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.
I don’t understand the second one “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”.
In real life you don’t see big supermarkets spread their flyers in competitors’ stores, how does that make sense digitally?
It’s a bit like how you use Edge to install Firefox
Well, to make your metaphor more fitting, the whole town would have to be owned by your supermarket chain and they chose to put the town hall into one of their stores.
Now the court forces them to hand out build permits also for competing supermarkets.
Google made the Play Store the primary (and only, for most people) way to install apps on Android.
But sideloading and OEM stores (Samsung, Huawei) have been available for years?
Preinstalled stores are limited to manufacturers and distributors and they suck, so nobody uses them. It’s pretty easy for someone with a tiny bit of tech knowledge to do some research and find out how to enable the ability to download APKs from the internet, but sadly, that’s not most people. Google doesn’t have a monopoly because Play Store is good (it isn’t), they have a monopoly because they’re anticompetitive.
I like all of this stuff. But Apple needs to do all this even more than google.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. I’m baffled as to how Apple won their version of this lawsuit when their system is arguably more of a monopoly than Google’s, since there were still ways to use 3rd party app stores on Android but not in Apple’s ecosystem.
Does it just come down to how connected Apple’s lawyers were vs Google’s? How about an investigation of all involved, assuming things don’t go to complete shit over the next few months?
The answer to this question is quite simple, because Google (excluding the Pixel line) isn’t making the actual phones, just the software. The actual manufacturers (Samsung, Motorola, Huawei, etc) are taking Google’s OS and putting it on their phones. This case mostly hinges on Googles behavior being monopolistic to them, not to the end consumer.
On the other hand, Apple make both the OS and the Hardware, there’s no manufacturer they’re forcing the app store on, so the same rules don’t apply here.
I love how the problem isn’t the people being hurt by monopolistic behavior, but other companies.
We really are fucked.
Allow apps to use any payment processor, not just Google’s 30 percent money-printing machine;
This is a big one. Google taxes 30% off all payments on apps from the play store and now they have to lower it to compete or lose customers.
I know people here are gonna say it’s not enough and while I agree, I still want to celebrate that a positive change has been made at all. Especially at a time where side loading is starting to be cracked down on.
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 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.
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.
Not me. Me and the courts. Against what you think.
They’ve literally been to court over this and won, because what they’re doing is completely legal. Even Epic acknowledged their case was shaky in regards to Apple.
Apple is doing a lot of things to lock consumers onto their platform and not allowing competition.
Nothing in an illegal way, they mostly just make it a slight inconvenience to leave. Again, not illegal. Which is why I advocated making it so.
Why don’t you want laws that will hold Apple and others more accountable?
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.
The law only cares what they do to other companies.
Apple doesn’t allow other companies to have their own app stores. Which google already did allow, they just didn’t make it easy to install one.
Apple is MUCH worse in restricting app stores. It makes no sense that Apple can continue to get away with their far worse restrictions than google. On the positive side this will make Android even better and more attractive to consumers vs AOS than it already was.
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!
Just curious, does Apple allow all those 3rd party options? Not saying anything just wondering.
I believe that Apple has been given the same or similar, set of requirements from the EU, tried to soft-ball it by doing some bare minimum shit that the EU didn’t consider good enough, and is back in court over it.
Yeah but they only do that in the EU, they still offer a degraded service everywhere else.
Yeah, absolutely they should be forced to opening the platform more, worldwide.
Or Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft on consoles.
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?
Why can’t these rules apply to everyone always?
They should apply to all platforms which have over a certain number of users, for sure. It’s not really a good idea imo to make it universally applicable because then you would end up with a situation where a hobbyist developer is legally required to deal with complying with all that legislation for their homebrew project with half a dozen users.
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.
Because I was obviously unaware of the idiocy of the US justice system, and naively gave them the benefit of the doubt.
Under normal circumstances, it’d take Google about 3 years to stall the process of opening.
This will achieve nothing, and it would’ve been better for US consumers if my bold assumption had been correct.
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”
turns off google play services
gets spammed by 976688286 apps begging for google play immediately
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
We need another bell lab
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,
IT job market about to get a lot better for applicants.
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 😅
