Comment by GeekyBear
6 days ago
It's entirely possible to prosecute Google for fraudulently marketing Android as open and force them to keep their promise.
If they want to have a closed platform, do what Microsoft did with Xbox and create something new.
> prosecute Google for fraudulently marketing Android as open and force them to keep their promise.
Sorry man. The EU Cyber Resilience Act is forcing these changes. An operating system is a class 1 important product. A tamper-resistant microchip is a class 2 important product. A device with a secure element is a critical product. Your smartphone has all of these pieces. Manufactures must follow a list of best practices to enjoy a presumption of conformity. That list of best practices is being compiled and made ready for publication, with full effect in 2026/2027. Google knows what is coming. Everyone big knows what’s coming.
True open source with no monetization can get a pass. Everyone else has to do this.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L...
Even if the idea originally came from the EU, the fact that Google is rolling it out worldwide would seem to indicate that they already wanted to do this, no? And regardless of whether they wanted to or not (inside the EU), it does not invalidate criticism of the move from outside of the EU.
Please explain to me what the relevant parts are. What are the requirement that forces verified developers?
Scheduled to be published in December.
There is no reason to punish users outside the EU who still have the legal right to demand that Google keep its word.
> True open source with no monetization
Even RMS needs money once in a while, short of eating bits of his own flesh.. oh wait!
If the only thing standing in the way of closed platforms is that they have to be marketed as closed, you're just going to get everyone marketing their software like Apple does and nothing else will change.
Here in the States iOS, XBox, PlayStation and Nintendo's various gaming platforms are all perfectly legal walled gardens.
If you don't like that, you have to do what they did in the EU and change the law.
Fraud is illegal here today, and Google's marketing was definitely fraudulent, so there is clearly something that can be done about it today.
Sony didn't have to reopen the PS3, it got away with a settlement.
Sony didn't spend a decade marketing an "open" platform that allowed users to run any software they chose to run.
OtherOS was an advertised feature of the PS3. Are advertising claims now advisory until they mature?
1 reply →
The only solution to this problem is new legislation. The case that Google fraduently marketed Android is flimsy at best.
People buying phones by and large do not care in the slightest about "openness". Whether or not their phone supports sideloading is completely and utterly irrelevant to them.
But aside from that, it would be enermously difficult to prove that Google made claims that were unequivocally false while advertising Android. Sure, they made some vague claims about Android being an "open" platform. But they had more than enough well-compensated lawyers on their side to avoid making specific promises about specific functionality that could eventually land them in court.
Finally, even if some of the claims Google made about Android in 2015 no longer hold up in 2025, that in and of itself is not illegal. Google is allowed to change and adapt Android over time as it sees fit. Though you and I may disagree with their findings, they have internally identified systemic security threats caused by unrestricted sideloading, and have created a solution to this real-world problem (however flawed it may be). There is no reason under the current laws of the United States that they should not be allowed to make those changes (aside from perhaps general antitrust law, but that is not enough in this instance as evidenced by the outcome of Epic Games' case against Google). Perhaps they will have to change their advertising going into the future, and they can definitely no longer reuse older advertising materials promoting Android's capability for unrestricted sideloading (if those exist). But just because they advertised Android as having feature X in the past does not mean that they would break the law if they were to remove feature X in the future after they stopped running those old ads.
(Yes, it gets a little blurry in the case of software because it often automatically updates and offers no option to downgrade. But phones don't last forever. In the worst case Google could just wait ~5 years from today to implement Developer Verification.)