Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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 Launcherfree 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
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”.
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.
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.
If google fucking PLAY STORE is a monopoly then I hope they nuke Steam next. No excuses.
Edit: lemmings are crying bcs I threatened their favourite company lmao. Suddenly all the capitalism haters activated their one brain cell to protect their games 😂
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.
Cool.
One reason out of many…
You mean nuking the only major contributor who’s bringing games into linux ?
Linux is open source. Why don’t you find a new contributor? 😂
Linux is open source, why won’t you do it yourself 😂😂😂
Oh you know. I’m more of a closed system person 🪟1️⃣1️⃣ = 😇
Ironic considering you’re supposedly against market monopolies
Of course I’m against it, but you can’t deny they’re making top quality products!
Steam has several competitors, they all just suck, most of all EGS.
The landlord also has several competitors, but when he gets all the properties for himself and the rest gets almost nothing he’s a monopolist, no? Look what Microsoft and google and hundreds of other companies did to become Monopoly.
but when he gets all the properties for himself
Then he has no competitors.
Look what Microsoft and google and hundreds of other companies did to become Monopoly.
What exactly did they do that Steam has also done?
Steam does nothing to prevent others from competing, to my knowledge, other than just being the best at what they do.
If you’re thinking steam isn’t a monopoly then why is it nearly impossible to create a gaming platform that competes with these giants? If you can’t even enter the market because of ONE company, then something is very wrong.
(Not talking about epic or gog. I mean totally new platforms)
If you’re thinking steam isn’t a monopoly then why is it nearly impossible to create a gaming platform that competes with these giants?
Depends on what you mean by “monopoly”. In the strictest sense it means they have zero competition (hence the prefix “mono”,meaning one), which is clearly untrue because we have Epic, GoG, Origin, Battlenet, Meta, etc. etc.
In the case of Google, it means they take anticompetitive measures. I’ve asked you what anticompetitive measures Valve takes but you don’t seem to want to provide an answer. Why is that?
If you mean “big business that other companies have trouble competing with”, that does not fit any definition of a “monopoly”.
It’s not “impossible” at all. It is very difficult because you’re fighting established brands that are not regional, and have decades of experience and brand recognition on you. Competing with them would require a fuckton of money and also some sort of novel features to bring to the market that they’re not. These are not anticompetitive measures, it’s just effective business.
How would you go about even trying to rectify that? Would you force Valve to give money and promotion to a competing service? Or would you just go full CCP and ban them entirely in favor of the state-sponsored Bytedance option?
You’re contradicting yourself
If I wanted to start a power grid company, I would need a fuckton of money as well. It’s called a natural monopoly.
On the other hand starting a new gaming platform is just like competing with a national power grid company. It’s nearly impossible. You become a target that’s on sight from all angles. At that moment you’re prone to pretty much every anti competitive tactic.
Tell me why no one is trying to overtake steam and why companies that actually try, are being flushed.
If I wanted to start a power grid company, I would need a fuckton of money as well. It’s called a natural monopoly.
That’s simply not what a monopoly is. You’re confused.
A monopoly is when there’s only a single energy company available, which is not the case here.
Tell me why no one is trying to overtake steam and why companies that actually try, are being flushed.
I already have. Lots of companies are doing that right now, but they all suck. I mean GoG is great as a simple game store but most publishers are not willing to sell without DRM and their store is mostly nothing more than just a store, where Steam is so much more than that.
Epic has a long history of anti-consumer behavior that has earned them a bad reputation. They’re also partially owned by the CCP.
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)
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.
But Valve doesnt do anything to impair competition. Google owns and controls the operating system, require their store to be installed, and pay off other companies to be the default. Valve doesn’t do anything like that.
In fact Valve is pretty much the only company trying to promote a FOSS OS that no one controls.
You mean like Play Store?
No, not even a little.
What? Oh FFS. Context. Yes, Play Store has competitors, so yes absolutely a lot.
Why? Steam has no monopoly. There are a lot of other stores.
The Play Store is the default store on Android. I think this is why it’s a monopoly.
Companies are not forced to preinstall them by default. But they get paid for doing so
I haven’t ever had a computer that has been pre-built that comes with steam pre-installed.
I’ve had plenty to come with bloatware, but none of that bloatware has ever been Steam. And you know why? Because Valve doesn’t pay companies to pre install Steam.
Valve forces other companies to have Steam installed by default on their PCs? And has shady background deals with various companies?
Wow, TIL
deleted by creator
Before jumping on the “TIL” bandwagon, maybe consider fact-checking and not just regurgitating baseless rumors. Steam dominates the gaming marketplace. They control a massive share of digital game distribution, making it a one-stop-shop for gamers.
Steam’s the cool kid on the block, and everyone else should just pack up and go home. Monopoly vibes, man. /s
Ok…?
Can you tell me how Valve forces steam to be installed on everyone’s PCs and bans the installation of other game stores? You still haven’t done that yet.
Following this logic all billions of devices coming with preinstalled google products contribute to their monopoly. Billions.
And following this logic’s logic Steam is a monopoly because they have a massive library of games, easy to say they’re the gaming monopoly.
That’s not following that logic at all.
Steam is optional, not preinstalled, and Valve does nothing to force its use. Valve doesn’t even do legal (but shady) things like exclusivity deals, like some of their competitors do.
Google, on the other hand, knows OEMs have no choice but to use their software, so they force companies into signing agreements saying no third party app stores, no not including XYZ apps and Google telemetry, etc.
One is an abuse of market position. The other is just a popular product. They are not the same.
In the hypothetical world where Valve creates an OS that replaces Windows, MS exits the PC space leaving SteamOS to take up all of the market, and Valve forces PC makers to only have Steam and no other game stores, and that all revenue should go through Valve, then you’ll have a point. But right now it’s just “Steam is popular” - that’s not an argument, there’s zero coercion going on.
Again, point me to where Valve is doing what Google is doing. Stop evading this request.
Steam is not on stock market, their value is purely estimated and compared with different factors. Unlike google you don’t know “what’s behind the doors” with steam.
But they do dirty practices to keep their position high, which are posted over and over again. 30% cut, psychological marketing tricks to keep you hooked, insider steam market, “analyzing trends” by data mining your PC, whitewashing and downplaying any fuckups, supporting Russians during the war, cleansing Chinese users, pressuring game developers with Steam’s terms and conditions and more. That’s as much as I could think of rn. Go ride Gabe’s dick and lick off all the black cum from under his triple chin.
You’re still dodging what I keep asking you. Answer it or we’re done here.
DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT VALVE FORCES PC MAKERS TO PREINSTALL STEAM AND STOP PREINSTALLATION OF OTHER APP STORES? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF THEM HAVING SECRET BACK ROOM DEALS WHERE THEY DON’T CHARGE SOME PUBLISHERS THE STEAM FEE?
It’s a couple of simple questions with simple answers. Yes or no.
And “they do advertising of games on their platform!!!” - that’s seriously one of your complaints? Lmao
30% cut is the industry standard. And they use that cut to fund an extremely bandwidth-intensive service, with stuff like voice chat, notes, friend systems, achievements, cloud save, Linux compatibility layers, streaming, etc. It’s substantially cheaper than the monthly payments MS/Sony/Nintendo take (on top of taking a cut for games) for lesser service. Where’s the anti-competitive behaviour?
Steam’s telemetry surveys are opt-in.
Explain “whitewashing”, please.
They don’t pressure with terms and conditions. Like any service if you want to use steam you agree to their rules. You don’t have to use steam. You don’t have a god-given right to publish on steam. Many don’t publish on steam.
Supporting Russia in Ukraine - explain.
Ethnic cleansing of Chinese??? What?? Are you high?
And again, I’m going to reiterate:
You’re still dodging what I keep asking you. Answer it or we’re done here.
DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT VALVE FORCES PC MAKERS TO PREINSTALL STEAM AND STOP PREINSTALLATION OF OTHER APP STORES? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF THEM HAVING SECRET BACK ROOM DEALS WHERE THEY DON’T CHARGE SOME PUBLISHERS THE STEAM FEE?
Also lmao, new user with a post history about loving MS. And you say you’re against monopolistic behaviour LOL. Seems like you’re just butthurt about MS being outdone on their own platform. Gates and Nadela don’t care about you no matter how much you simp for them.
Calm your tits Tim Sweeney.
What’s with all the Epic hate in the comments? They invest in open source software and take on legal challenges that nobody else is up to?
It’s a shitty company who happen to be in the right side of one lawsuit at the moment
It was a genuine question not rhetorical. Why do they suck?
Most articles are trash, but try this
Lol scrolling the front page of that is just like a bunch of whataboutism and hypothetical stretches about how things might be and people hating on fortnite for being fortnite. I’m open to real reasons but I’m not reading more than a dozen fluff nonsense opinions to get to them.
Doesn’t make them a good guy.
…for tgeir own wallet.
Don’t kid yourself, that they are doing it from the kindness of their heart…
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
I don’t understand. Android already allows other apps and app stores to be installed, and Epic already has an Android app store you can download and install without issue. What was the argument here?
Edit: tldr: apparently it is not good enough for Epic to have their own app store, they want to have their app in Google’s app store and still not pay them money for purchases made in the app.
Google paid off other OEMs to make Google Play the default app store (much like they paid off other companies to be the default search engine) which the court decided was anticompetitive.
Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default
Does the Amazon store, Galaxy Store, AppGallery, Mi GetApps, and AOPPO app market not exist?
Are those all on the phone by default?
Edit: I didn’t ask if some of them are installed by default, I asked if ALL of them are installed by default.
Mi app store is, and on Chinese models is the only one.
The jury settled on the relevant geographic market being “worldwide excluding China”.
Amazon store and Galaxy store are absolutely installed by default on many devices.
So what you’re saying is that two of them are installed by default on some phones, but not all of them? Because the comment they replied to was talking about app stores being installed by default, so I’m asking if all those app stores are all installed by default. Because it seems like only some of them sometimes get installed by default on some phones.
I don’t know what’s on every phone. But I can confirm those 2 are defaults on some devices through personal experience.
And there are also devices without the Play store by default. Amazon products are probably the best example, but they’re not the only ones.
Don’t get me wrong - Google does some terrible shit. But they’re better than pretty much every other major software company on this issue. All the major game consoles and Apple require the use of their stores exclusively. Microsoft requires the Microsoft store to be installed on any modern Windows machine.
Yeah - the Play Store is the de-facto default and by far the most successful on the platform. And yeah - Google likes it that way and encourages it. But so does everyone else. The difference is that Google is the best actor in this area.
Google allows sideloading. They allow other storefronts. They allow other stores to be installed by default by manufacturers. They allow manufacturers to not include the Play Store. And they allow the removal/disabling of the Play Store by users.
They are on their perspective devices. ie: Galaxy Store on Samsung, Mi store on Xiaomi, etc.
But they’re only default on their respective devices right?
As a reminder, this is the comment you replied to:
Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default
As a reminder that was in fact not the comment I replied to.
Yes, depending on where you buy them from. My Samsung came with Galaxy store by default.
I can’t speak for the others, but the Samsung Galaxy Store does come pre-installed. However, Google paid Samsung for the Play Store to be the default action for app installs. So you get both stores and can pick which one you want.
deleted by creator
That’s just two options from two big players who cooperate, and only on some devices.
The Samsung galaxy store comes pre-installed on Samsung phones, I haven’t heard of it being pre-installed on non-samsung phones.
The Galaxy store app on my phone says otherwise.
What’s in the contract between Google and Samsung? What exactly are the conditions for including both stores? Can any phone manufacturer get the same deal? What are the requirements for licensing Android? What number of phones on the market don’t include Play Store by default? What % of applications are only in Play Store?
Monopoly is not about exceptions but about market control. Until you know what companies have to do to use Android and function on the market you can’t really tell if it’s monopoly or not.
I have to imagine the contract that Samsung has is “We’re Samsung. We basically ARE Korean technology. We can build our own mobile OS if we want to and cut you out entirely. That’s a lot of spying on customers you wouldn’t get to do. We get our own app store or we walk. Oh look, LG just exited the smart phone market. Do what must be done.”
What’s in the contract between Google and Samsung?
Samsung uses Google’s OS (or a fork of it anyway). One of the conditions in the ToS of using that for commercial purposes is that you have to have a certain number of Google apps and services installed and not removable.
The Galaxy Store was a special exception made for Samsung. Generally, Google is pretty “persuasive” about being the only pre-installed app store on the phone.
None of those are allowed on the Play Store. And when you try to side load an app, it warns you about it being dangerous.
They’re not disallowed on the Play Store. They just choose not to put them there specifically because they don’t want to pay Google 30%.
But that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing 3rd party app stores. Computers have had warnings about installing software since the beginning of computers, since no one has vetted whether it is malicious (not that the app stores are immune from malicious apps) so I don’t see that as an issue. I would see mandating the removal of those warnings as an issue.
The Play Store doesn’t allow other app stores.
“4.5 You may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android devices outside of Google Play.” - Google Play Developer Distribution AgreementComputers have had warnings about installing software since the beginning of computers
I think “Computers” go back way farther than you’re imagining. There was a time when you didn’t even install software on computers. You just put in a disk and ran what was on it. We don’t even need to go back to when “Computer” was an actual job title. Something that humans (mostly women) did.
The Play Store doesn’t allow other app stores.
…huh? Why would there be an app store inside an app store?
I think “Computers” go back way farther than you’re imagining.
No I was just speaking simply. You know what I meant.
…huh? Why would there be an app store inside an app store?
To make it easy to access other app stores of course. You can use one web browser to download another can’t you.
No I was just speaking simply. You know what I meant.
Maybe too simply, because I really don’t. Windows didn’t give any warnings about installing any programs until Windows 10 I think. And even then it’s only the truly esoteric and unknown to Microsoft.
“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.”
-
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.
I read that but they don’t expand at all on how they’re doing that. I can buy, download and install games from EGS right now on my Android phone…
I can also buy things from Amazon or any other online store from my browser without Google Play.
They obviously aren’t forcing everyone to use Google billing, but it seems like an antitrust case gains a lot more ground if the accused pays money to quite a bit of people to prevent them from using competitors. That’s what’s getting Google here, apparently, not real forcing.
I believe that Google wanted in-app purchases in Fortnite to go through Play Store so that Google would get 30%. And Epic wanted to setup their own in-app billing and keep it all.
I’m sure they do want them to do that, the question is how is Google stopping them?
By enforcing a rule that says apps on the app store cannot have an external paid app store. So that’s why you download FN on sideload instead of the store.
I wonder how that’s going to play out with Apple and their monopoly.
A lot of this case hinged on the fact that Google wasn’t treating everyone the same. They had a lot of private details for big companies.
Unless Apple also has secret deals, then this isn’t going to impact them.
Apple wouldn’t need to have secret deals. They’re running a walled garden over there. You can’t side load, and you can’t run payments through the app without Apple’s approval. That case was about Apple forcing developers not to even talk in the app about the possibility of making a purchase elsewhere, like through their websites. It wasn’t a deal, it was Apple strong-arming a developer because they could.
The problem is Google wanted to have what Apple has: a closed ecosystem they can exploit. But they don’t have that, at least not to the same degree. Android is not “theirs”, even if they’ve increasingly managed to make the Play Store more inseparable as time has gone by, and getting worse about that all the time.
The most they can do is scare people away from using third party app stores or doing anything with Android they don’t approve of, and when it comes to things like Play Integrity and Play Protection, they can punish you for stepping outside their bounds by breaking certain functionality (for having the audacity to want to control your own device).
But they can’t outright control anything.
Which is where the deals come in. They’re making shady deals to keep Android as their money maker and no one elses.
It’s anti-competitive, because to spite Google’s efforts, there is an actual opportunity for competition on Android, where as on iPhone, there isn’t.
Unless Apple also has secret deals
Apple doesn’t need to make any deals at all because you simply can’t install any other app stores, or any apps outside of the Apple app store.
That’s the crazy thing, that they lost their case and Apple won, despite Apple having WAY more control.
So even if you download, purchase and install an app via a separate app store, Google still collects a commission!?
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings, and such stores can’t even be on the play store. So for an ordinary user you feel like you are hacking the phone. So naturally there aren’t many alternatives. The only one that lasted is F-Droid, but it seems to be only used by advanced users who want to run open source software.
So simply, theoretically they should be able to do whatever they want practically everyone has to stick to play store.
Play store has a rule, that additional charges need to go through them (and they of course charge 30%). This probably would still be ok, but then certain vendors don’t need to follow the same rules.
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
I didn’t realize that. Never actually tried to buy anything. You can’t even make purchases in the Samsung store? Or Huawei?
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings, and such stores can’t even be on the play store.
Yes you can, and I have several times. You are put through a series of warnings just like you are when downloading an executable in the browser, or installing it on Windows. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
Play store has a rule, that additional charges need to go through them
But we’re not talking about Play Store…
But we’re not talking about Play Store…
Epic is, in the law suite they just won.
So the issue is that they don’t want to pay commission on in-app purchases after people download their app from the Google Play store?
I believe that is the crux of it. And apparently part of the trial exposed that some big players have special deals such that don’t have to pay those in-app purchase commissions, or at least have a smaller commission. And that’s what makes it an abuse of their market position.
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
I didn’t realize that. Never actually tried to buy anything. You can’t even make purchases in the Samsung store? Or Huawei?
OP is mistaken - you can make purchases in side-loaded apps, only thing is that app can’t use the Google Play APIs for that (obviously) - but they’re free to use PayPal or stripe or w/e payment method. Google has no way of preventing sideloaded apps from doing that, and it’s not like they can ban them either.
You are put through a series of warnings just like you are when downloading an executable in the browser, or installing it on Windows.
Actually, there isn’t even any actual “warning” - at least not on my Fold 4 - there was just one dialog to enable installation from unknown sources, with a “Settings” button that takes you directly to the page where you need to tick the box next to your browser, and as soon as you tick the box, you can click on the “Install” button to install it. That’s it. None of the dialogs you interact with has any actual warnings.
No, then you won’t even be able to use in-app purchases.
That’s not true - they wouldn’t be able to use the Google Play APIs for payments of course, but if the app is sideloaded they can definitely use any payment processor / method. If the app isn’t on the Play Store then Google has no say over it.
Android supposedly has an option to side load, and even install another store, but in order to do it, you get through a series of warnings
It’s really not as difficult as you make it seem.
- Send a link to the user somehow (SMS, email etc); or user goes to the website
- Click on the Download button
- Open the APK
- In the dialog box that pops up, click on the Settings button > then allow Samsung Internet
- Click on the Install button
That’s it. There were no “series of warnings” to go thru, no need to flip between multiple screens or anything. I literally just went thru this process to install the Epic store my Galaxy Fold 4 - which took only a few seconds in total - and it was in no way complicated or “scary” at all. And bear in mind that the audience in this case are gamers - people who are already familiar with the concept of downloading and installing programs on a PC, so it’s not like you’re targeting some tech-illiterate people here.
The only one that lasted is F-Droid
Not true again. Aurora Droid and Droid-ify are both reasonably popular, at least in the OSS/enthusiast communities. Yes they use the F-Droid repos but they also subscribe to other repos (Guardian Project, Izzy etc), so you’re getting your apps from multiple sources.
There are also proprietary stores such as Aptoide which are quite popular in the Asian markets. Finally, you’re completely ignoring other stores which are bundled out-of-the-box on many non-Google phones such as the Galaxy Store on Samsungs, Mi Store on Xiaomis, AppGallery on Huawei etc. Of course, in the western market the Play Store is the most dominant, but the Samsung store is reasonably popular among Samsung users (as they have regular deals on games and various other apps + some exclusives like Good Lock and other Samsung-specific apps), and of course, the OEM stores are also quite popular in Asian markets.
Not OP, and, correct me if I’m misremembering, but you did actually used to have to enable developer options to be able to sideload at all, and Android doesn’t tell you how to do that.
You seem too certain that it’s still simple, but everytime I’m installing a new APK my Xiaomi makes me wait 10 seconds and puts a big, red, scary sign saying how dangerous it is to side load, then finally the ok buttons unlocks and I install my app.
That’s a problem with Xiaomi, not Google or Android.
No I think Google tried to tell Epic they couldn’t have their own processing for in-app purchases. That’s what Epic sued over.
There are multiple entities with their own payment processing mechanisms running on Android. Epic was definitely able to run their own if they wanted to.
Many of them are either exceptions made by Google through shady deals or apps that were overlooked by Google before they published the app.
That’s exactly what sunk Google’s case though. They’re inconsistent. Had they most likely shown they’re consistent to other apps they could have been more likely to get a jury on their side (like in the case with Apple).
Why would they sue Google instead of just saying “nah”? Did Google do something to prevent them from having their own in-app purchases from their own app store?
Google and Apple both banned Fortnite from their respective app stores and that’s what caused Epic to sue both of them in the first place.
It’s more that Epic added their own payment system to the app (and offered, IIRC, a roughly 30% decrease in Vbucks price for people who opted to use it instead), Google and Apple both responded by removing the app, and then Epic sued them both and even aired a special presentation in Fortnite. All in the same day. Epic intentionally did this.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Well, Epic instigated them to ban the app so they could claim the ban as a tort under competition law.
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.
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.
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.
Their biggest crime is their launcher is annoying, that’s about it
The launcher is annoying, but not enough for me to really care.
It’s basically a different icon and you can install games in such a way that they just click on the icon on the desktop and you don’t need to worry about the launcher at all.
But as far as their products go they’re fine, they offer good quality products for reasonable prices, they don’t seem to take an unrealistic cut of proceeds for games on the platform. They certainly have never attempted to pull anything like Unity has done.
Poor gamers having to deal with competitors to steam.
Competition is good. Poaching games isn’t. And how exactly is it competition if I have to use both to play my games?
If Epic really wanted to compete they’d compete in features, like GoG does.
Edit: Also if the Epic hate were really just about gamers hating competition to Steam, then GoG would be getting hate too.
There’s plenty not to like about their working conditions. Just like any other AAA developer.
I mean maybe but that’s not really what I’m talking about
Fuck Epic, but this is a good decision for everyone.
The golden take imo. Hope they rule against Apple in the similar case.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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
Fuck both of those companies, but overall a good ruling.
deleted by creator
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.
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”.
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).
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.
Problem is, ADB requires enabling developer mode, and guess what - my company also blocks access to devices with developer mode on! (Also, the fact that Shizuku doesn’t work correctly over mobile because it requires stable Wi-Fi to fake a wireless debug connection doesn’t help matters.)
Shizuku only requires WiFi once per boot. But it also needs ADB, so it sadly won’t work for your company phone.
I think the Session Installer mode allows updates without a dialog for apps already installed by Droidify without dev mode or adb.
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
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.
Key difference, this one had a jury make the final call
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
Apple has such deals. The difference is that they weren’t caught.
The difference is that Apple is so vertically integrated, they can say that the existence of Android as an option negates any monopoly they might have on apps. Yes it’s stupid.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
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)
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.
Yeah it still doesnt feel consistent to me. Apple is a large enough marketshare holder for a handheld computer and doesnt even give you an option to sideload another market place. The explanation doesnt make any more sense just because google is more open.
Exactly
Someone else commented that the Google trial was jury decided, where the Apple trial was (assumingly) not.
If I had to guess, probably for the same reason you can’t sue for not being able to pick what apps you install on your toaster.
Google probably opened themselves up to this monopoly shit by trying not to be as much of a monopoly as Apple is trying to be.
I’ve heard a lot of lawyers say that the law punishes virtually every good behavior because that behavior can be construed in a way that you can be sued for, and that it favors being a dick more than anything. In this case, that might be what happened?
I mean, not that Google is a saint at all.
That is seventeen flavors of idiotic in one sickly smartphone sundae
Law is hell on earth, and lawyers are devils.
Lawyers are bad, but I’m starting to think Judges can easily be worse. You get the ‘wrong’ judge assigned to your case and you’re done. Increasing political polarization in every aspect of life is highlighting how biased these people remain.
Isn’t a judge just an ascended/evolved lawyer?
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.”
