...but the choice of "jurisdictions" is not, when Android/Play Services and iOS/App Store control access to 95% or so of customers.
They can't make it available for iOS.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games Wins 'Total Victory' in Google Play Store Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Developers being able to sell their software on other stores without paying 30% of all revenue to Google and Apple is great for game developers and in turn, gamers
lol the fact you think you'll benefit anything like that is hilarious, its actually a detriment to the end user.
But that is in concept exactly what they do as a collective to suppress new electric car companies. Rivian for example can only sell in 22 states. This has continued to be upheld by the courts when challenged.
Apple does not prevent competing operating systems from entering the market.
Developers still need to pay Epic a cut though.
And gamers won’t see cheaper prices.
But you didn’t buy a product with removable training wheels—you bought one specifically known for its walled garden.
To extend your analogy: it’s like going back to the bike company and saying, “I don’t know how to use a wrench, but I want to fundamentally alter the product I chose. And because I can’t or won't (Jail Breaking is a thing), I’m going to ask the government to force you to build a version you don’t want to sell—Not because a product doesn't exist in the market that closely matches my desire, but because... I don't know, I like your logo but clearly not your product?”
And in doing that, you’ll ignore consumer demand (which isn’t on your side), while pretending you’re fighting for consumer choice—even if the result is effectively eliminating a wildly popular choice for millions of consumers.
Last edited:
I get the Amazon app from the App Store. I shop in the Amazon app. Now you can get the Epic Store app from the Play Store to shop from. How is that more complex?
Real life doesn’t work like that though. There’s a reason why there are laws against drink driving regardless of how good you are at driving or holding your liquor. Having sideloading with the option to disable it is as good as not having sideloading at all, because everyone is going to think that they know better.
Rules either apply to everybody, or they don’t apply at all.
Because Google and Epic aren't the same as Ford and Honda. Ford doesn't sell Honda things and doesn't force Honda to sell their cars from Ford lots, nor does Ford say that all transactions with Honda have to go through Ford for the small, small fee of 30%. I don't understand why people can't see that Apple/Google aren't the victims here...
The 30% are merely transaction costs.
And consumers benefit from lower transaction costs.
No one benefits from high transaction costs (higher than the cost to provide that service) - except the ones who charge them.
Agree with your points, but as recent history has shown, when costs go down, companies tend to NOT pass along those savings, instead reaping more profits from lower costs.
That's a bad, partisan analogy and you know it.
It would fit if Ford and another company owned, all by themself, all the property in the world that could accommodate a car dealership and the could just decide who can sell cars and take an arbitrary amount of money from every car sold.
Not sure why so many people on this site love monopolies and enjoy very weak narratives about government oppression.
…as Apple has shown, yes.
That said, the market for games is arguably more diversified and competitive than the one for software application stores.
So basically your saying Apple is being a good boy with how it runs it's app store and Google is being the naughty boy with how it runs it app store. Strange how many countries do not see it that way and taking Apple to court for how it runs it's app store.
That's literally why the two cases went the way they did in the US. Under US anitrust law, it absolutely makes a difference that Apple sells (and has always sold) a fully integrated product with only one option for buying software, and Google claimed to be open and then changed the rules and cut deals to discourage others from using third party stores.
You don't have to agree with the law, or think that the US should pass some sort of DMA-like law to make Apple open up, but that's why Google lost their case against Epic and Apple won its case against Epic.
This is an interesting aside I never have thought much about my personal experience with honestly.
When you go to buy an iPhone, do they tell you anywhere that you can only install software from Apple?
It’s honestly not something I can recall ever being presented to me, but that doesn’t mean my memory is correct.
Interesting question! As far as I can tell, the relevant portion of the EULA states:
Then the developer agreement states how the software can be installed (in most of the world, App Store, Test Flight, or Enterprise Program).
Obviously most people aren't reading the EULA, let alone the developer agreement, but it is in there that you can only use third party software if Apple has authorized it.
Hope Google wins the appeal on this.
So stupid someone can walk into a Walmart and open up a Target store inside and Walmart can’t say no.
I get this isn’t about Walmart and Target but it’s literally what the courts just allowed and set a precedent for.
So stupid someone can walk into a Walmart and open up a Target store inside and Walmart can’t say no.
I get this isn’t about Walmart and Target but it’s literally what the courts just allowed and set a precedent for.
Simple.
Apple & Google have a different business model.
Google is like Microsoft where they license their operating system to OEMs and then try to use that position to tell OEMs what they’re allowed to do.
This makes Apple immune to many types of antitrust actions that Google would be vulnerable to.
This needs to be repeated 1,000 times.
Apple does t license iOS to OEMs. Google licenses Android to OEMs and then tries to use that position to dictate unfavorable terms.
This is flawed reasoning and doesn’t hold up. I could avoid third party stores on my iPhone but if friends/family use third party stores on their iPhones it weakens my privacy and security. My data gets shared without my consent.
Anything I send them (photos, messages…) could be data mined by App s on their end without my consent.