zlacker

>>methus+(OP)
As is usual, there seems to be a massive misunderstanding what the directive is and means. The TLDR is that the directive contains no clauses that compels phone makers to keep the Android bootloader locked or that forbids EU users from unlocking it.

Samsung's public reasoning might be that disabling unlocking the bootloader because of the directive, but there is nothing in the directive that forces them to lock the bootloader. It does sound like a convenient scapegoat if they don't want to talk about the real reasons though.

The phone makes who end up disabling the unlocking of bootloaders are all doing so on their own accord, not because some regulation is forcing them to.

Finally, the EU’s broader right-to-repair policies makes it kind of impossible that an outright prohibition of unlocking the bootloader could happen. But of course, nuance doesn't make people click article titles on the web...

>>diggan+V3
What can be used for evil, will be used for evil.

Lawmakers need to assume that their laws will be interpreted and abused in the worst possible way.

>>atemer+q4
In general, you cannot stop people from pointing at a thing and claiming it's something else.