Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight
Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight
Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
On top of what Aatube says about secret unfair deals, Google's Play Store is necessary to run essential social services. In my case I need it to download my banking app and to sign into my university's online studies.
Even something as simple as the Wikipedia app checks to see if Google Play Services is installed and running before it'll let you use it.
Needing an app to sign into uni
Jesus fucking hell. Bet it's propriety.
But that won't necessarily change with this ruling right? Your government doesn't need to change how their apps function because of this.
“Impairment means something is there, it’s being used, it just isn’t as good. Prevented means you shut it down.”
Epic’s expert Bernheim argues that Google’s expert Gentzkow “ignores four critical aspects of Google’s conduct,” including:
- Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely
- Google’s conduct targets comeptition as it emerges
- Google is dominant
- Google shares its Play profits with its competitors
“When push came to shove, he talked about whether competition is prevented” rather than impaired, says Bernheim.
The upshot of that: Bernheim believes Epic doesn’t need to prove Google actually blocked competition entirely. In his opinion (for Epic), Epic only needs to show there were no good alternatives to Google Play and Google Play Billing. It doesn’t need to show there were no alternatives at all.
For example, says Bernheim, Gentzkow presented a chart titled “Was Fortnite Blocked?” showing that revenue tanked on Google Play after the app was kicked off the store, but didn’t tank for Android phones that got Fortnite a different way.
But “If off-Google Play was a good substitute for Google Play, you’d see when one drops, the other goes up commensurably.” That didn’t happen: demand stayed stable outside of Play, according to the bar graph we just saw. “There’s no indication that any of the people here are substituting to off-Google Play.”
Google effectively has a monopoly on the Android app ecosystem and this trial brought to light mountains of evidence that they maintain this through extremely anti-competitive means.
Didn't Epic lose the fight against Apple? How is Google more of a monopoly than Apple? It is incredibly easy to sideload apps on Android compared to iPhones, and there are multiple dedicated unofficial stores. These verdicts are not coherent at all between them. I understand they are two separate judges, but the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
Edit: for future reference, Verge answers this very question here https://www.theverge.com/24003500/epic-v-google-loss-apple-win-fortnite-trial-monopoly
EDIT: Added source from where I read it.
From some other comment I read, it apparently was due to google paying companies to set Google's stuff as their default. Something Apple does not (have to) do.
This comment by AnalogyBreaker on the article seems to explain it pretty well:
The "this doesn't make sense" crowd are missing the point. Android is open source, anyone can use it. Google licensed it that way to spur adoption and (in theory) not solely be responsible for its development. They could make their own closed OS, kept it exclusive to Pixel phones and have a closed app store... but we can can all guess how well that would have went... not well. So the open source route makes sense.
Because Android is freely licensed to anyone, there is a market for apps that Google theoretically doesn't control and resides on non-google produced devices. They do control Play Services, however. That's not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn't comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That's appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.
If Google wanted to be treated the same as Apple, they'd have to develop phones the same way as Apple. They didn't do that, instead they rely on third parties and those third parties have protections from Google abusing their monopoly position against them. To suggest they should be treated the same as Apple is akin to wanting to have your cake and eat it too. For the record, I'm not a fan of the Apple ruling, but there are clear differences between the two cases and seeing different outcomes shouldn't be a surprise.
There was another comparison I read using an example if Microsoft paid stores to not sell PlayStations, but I can't find it anymore.
I guess it makes sense that google lost here, but what doesn't seem to make sense at all, at least for me, is how on earth apple won when on their platform you literally have no other option than to use apples stuff.
Thank you for pulling forward a comment to explain this better. I thought the two cases were different but didn’t remember how.
True, but that's more about the relationship between Google and phone manufacturers and and carriers. As far as a party like Epic is concerned, it shouldn't have any relation. As far as epic goes, they're only affected by the opt in process to install apks, and apps not being allowed to install apps (which I hope has a way more complicated opt in process if it's allowed or malware will be rampant among casual users)
Yeah, it seems Google is way more open to side loading and fdroid existing. Not sure how Apple got away with it when they are so much more restrictive.
Can this ruling be used in the future against Apple?
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
From the article. It appears they had receipts that Epic was specifically and intentionally harmed here
Key difference, this one had a jury make the final call
the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
Welcome to the US of A. Happens literally all the time. Hence the big fight over control of the Supreme Court.
Probably comes down to the unwillingness of US legislators to create clear laws. Too many compromises to satisfy lobbyists and avoid any negative campaign they might sponsor. Judges likely do the best they can trying to interpret the mess of case law they depend on in the absence of modern legislation. I have no idea why the US supreme court gets to decide on matters like abortion based on hand wavy interpretations of historical documents when in any normal democracy the politicians do the will of the people and enact legislation that reflects modern society.
I understand they are two separate judges, but the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
That's literally a big chunk of law. So there must be something other than it just being the judge's interpretation.
This was a jury trial.
ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.
ITC: Someone not understanding the difference between not understanding and not agreeing.
Yeah, fuck that. I definitely don't agree with the ruling. iOS is far more restrictive than Android, because at least Android provides the ability to easily install alternatives (F-droid app store is an awesome alternative for many types of apps and it's all free). Sure, Android dominates the market globally, but in the US--nd many other countries-- Apple has the majority of marketshare. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ios-vs-android-market-share-135251641.html
It's just bullshit to me that Apple gets a free pass for clearly being anti-competitive. I'm glad this trial struck down Google's app store monopoly, but all phone OS's should be forbidden from doing it.
True, thread is full of both types
Yeah and honestly Im fine with courts opening up the platforms more to make at ths point, but the issue is that apple got the win. People cite incentives and back doors dealings on googles end, but apple doesnt need to they just control everything by default no questions asked.
No it doesn't, it just says that the case was different and that it wasn't in front of a jury, it doesn't give the details of the difference. You have to go read the entire article from a few years ago
About the only benefit I can personally see from this is the ability to fully integrate F-Droid as an app store in my device, with proper automatic background updates, and without requiring root solutions that void my work's security measures for mobile devices. On the other hand, I can see Huawei, Amazon, and Epic jumping to the fray with their own app stores and system services, and maybe Google Play being far more lenient with subscription services like Spotify's in their own App Store. Altogether, I personally loathe Epic's approach, but appreciate the consequences of their lawsuit.
Increased competition is ALWAYS better for the customer.
You're forgetting AppBrain from like 15 years ago.
I agree on the concerns, but it's a virtually universal truth, so long as they're actually forced to treat other app stores fairly. We might end up with a true third party stepping in to claim the throne, at least until the mega-corps reverse all the optimization they've created for their own benefits (even things like searches for apps are not fully intended to benefit the user right now, things most people don't really realize).
Amazon has/had an app store, it was terrible. Though I welcome competitors to step up after this.
Amazon still has its own app store open - mostly because it's the one Microsoft used as the base for their Android compatibility layer. I expect this ruling to give Amazon a breath of fresh air as "the alternative app store".
This may force Google to address their terrible dispute resolution policies though. If they keep removing software without providing any meaningful dispute resolution, then I would hope that there's a possibility for alternate repositories to fill that void.
Droidify with adb or Shizuku can already do that. But it needs Android 12+. Then it can do unattended updates.
So odd that the open source platform that allows sideloading and doesn't even come with an app store by default is the one that is a monopoly but the locked down one with total control over your device is not.
Some Android flavors even come with other app stores. Samsung phones have their own Samsung app store that even includes Fortnite.
They do control Play Services, however. That's not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store. Google used their market dominance in those fields to prevent third parties from launching or installing competitors to the Play Store by denying Play Services to those who didn't comply; paying them off directly or brokering sweetheart deals. That's appears like an obvious abuse of their market position.
They do control Play Services, however. That’s not open source and includes proprietary apps basically essential for an operating smart phone such as Google sign in, Maps, and of course the Play Store.
Wtf is this? You do not need google sign in for running a smart phone. Hell, one of the features of stock AOSP Android is being in no way tied to Google.
looks at epic "striking deals" to have games on their storefront
thats ok with me. Wouldnt buy a ios device anyways. Exactly, because they dont allow third party apps.
The golden take imo. Hope they rule against Apple in the similar case.
Huh?? They won this one but not the Apple one??
Different case. This hung on the anti-competitive nature of Google’s backroom deals with big players. That’s what fucked Google. Different rules for different developers.
Apple: this is our system and we've always been upfront about it. We're dictators of our ecosystem. You can't compel us to open up. Yes there's less customer choice, but we have a right to say how our own system is run, and we've always made that clear to everybody. Forcing us to open up our system is like forcing Nintendo to allow Microsoft games on the Switch, bypassing paying Nintendo anything.
The courts say fair enough, that's correct.
Google: we claim to have an open ecosystem, but actually we don't. We're using our market position to impose terms on phone makers, if they're big like Samsung we might give them permission to have their own app store, with certain concessions. We have backroom deals not to take revenue from some large companies, but to take it from others. We have power over OEMs and we use it to further consolidate our monopoly. They will agree to our terms because they have no other choice than to comply.
The courts say whoa that seems like an abuse of your dominant market position.
You're looking at it from the perspective of user choice. That's not what the courts care about, they care about the law. The Google case was always more likely to be a win for Epic, despite Reddit and Lemmy not realising it.
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
The thing here is that you don't have to use play billing for in app purchases outside of the play store. The biggest example of this is Fire tablets, where you don't even have the option of play billing on your app even if you wanted it, and I'm sure Huawei isn't using play billing either. Let alone the fact you can sideload apps that have their own verification methods. When I bought gravitybox it was verified based on your PayPal invoice #. The secret revenue sharing, while "designed to keep apps down", is nothing more than an incentive to stay on their billing platform. If Epic isn't offered that deal they're still free to make deals with other app stores.
Meanwhile on camp Apple, there are no alternative vendors using different stores and you're unable to sideload apps without a developer account. There is no alternative to Apple's billing if you want to charge for something inside an app, which is precisely what Epic did to get banned in the first place.
I 100% the verdict to be appealed by Google. I'm not a big fan of Google as a company, but when they've specifically made it possible for customers to have the ability to sideload while Apple doesn't and they get spat in the face for it, why would they continue to make pro-consumer choices?
And they probably won’t.
iOS is only on Apple devices, therefore it’s allowed to have a monopoly or something.
Much like Nintendo’s allowed to have a monopoly on Switch systems and games even though the Steam Deck exists with the ability to install a huge amount of games.
i hope this one also smashes Apple's business to tiny pieces. All these companies are horrible horrible destructors of humanity.
I'm not sure how them losing a part of their potential revenue stream does that...
It's not as if Google or Apple rely soley on IAPs for revenue.
I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the EU lawsuits, right?
Both Google and Apple would still have to open up soon (at least in EU)
Sorry if it's a stupid question.
It's something else. Here it's US antitrust monopoly.
Google made deals with games and special contracts with other apps in order to kill competition.
Finally a big W. Google backdoored Android with Google Play Services and gives itself special permissions that no other app can do. They should be under the same limitations that other apps are reserved to. That's why projects like Sandboxed Google play is really awesome.
While I understand the concern over the single appstore monopoly that we have on any device, I think it's worth remembering what ecosystem android and IOS came into.
The old multimedia phones that were sold in the mid 00s were effectively "smart". Many of them ran java and you could install programs, and freely install ringtones, and browsers that actually worked like opera mini/mobile. The thing is you couldnt by default. At least not in the US. The devices were locked down and everything you did went through the carrier's store. And US telecom services are some of the greediest and scummiest companies out there so you couldnt even use your own mp3 files as a ringtone.
Apple combated this with their closed off ecosystem, but android did face issues with fragmentation in the early days and needed a way to prevent the telecoms branded phones from stinking up the ecosystem. They did this by leveraging the play services and play store. From the playstore they can also since mainline release various peacemeal updates which helps resolve their other issue with fragmentation and thats android device being abandoned.
Sure enough you can still release your own version of android without it, amazon's tablets and tv sticks do pretty well.
That said I do think it's a good to help people move past the default and open up the platforms more, I just wish it would apply to all smart devices,
Yup. I was part of Verizon's app development program and it was a fucking joke. Even if the dev tools and build chain wasn't a complete mess, and even if the dev license wasn't expensive, and even if it wasn't almost impossible to even get test hardware... Even if you managed to build something more useful than snake, you'd still have to wait months and months and months for Verizon to sign your apps and then months more before they'd be available on any handset. I'm legitimately not sure it was even possible for a small dev to get anything approved.
Open app stores were and still are amazing. I get that people want even more freedom, but coming from the trauma of feature phone development, I find it hard to get upset about this, especially considering Android makes it dead simple to sideload.
So now Google will be forced to... allow third party app stores? Like F-Droid or Amazon and I think Yandex has a big one as well. If Epic aren't suing for damages I don't really see what the goal could be. Another win for all the lawyers I guess.
Google isn't being forced to do anything. The judge specifically stated they're not doing injunctions or anything. If Epic has another problem, "you can come back."
Now, that's still a ruling, and a ruling helps dissuade Google from doing certain things, but there's not likely to be anything "forced" here.
Currently, it's.more that Google isn't being forced to do anything yet. The judge has said a few things he won't do, but the final judgement on what Google has to do are "up to Judge James Donato, who’ll decide what the appropriate remedies might be."
If Epic aren’t suing for damages I don’t really see what the goal could be
As reported by The Verge,
Epic says it’s asking for three things: freedom for Epic and other developers to introduce their own stores without restriction, total freedom to use its own billing system, and an anti-circumvention provision “just to be sure Google can’t reintroduce the same problems through some alternative creative solution.”
Judge Donato says the last won’t happen: “We don’t do don’t- break-the-law injunctions... if you have a problem, you can come back.”
I run e/OS, I don't have google app store or any of the related service software installed. Yet I am able to use a cleaned up version of android and still have access to the google app store through an anonymous account using the in built app.
Epic won this case against google...
Epic lost the same case against apple, with which none of the above would be possible.
I'm not advocating for google, obviously I avoid them. But that's BS, I hope this is used as precedent to bring a new case against apple.
Seriously this is crazy. Apple somehow winning is way worse as there is simply no way to install third party apps on IOS. Android makes the risks clear but it's still at least possible if you click install anyway.
In terms of being a monopoly, in the US ios has more market share anyway. Google's lawyers must have really made some big mistake.
Both lawsuits are going into round 2, afaik.
Huh? They could just do a Fortnite.apk
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android
I wonder how this will work out. If the judge actually forces it, so many large apps might show up on alternatives like fdroid and greatly improve fdroid capabilities.
How many game launchers are there on PC. There will be 100x more on mobile.
Fuck both of those companies, but overall a good ruling.
My interpretation of the article is that it wasn't Google's app store but the deals Google did with other manufacturers and big studios that caused them problems. Unlike iOS Android has both open source and commercial forks. Amazon have their own app store for their own range of devices and you can load that app store on regular Android I believe if you want to access a shittier range of apps. There are degoogled versions of Android and many people including myself run f-droid or side load apks. It is much more open than Apple's system which won.
I'm willing to bet that the judge and/or jury isn't well versed in either business or technology and made a ruling based on ignorance and confusion.
I’m confused how this is a win for consumers, it just seems like two companies arguing over who gets to rake in more money.
That's how I feel about it too . Can someone explain why I should care ?
They accidentally make rules that work for little guys also.
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android
This seems like a poor choice instead of monetary damages. I have the Epic Games Launcher free game downloader for games I forget I own. I'm very unlikely to start using Epic's services over Google's.
I'd have taken the money and run
I think their goal is to let people buy in game currency for fortnight without the play store cut.
Ah ok that's def a good move for them then. That would probably be more than any payout, long-term.
Hadn't considered it.
I’d have taken the money and run
That would have been penny wise, and pound foolish.
Sometimes it's okay to swing for the fences, even if you end up missing, it's usually worth the try.
This whole thing stinks. It’s the kind of lawsuit where you wish both parties could lose. The whole walled garden concept sucks, but this doesn’t exactly benefit consumers. Nobody wants a dozen different app stores where we need to set up accounts and payment info - not consumers and not small to medium size developers.
If Epic gets what they’re asking for it sure as hell won’t be what they want. Google still controls the OS so they can just make some shitty third party app store API with requirements just as onerous as IAP that puts everyone else at a disadvantage. If I’m Google, my new motto is “Android’s not done until Fortnite won’t run”.
Maybe Epic can finally build their new HQ now
or invest in Software that works on Linux
They invested in Godot, Lutris, and SDL.
Then fire a few employees.
They tore down most of the mall. It'd be nice for them to do something on the abandoned lot of rubble.
So far all they've put up are solar powered security cameras.
Cunting cunting cunts.
Those monny cunning fun kings runts
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down.
Mind you, we don’t know what Epic has actually won quite yet — that’s up to Judge James Donato, who’ll decide what the appropriate remedies might be.
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android, and we don’t yet know how or even whether the judge might grant those wishes.
Both parties will meet with Judge Donato in the second week of January to discuss potential remedies.
Judge Donato has already stated that he will not grant Epic’s additional request for an anti-circumvention provision “just to be sure Google can’t reintroduce the same problems through some alternative creative solution,” as Epic lead attorney Gary Bornstein put it on November 28th.
We’ll replace it with the final signed form once we have access to a digital copy.
The original article contains 492 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
9
'It's a win for everyone" except if Google (and Apple) were to start playing "fair": no more restriction on apps, but they charge full price for the service of hosting and providing a searchable store to something million users. That way, only big business that can pay for that kind of service will be able to use each platform's "main" store, and every (big business owner) will be happy.
There's no free meal in there. Not for the majority of users, at least.
Fuck both companies but fuck Epic more.
I have no issue with Epic.
That terms of service are reasonable and they don't charge ridiculous rates for commercially using their products.
Google used to allow third party payments. It turned out to be expensive.
This is like forcing Walmart to let companies take up space in their stores rent free and process their own payments. When it turns out a bunch of those little stores are stealing personal information and credit card info and money, those customers go to the Walmart service desk and when Walmart employees shrug and say, "I don't know what the fuck those guys are doing. You see, we give you the big store, but once you step into that smaller store hey are you falling asleep?" it's national news and it's Walmart's fault and they're called to testify in front of congress to get yelled at for not protecting customers. This is a weird precedent.
I don't agree with Google's decision to force payments through Google. Since congress and courts and media expect Google to police the safety of all apps downloaded from the Play Store, I can't think of a better solution that also respects privacy, isn't, "We'll monitor everything every app does, but pinky swear it's just so we can make sure they're being nice to you."
Google made the same argument in this case, but Epic responded by saying that impairing the competition is sufficient to describe the behavior as unlawful. Like Google, Valve control the vast majority of the market, charge a fee that is way above the cost of service, and have rules that make the competitors less appealing. Like this one:
In response to one inquiry from a game publisher, in another example, Valve explained: “We basically see any selling of the game on PC, Steam key or not, as a part of the same shared PC market- so even if you weren’t using Steam keys, we’d just choose to stop selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on ours. . . .”
(source)
You mean like Play Store?
Calm your tits Tim Sweeney.
You don't know what you're talking about do you.
Computers don't come with steam automatically installed, do they? So it's not in any actual sense of the word of monopoly.
You are been downvoted because your comment is idiotic.
Great! Now do Apple
It was ruled previously that Apple don’t have a large enough market share
But if they force Google to open their app store, I hope that do it for fucking everyone.
At least on Google devices you still can sideload apps, and fairly easy TBH. My biggest annoyance is the "you can't buy stuff in apps without giving us a cut" which fucked up stuff like ebook apps etc
In the US it does.
Which is weird because they have a larger market share than Google >.>
"Sir, SIR, we are a nonprofit? Please leave or I will have to launch the facility into iFreespace and stay hovering a foot above ground for the rest of time as per the iNflanational iFukU-nion that is a slight inconvenience for anyone not part of the of the 23.000.001 iToUrPPs living aboard the ilolTax Inflationstate iLevitate CorpoHappytat KZ-23"
And consoles.
It's not an apples to apples comparable situation. Pun intended!
Why? Just don't buy apple.
That isn't really relevant when it comes to holding them to a different legal standard.
Exactly. The locked down nature is part of the Apple experience, this is what their customers are paying for