Users want to truly exercise their choice of browser screen so badly that a list of nitpicks about the ordering of options in the share sheet and the prominence of an "Open" button which works the same way for every other app install flow is thwarting them from doing so.
The DMA is not (directly) about what users want; it's about markets having level playing fields, where all competitors have the same opportunities and thus have to win based on merit, rather than based on dominance in a different market.
Of course, the idea behind that is that that competition will then lead to things that users really want, without having to mandate what that is specifically through central planning.
If users can be lost in meaningful numbers to such comparatively tiny frictions, it seems like the market will never sufficiently be a level playing field.
I agree that it's a hard problem (like fair markets regulation in general - e.g. it's not straightforward how to define a particular market either). Unfortunately I'm also not sure what the better solution would be - at least trying to make them as fair as possible seems to be the somewhat reasonable choice, compared to full central planning or a free-for-all market.
Arguments on the margin make sense, but DMA compliance has huge resource costs and will surely come with eye watering penalties. And yet if small barriers are indeed so insurmountable then the benefits will be limited. So: is it worth it?
I think cookie banners have not meaningfully changed users’ ability to exercise privacy preferences, but they have probably cost the economy many tens of billions of dollars to implement, enforce, and litigate. As far as I can tell, there isn’t much reflection on what that says about effective legislation.
