It's so depressing how, while we all were worried about Microsoft and Applel, it was Google who would end up harming free software the most. To think that a few years ago most people unironically believed that these bastards were "the good guys." Jesus Christ.

>>24073 <no archive https://archive.ph/jNAhK

>>24073 Technology has been so shit recently I'm going to go become a car/gun/camping guy or some shit. It's been lame for a while but with the payment processor censorship, age verification bs, eu chat control (which will probably cross the pond over to the US) and now this shit all in one year I'm really getting fed up.

Do they want the European Union to bend them over and fuck them or what?

>>24091 To this day, and despite what the EU promised, you can only install apps on iOS it they're approved by Apple, all the third party stores are just the Apple Store with extra steps. If the only law that was made to protect consumers did absolutely nothing, no wonder why Google ended up making a walled garden too, knowing that it'll get absolutely no opposition.

>>24092 >If the only law that was made to protect consumers did absolutely nothing First, you're assuming that the government actually WANTS to solve the problem. Second, you're assuming that the government even CAN fix the problem. Third, you're assuming that the government didn't CAUSE the problem. Have you ever wondered why it seems like almost everything related to technology for the past three decades is split down the middle between two companies, both of which have heavy ties to the very government that you're demanding "regulate" those companies?

>>24093 >you're assuming that the government didn't CAUSE the problem Well, actually, my point is that Google dared to do this because they saw that the law was completely harmless. This law didn't come out of nowhere, Apple had been doing this shit for years, consumers asked to be allowed to use their hardware as they wanted. Google probably had been wanting to copy Apple for years too, the only reason they didn't do it before is because if a law came out that forced them to reverse such asinine decision they wouldn't look as the "good guys" anymore. Now that they're sure the law can't bite them, they feel free to finally follow their plans. So yes, I very much think that this is direct consequence of that half-assed law. Whether that law is the result of criminal incompetence or just out of sheer malice is a different issue, and frankly, our politicians are both so stupid and so evil that it's hard to guess which was their motivation here.

>>24095 >This law didn't come out of nowhere, Apple had been doing this shit for years, consumers asked to be allowed to use their hardware as they wanted. This is where the problems begin. If these people actually DID want to use hardware that would allow them to use it the way they wanted, then they wouldn't have bought a fucking iPhone in the first place. Though technically you can still softmod the fucking thing, but no one actually cares. >Google probably had been wanting to copy Apple for years too I thought it was Samsung and Micro$haft people constantly accused of ripping off Crapple. >the only reason they didn't do it before is because if a law came out that forced them to reverse such asinine decision they wouldn't look as the "good guys" anymore You also forget that companies used to at least put in some effort to provide an attempt of there being competition in the market. Like the few times M$ tried to make a "Windows Phone" during the 2010's. >and frankly, our politicians are both so stupid and so evil that it's hard to guess which was their motivation here. Their motivation is to bog down the market with even more regulations in order to stifle any one who dares to enter the market. Think of the EU law making it a requirement that "all electronic devices" MUST use a USB-C cable. Never mind that there's over 20 different "types" of USB-C cables that all do different things and are not cross-compatible, AND that it prevents people from ever having any reason to ever develop a better cable for data transfer or charging or any other purpose.

Also related, there was speculation the EU age verification law would implicitly ban alternative Android ROMs due to a state mandated tool's dependence on Google Play Services. Looks like the developers backed off on the issue, but if that happened it would be pretty much over for non Google approved apps on Android. >GrapheneOS Under Threat: EU Age Verification And Google Changes Endanger Privacy-Focused Android >The most concerning menace, perhaps, stems from a well-intentioned effort by the European Commission to introduce, as part of the forthcoming European Digital Identity Wallet (EUID), an age verification tool, ostensibly to protect minors from harmful content exposure. >The system is still under development, and there is no definitive solution yet, but the initial architecture proposed for the tool raised a big red flag. It relied heavily on Google’s Play Integrity API, which requires devices to be Google-certified and apps to be downloaded from the Play Store. >After the issue was raised and discussed on GitHub and other online forums, the developers of the tool removed explicit references to Google’s API from its documentation; instead, the project now vaguely references OWASP MASVS compliance (Mobile Application Security Verification Standard), leaving the choice of which verification system to adopt open. >https://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/2025/08/10/whos-afraid-of-privacy-focused-smartphones/

Retard here. How will this affect my Android TV box? Should I flash a different OS onto it?

>>24124 The only people that are affected atm are people that side load apps that wont get verified by Google. Some people are worried about emulators on Android no longer being a thing.