Epic Wins Store Spat Against Google, Jury Holds Google Play Guilty of Monopolistic Practices

[AnotherReader]

If Epic dont like it and they think the 30% cut isnt reasonable for the efforts Google put in to Android's success, why dont they put setup their own Phone OS and own phone to sell then? Must be trivial right?

Would it be ok for Microsoft to restrict Windows PCs to use only software from the Windows Store?

 

[AusWolf]

The victory will be if Google's margins will decrease.

Keep on dreaming. It'll never happen. Epic will probably just open another storefront with similar prices, just like they did on Windows.

The ruling discussed seems to be out of your favour - could you tell us why? And I don't mean explaining why Epic is good or bad, but just about this ruling specifically. I fail to see how new restrictions for Google's margins could possibly hurt anyone while I see millions of customers and developers who may find this to be a small victory which will hopefully one day end up in lower altogether margins for all Google apps or something like that.

I have 6 launchers installed on my PC when I realistically only need 2. Steam has all the features, and GOG all the old classic favourite games that I need, yet I have to have the EA app for EA games, the Ubi launcher for Ubisoft, Wargaming.net for World of Tanks/Warships, and Epic for the Alan Wake series as well. Why? It's excessive clutter that I never asked for, but was forced upon. I hate it, and do not want it on my phone as well one single bit.

Not to mention, Epic's strategy is to keep the storefront as crap as possible, with no investment, no new features, no price cuts, nothing to incentivise people to switch besides the fact that you have to use it if you want to play games in their care. They even cost the same as any other game, so I don't know what consumer benefit we're talking about, honestly. I'm not benefiting from having to use the Epic store at all.

 

[bug]

Would it be ok for Microsoft to restrict Windows PCs to use only software from the Windows Store?

This isn't about stores, Android allows installing any number of stores. This is about having to go through Google payments (and give Google a cut in the process), no matter which store you use.
And frankly, I would feel uneasy sending payments to whatever random Indian/Chinese software game publishers feel like using in their stores, given the chance.

 

[trsttte]

Sure. I just don't get why the court sided with Epic. Android is Google's platform, and iOS is Apple's, they do as they please.

I still think Epic suing for exclusivity is the biggest hypocrisy of the decade.

Epic wasn't suing for exclusivity, and though this is being painted as a win for Epic they didn't really win anything yet, they just made google loose. First they didn't sue for damages and won't get anything. The court also outright ruled out forcing google into a lower transaction fee. What happened is google was proven guilty of anti competitive practises and anti thrust violations by bribing and/or forcing developers into exclusivity deals with the play store (which doesn't allow them to publish elsewhere, i.e. an hypothetical android epic store) and also bribing and/or forcing manufacturers to not install concurrent services with the play store and always shipping the play store by default.

This is a win for consumers and I don't get why Epic wasn't able to make Apple loose on this same exact point. The case was different and Epic was suing for damages there but still, it's painfully obvious Apple is an even worse offender when you simply can't publish anything on iOS/iPadOS without going through Apple.

Android/iOS platform ownership doesn't mean anything, anti thrust laws exist for a reason, to avoid massive corporations being able to use their massive power to limit competition, like how there's only 2 mobile operating systems, how amazon owns the majority of the online retail marketspace, how facebook dominates social media and was allowed to buy or handicap most competitors over the years, etc. etc. etc. all examples on how regulators failed at their jobs. App stores are just another place where they're failing, this is a move in the right direction but a very small one.

If Epic dont like it and they think the 30% cut isnt reasonable for the efforts Google put in to Android's success, why dont they put setup their own Phone OS and own phone to sell then? Must be trivial right?

That's a ridiculous argument, read above.

 

[AusWolf]

Epic wasn't suing for exclusivity, and though this is being painted as a win for Epic they didn't really win anything yet, they just made google loose. First they didn't sue for damages and won't get anything. The court also outright ruled out forcing google into a lower transaction fee. What happened is google was proven guilty of anti competitive practises and anti thrust violations by bribing and/or forcing developers into exclusivity deals with the play store (which doesn't allow them to publish elsewhere, i.e. an hypothetical android epic store) and also bribing and/or forcing manufacturers to not install concurrent services with the play store and always shipping the play store by default.

This is a win for consumers and I don't get why Epic wasn't able to make Apple loose on this same exact point. The case was different and Epic was suing for damages there but still, it's painfully obvious Apple is an even worse offender when you simply can't publish anything on iOS/iPadOS without going through Apple.

Android/iOS platform ownership doesn't mean anything, anti thrust laws exist for a reason, to avoid massive corporations being able to use their massive power to limit competition, like how there's only 2 mobile operating systems, how amazon owns the majority of the online retail marketspace, how facebook dominates social media and was allowed to buy or handicap most competitors over the years, etc. etc. etc. all examples on how regulators failed at their jobs. App stores are just another place where they're failing, this is a move in the right direction but a very small one.



That's a ridiculous argument, read above.

Google bribing/forcing developers into exclusivity deals with the Play store is bad, but Epic doing the exact same thing with the Epic store on Windows is good for the consumer? I don't get where this double standard is coming from, at all.

I wish Valve and CDProjektRed sued Epic for similar anti-competitive behaviour and made them bankrupt.

 

[chrcoluk]

This isn't about stores, Android allows installing any number of stores. This is about having to go through Google payments (and give Google a cut in the process), no matter which store you use.
And frankly, I would feel uneasy sending payments to whatever random Indian/Chinese software game publishers feel like using in their stores, given the chance.

Thanks for this information, as I already knew Android allows other stores so it wasnt making entire sense to me.

From my perspective I definitely prefer having all my purchases going through google pay rather than many different providers. Similar thing with Amazon pay on web stores, if I am paying using something that isnt amazon pay, steam or google pay, I use a disposable virtual card.

 

[AusWolf]

Thanks for this information, as I already knew Android allows other stores so it wasnt making entire sense to me.

From my perspective I definitely prefer having all my purchases going through google pay rather than many different providers. Similar thing with Amazon pay on web stores, if I am paying using something that isnt amazon pay, steam or google pay, I use a disposable virtual card.

This! Amazon is the biggest online storefront because it's proven to be trusted, and not because they're anti-competitive or something. My last few phones were all Samsung because I know the UI well, and trust the brand, and not because I'm forced. There are only AMD and Intel CPUs because they proved to be the most reliable and most innovative through their years. Nobody forced the other makers out of the business except for their own failings. But I had to buy Alan Wake 2 on Epic because I was forced by not having any other choice, even though the Epic store is crap. This is real anti-competitiveness.

 

[trsttte]

about having to go through Google payments (and give Google a cut in the process), no matter which store you use.

This is not ture. Google doesn't get shit from purchases on the Samsung Store for example, and that's why it brided Samsung with 8 billion $ so the Play Store remained the default option and Samsung slowed their horses - a huge no no when it comes to competition law

Google paid $8 billion to make its apps default on Samsung phones

Google agreed to pay $8 billion over four years to Samsung Electronics Co. to make its apps default on Samsung phones, according to information presented by Epic Games Inc. in court. James Kolotour…

thehill.com

Google “bought off Samsung” to limit app store competition, 36 states allege

“Google has taken steps to close the ecosystem from competition.”…

arstechnica.com

Samsung’s understanding of Project Banyan was “prevent unnecessary competition on store.”

“That was Samsung’s frame, that is correct,” says Kolotouros. Samsung’s counteroffer included: “Utilize Google IAP as the main payment module on Galaxy Store.” Samsung was willing to give Google a cut of in-app purchases, that means. Instead, Google did three other deals with Samsung in 2020...

www.theverge.com

Google bribing/forcing developers into exclusivity deals with the Play store is bad, but Epic doing the exact same thing with the Epic store on Windows is good for the consumer?

That case is not on trial but it's a very different situation: it's only a couple of games among many, most are only exclusive for an initial period and there are a lot more stores and competition on the windows app space.

I don't like it either but they're very different contexts.

From my perspective I definitely prefer having all my purchases going through google pay rather than many different providers. Similar thing with Amazon pay on web stores, if I am paying using something that isnt amazon pay, steam or google pay, I use a disposable virtual card.

And that's your choice, but picking from your example outside the android/ios bubble you can use amazon, steam, paypal, stripe, google/apple pay, etc. And all of them have to compete to be the cheapest payment processor so sites decide to use them - fees range from 1.5% to 3% usually. Inside the android/ios buble only the native option is allowed and they get to charge up to 30% per transaction because there's no other option - because they allow no other option (maily apple, google a bit less but they're both guilty). This is a monopoly abusing their market position and it's illegal, plain and simple.

 

[AusWolf]

That case is not on trial but it's a very different situation: it's only a couple of games among many, most are only exclusive for an initial period and there are a lot more stores and competition on the windows app space.

I don't like it either but they're very different contexts.

I disagree. Whether it's one game, or ten, or a hundred, it doesn't make a difference. Scumminess is scumminess regardless. I hope they'll be on trial for this soon.

 

[Totally]

Sure. I just don't get why the court sided with Epic. Android is Google's platform, and iOS is Apple's, they do as they please.

I still think Epic suing for exclusivity is the biggest hypocrisy of the decade.

This! Amazon is the biggest online storefront because it's proven to be trusted, and not because they're anti-competitive or something. My last few phones were all Samsung because I know the UI well, and trust the brand, and not because I'm forced. There are only AMD and Intel CPUs because they proved to be the most reliable and most innovative through their years. Nobody forced the other makers out of the business except for their own failings. But I had to buy Alan Wake 2 on Epic because I was forced by not having any other choice, even though the Epic store is crap. This is real anti-competitiveness.

Don't see your point, how is that worse than being forced to purchase and download from the play store if on iOS or Play store if on Android not because of some timed exclusivity agreement but because there is no other option* period. How is that not anti-comsumer?


*Google will gladly point of that apps can be side loaded but they do everything they could legally do to discourage doing so making it an option the average user isn't aware of let alone willing to take, just making it unrealistic.

 

[bug]

Don't see your point, how is that worse than being forced to purchase and download from the play store if on iOS or Play store if on Android not because of some timed exclusivity agreement but because there is no other option* period. How is that not anti-comsumer?


*Google will gladly point of that apps can be side loaded but they do everything they could legally do to discourage doing so making it an option the average user isn't aware of let alone willing to take, just making it unrealistic.

Are you aware that most malware on Android comes from 3rd party stores and/or sideloading?

I've always been an advocate of open (albeit not blindly), the problem here is exclusivity. If Google let Epic publish and sell their games in an Android Epic store, Epic would stop selling their apps in the Play Store altogether, forcing me to use their store instead. That's what they (and others) do on PC.

 

[R0H1T]

Are you aware that most malware on Android comes from 3rd party stores and/or sideloading?

Any long term reports/studies to back that up? Sideloading I can agree but FFS we've had malware infested app on the playstore itself & no I won't include BS shady app stores, which is probably a separate debate!

 

[tpa-pr]

Despite my opinion on Epic Games and their PC practices I'm glad they won this lawsuit. Being stonewalled into a single payment pipeline is bad for the consumer and the developer. You're essentially at the mercy of the platform owner who can charge both sides whatever they like, impose whatever arbitrary restrictions they like etc. Plus, there's nothing wrong with more consumer choice even if it's something as basic as a payment processor and even if its a "bad" choice. This lawsuit opens up the option of other "good" choices entering the market later with the precedent.

Any sort of lock-in is bad. If Microsoft had gone ahead with the Palladium project back in the day we wouldn't have the choice of software and games we have now!

I can only hope that Apple gets the same treatment, it's been a long time coming.

 

[bug]

Any long term reports/studies to back that up? Sideloading I can agree but FFS we've had malware infested app on the playstore itself & no I won't include BS shady app stores, which is probably a separate debate!

https://arstechnica.com/security/20...pture-credentials-displayed-on-phone-screens/ - malware present in 3rd party stores, but not in official one
https://arstechnica.com/information...vs-and-phones-come-with-malware-preinstalled/ - more malware in cheap, unverified devices

Mind you, the Play Store is not immune to malware, but there are fewer reports of malware sneaking in there. Iirc, years ago there was one incident when Play Store actively deleted the offending app from users' phones once the malware was identified. Never heard of 3rd party stores doing that.

 

[AusWolf]

Are you aware that most malware on Android comes from 3rd party stores and/or sideloading?

I've always been an advocate of open (albeit not blindly), the problem here is exclusivity. If Google let Epic publish and sell their games in an Android Epic store, Epic would stop selling their apps in the Play Store altogether, forcing me to use their store instead. That's what they (and others) do on PC.

Exactly. The Play store isn't just a store to buy stuff on. It's got checks in place so that you can be assured that whatever you get there is (mostly) genuine.

Don't see your point, how is that worse than being forced to purchase and download from the play store if on iOS or Play store if on Android not because of some timed exclusivity agreement but because there is no other option* period. How is that not anti-comsumer?


*Google will gladly point of that apps can be side loaded but they do everything they could legally do to discourage doing so making it an option the average user isn't aware of let alone willing to take, just making it unrealistic.

I'm not saying which one is worse. What I'm saying is that I like deciding where to buy my games for myself without my hand being forced.

 

[bug]

Exactly. The Play store isn't just a store to buy stuff on. It's got checks in place so that you can be assured that whatever you get there is (mostly) genuine.

Mind you, that doesn't imply 3rd party stores aren't verifying their contents. But without Google's budget, it's hard to ensure the same level of safety.

 

[trsttte]

Mind you, that doesn't imply 3rd party stores aren't verifying their contents. But without Google's budget, it's hard to ensure the same level of safety.

I don't know what you guys are talking about, the situation has improved a lot but google has been comically bad at it for years.

What I'm saying is that I like deciding where to buy my games for myself without my hand being forced.

And currently your hand is forced into not being able to decide anything because there's no options.

 

[AusWolf]

And currently your hand is forced into not being able to decide anything because there's no options.

On mobile, you're absolutely right, and if Epic itself wasn't famous for exclusivity deals, then I'd have no objection here.

 

[bug]

I don't know what you guys are talking about, the situation has improved a lot but google has been comically bad at it for years.

I've always owned Android phones and, as such, I have been following the news when malware was discovered within the ecosystem. Very rarely was that malware spreading via the Play Store, so I'm not sure what's so "comically bad" about it.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Excellent point! Imagine owning a pub (bar) and some local brewery filing a complaint against you for selling their beer with a profit margin. How dare you?

No it's not. That's totally not the same thing. Unless their beer can only be sold to a single, specific bar, because.... If the brewery would have the option, or power to sell to another pub(bar) then yes, no problemo.
But when is forced to sell to only 2 different bars, one that already ban them, how would you react?

 

[Totally]

No it's not. That's totally not the same thing. Unless their beer can only be sold to a single, specific bar, because.... If the brewery would have the option, or power to sell to another pub(bar) then yes, no problemo.
But when is forced to sell to only 2 different bars, one that already ban them, how would you react?

Also add that the pubs instead of charging by the keg, decide to charge by the value of the liquor removing the incentive for the brewery to produce better quality beer rather than quantity.

 

[AusWolf]

No it's not. That's totally not the same thing. Unless their beer can only be sold to a single, specific bar, because.... If the brewery would have the option, or power to sell to another pub(bar) then yes, no problemo.
But when is forced to sell to only 2 different bars, one that already ban them, how would you react?

The brewery is already selling to another bar (Windows). First, they market the Epic launcher with the supposedly lower margins than other stores (despite prices on Epic are the same as elsewhere anyway), and now they sue Google for their profit cuts. This smells exactly like the greed that they're suing against. "If I can't sell on your platform for the price that I dictate, I'll sue you until I can."