeeper and a very successful company.
Of course.
If you are a tech company that becomes as successful as to be a monopoly or a participant in an oligopoly with a strong network effect, why wouldn't you be recognized as a gatekeeper?