Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Android Google

Epic Games Goes To Court To Challenge Google's App Store Practices (cnn.com) 63

Posted by msmash from the good-fight dept.
Epic Games, the maker of the popular game "Fortnite," has launched a battle against Google in federal court in a closely watched antitrust showdown that could reshape how smartphone users get Android apps and pay for in-app content. From a report: Epic's lawsuit in the US District Court in California's Northern District targets the Google Play Store, focusing on Google's fees for in-app subscriptions and one-off transactions, along with other terms that app developers such as Epic say helped Google maintain an illegal monopoly in app distribution.

The legal battle follows a years-long debate about whether app store operators such as Google and Apple foster an open, competitive app ecosystem. The two companies argue their app stores help unlock billions in revenue for small businesses, while ensuring that Android and iOS users benefit from security oversight that the technology giants provide. The jury may hear high-profile witnesses testify from both sides, including Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Epic CEO Tim Sweeney.

The court fight traces back to 2020, when Epic launched Project Liberty, a plan to circumvent Apple and Google's app store terms. That move by Epic forced a confrontation with the tech giants. Epic updated the Fortnite app to encourage players to pay for in-app content directly through Epic's own website -- rather than through Apple and Google's in-app payment systems. That gambit triggered a violation of the app stores' developer terms. The move also prompted both app stores to remove the Fortnite app from their platforms.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Epic Games Goes To Court To Challenge Google's App Store Practices More

Epic Games Goes To Court To Challenge Google's App Store Practices

Comments Filter:

  • Fortnite app to encourage players to pay for in-app content directly through Epic's own website. The move also prompted both app stores to remove the Fortnite app from their platforms.

    I'm confident these tech companies just replaced the ways of the mobster. How is this legal? You will use our payment system or you're banned. Also, we are the only way you can reach are users.

    FDR would have never let this bullshit happen. At least the racists back then were smart enough to at least get something out of their politicians.

    • Re:what is wrong with America? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stealth_finger ( 1809752 ) on Monday November 06, 2023 @10:18AM (#63984224)
      Seems like everyone just wants to be provided a platform to reach all the users for free while keeping all the money for themselves.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Well, it's kinda impossible to sidestep those platforms, unless the EU finally gets into gear.

          • It's expensive, not impossible. Just build a better cell phone ecosystem than either of the existing two.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by HBI ( 10338492 )

              The key feature of US antitrust law is the phrase "in restraint of trade". At some point, the current players will be reminded forcefully of that via a dictated consent decree. AT&T would have loved to enforce terms like these.

            • Why not just reinvent the wheel while you're at it.

              • Cell phone networks are hardly as fundamental as wheels. There are lots of variations you can do, lots of levers to pull. You just have to find a design that people like more than the existing two and then market the heck out of it. And if you're Epic, you have the resources to do it, if you're inclined.

          • It's actually *very* easy to sidestep those platforms to the point of being trivial. One thing you could is play Fortnite on your computer running Windows or Linux!

        • Re:what is wrong with America? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Monday November 06, 2023 @10:43AM (#63984334) Homepage Journal

          There's nothing stopping them from creating their own platform and setting their own terms.

          Nothing except the walled garden effect. There's only one app store for iOS, and they expect to be paid in perpetuity for providing services once. I consider this abuse of monopoly power. Epic doesn't want or need Apple's payment processing services and should not have to pay for them if it's not going to use them. I know Epic signed up for one thing and then complained, but I'm pretty sure they felt at the time that the contract terms were unconscionable. I believe a judge is going to see that no benefit is being provided by Apple or Google once the download is complete. They should get paid for what they do, but they should not have the ability to grow tendrils into everything and tax it forever while they do nothing.

      • You seem to be obtuse. Let's trade. You let me own every house in America. I'll let you live wherever you want, but I set all terms and prices.
        • Did you build all the houses? I'm no fan of either of these companies but you can't turn up at a market someone else has made and expect free and full access. Let's put it a different way, I built a mall, if you want a store in it you have to pay rent and whatever other stipulations I set. If that's worth it to you is your business decision not mine.

          • Did you build all the houses? I'm no fan of either of these companies but you can't turn up at a market someone else has made and expect free and full access. Let's put it a different way, I built a mall, if you want a store in it you have to pay rent and whatever other stipulations I set. If that's worth it to you is your business decision not mine.

            This. Exactly this. Great analogy!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      America has interesting ideas about 'liberty', with conflicting ideas about who should have it and who should not. Apple believes they should have it at Epic's expense, and Epic believes they should have it at Apple's expense.

    • FDR would have never let this bullshit happen.

      I must have missed that time that FDR forced the Sears catalog to include any and all products anyone wanted to list without giving Sears a cut.

  • Epic signs a contract. Epic decides they aren't making as much money as they would like. Epic tries to circumvent the contract they signed. Contract originator imposes penalties for breaching contract. Epic whines and sues.

    • Re:Not Going to work out for Epic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Monday November 06, 2023 @10:32AM (#63984294) Homepage Journal

      I'm actually behind Epic in principle. I don't believe that either Apple or Google should receive what amounts to a permanent tax on every transaction if Epic is willing to do the payment processing itself. Giving them "taxes" for the first 30 days might be fair, but not forever.

  • Blinded by greed... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, 2023 @10:45AM (#63984342)

    Had Apple and Google priced the stores closer to that of the credit card merchant fees... or even closer to 5%, with the ability to support direct payment (be the equivalent of cash in a store) I don't think we'd be having this conversation.

    There is a cost to running the stores. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. And, early on - it probably was rather expensive as Apple and Google built out the infrastructure necessary to support this. But, over time, those fees should have decreased as the run-rate costs came down as efficiencies and scales increased. That the fees haven't come down to 'reasonable' levels is Apple/Google's own fault. As such, they will be forced to open things up, rather than keeping it reasonably priced and quiet. Like Money talks by AC/DC.

    I will probably remain on Apple/Google payment ecosystem - especially for vendors that are harder for me to vet out. But, for large companies - Epic Games, Microsoft, Adobe, Walmart, Target, etc. I would feel comfortable with making payments directly with them. Will I see a change in pricing? No - but it allows them to continue with current prices longer.

    What do you think would happen if the US Fed owned the only mobile device marketplace - that all payment had to go through them? All in the name of 'securing the money supply against bad actors'? Business would immediately popup along the beltway selling pitchforks and torches (with stickers asking you to peacefully protest). But, that is EXACTLY what's being done in repressive countries... China, Russia, etc.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Had Apple and Google priced the stores closer to that of the credit card merchant fees... or even closer to 5%, with the ability to support direct payment (be the equivalent of cash in a store) I don't think we'd be having this conversation.

      There is a cost to running the stores. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. And, early on - it probably was rather expensive as Apple and Google built out the infrastructure necessary to support this. But, over time, those fees should have decreased as the run-rate

  • If there are legitimate alternatives to the Apple and Google app stores you'd see a race to the bottom, like companies shopping around their HQ mailing address to the country with the lowest tax rate and stable government.

    There is clearly a power imbalance when companies routinely prevent pricing transparency or alternative payment methods to provide customers with information and choice. They are 2 functional players in the mobile app market, Apple and Google.

    Congratulations to them, they have reached th

    • There are several alternatives to the Google Play Store and what's more, since Android 12 they can serve as first tier stores even when installed by a user. The user simply gives them permission and then they can do all the same stuff the Play Store does, like unattended upgrades. In prior versions of android you needed root for that. So while Apple is preventing them entirely, Google has actually made changes to enable them...

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by El Fantasmo ( 1057616 )

        These companies understand the power of default choices and pay billions to keep it that way. They want to stifle potentially disruptive newcomers, the likes of which they once were.

        • Yeah, of course they do. They're corporations. Their goal is to make money. That's what some of us are pointing out constantly. Corporations are inherently evil, they will do anything to anyone for a buck. That's why humans have to make and enforce laws to keep them operating in the public interest. Originally, all corporations had to show a public interest to justify their existence. Now you just fulfill some basic requirements and pay some money and they give you a charter.

          But Google has figured out that

  • Sideloading will kill this I think (Score:3)

    by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Monday November 06, 2023 @11:23AM (#63984480) Homepage

    To me, the main thing they will have a problem with is Google allowing sideloading. Apple doesn't allow that, so the Apple store is the only viable way to get software into iPhones. Google on the other hand allows other stores (does Amazon still have a store?) and even direct sideloading on apps. If you want to go through the Google store, then yes you will have to follow their terms, but there is nothing forcing you through the store. That all said, I do think the Google terms are onerous and take too much, but that is entirely different than forcing people into the store.

    • Sideloading isn't really an option for most Android users. Only the most technically savvy even know that such a thing exists.

  • I'm with Google on that one (Score:5, Interesting)

    by schweini ( 607711 ) on Monday November 06, 2023 @01:26PM (#63984870)
    I don't understand why Google is treated similarily to Apple in these lawsuits. I think Google's long-standing policy of making it (very slightly) hard, but easily possible to sideload 3rd party apps and even 3rd party app stores is a very reasonable compromise. Nothing stops Epic from just releasing an .apk with detailed instructions on how to install them on Android. No commision to Google necessary.
    Hell, they could even release an .apk for their store and charge commision to other companues if they wanted. I have never seen an Android device that doesn't officially support side-loading an .apk.
    Even the older Chromebooks had a, IMHO, cool feature that you could open them, physically move a screw and unlock dev mode. Anyone could do it if they really wanted, but it was a decent barrier for 'n00bs' to not mess up the locked doen system, which is one of the selling points of Chromebooks.
    Apple, on the other hand, doesn't allow any sideloading whatsoever and runs a completely sealed off walled garden.

    • No, sideloading isn't equivalent to allowing third-party app stores. Only the most technically savvy among us even know how to sideload. And you are completely on your own with respect to avoiding malware, a problem that particularly blights apps that require sideloading.

      Third-party appstores would make it much easier for regular people to install apps that aren't in Google's appstore, and would also give them a measure of security, assuming they trust the third-party appstore.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DuncanE ( 35734 )

        Epic already does exactly that. It provides download and directions:

        https://www.fortnite.com/mobil... [fortnite.com]

      • Amazon and Samsung have their own app stores for Android. I think anyone can side-load apps - you download an APK, open it, and it asks you whether you want to grant permission to install it.

        • When you say "anyone" can side-load apps, you need to visualize the kind of person who struggles to figure out a TV remote control. That kind of user cannot side-load.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dirk ( 87083 )

            Google doesn't have to make it as simply to sideload apps as using the app store. There is a cost to the app store because they vet the apps (minimally, but still) and make it easy to find and load the apps. They allow not only other app stores, but sideloading. Yes, sideloading is not as easy, but if you want the ease of the app store, then use the app store and deal with the cost. They allow people to do it (as opposed to Apple that does not). It seems like like Epic wants the benefits of the store but do

            • They allow not only other app stores

              Google does not allow other app stores. Yes, Amazon has one, and Samsung has one, but that only happens because each of those companies altered Android to allow their own app store. Epic Games wants to have their own app store, but Google will not allow this, and this conflict has led to a series of lawsuits between the two companies. No, Epic doesn't want Google to pay for the operation of Epic's app store, they just want Google to allow them to have one and run it on their own.

              There is a cost to the app store because they vet the apps (minimally, but still) and make it easy to find and load the apps

              If Google were to allow thir

              • You can install the Amazon app store on a stock Android phone. It doesn't depend on the OS being modified.

                • No, you can't. Show me a link to the app in the Google Play Store. It's not there. And when you search for it, what you get is the Amazon Shopping app.

                  • You're moving the goalposts. It isn't in the Play Store, but you can easily download it from Amazon with no modification to Android required: https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/m... [amazon.com.au]

                    I'm pretty sure you haven't actually tried installing an app from an APK file given how hard you think it is. You just click the link, then confirm you want to install it after the download completes.

                    • OK, so your solution is...side load.

                      Yes, I've actually side-loaded the Amazon app, an act which required me to disable security safeguards. What I found was that every app *it* installed also required disabling those security safeguards. Not exactly ideal.

  • Google has always allowed rather simple side-loading of 3rd party apps. Hell, Epic could even release an .apk of their own Android app store and charge money for their sales without Google getting a dime. I really like that about Android.
    So why is Android/Google always dragged down to the same level as Apple in these lawsuits? Apple runs a completely locked-down ecosystem and explicitly does NOT allow any sideloading, let alone alternative app stores.
  • And they get paid. So this a non-issue in Android.

  • Game companies had to produce DVDs, floppy disks, and cartridges; package them; and distribute them to brick and mortar stores who would expect to make money on the sale. They no longer have to do this which has to save them a ton of money. Quit complaining.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

Close