Monday, October 7th 2024
Epic Games' Anti-Trust Lawsuit Punishes Google With Open Android App Ecosystem
Following Epic Games's recent victory over Apple, which effectively forced the iPhone maker to allow third-party apps on iOS in the EU, the game developer and distributor has won a similar case against Google, except in the US, this time. The ruling places several restrictions on what Google can and can't do when it comes to the Android operating system and how it positions its own apps and services on Android phones, including prohibiting Google from paying device manufacturers to include its Play software on their devices and forcing developers to use Google's payment platform.
The ruling (PDF) and its consequent restrictions will start on November 1, 2024, will last three years, and Google isn't particularly happy about the mandated changes, having already confirmed that it will appeal the decision, citing security concerns and arguing that the order would negatively affect developers: "these changes would put consumers' privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps, and reduce competition on devices."
In summary, the ruling means Google may no longer:
Google has eight months to implement whatever technical capabilities are required to comply with the judgement, and the terms of the three-year injunction will start once Google has implemented all the necessary steps. As mentioned previously, Google plans to fight the judgement with an appeal, arguing that Google already competes with Apple for consumers and developers and that Android is already an open operating system with side-loading and third-party app stores permitted—although Google has made them increasingly difficult to install.
Google claims that the changes requested by Epic and granted by the ruling would make Android a weaker competitor against Apple and iOS. It also claims that the ruling goes against the precedent set by the previous US Epic-v-Apple lawsuit that levelled similar monopolistic claims at Apple but ultimately failed to force similar changes on the Cupertino tech giant.
Source:
US District Court of Northern California [PDF]
The ruling (PDF) and its consequent restrictions will start on November 1, 2024, will last three years, and Google isn't particularly happy about the mandated changes, having already confirmed that it will appeal the decision, citing security concerns and arguing that the order would negatively affect developers: "these changes would put consumers' privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps, and reduce competition on devices."
- Pay developers or share revenue with developers in exchange for launching an app to the Google Play Store with any form of exclusivity or in any way make or incentivize any app developer to offer a different version of their app on the Play Store.
- Pay a manufacturer or otherwise incentivize a manufacturer to pre-install Google Play Services or apps on any devices.
- In any way prevent device manufacturers from installing other app stores or distribution platforms on their Android devices—including incentivizing them against installing these other platforms.
- Prevent app developers from offering and telling users about reduced prices for Android apps and subscriptions outside of Google's payment and distribution ecosystem.
- Prohibit third-party app store developers from offering their app stores on the Play Store.
Google has eight months to implement whatever technical capabilities are required to comply with the judgement, and the terms of the three-year injunction will start once Google has implemented all the necessary steps. As mentioned previously, Google plans to fight the judgement with an appeal, arguing that Google already competes with Apple for consumers and developers and that Android is already an open operating system with side-loading and third-party app stores permitted—although Google has made them increasingly difficult to install.
Google claims that the changes requested by Epic and granted by the ruling would make Android a weaker competitor against Apple and iOS. It also claims that the ruling goes against the precedent set by the previous US Epic-v-Apple lawsuit that levelled similar monopolistic claims at Apple but ultimately failed to force similar changes on the Cupertino tech giant.
These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court's rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple—even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading.
26 Comments on Epic Games' Anti-Trust Lawsuit Punishes Google With Open Android App Ecosystem
www.theverge.com/policy/2024/9/30/24256395/epic-sues-google-samsung-antitrust-auto-blocker
I thought someone was paying developers for exclusivity and planning their EGS services in games.
Who is that?
This might help.
also you got f-droid but not many cleaners on that mostly 2 that somewhat work.
I had to service Moms phone today and got it cleaned but was a long nightmare of manual cleaning.
How people come to situation to defend megacorporation ( Google, MS, Intel, whatever...)???
The distinction is important.
Either way, this is going to result in a lot of negative changes to a lot of people and also cause a lot of fragmentation. Google is also likely to change their Android strategy, if they can profit less from it they might wind down some operations on Android as stuff doesn't get subsided by storefront revenue.
Certainly going to be a pretty big paradigm shift.The phrasing is kinda of odd in this. Does this mean that third party app store now have access to host any app from the Play Store? And you need to willingly opt out?
If that is so then it sounds BS because it should be up to the developer wanting to put it in there, rather than it being an automatic process.
must comply with this, its forced to do this, even though they already allow sideloading, yet apple got away scot-free without offering their customers any options but their store?Yes i know, they have to do it in the EU, but the process is BS and still at the mercy of Apple’s whims.
edited noted the wrong sentence, corrected.
This is fantastic thing, one that will remove part of the control from Google hands.
If you forgot, Andorid is first and foremost open-source OS, not Google pet.
Also, writing that "it is not Google, it is Play Store" is really crazy thing to say. It is Google store, after all...Simply, they have to comply with law... Or they can pack up from Europe...
And the wording on that includes the Google Apps suite. Basically analogous to forbidding Microsoft to include browser in Windows back in the day, but for a bunch of apps.
If it is soo god, manufacturers will install it by default even without Google money... Because customers will ask for it.
Does anybodely remember free market?
FEARUNCERTAINTYDOUBT
malwareunwanted not needed software.Apps - i prefer software - is now such hidden that they have other names or hard to uninstall even with the android debug bridge.
I hope we get better ANDROID devices with less bloatware from Samsung for example.
I uninstalled around 30 or more apps each on my Tablet and on my Smartphone.
When the Samsung Tablet and Smartphone works also with a disabled software - you know it's unwanted not needed software.
--
I do not need or want google store. My Huwaii? Fitnesstracker is not in the google playstore. For whatever reason. F-droid is also not in the appstore. And many other software which i need on a regular basis.
Well Huwaii? was fraudulent as to not mention that a fitnesstracker needs an android apk and also a regular connection to that. I only open the apk every two weeks, else it gets disabled.I had my older (3rd device) Android Tablet with a custom rom and google free.
It all depends on what you do with that android device in the first place.
If you know where and how you install software, for what purpose you use it - the security statement can be ignored. I trust F-droid much more than the software from google playstore. F-Droid software uses less permissions as most of the software offered in google playstore. Google playstore is just DRM management and wasting storage space on a device.Some smartphones and tablet brands sold in europe are without the google playstore.
Linux has the same thing, a lot of things are technically open source but only company employees work in it.
Some examples on top of my head are gamescope(maintained by a single valve employee) and proton(mostly valve and contractors)Google is the company, Play Store is the product that has market power.
Maybe I might be seeing things differently, but I noticed that very often, google gets shafted but Apple is not, even though both are doing the same thing and Apple does it to a worse extent.Thanks for pointing the error of the words i wrote, updated.Google has as much money, i honestly think is a weird pro apple bias that american judges seems to exhibit.Likewise. But what confuses me is that such options are already possible in android devices.Preach!
I hate having to sign on both google and samsung stores when using any Samsung devices.
Granted, their apps are mostly optional but some are not, like Find my device, which only works when signed with a Samsung account.
I did not sign on with SAMSUNG account on my Samsung A53s 5g? and my Samsung AX210? Tablet (i do not care for modell number for android devices)I also did not made any. A few apps can not be deleted from my devices.
Edit: I did not create any Samsung Accounts for my Samsung Smartphone A53s 5g? and my Samsung Tablet AX210?. (I'm not sure about the modell numbers)
A few apps can not be deleted from my devices.Than sometimes I read later, google does not have to pay the fine.On my samsung devices I need to enable some options / steps for one outside apk to install it. It's very complicated and well hidden.
It's definitely not a once click experience like in the google playstore.