> Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the settlement, and may get additional payments based on their spending on the Play store between Aug. 16, 2016 and Sept. 30, 2023.<p>I bet they give it as a play store credit. How else would they actually distribute $2 to so many people without costing a huge percentage of the payout?<p>> Like Apple does in its iPhone app store, Google collects commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on in-app purchases — fees that state attorneys general contended drove prices higher than they would have been had there been an open market for payment processing.<p>The real lesson here is to not let anyone get a foot in the door of your walled garden.<p>> Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used.<p>The States that asked for this are idiots. The real world consequence of this won’t be improved competition. It will be grandma getting fleeced.<p>It’s not that it should be possible, but making it not “scary” is not a good idea for the reality we live in.
It's shocking that it's illegal to make an OS that allows people to install apps from other sources after warning them, but not illegal to not allow that at all.
> Google has agreed to pay $700 million and make several other concessions to settle allegations that it had been stifling competition against its Android app store<p>> [...] it’s a fraction of the $10.5 billion in damages that the attorneys general estimated the company could be forced to pay if they had taken the case to trial instead of settling.<p>> The settlement represents a “loud and clear message to Big Tech [...]", said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.<p>It sure does. It's just not the message you think or claim it is.
One thing that always surprises me is how toothless any anti-trust settlement is. I don't think I have ever seen an anti-trust fine that was so painful that it would deter people from trying to do it in the first place. It almost always is a sum that would encourage anti-competitive behavior in the future because the fine is so much less than the spoils of the behavior.
To all the comments claiming that Android is open, managed cooperatively and in the best interest of users:<p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...</a><p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-l...</a>