For the next three years, Google must meet the following criteria:
- Allow third-party app stores for Android, and let those app stores distribute all the same apps as are available in Google Play (app developers can opt out of this);
- Distribute third-party app stores as apps, so users can switch app stores by downloading a new one from Google Play, in just the same way as they’d install any app;
- Allow apps to use any payment processor, not just Google’s 30 percent money-printing machine;
- Permit app vendors to tell users about other ways to pay for the things they buy in-app;
- Permit app vendors to set their own prices.
Google is also prohibited from using its cash to fence out rivals, for example, by:
- Offering incentives to app vendors to launch first on Google Play, or to be exclusive to Google Play;
- Offering incentives to app vendors to avoid rival app stores;
- Offering incentives to hardware makers to pre-install Google Play;
- Offering incentives to hardware makers not to install rival app stores.
Why for only 3 years? Why not make these changes permanent?
Guess their thinking is that Google may not be a monopoly in 3 years, so the rules might not need to apply at that point, or they be reviewed?
Yeah, makes no sense - could it be that the poster isn’t native speaker and actually meant: “in the next three years”, implying that the criteria must be met within that timeframe…
… why are you boldly speculating on OP’s language status? That’s pulled directly from the article
Checked other sources, the restriction is only in place for three years.
Allow third-party app stores for Android, and let those app stores distribute all the same apps as are available in Google Play (app developers can opt out of this);
Developers should definitely be able to pick with AppStores their apps are distributed in. This seems strange they can’t opt out.
Pretty sure Fdroid doesn’t want PlayStore spyware apps.
I’m not sure I’m following, it says developers can opt out!
Whoops, I thought it said “not opt out”. Too early in the day apparently 😅
I hope they included barring them from using scare tactics to try to coerce you to sticking with just google play “TURN ON GOOGLE PLAY PROTECT NOW”
IT job market about to get a lot better for applicants.
I don’t really understand the 1st requirement…
allow 3rd-party app stores
So, apparently f-droid/aurora/etc are not allowed or something?
let stores distribute the same stuff gplay does
As in “give 'em a way to pull stuff from gplay and not punish for letting ppl download it”? Mb useful, but the lack of specificity may defend the purpose. Like currently, AFAIK, nobody really prevents ppl from publishing both on gplay and f-droid, for example
The rest lgtm
Probably because of this?
Distribute third-party app stores as apps, so users can switch app stores by downloading a new one from Google Play, in just the same way as they’d install any app; Allow apps to use any payment processor,
Ok now do Apple.
Google has always been the OS that allows users to get their apps anywhere. Apple has not.
Also could we throw in something that allows me to remove all Google apps from a stock OS instead of just disabling?
iOS is certainly far more locked down than Android.
But thats not really what courts are looking at with the Google stuff going on recently.
The courts take issue with Google strong-arming OEMs to do what Google says. Forcing them to include Google services, Google tracking, not to have other stores as default, etc. under threat of not allowing Google Apps, Play Store, or Play Services/notifications to work - something that is effectively a requirement if you want to sell your devices.
Apple isn’t doing that. Apple isn’t forcing OEMs to push Apple services and telemetry, because they own their own hardware business. Apple isn’t forcing Samsung/OnePlus/Sony/etc to do their bidding. Google is.
I firmly believe Apple should be made to open up their devices, but it cannot be done under current US law (unlike with Google, who is unquestionably abusing their dominant market position by strong-arming OEMs). Forcing Apple to open up would require something like a US equivalent to the EU’s recent Digital Markets Act.
IIRC they are doing things like requiring payments to go through them, and all kinds of other monopolistic stuff. Yeah, they aren’t doing all the same things, but they’re doing a lot of it, and it’s more restricted by default so it’s even more pervasive.
The payments requirement was the only win Epic got in its case against Apple. Apple now allows external purchase links, with a bunch of requirements and restrictions.
Ah, OK. I don’t think I ever heard about that resolving, or if I did I didn’t care. That’s good that they were forced to allow that. It should probably go further still, like this Google case.
The way Apple gets away with stuff makes me feel very conspiratorial. Like, how?
How is Apple getting a pass every time and my tin foil hat would say that they are protected by the US government. Maybe because it’s just an important corporation for the US economy but maybe it’s an important corporation for US spying too.
US law doesn’t care what companies do to consumers. The law only cares what they do to other companies. Apple own their own hardware production and ecosystem, so they aren’t harming other companies (directly).
No conspiracy needed.
Apple absolutely harms other companies to the point where are taken to court all the time.
There’s no such thing as “their own ecosystem”
Yes, but those companies are poorer, and have lower tier legal teams.
Das capitalism baby!
We need another bell lab
Or what?
Or they’ll be fined 0.005% of their revenue for the quarter.
Sounds like the cost of doing business.
if the punishment for a crime is a fine, then that means it’s legal for a fee
