6 ms·

I contacted the EU DMA team about my concerns and got a real reply within 24 hours. Not just an automated message, it looked like a real human read my message a

by ruuda 8mo ago

I contacted the EU DMA team about my concerns and got a real reply within 24 hours. Not just an automated message, it looked like a real human read my message and wrote a reply. I'd urge other EU citizens to do the same.

mzajc 8mo ago
For posterity, what was their sentiment?
microtonal 8mo ago
Great idea, I just did the same. I encourage other EU citizens to do the same. Keeping at least one of the two major mobile ecosystems open is important. (And install GrapheneOS, the more successful open Android becomes, the better.)
- stratom 8mo ago
  GrapheneOS is great. But that currently means you have to buy a phone from Google to work around Google looking down Android.
  - microtonal 8mo ago
    True. I'm really happy that they are working with an OEM to bring an alternative in 2027. Until then: - A refurbished Pixel works (except some weird Verizon locking that I heard about the other day). - Pixels get really heavily discounted near the end of the cycle (e.g. 9a currently). Google probably doesn't make much on it if you are opting out of your ecosystem.
  - palata 8mo ago
    They say they will announce a partnership with a major OEM manufacturer in March 2026!
  - troyvit 8mo ago
    When I do this for family I buy a used pixel. Then no dollar goes directly back to Google.
    - dotancohen 8mo ago
      By ensuring that Pixels have significant resale value, you are encouraging consumers to buy Pixel phones.
      - microtonal 8mo ago
        Still, you are stopping the extraction of analytics, which probably bring Google the much more revenue over the longer term, and it is not possible to disable on regular Android phones. Remember that on every certified Google Android phone, Google Play Services runs with system-level privileges. On GrapheneOS, it is sandboxed like pretty much any other app (if you choose to install Play Services) and you can make it 'blind' by revoking most privileges. Same for Pixel Camera, etc., I just block network access.
dmitrygr 8mo ago
[flagged]
- microtonal 8mo ago
  That is not how the European Union works. One of the core goals of the EU is to guarantee the European single market. One of the core principles of the single market is the Freedom to establish and provide services [1]. The Apple/Google duopoly have effectively created a market within the single market where the core principles of the single market do not apply anymore. Tech has a strong tendency to favor outcomes with only a handful large players that make competition impossible due to network effects, etc., distorting the market. The Digital Markets Act was made to address this problem. IANAL, but Google's Android changes seem like a fairly clear violation of the DMA. This is typically hard for people from the US to grasp (I saw that you are not originally from the US though). In Europe, capitalism is not the end goal, the goal of capitalism is to serve the people and if that fails, it needs to be regulated. --- As an aside, the lengths people go to defend a company with $402.836B yearly revenue :). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market#Four_freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market#Four_fr...
  - dmitrygr 8mo ago
    Yes. I am effectively asking you what the moral justification for DMA is. I understand that lawmakers can make whatever law they want. I understand they made it. I am curious how people who agree this should be possible think of this from a moral angle, especially as engineers who make their living by creating intellectual property and probably wouldn’t want to see control of it seized randomly
    - ForHackernews 8mo ago
      The moral argument is that vertically integrated monopolies threaten the rights of consumers, who are human beings. Corporations are legal fictions and their "rights" are another convenient fiction to align incentives. They carry zero moral weight.
    - 8mo ago
afh1 8mo ago
[flagged]
- verisimi 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- ivell 8mo ago
  EU did bring regulations that helped consumers. I have a feeling that criticism of EU regulations mostly come from people who are not in the EU.
- rcbdev 8mo ago
  I trust my EU bureaucrats much more than I'd trust the public service crooks in the White House.
pimterry 8mo ago
Done! I wrote up both my concerns about this and how it affects app/app-store market competition, and how limitations like Play Integrity encourage apps to block usage on non-Google approved devices as well, since that's anti-competitive within the mobile device & OS market (blocking GrapheneOS, Waydroid, etc). Supporting free competition with and within the Android market is in theory what these teams are all about so hopefully with enough voices they'll push harder on it. I'd love to see a shift here that makes non-Google/Apple-controlled mobile a possible option (even if it's a Linux-on-desktop-style niche for the foreseeable future)

by ruuda 8mo ago

mzajc 8mo ago

For posterity, what was their sentiment?

microtonal 8mo ago

Great idea, I just did the same. I encourage other EU citizens to do the same. Keeping at least one of the two major mobile ecosystems open is important. (And install GrapheneOS, the more successful open Android becomes, the better.)

stratom 8mo ago
GrapheneOS is great. But that currently means you have to buy a phone from Google to work around Google looking down Android.
- microtonal 8mo ago
  True. I'm really happy that they are working with an OEM to bring an alternative in 2027. Until then: - A refurbished Pixel works (except some weird Verizon locking that I heard about the other day). - Pixels get really heavily discounted near the end of the cycle (e.g. 9a currently). Google probably doesn't make much on it if you are opting out of your ecosystem.
- palata 8mo ago
  They say they will announce a partnership with a major OEM manufacturer in March 2026!
- troyvit 8mo ago
  When I do this for family I buy a used pixel. Then no dollar goes directly back to Google.
  - dotancohen 8mo ago
    By ensuring that Pixels have significant resale value, you are encouraging consumers to buy Pixel phones.
    - microtonal 8mo ago
      Still, you are stopping the extraction of analytics, which probably bring Google the much more revenue over the longer term, and it is not possible to disable on regular Android phones. Remember that on every certified Google Android phone, Google Play Services runs with system-level privileges. On GrapheneOS, it is sandboxed like pretty much any other app (if you choose to install Play Services) and you can make it 'blind' by revoking most privileges. Same for Pixel Camera, etc., I just block network access.

dmitrygr 8mo ago

[flagged]

microtonal 8mo ago
That is not how the European Union works. One of the core goals of the EU is to guarantee the European single market. One of the core principles of the single market is the Freedom to establish and provide services [1]. The Apple/Google duopoly have effectively created a market within the single market where the core principles of the single market do not apply anymore. Tech has a strong tendency to favor outcomes with only a handful large players that make competition impossible due to network effects, etc., distorting the market. The Digital Markets Act was made to address this problem. IANAL, but Google's Android changes seem like a fairly clear violation of the DMA. This is typically hard for people from the US to grasp (I saw that you are not originally from the US though). In Europe, capitalism is not the end goal, the goal of capitalism is to serve the people and if that fails, it needs to be regulated. --- As an aside, the lengths people go to defend a company with $402.836B yearly revenue :). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market#Four_freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market#Four_fr...
- dmitrygr 8mo ago
  Yes. I am effectively asking you what the moral justification for DMA is. I understand that lawmakers can make whatever law they want. I understand they made it. I am curious how people who agree this should be possible think of this from a moral angle, especially as engineers who make their living by creating intellectual property and probably wouldn’t want to see control of it seized randomly
  - ForHackernews 8mo ago
    The moral argument is that vertically integrated monopolies threaten the rights of consumers, who are human beings. Corporations are legal fictions and their "rights" are another convenient fiction to align incentives. They carry zero moral weight.
  - 8mo ago

afh1 8mo ago

[flagged]

verisimi 8mo ago
[flagged]
ivell 8mo ago
EU did bring regulations that helped consumers. I have a feeling that criticism of EU regulations mostly come from people who are not in the EU.
rcbdev 8mo ago
I trust my EU bureaucrats much more than I'd trust the public service crooks in the White House.

pimterry 8mo ago

Done! I wrote up both my concerns about this and how it affects app/app-store market competition, and how limitations like Play Integrity encourage apps to block usage on non-Google approved devices as well, since that's anti-competitive within the mobile device & OS market (blocking GrapheneOS, Waydroid, etc). Supporting free competition with and within the Android market is in theory what these teams are all about so hopefully with enough voices they'll push harder on it. I'd love to see a shift here that makes non-Google/Apple-controlled mobile a possible option (even if it's a Linux-on-desktop-style niche for the foreseeable future)