Nah I don’t think it does. You don’t really get that because the intent of a law is important in court cases.
Mobile phones are specifically covered:
(g) “Operating system provider” means a person or entity that develops, licenses, or controls the operating system software on a computer, mobile device, or any other general purpose computing device.
I’m just not sure. It seems contradictory to me, since the manufacturer of a physical device is also “a person or entity that controls the operating system”. Unless they sell the hardware with no OS installed? This exemption doesn’t seem to mean anything.
With how they’ve defined “App Store”, basically any product that can download applications is affected by this, including devices that don’t even have the concept of a user account. I’m a little unclear still on what’s required of an entirely offline OS.
Is a mobile phone not a “physical device”? An operating system always has to run on physical hardware, so does this just invalidate the entire thing?
Nah I don’t think it does. You don’t really get that because the intent of a law is important in court cases.
Mobile phones are specifically covered:
I’m just not sure. It seems contradictory to me, since the manufacturer of a physical device is also “a person or entity that controls the operating system”. Unless they sell the hardware with no OS installed? This exemption doesn’t seem to mean anything.
With how they’ve defined “App Store”, basically any product that can download applications is affected by this, including devices that don’t even have the concept of a user account. I’m a little unclear still on what’s required of an entirely offline OS.
I am not sure what’s required of a bare bones Linux install (general computing device) that has access to a package manager (application store)!