[tatpacc]

Here is the link to original order [https://www.cci.gov.in/antitrust/press-release/details/261/0]

some experts

13. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, the Commission has imposed monetary penalty as well as issued cease and desist order against Google from indulging in anti-competitive practices that have been found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Some of the measures that were indicated by the Commission are as follows:

i. OEMs shall not be restrained from (a) choosing from amongst Google’s proprietary applications to be pre-installed and should not be forced to pre-install a bouquet of applications, and (b) deciding the placement of pre-installed apps, on their smart devices.

ii. Licensing of Play Store (including Google Play Services) to OEMs shall not be linked with the requirement of pre-installing Google search services, Chrome browser, YouTube, Google Maps, Gmail or any other application of Google.

iii. Google shall not deny access to its Play Services APIs to disadvantage OEMs, app developers and its existing or potential competitors. This would ensure interoperability of apps between Android OS which complies with compatibility requirements of Google and Android Forks. By virtue of this remedy, the app developers would be able to port their apps easily onto Android forks.

iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.

v. Google shall not impose anti-fragmentation obligations on OEMs, as presently being done under AFA/ ACC. For devices that do not have Google’s proprietary applications pre-installed, OEMs should be permitted to manufacture/ develop Android forks based smart devices for themselves.

vi. Google shall not incentivise or otherwise obligate OEMs for not selling smart devices based on Android forks.

vii. Google shall not restrict un-installing of its pre-installed apps by the users.

viii. Google shall allow the users, during the initial device setup, to choose their default search engine for all search entry points. Users should have the flexibility to easily set as well as easily change the default settings in their devices, in minimum steps possible.

ix. Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute their app stores through Play Store.

[gernb]

Can I have the same for Micrsoft and Apple for both mobile and desktop?

For Apple I get it's different since they don't have OEMs selling Macs/iPhones/iPads but I feel like many similar restrictions should apply

Examples:

> Google shall allow the users, during the initial device setup, to choose their default search engine for all search entry points.

> Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.

Seems like this should go both ways given the previous one.

> Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute their app stores through Play Store.

> Google shall not restrict un-installing of its pre-installed apps by the users.

I know Apple has done a better job of this now than in the past but I can't uninstall the dialer on iOS where as I can on Android, as just one example still left. I'm pretty sure I can set the default camera app on Android as well and delete the built in one though I haven't used android in years so no idea if that's still a possibility.

Also, while we're at it. Will any of this apply to Chromebooks?

[ocdtrekkie]

Nobody cares about Chromebooks. They only matter in schools and they're almost certainly illegal in schools, so that will self-solve when those charges get addressed.

[heavyset_go]

Illegal how?

[bombolo]

Minors can't consent to being spied on. And being a school to which they are obligated by law to go, they can't be forced to consent even if they could consent.

[vntok]

Their parents are consenting.

[bombolo]

being forced is not legal consent, no. And being forced without being asked is even worse.

[2000UltraDeluxe]

There are multiple cases being processed in Denmark at the moment. While Chromebooks aren't outright illegal, Google's processing of school children's personal data might apparently violates the GDPR.

[bradleykingz]

Holy hell, this seems a lot more comprehensive than I'd ever expected. Good job India.

I hope this spreads to the rest of the world somehow. The fact that it's impossible to uninstall YouTube or use Vanced as the default for YouTube.com links is the bane of my existence.

[tatpacc]

As an Indian, unfortunately I don't have much hope. Even if this is true and somehow got implemented, it has even far reaching worse outcome for the country. I hope that i am wrong but see my other comment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33278016

[idealmedtech]

You actually can have Vanced be the default! Set an app timer for 0hr 0 min on YouTube, and go into the app link behavior in settings to default to Vanced. After that, links should open in Vanced. In apps that have browsers, view the link in the internal browser if it brings you to YouTube.com, and it should redirect.

[sfgd]

Any detailed instructions for lay people please. I would like to use this, but don't know how to set the app timer you mentioned. Thanks.

[idealmedtech]

It’s under the new “digital well-being” menu in settings. Quickest way to get there is to tap and hold YouTube’s app icon, then click the little (I) or gear, which will take you to YouTube’s individual settings. One of them should be the app timer.

[MisterSandman]

I believe that's a Samsung-specifc feature, no?

[idealmedtech]

It’s available on stock android as well (I use a Pixel). Not sure about general availability.

[hunter-gatherer]

That is a great work around. Thanks for sharing!

[ajross]

You want so badly to change an app default that it's the "bane of your existence", but you can't be jazzed to install LineageOS or whatever? That doesn't track.

There are legitimate arguments about product bundling and antitrust to be made, but the simple truth is that expert users with particular application tastes are very well served in the Android ecosystem as it stands.

[syrrim]

Christ, google must be kicking themselves for being so permissive with android. Unless they impose similar requirements on apple, this seems like a punishment for being as permissive as they are.

[TheCoelacanth]

iPhone has a tiny market share in India. They probably don't consider them large enough to be worth regulating.

[simion314]

Apple is not selling iOS to Samsung with extra conditions like : you should not offer other operating systems or you should not pre-install our competitors", "you should not make our apps uninstallable"

Apple is breaching the rules but in a different way

[wiseowise]

Android is platform used by multiple OEMs, Apple is only one.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

> ix. Google shall allow the developers of app stores to distribute their app stores through Play Store.

This is a big one.

I hope they require the same for iOS, but for some reason that doesn't seem to be happening anywhere.

[heavyset_go]

The US seems to be one of the few markets where iOS is used by a majority of users.

[realusername]

iOS is a rounding error in India, Android has a near monopoly, that also helps to legitimate their crackdown against anti-competitive practices.

[2Gkashmiri]

here is my take.

currently there are all microsoft-y nudge user till they allow then say "user accepted"... case in point. i have a moto phone that has stock android. very nice. it has default sms as "messages". this app keeps nudging me to use "chat features" and other bs so the "dont use connected features" line is really small while accept is a big button. they dont want me to not accept so they keep pushing me.

same for "play protect". i have decided to not accept it so every often i install an app it asks me if i want to enable it.

same for "enable location". i keep my location off so when i have to use an app, i turn it on and i get a message "for better experience, tun on device location which uses google location service". so if i accept this, "google location accuracy" and "emergency location service" and even wifi scanning (sometimes) gets enabled so these are really scummy techniques.

i use F-droid as my default app store and aurora store to download apps not on f-droid. haven't signed in to play store because i don't have a google account.

these "keep nudging till the user accepts" should be banned as well. if the user does not want to allow location accuracy, don't auto enable it.

[userbinator]

I agree. There should be a "No means no."

[hef19898]

That is not just a problem when it comes to app permissions...

[2Gkashmiri]

what do you mean?

[hef19898]

That there seems to be a general problem in society to accept that no actually means no. And not a "no, but sure maybe just try harder".

[2Gkashmiri]

100% agree to that. my original comment said the thing. you have put it way shorter but right at the mark

[ocdtrekkie]

Looks like they went way beyond the EU's restrictions. I doubt Google can do the whole "pay for Play Store by device unless you agree to install these other apps" workaround. Hopefully the EU will catch up here and the US will do something similar.

[onion2k]

iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.

That's a threat about $15bn of Apple's revenue...

[bilbo0s]

Problem is, it's Apple. I mean lets be frank, is 15B even 10% of Apple's revenue?

Maybe it is? Maybe it's even more than 10%?

But I doubt it.

I mean forget revenue, I bet you could lob 15B off their profit from last year and they'd still be more profitable than they'd ever been.

If you want to hurt big companies like banks, oil companies, healthcare behemoths so on and so forth, you have to hit them where it hurts. You can't be trimming around the edges and expect changes in behavior.

[hef19898]

Not caring about 10%, your numbers, of your revenue is how you become the most valueable company on the planet. Not.

[praveshjain]

> iv. Google shall not offer any monetary/ other incentives to, or enter into any arrangement with, OEMs for ensuring exclusivity for its search services.

Can someone explain why this is imposed? It seems like a fair deal if google offers money to samsung to be the default search provider. How is it different from google offering money to mozilla for the same?

[zootboy]

Setting as default is quite different from "ensuring exclusivity." I'd have no problem banning Google from paying companies to be the only search engine usable on a phone.