7 ms·
A big win for Android interoperability
- Brian_K_White 2mo agoIs "in the EU" the new "in mice"?
- stavros 2mo agoOnly if you consider Europeans mice, I guess?
- Almondsetat 2mo agoConsidering it has the same population as the US, are you also mice?
- Pay08 2mo agoThe EU has approximately 110 million more people than the USA.
- Brian_K_White 2mo agoguys... I only mean "cool there's a new...oh, not for me" re the fuck lax
- stavros 2mo agoExcellent, now please force them to open up app installation again!
- ramblurr 2mo agoIs this ruling related to https://keepandroidopen.org/ https://keepandroidopen.org/ at all? It's not clear to me..
- croemer 2mo agoUnrelated
- nolist_policy 2mo agoVery nice, here are the 11 Android features that must be made accessible to third party's: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/interoperability/alphabet-specification-proceedings-interoperability-ai-services_en#benefits-for-businesses-and-users https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/in... My favorites: > 6. Structured on-device integration > AI services will be able to easily interact with other apps installed on the device and perform tasks on behalf of the user within those apps, for tasks that the apps and the user have chosen to make available to AI services. These tasks include “send a message”, “create a note”, “schedule a meeting”. This includes access to certain Google apps (i.e.Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Docs, Maps, YouTube, Messages and Phone) that Alphabet will make available through operating system-level integration channels. > [...] > For instance, Android implements structured on-device integration through App Functions, which developers can enable for their apps, and which can be accessed by AI services without being reserved anymore for Google services, such as Google Assistant or Gemini. > 7. Screen automation > AI services will be able to automate multi-step tasks within apps, on behalf of the user upon their consent. They will do so by imitating user behaviour in a separate virtual window, which makes it possible for the assistant to complete the task in the background, while the user can do something else. [...] > Android implements screen automation via Computer Control, which can automatically access apps, and which is currently reserved for Google’s services, such as Gemini. > 9. System-level on-device models > AI services will be able to call on existing on-device models (“ODMs”), including the Gemini Nano ODMs, that are part of the DMA designated operating system, already preinstalled on Android devices and already made accessible to third parties. As a result of the measures, third-party AI services will have guarantees of equal access (for example, in terms of performance) to ODMs, as Google’s services. [...] > 10. On-device model implementation > Third parties will be able to install, run and use on-device models (ODMs) under the same hardware‑resource and background‑execution conditions that Google’s own models enjoy, and will allow their ODMs to be shared centrally with other apps. [...]
- Aachen 2mo agoStrange page, it keeps repeating that there are 11 features and then lists four or five, thrice over, and all can be summarised as "device access for competitors' AI voice assistants and dependencies thereof". Then there's some FAQ about the timeline and such. At the very bottom is a link to what seems to be the legal details but ends you up on a search page. Unfolding the only result, there is a link to the 'decision text', which of course you can't just read as text but need to get as a PDF download so the lines can't be broken up and the text is super hard to read using, say, an android phone or screen reader. This format ought to die already. Anyway, the actual decision text: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202629/DMA_100220_2683.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2... Edit: reading that document, I understand now why that press release, as well as the submission above, doesn't get further than a handful noteworthy properties and that even those partially seem like dependencies of each other: that's all it is. It's all about running code on a device activated by a hotword and the access such that it can actually be used (access to the NPU, ability to run in the background, ability to start phone calls, access to sensors, ability to display things on the screen...)
- deepnet 2mo agoStallman was right : without the four freedoms your software owns you rather than vis-a-versa. Interoperability is the key to breaking out of walled gardens and owning your own data and digital self. This is a big win but google will fight back it seems instead of embracing interoperability. It may seem trivial but using a small DSP running a tiny model to provide a battery efficient always on wake up call for home AI is huge. As a carer for elders who rely on AI to use modern devices in the face of their difficulty keeping up with interface changes this bodes well. Gatekeeping AI and the future with hidden features is straight out of the bad old days of M$’s embrace, extend and extinguish. I embraced AI to let my elders control their home and they love being in control but are constantly frustrated with UI changes and often find themselves stuck unable to call me with ‘Alexa call Daniel’ which provides them with hope if they wake stuck in a nightmare. Come on google, please don’t be evil embrace interoperability and the open source community. Well done Eff, Cory Doctorow and the Pirate parties of Europe for this small win
- Cider9986 2mo agoSo they are gonna add these to AOSP?
- hollow-moe 2mo agoObviously no, it will be another API in Google Mobile Services and you'll have to register to them to be allowed to use it.
- aboardRat4 2mo agoThis is all smoke and mirrors. The core issue is not "Google not allowing a feature", it's that small businesses cannot buy phones, install a patched version of Android without a restriction and sell them to make money. Until this problem is solved, everything else is palliative.
- pipes 2mo agoWhat prevents this? I always assumed they could.
- aboardRat4 2mo agohttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/10/trump-beginning-of-end-enshittification-make-tech-good-again https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/10/trump-... DMCA and other anti-circumvention regulations.
- pipes 2mo agoThat was a good read. But I still thought anyone can take graphene os and put it in a phone and sell it? Maybe there is specific licensing restrictions in the android license that stop this.
- DaSHacka 2mo agoIt's a two-step issue. Manufacturers lock the bootloader and don't provide a method through them to unlock it, therefore making bypassing that "digital lock" in violation of the DMCA.
- shock 2mo agoBootloaders are locked and most of them are unlockable.
- inigyou 2mo agoMost of them are *not unlockable. Some of the ones that seem unlockable are actually not unlockable in practice. Like Xiaomi which provides an unlock option that doesn't work unless you work for Xiaomi.
- OldMatey 2mo agoThis is a fabulous ruling and the EU continues (for the moment at least) to be the biggest champion of holding corporations to account and pushing back on entrenched tech power. I know there are bunch of concerning things like chat control getting pushed through but at least there is a counterbalance in other areas as well.
- aatd86 2mo agoFunnily enough, I think it is in Google's best interest to comply and do the best work they can. Besides security that they might want to guarantee up to a limit, that would boost Android usage, also including their own hardware. The future lies in a large, local-friendly ecosystem and the hardware to support it. Gate keeping software makes even less sense nowadays. The competition is on compute offering. Cheaper, faster, at scale. They can have a competitive advantage over incumbents if they stay smart.
- nolist_policy 2mo agoExactly, this ruling makes Android stronger.
- microtonal 2mo agoFunnily enough, I think it is in Google's best interest to comply and do the best work they can. Besides security that they might want to guarantee up to a limit, that would boost Android usage, also including their own hardware. It is not necessarily a competitive advantage, because Apple needs to do the same (which is why they aren't releasing the new iOS 27 Siri, etc. in the EU). Apple and Google just took different approaches: Google just released their stuff in violation of the DMA and had the EU come at them. Apple chose to be in compliance before before releasing their assistant updates, though they tried to lobby the EC in favor of releasing now with the promise of adding interoperability in N months. I am completely in favor of this. But for Google/Apple the best outcome giving their own assistance preferential treatment. More subscription income.
- deadlast2 2mo agoNow let's bite the apple.
- hollow-moe 2mo agoWhat a shame. How much time and €M spent just to deign allow you to do some very specific stuff on their devices (in 5 years at least once the trials and shenanigans settle) ? Obviously it doesn't include the "answering call screening" for example, which requires very privileged APIs accessible only by "system" apps, i.e. the ones preinstalled in the ROM. How about RCS ? Remember RCS the "open" standard replacing SMS ?
- microtonal 2mo agoRCS is a nothingburger in Europe, virtually everybody uses WhatsApp (and a smaller group also Signal, etc.). RCS is especially relevant to the US where many people use iMessage and the downgrade path is SMS/MMS.
- hollow-moe 2mo agoWhoops my bad then, disregard previous post. Creating a facebook account at once with my national id in addition to my carrier subscription. Gotta love US dependency.
- inigyou 2mo agoWhatsApp accounts aren't linked to Facebook accounts - well, not publicly - I'm sure they know you're the same person on the backend. You only need a phone number to sign up to WhatsApp. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be as popular.
- jeroenhd 2mo agoRCS is partially open. The protocol is public, as are one or two authentication features. The biggest restriction for custom RCS implementations is that carriers often require access to SIM card functionality to authenticate a phone to their IMS. Only system software (your OS vendor, Google, maybe additional libraries like Facebook in some products) can access those. Unlike SMS, there is no simple "send this string to the modem and you've sent a message" communication method. The entire thing is SIP+RTP+a few other protocols, wrapped up in a brandable package. RCS is as open as SMS has been for a while, perhaps even more open as the SMS stack can only be reliably implemented in IP-only software stacks in LTE+ networks; 3G and below require integrations not even the Android system supports natively. If you run a custom ROM, you can sign your own RCS app and have no such restrictions, of course. The same is true for devices with root access. There's nothing preventing anyone from writing a fully featured RCS client or library for custom ROMs, except maybe carriers filtering out unofficial ROMs, but those are a SIM card swap away. Nobody seems to have started working on an RCS app for those platforms yet. There are a few open source libraries out there, but they don't see much activity, and none of them implement the full RCS suite (which includes video calling and even exchanging money). When people complain about RCS being closed off, most of them don't care about the RCS protocol. They want Google's libraries to handle all the hard work for them and provide an API to interact with without having to implement the carrier protocol side. RCS is already open, but they want Google Messages to be open, not RCS. However, the EU's laws regarding gatekeepers require that a significant amount of people actually use the supposedly gatekept platform. Very few people within the EU use RCS. I don't think RCS is even close to being relevant for the EU's gatekeeper regulations. The only people talking about RCS on the European market are companies trying to peddle their RCS marketing spam delivery mechanism to other companies. If the USA would adopt similar laws, the situation would probably be different. Don't expect the EU to care about gatekeepers in a market consumers aren't interested in.
- JoshTriplett 2mo agoNow if only these rulings also covered attestation.
- microtonal 2mo agoIndeed. This ruling seems to be targeted at AI specifically. It is a great ruling, because it allows proper competition of other assistants with Google's (and Bixby). However, IMO the bigger evil is all the anti-competitive stuff that make it impossible for competitors to Android/iOS to enter the market, including European products like SailfishOS, such as remote attestation and the things that flow from it (e.g. no tap-to-pay support with most banks). The EC seems very pre-occupied with competition inside Android/iOS, while completely forgetting about competition between mobile OSes. It is also pretty jarring to see the EU talk a lot about sovereignty, but then further entrenching the Android/iOS duopoly by baking remote attestation into the EUDI reference wallet (and copied into the national wallets), effectively shutting out alternative systems yet again. Yes, I know that the EU consists of a lot of bodies and sometimes the right hand doesn't know what the left hand does. But man, sometimes I wish there was a stronger single, long-term vision. Somehow they seem to have forgotten about January this year (Greenland threats) and that as long as we fully depend on Android/iOS, etc. the US could shut down pretty much all modern communication infra. But instead of solving these vulnerabilities now and pouring money into alternatives, we (as the EU) drag ourselves down into battles of just how much we can do on the terrain of some feudal overlords. It seems like there is a short window where we still have AOSP systems that could be workable for the large population (outside remote attestation, pretty much all apps run on GrapheneOS, microG, etc.) and Google's strong arming through developer verification and remote attestation could still be put back in the box. But the EC does nada, nothing (presumably).
- eszed 2mo agoI agree that attestation is the biggest deal. My current hope is that the upcoming GrapheneOS phones will be able to achieve that. It's really up to a manufacturer being able to strong-arm third-parties - banks and such - into accepting their chain of trust, and Motorola may be able to do that.
- shiandow 2mo agoI don't care about any of these, I just want to be able to have whatever Google pay does without Google. You could claim that's not an android problem but if you do I don't think you've ever had to explain to people your phone doesn't have a Google Play store.
- pitchlatte 2mo agoblows my mind that there’s not a single open solution for mobile wallets and nobody is saying anything.
- tonyhart7 2mo ago"open solution for mobile wallets" define open wallet then
- tjoff 2mo agoBecause a normal card is superior in most practical cases?
- askonomm 2mo agoIt is? I haven’t carried my wallet around in years, because Apple Wallet does everything I need. Concert tickets, boarding passes, bank cards, public transport cards, etc. A physical wallet and cards in comparison feels like stone age technology.
- inigyou 2mo agoBanks and card networks will only accept proprietary shitware as payment. Would you rather keep the malware confined to a separate processor chip or would you let it run on your phone?
- wltr 2mo agoIn other words, would you like to have your physical card to be lost or stolen and someone paying with it? As small amounts don’t ask for a pin confirmation. Having my phone stolen is pretty much another level of attack.
- rswail 2mo agoDoes this apply to Apple to have something separate to Siri in iOS?
- Aachen 2mo agoNo, the procedure was specifically against Google Android and the decision document (https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/202629/DMA_100220_2683.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...) is titled "CASE DMA.100220| Alphabet - OS - Google Android - Art. 6(7) - SP - AI". It doesn't mention the existence of other market parties than Alphabet/Google/Android, from what I saw in a quick read-through It sounds reasonable to apply the same logic to all vendors with similar market power, though. Perhaps this opens the door for an accelerated procedure against Apple as well
- motbus3 2mo agoI wonder what happened to the laws the limited market monopoly and trust
- Varsham_26 2mo ago[dead]
- throwaway87543 2mo agoThe monopoly/gatekeeping effect of an OS developer making apps that compete with independent apps has such an easy solution. The OS must not give private api's or special permissions to its in-house apps. Don't try to fight the gatekeeping feature by feature, that is whack-a-mole. Bonus points if you require the primary UI (window manager in the language of the ancients) to be an installable app.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- psnehanshu 2mo agoThen the OS developer will simply make these "apps" part of the OS.
- adinisom 2mo agoWill be interesting to see how Google implements a more open DSP wake-word detection. The requirement for it to work without the app holding a default role suggests needing to recognize multiple wake-words for each of the non-default apps that uses one. From an openness perspective this is excellent. Technically it seems challenging with a DSP designed to detect a single thing using as little power as possible. Currently this balances doing as little work as possible to detect plausible utterances of the wake-word on the DSP while minimizing the costs of spurious wake-ups on the CPU. At the very least multiple wake-words seems to need the DSP to do more work and wake up the CPU more often.
- vee-kay 2mo ago[dead]