It's why we cannot have nice things. There is always a group of people who abuse these laws and use it as kind of an easy ride. I see it all the time here in the NL, and its a real burden for smaller companies.

" The lawsuit notes that similar fees are not charged on equivalent payments on Android devices, which are built by Google.". So Google didn't do it, now I wonder, it would be that Google had another type of revenue, do they ?

The fact that he uses the term training (from the best agents), is fallacious. Rarely LLM models are fine-tuned / trained for Agents. Most of the time it is just out of the box models powering the Agentic framework, no training involved, just context, tools and maybe some other peripheral stuff like guardrails etc. That said, AI agents can be great if they have the right context for the task with limited scope presented to them, if not, they will make something up, right or wrong.

On one side the EU is starting to do some investments and discovering that they are severely lagging behind on production and innovation. But on the other side the EU is killing and limiting the initiatives and capabilities that could help the EU recovering some of its position. And although so well intended, if the rest of the world moves on, you can try to keep up even if it means you need to chose some negatives, or you are left behind and get forced to adapt the negatives.

Letting an Agent have open access to an API is not a good idea, just like it is not a good idea to have a human access an API without any checks and controls. There are ways to let an Agent have controlled access to data via tools.

There are reasons, and I am not sure I know them without getting into much theories, that the EU is leaving MS alone in lots of these cases. While at the same time MS is probably the most "successful" or in other words dominant Tech player in the EU. Azure is huge, O365 is mega, Linkedin etc. etc. One of the more practical reasons is, the EU has blinders for looking cross tech markets. So as Apple, Google and Meta are working in a lot less different markets (in the EU) then MS. This is easier for them to target due to EU law. Does not make it right and I fear it even gives MS in the EU another boost.

Running your whole company on MS, putting everything in Azure, all your people in Azure AD, your code on GitHub, your documents and email in O365, your communication in Teams. GL!

I do not understand why other companies want to have it switched off ? It is beta, unforeseen consequences with this type of technology are a given.

The blatant sabotage acts by MS to kill any more innovative competitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

The EU is becoming a bigger and bigger customer of Microsoft. Giving up government data to a US platform. Enabling MS to become larger, bigger, dominant and in many more markets than Apple ever will or want. Becoming the default to go to company because nobody ever was fired because they bought MS technology (as a a follow up to the "Nobody Gets Fired For Buying IBM"). And at the same time, the EU is crippling tech competition like Apple, so strange.

What was it ? Embrace, extend and than something.....

If you are going to do Google, do it to MS, Meta and the other market dominators as well. Otherwise you will just create an even larger monopolie.

I think the definition of App is taken quite broadly here. It sounds like these are just single function apps, where the function gets integrated in the OS.

Historically looking there has already been a wealth shift from the few to the many. I think in my country we had quite a good balance. Currently I do see a shift back to the few. Imo its just a matter of finding the balance, and this doesn't change that.

They are truly amazing. They can have a company get away from anything and focus all the attention on others where their company still not dominates.