If it’s bundled with the OS, it probably does.

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;

Economic operators shall, on request, provide the market surveillance authorities with the following information: (a) the name and address of any economic operator who has supplied them with a product with digital elements;

‘economic operator’ means the manufacturer, the authorised representative, the importer, the distributor, or other natural or legal person who is subject to obligations in relation to the manufacture of products with digital elements or to the making available of products with digital elements on the market in accordance with this Regulation;

‘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;

The verification demand is for Google certified Android.

‘electronic information system’ means a system, including electrical or electronic equipment, capable of processing, storing or transmitting digital data;

The OS or a phone both fit that definition.

‘component’ means software or hardware intended for integration into an electronic information system;

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.

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.

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?

That says when Google distributes an app via the Play Store, Google must be able to name the developer.

You’re thinking of the DSA (Article 30), in force since last year. The CRA is on top (or beside) of that, starting in 2027. Some are also pointing the finger at the RED (Article 3 3.). That’s the one that made Apple do USB chargers.

I expect phones are going to become a lot more locked down, especially in the EU.

It does not say that when I distribute an app via my website, Google has any obligations whatsoever.

Yes. Google is only demanding verification for certified phones.

collect certain information from developers

Yes. Like a copy of their identity papers.

Consult Article 23 (“Identification of economic operators”) of the CRA. The entry into force fits Google’s timeline.

I think Google is mainly aiming to comply with EU law. But Brussels effect…

It should give Europeans pause that their tech regulation is red state style. Explains why their tech industry is on a red state level.

Check out some thread on AI and copyright. That oughta tell you how copyright people “think”, for lack of a better word. Not impossible to succeed with that kind of thing in Europe.

I doubt there’s anywhere where the phone book wasn’t digitized. In Germany, the requirement to publish your address + number was eventually dropped, though; maybe because the phone system was privatized.

Salman Rushdie: First time?

UK cabinet is mainly GenXers. I didn’t count exactly, but Boomers still seem to outnumber Millennials. Definitely on the way out, though.

I wouldn’t mind the politicians from 30 years ago, who stayed away from this bullshit.

If some laws in country A have a problem with this, then they should unplug their internet wires at the border, or at least learn how to use them and/or govern their citizens.

What used to be called The Great Firewall of China. It used to be unthinkable for western countries.

You can’t blame this on old people. This is only happening now that the Boomers are on the way out. People who sent international letters or made international phone calls were aware that they were communicating with a different country with different laws. I think we are seeing this now, because now we have people who experience the internet as something happening on their own phone, at their location.

It’s kinda funny how times change.

In Germany, it even used to be that your phone number, along with your name and address, was published in the phone book, by law. If you wanted to be delisted, you had to provide a valid reason, such as being stalked. Just because was not good enough. At every street corner was a phone booth with the phone book of your town with your name and address. At post offices, you could find phone books from other towns. (The phone system was run by the postal service, which was a government agency.)

Phone books were a bit of a plot point in Terminator. The terminator gets the list of Connors from the phone book and kills them in that order.

Feels more like the brick layer is equivalent to someone paid to create training data. You absolutely would want to ask the architects and engineers researching no ways in housing and construction. Not that they know what avenues of research will work out, but they do know the avenues of research.

No one expected the splash that LLMs or image diffusion models would make. Years later, the conversations on Lemmy are still dominated by people who still haven’t looked up how they work.

GPTs completely nuked the whole field of natural language processing (NLP). People had dedicated years of their lives to solving tiny aspects of that. That got solved practically over night. Sentiment analysis? Just ask the chatbot. Some of the seemingly smart people who make seemingly informed criticisms of LLMs are NLP guys, who just can’t let go of their old ideas.

Bubble is an econ term. Whether there is an AI bubble has a rather tenuous connection to the future of AI. Not much of a connection between the housing bubble and the future of housing either.

If Lemmy is supposed to be the place where the most tech savvy people in the interest congregate

Says who? Mostly feels more like sales than R&D here. Which kinda fits with these pitches.

Mostly Harmless. I didn’t like that one. It was somehow bleak and left me worrying that DNA was in a bad place when he wrote it. I’m going to be a heretic and say that I did like how Colfer continued the series.

In a Discworld novel, an off-hand remark mentions Ponder Stibbons wanting to build a Van-De-Graff-generator by tying cats to a wheel. I wish I could remember which book it was.

Huh. At first, I thought that was about rubbing the kitty with some amber.

“Thales of Miletus, writing at around 600 BC, noted that rubbing fur on various substances such as amber would cause them to attract specks of dust and other light objects.” (Yes, that Thales.) It is still, or again, a popular demonstration, though we use plastic instead of amber. Amber in Ancient Greek is “elektron”.

I expect phones in the EU are going to become a lot more locked down in the next 14 months, like Samsung is already showing. But also think that Google will try its best to make developing for Android easy to get into.

This is forced by EU regulations. I doubt Google would have introduced this on its own. If they wanted to do this, then why wait until forced?