Here’s a definition:
‘product with digital elements’ means a software or hardware product and its remote data processing solutions, including software or hardware components being placed on the market separately;
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.
Zak@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yes it does, and it means someone making and selling either has to have a certain level of knowledge about it supply chain.
If it’s bundled with the OS, it probably does. In that case, the OS vendor is a manufacturer and has a variety of obligations relative to the app detailed in article 13.
If the user is obtaining it directly from the developer and installing themselves, it doesn’t really matter if it’s a component or a product because the OS vendor is not distributing or manufacturing anything. If the app/OS combination were to be treated as a system of which the app is a component, it is the user who has manufactured that product by combining the two. If the user is not selling that system, they have no obligations under the CRA.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Components “placed on the market separately” are explicitly included a being part of the product.
Let me try to gather this together:
The manufacturer, the authorised representative, the importer, the distributor, or other natural or legal person shall, on request, provide the market surveillance authorities with the name and address of any economic operator who has supplied them with a software product, including software or hardware components being placed on the market separately;