> In theory EU can mandate open bootloaders like EU mandates USB-C charging, but they won't.

The EU cannot simply mandate random stuff, it needs to make a strong case and prove an economic benefit considering also the possible negative consequences.

Noone is forced to do business in the EU, so it always has to consider the cost and risk for a company vs. the overall benefit for a company of doing business in the EU.

Defining a mandate for "open hardware" is a MASSIVE undertaking, creating investment risks for innovators, potential security-risks for the entire EU, additional costs for development, maintenance, support for all manufacturers selling in that market.

What is the economic, technology-agnostic case in favor of open bootloaders which would make EU member-countries support such a regulation?

How much would a manufacturer be required to provide to be compliant? Continued operation even when the trust-chain is broken? Developer Documentation? compilable source-code? Hardware-warranty?

Should a car still be allowed to operate after it's unlocked? Should it behave somehow differently to ensure safety for its owner as well as others? How about an elevator? How about a Microwave?

What would be the tangible economic benefit of such a mandate to companies and citizens in the EU sector?

For a regulatory action, all of this needs to be described in an agnostic way, providing a clear path for a manufacturer to be compliant without creating too much burden on any party in the process.

Eu has the Digital Markets Act and what google is doing is illegal in Eu. Gatekeepers must allow people to side-load software by regulation.

Makes me think that google did this now since trump has been criticizing the DMA, so now they feel empowered by their leader to break the law