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.
  • Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        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.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          The point is, it can’t go further like in this Google case, because Google is abusing their dominant market position and Apple isn’t.

          Google is doing something illegal. Apple is doing something legal, but anti-consumer.

          That’s why I said in order to go after Apple, the US would first need something akin to the EU’s Digital Markets Act.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            It could absolutely be argued Apple is definitely doing illegal stuff too. Just because you don’t think so doesn’t mean that’s true. Apple is doing a lot of things to lock consumers onto their platform and not allowing competition.