This reminds me of eKaren in Australia ordering X to block some content world wide. The Australia judge ruled that she is not the world wide arbiter and has neither the rights or power to issue a world wide edict.
I'd love to see more competition in the OS space. I feel that a big reason there isn't more competition is the gatekeeping of drivers by hardware vendors and the locking of bootloaders.
Why can't I install Linux on a Snapdragon laptop? Why can't I install OpenWRT on my router? Why can't I install Linux on my Pixel? It's certainly not because they are not capable - it's just that the vendors don't want you to (for one reason or another) or decide not to support a platform without giving users the ability to support it themselves.
With the liability that is an over-reliance on American core software (OS, firmware, etc) - I believe the EU should mandate unlocked bootloaders on electronic devices and force vendors to either distribute driver sources or provide enough documentation for bootleggers to write drivers.
This is simply "the right to repair" extended to the software component of hardware.
As they should. Now more so than ever. It has become EXTREMELY clear that everyone who tried to make themselves small in order to not be targets for this new US admin has gotten the worst of it. There’s no need to add another data point to prove that strategy doesn’t work, we can already be sure of it.
Enforce your own laws and sovereignty and don’t think twice about it.
One thing that I hate about these rules is the fine. The fines over time had been massive over weird and tame cases like promoting their store in Google search, but for the more obvious cases like misleading consent banner, they have been few and far in between. Also the rules are vague and there is no warning.
Not to mention fines create bad incentive for the government. Specially if control of fine money is given to the same people who are fining the companies.
This reminds me of eKaren in Australia ordering X to block some content world wide. The Australia judge ruled that she is not the world wide arbiter and has neither the rights or power to issue a world wide edict.
Importantly the EU here is not trying to dictate how X behaves outside the EU. Only how it interacts with people in the EU.
Seems fair enough to me that if you open a store front somewhere the local government gets to lay down the law on how to run that store front.
More rules please.
I'd love to see more competition in the OS space. I feel that a big reason there isn't more competition is the gatekeeping of drivers by hardware vendors and the locking of bootloaders.
Why can't I install Linux on a Snapdragon laptop? Why can't I install OpenWRT on my router? Why can't I install Linux on my Pixel? It's certainly not because they are not capable - it's just that the vendors don't want you to (for one reason or another) or decide not to support a platform without giving users the ability to support it themselves.
With the liability that is an over-reliance on American core software (OS, firmware, etc) - I believe the EU should mandate unlocked bootloaders on electronic devices and force vendors to either distribute driver sources or provide enough documentation for bootleggers to write drivers.
This is simply "the right to repair" extended to the software component of hardware.
As they should. Now more so than ever. It has become EXTREMELY clear that everyone who tried to make themselves small in order to not be targets for this new US admin has gotten the worst of it. There’s no need to add another data point to prove that strategy doesn’t work, we can already be sure of it.
Enforce your own laws and sovereignty and don’t think twice about it.
One thing that I hate about these rules is the fine. The fines over time had been massive over weird and tame cases like promoting their store in Google search, but for the more obvious cases like misleading consent banner, they have been few and far in between. Also the rules are vague and there is no warning.
Not to mention fines create bad incentive for the government. Specially if control of fine money is given to the same people who are fining the companies.