But the country is not playing for profit of this single company, which would probably be the case in USA (as the company would have lobbying power yo secure that)

Secure services should always have limited trust to user data and devices. Security built on ‘Google says the device is secure’ is broken. Yes, it is convenient fir service providers who do not care about their customer rights, but more for ‘intellectual property’ and liability.

Lots of apllications still work in web browsers without TPM-based, kernel level DRMs and many of them are still reasonably secure. They are built with the assumption user controls their device. This has always been possible and still is possible. Just inconvenient for corporations.

Are you talking about owner safety, or some bussiness security. Yes the device is ‘insecure’ if you are taking the point of view of DRM provider or software vendor who wants to make sure advertisements are displayed, etc. Or if your software actual security depends of taking control away from the user. But actual end user security does not have to depend on that.

That is probably a reason there are no special regulations for bicycle yet. But it is still a good idea to protect it.

The idea is not repairability by the end users (those should never try to fix their microwave oven themselves) but to make repairs possible by any competent technician.

That is why I used the quotes, couldn’t find a better adjective.

That is what I expected. There is a place in the market to sell more RAM and Chinese manufactureres will use it. They will build capacity to build those chips, eventually cheaper and maybe even better what the ‘West’ can do. And then the Western companies will complain, that ‘this is not fair!’. Like with all the other manufacturing we gave away to China.