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.
  • @laxe
    link
    English
    342 months ago

    Why for only 3 years? Why not make these changes permanent?

    • @FuryMaker
      link
      English
      62 months ago

      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?

      • @stupidcasey
        link
        English
        62 months ago

        Why can’t these rules apply to everyone always?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -12 months ago

      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…

      • @chuckleslord
        link
        English
        10
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        … 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 months ago

          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.