You’re arguing that a dev shouldn’t be seen as supplying to Google just because their apps run on a Google system. I agree, that could be a valid argument, but I am not too sure if it would work in court.
Google is certainly following the spirit of the law. Maybe there is a tiny loophole here but imagine Google leaves that open. A few people install some shady app store full of malware and scams. Would a court find that Google had fulfilled all its legal obligations to protect its users?
Zak@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’m saying there’s no reasonable interpretation of this provision where a dev would be seen as supplying to Google by distributing an app that runs on Android without using Google’s store. Given the broader context of the CRA, it should be more clear; the CRA is about supply chains, and generally imposes obligations on entities acting as links in the supply chain. Google can’t sell apps if it doesn’t know where they came from.
The fact that Google plans not to forbid installation of unsigned apps via ADB would be a huge loophole if the intent was to force OS vendors to control all app distribution for those operating systems.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Here’s a definition:
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that such apps are components “placed on the market separately”. In fact, I think it’s exactly within the meaning. In any case, even if not, such loopholes are usually plugged by some of the vague, general obligations.
I don’t think ADB installation is a loophole. Once you poke around in the insides of a device, you’re generally on your own. I expect that devices are going to become more locked down before these regulations enter into force but only as far as absolutely necessary. Google doesn’t want to lock out the next generation of devs. Unless or until there is some fuss about people doing something bad and this is declared a loophole.
Zak@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Apps definitely qualify as products with digital elements. The term that determines whether Google has obligations is this scenario is ‘economic operator’ Here’s the definition for that:
When Google distributes apps via the Play Store, it is very obviously the distributor, which is defined:
If someone else distributes apps using other infrastructure that happen to run on an OS that Google made, Google is not the distributor and does not incur any obligations that apply to distributors. (For completeness, Google is obviously not the manufacturer, authorised representative, or importer either.)
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The verification demand is for Google certified Android.
The OS or a phone both fit that definition.
An app fits the definition of a component.
Maybe you would have to argue that an app is not actually a component. But if it’s a stand-alone thing, then why does it rely on an OS?
I think you can make a good argument that a phone without an OS is not a system. It’s not capable of much. Maybe custom roms will remain an option.
Anyway, Google is not abusing that loophole. So, no problem. F-Droid encourages users to complain to EU lawmakers about Google being a meanie. Maybe the EU will close it anyway as part of future tech regulation.