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.
    • FuryMaker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 days 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?

        • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          16 days 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.

    • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      17 days 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 days 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.

        • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          16 days 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.