It’s too bad they were too terrible at writing legislation to be successful.
Comment on Google will block sideloading of unverified Android apps starting next year
cabbage@piefed.social 9 hours agoThe EU already forced sideloading to be officially supported on iPhones thanks to the Digital Markets Act, and that law applies to Google as well.
The US will likely apply pressure, just like they are trying to force their death machines to be legalized on European roads. Apple already tried to pressure the union and failed, but the political climate has changed a bit since then, and while EU bureaucrats can be fierce, European leadership tends to be weak as fuck.
But yeah, chances are that this change won't apply to the EU. :)
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 hours ago
cabbage@piefed.social 2 hours ago
What exactly do you mean?
Sure, nothing is perfect, but EU legislation has generally been quite good, from the GDPR to the DMA.
The challenges are more related to enforcement - rules on the book are worth nothing if we don't force companies to live by them. In this respect we've seen some pretty sloppy behaviour, but also some victories. It's not a one-sided story.
Another challenge is of course to keep passing good laws, and to avoid terrible ones. Chat control needs to be stopped. Stopping it is a matter of convincing national governments it's a bad idea, as well as members of the European Parliament - everyone should be writing their representatives NOW. But that's another issue entirely. :)
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 hours ago
don’t iphones delete your sideloaded apps against your will and along with your data, if you don’t use the ibstaller tool at once every week?
if so that’s useless for anybody other than developers themselves who otherwise don’t even want to use their own app.
cabbage@piefed.social 2 hours ago
I have no idea as I don't follow apple much, but I am aware that they are constantly trying to find ways to avoid complying with EU law, and that it is often rapidly struck down.
What you're describing here is not a failure of the law, but Apple trying real hard to find creative ways not to comply with it. To me it only shows that they are desperate, and that EU law is in fact getting to them.
If they keep at it it'll eventually end up in court, the case will take a couple of years, and they'll be slammed with a fine and asked to get their shit together.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Does the law demand unsigned software?
cabbage@piefed.social 5 hours ago
Google is clearly trying to find a loophole here. Their loophole clearly sucks.
In all likelihood it'll end up in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union. And in all likelihood Google will lose again.
The Court of Justice generally seems unimpressed by American lobbyists, so the strategy of finding a dumb loophole is probably doomed to fail.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
That didn’t answer my question. M
cabbage@piefed.social 2 hours ago
Does the law demand unsigned software?
The answer is no. It's not phrased like that. But it's all about ensuring free competition in digital markets. The sole purpose of Google's move here is to hinder competition in their own digital market, and to keep control over it.
So the law does not have a paragraph stating that "unsigned software must be allowed", but it has a bunch of other paragraphs that can be used to strike down on monopolistic behaviour.
Google are aware of the law, and will try to find a loophole by designing a system that they believe technically complies with it. Then someone will sue them, it will end up in the European court, and the European court will in all likelyhood tell Google to get fucked.
It seems american tech companies think they can get away with anything because that's how it works in the US. We are repeatedly seeing that this is not how it works in Europe: the Court of Justice tends to care deeply about the intention of the law, as well as the perceived consequences of their rulings. And they don't seem to care all that much about American capitalists.
But to answer your question very simply: No, it doesn't. Thankfully that doesn't matter at all.
DmMacniel@feddit.org 9 hours ago
which is utterly disheartening.