Epic Games Wins 'Total Victory' in Google Play Store Dispute

[MacRumors]

While Apple largely won the lawsuit that Epic Games levied against it back in 2020, Google hasn't been as lucky. Google today failed to win an appeal in the ongoing Epic Games v. Google case, handing another victory to Epic.

As noted by Reuters, a federal appeals court rejected Google's claim that the original court overseeing the antitrust case had made legal errors when finding in favor of Epic, which means Google will need to implement Play Store changes. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said the company had scored a "total victory" in the appeal.

Epic Games first sued Google in 2020, right around the same time that it sued Apple. In 2023, a jury unanimously agreed that Google had abused its power by operating an app store monopoly and charging developers exorbitant fees. Google then appealed, leading to today's loss.

As a result of the Epic Games lawsuit, Google will be forced to allow Android users to download rival app stores from the Play Store. Google will also be required to make the Play app catalog available to competitors.

Sweeney says that the Epic Games Store for Android will be coming to the Google Play Store, but Google plans to appeal again.

Article Link: Epic Games Wins 'Total Victory' in Google Play Store Dispute

 

[Justin Cymbal]

An EPIC win for Epic

 

[MacUserFella]

How big corporations feel after making a reference to teenager social media humor: we are awesome

 

[germanbeer007]

ah so you can download a store within a store. just like how I can shop inside a Target inside a Walmart inside Amazon right? because that's what consumers really want: more complexity.

so dumb.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Do these games involve swords and death? Perhaps epic needs to become their game and go away.

 

[GrassShark]

How big corporations feel after making a reference to teenager social media humor: we are awesome

Maybe I missed it — what was the reference?

 

[DBZmusicboy01]

Tim Sweeney had the last laugh 🫠

 

[dynamojoe]

Next Ford dealerships will be required to give floor space to Chevrolet and Honda.

 

[KanosWRX]

I don't know why Epic doesn't have a lawsuit against Apple and Google at the same time.. its the same issue, hell if anything Google is way more open then Apple. I feel like if Google has to open things up, Apple should have to do the exact same..

 

[Terry2023]

Such a catastrophic loss for every apple owner that the Jury ruled wrong in that case. It could be a decade or longer before Apple is forced to allow the owner of the device to use it as the owner wishes.

I would like to know how they came to such a ridiculous verdict.

 

[TheDailyApple]

Why force them to host other app stores? Can’t apps be installed outside the Google Play Store? At this rate epic should be forced to allow Steam, Xbox PC, and Ubisoft Store to be downloaded from their store. And anyone who sells their game through epic should be allowed to advertise lower priced options via direct download or alternate stores in the epic store.

Google will also be required to make the Play app catalog available to competitors.

Am I misunderstanding something here? This makes it seem like anyone can just create a new interface, charge their own fees, and profit off of google’s work.

 

[drrich2]

As a result of the Epic Games lawsuit, Google will be forced to allow Android users to download rival app stores from the Play Store. Google will also be required to make the Play app catalog available to competitors.

Could Android users not download rival app. stores from the sites that host them, like Epic?

Why should Google have to make their app. store's app. catalog (which I suspect most anybody can view at will on the Internet?) available to competitors? If Epic has an app. store, is it not up to Epic to solicit business by convincing developers to put their app. on Epic's store?

This makes no sense. It's like requiring Walmart to let Target deploy their sales circulars in Walmart's stores.

Apple and Google are each famous for developing and bringing to market multiple major technological products. Epic is famous for...what, Fortnite, suing and an evident sense of entitlement?

 

[GrassShark]

Next Ford dealerships will be required to give floor space to Chevrolet and Honda.

Store-within-a-store - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TheColtr]

If Target was the only company that owned land for the state of New York and got to dictate where, when, and how Walmart could build their stores, what they could sell, and even whether or not Walmart could build a store, we would all agree that would be bad.

Apple in the case of the iPhone is the land owner. They control what other stores are allowed to operate and how they sell their goods or services, same with google for the most part.

Saying “just leave the iPhone” is like saying “just leave New York” in my target example.

Also there are stores within a store. Starbucks inside Target, Toys R Us inside Macys, Malls in general. I am dumbfounded why people advocate against consumer choice.

 

[surferfb]

Such a catastrophic loss for every apple owner that the Jury ruled wrong in that case. It could be a decade or longer before Apple is forced to allow the owner of the device to use it as the owner wishes.

I would like to know how they came to such a ridiculous verdict.

Wasn’t a jury, was a judge. And she ruled correctly (except, ironically, on the one part she ruled in favor of Epic on - she ruled the anti-steering provision violated California law, but a California court later said it didn’t, the appeals court agreed it didn’t. But unfortunately for Apple, they didn’t rule until after the federal case was done).

The reason Apple won and Google lost was well explained by Ben Thompson, but it’s behind a paywall. Apologies for the long quote:

• Discovery showed extensive evidence that Google was purposely acting to limit not just Epic but other developers from launching (or joining) alternative game stores.
• One way that Google limited developers was by buying them off, i.e. investing in them directly.
• Google similarly effectively paid off OEMs to stop them from shipping with alternative stores; this payment usually took the form of Google Play revenue shares.
• Google made special deals with top app makers, including allowing Spotify to not use Google payments at all (in lieu of their own), and Netflix only needing to pay a 10% fee.
• Google offered little evidence to justify its 30% fee.

That last point may seem odd in light of Apple’s victory, but again, Apple was offering an integrated product that it fully controlled and customers were fully aware of, and is thus, under U.S. antitrust law, free to set the price of entry however it chooses. Google, on the other hand, “entered into one or more agreements that unreasonably restrained trade” — that quote is from the jury instructions, and is taken directly from the Sherman Act — by which the jurors mean basically all of them: the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement, investment agreements under the Games Velocity Program (i.e. Project Hug), and Android’s mobile application distribution agreement and revenue share agreements with OEMs, were all ruled illegal.

 

[TheColtr]

Next Ford dealerships will be required to give floor space to Chevrolet and Honda.

If Ford was the only one allowed to open dealerships then yeah they should. Imagine Ford buying all the land in a state and then dictating that no other dealerships could operate in the entire state.

 

[surferfb]

If Target was the only company that owned land for the state of New York and got to dictate where, when, and how Walmart could build their stores, what they could sell, and even whether or not Walmart could build a store, we would all agree that would be bad.

Android exists. Everyone knows what they’re getting into when they buy an iPhone.

Apple in the case of the iPhone is the land owner. They control what other stores are allowed to operate and how they sell their goods or services, same with google for the most part.

Saying “just leave the iPhone” is like saying “just leave New York” in my target example.

No it’s not. Moving states is a massive effort, buying a new phone is easy.

Also there are stores within a store. Starbucks inside Target, Toys R Us inside Macys, Malls in general. I am dumbfounded why people advocate against consumer choice.

And those stores within a store pay rent, or otherwise sign agreements with store owner. They don’t get access to the other store’s customers and property for free.

 

[Joe Rossignol]

Also there are stores within a store. Starbucks inside Target, Toys R Us inside Macys, Malls in general. I am dumbfounded why people advocate against consumer choice.

Those store-within-a-store arrangements are voluntary. Both companies agree on a partnership.

In this situation, the court is basically forcing Target to let Starbucks operate within its store, even if it doesn't want them.

I'm not even trying to take a position on what Apple should be allowed to do, because quite frankly I don't really care that much either way. I just feel like your analogy doesn't really apply to the situation.

EDIT: I do think the Epic Games Store should absolutely be allowed to be installed via Safari at a minimum. Apple has always tried to position the iPhone as being different from the Mac for privacy and security reasons, but I think it's a thin argument. I think it's inevitable that regulations will essentially force the iPhone to be as open as the Mac. It's already happened in the EU, and it seems inevitable in the US eventually.

 

[xander49x]

Not a big fan of Google, I am on Google side on this one Epic Games is bad for Gamers, people, and society #boycottepicgames #boycotttimwinney

 

[surferfb]

Those store-within-a-store arrangements are voluntary. Both companies agree on a partnership.

In this situation, the court is basically forcing Target to let Starbucks operate within its store, even if it doesn't want to?

I'm not even trying to take a position on what Apple should be allowed to do, because quite frankly I don't really care that much either way. I just feel like your analogy doesn't really apply to the situation.

And also, give access to the Play Store catalogue? Like what if I am a developer and don’t want to be listed in the other store for whatever reason? How does that even work.

 

[GrassShark]

Those store-within-a-store arrangements are voluntary. Both companies agree on a partnership.

In this situation, the court is basically forcing Target to let Starbucks operate within its store, even if it doesn't want them.

I'm not even trying to take a position on what Apple should be allowed to do, because quite frankly I don't really care that much either way. I just feel like your analogy doesn't really apply to the situation.

The whole brick-and-mortar store to digital marketplace comparison generally falls apart. They're completely different business models with different benefits and restriction and limitations.

 

[artifex]

Could Android users not download rival app. stores from the sites that host them, like Epic?

Yes, you've always been able to sideload apps of your choice, even app stores, on Android. You just get a security warning when you do so, but you click through. And none of the apps downloaded through an alternate store get the security warning. This part is about being mad users have to go to a browser to go to their website to get it.

As far as forcing the Play App availability in other app stores, not even sure what that means. If it just means being able to download the Google Play Store inside the Epic store, why would anyone do that? Unless they're planning to sell hardware with a different store preinstalled instead, like Amazon already does. I need more information. But I will say that sideloading Play apps on a device not "Play certified" is a security risk. People do it to Amazon Fire tablets because they trust Amazon not to be exfiltrating all their data. But if you sideload it on a random no-name tablet, that could be very risky.

Edit: if it means access to all the apps listed in the Play store, that's a whole set of other disasters, especially if the apps still get downloaded from Google's servers instead of the competing app store's. Imagine being forced to pay for the storage and bandwidth of a paid app on your server, but some other company gets paid for it instead. Why even bother hosting any more? Imagine Kroger having to keep groceries they won't get paid for because the customer buys them at Target, but they have to deliver them anyway. Each app store should still have to negotiate with each dev for their own "inventory." Not to mention, what happens with subscriptions?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple has always tried to position the iPhone as being different from the Mac for privacy and security reasons, but I think it's a thin argument. I think it's inevitable that regulations will essentially force the iPhone to be as open as the Mac.

THANK YOU for saying this.

The Mac and how macOS operates has always been hanging there as this really uncomfortable counter narrative to Apple talking points in defense of their iOS App Store business goals.

 

[coachgq]

Next Ford dealerships will be required to give floor space to Chevrolet and Honda.

That’s how I feel about this whole thing. But other people seem to think I’m wrong.

 

[coachgq]

The whole brick-and-mortar store to digital marketplace comparison generally falls apart. They're completely different business models with different benefits and restriction and limitations.

But they are similar in that they build a place for people to shop. They allow many companies to have shelf space to allow consumers to come consume while charging a fee to the companies to have the shelf space. So tell me again how they are different business models.