Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,914
41,342


Google has proposed sweeping changes to its Play Store and Android to end an ongoing antitrust dispute with Epic Games. The two companies filed a joint settlement agreement with the court last night, and if approved, Apple will be left as the only company embroiled in a public antitrust fight with Epic.

Google-Logo-Feature-Slack.jpg

Google will allow Android app developers to use alternative payment methods in apps or through external links instead of forcing them to use Google Play Billing. Google is supporting Registered App Stores, which are alternative app stores that can be easily installed alongside Google Play. Epic Games would be a Registered App Store, able to be installed on Android devices to offer its own catalog of app titles.

As for fees, Google will charge a maximum of 9 percent or 20 percent based on transaction type and date of install, with the lowered fees applicable worldwide instead of solely in the United States. Google can charge a fee for transactions completed using alternative payment methods, and it is also able to charge an additional fee for transactions processed by Google Play Billing.

The wording around fees is complicated and could be somewhat open to interpretation for virtual items in games, plus it applies to new app installs, not existing app installs. Google can charge a 20 percent fee for in-game purchases providing more than a de minimis gameplay advantage, which would presumably be things like power ups, items that increase experience, or loot boxes.

Google can only charge a 9 percent fee for items that do not affect gameplay, such as additional levels, events, or Fortnite skins that are considered cosmetic. The 9 percent maximum fee is also applicable to in-app subscriptions, non-game app purchases, or up front app and game purchases. In a situation where there's a mixed bundle that includes in-game items like weapons and in-game skins, Google can charge the higher 20 percent rate. Google told The Verge that it would also charge a five percent fee for apps that choose to use the Google Play Billing system, which would be in addition to the 9 to 20 percent fee.

To simplify, the base fee for all apps will be 9 percent, while fees for games will range from 9 percent to 20 percent. Developers will pay another five percent if using Google Play Billing. For alternative app stores, Google is able to charge reasonable fees that cover operational costs, but nothing additional. Epic Games will be able to create an Epic Games Store on Android, paying minimal fees to Google, which is what the company set out to do when it initially filed lawsuits against Apple and Google back in 2020. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said that Google's proposal is "awesome" and a "comprehensive solution that stands in contrast to Apple's model of blocking all competing stores."


Google agreed not to enter into agreements that would see apps launch "first or exclusively" on Google Play, and it will not require an app to provide the same features on Google Play that it does on another app store. Developers are also free to communicate with customers about cheaper prices available outside of the Google Play Store.

It's possible that Google's settlement with Epic Games could impact the eventual outcome of the Epic Games v. Apple case. Apple and Google have charged developers similar fees historically, and there is inevitable change coming to the App Store ecosystem.

There are important differences between the two legal disputes, however, so what's going on with Google is not directly applicable to Apple. In Epic v. Apple, Apple largely won the case. The judge did not find that Apple had a monopoly, and Apple was only required to allow developers to link to web-based purchase options.

In Epic v. Google, Google lost. If Google didn't settle with Epic, it was going to be forced to make Play Store changes anyway. A jury decided that Google abused its power by operating an app store monopoly and charging developers exorbitant fees. Google has also always allowed for sideloading on Android devices and has been more open to it, even though it isn't as easy as it will be in the future.

Apple has consistently opposed sideloading and will not likely make the same concessions that Google made without being forced into it.

In Epic v. Apple, Apple is currently fighting an injunction requiring it to allow developers to link to outside purchase options in apps in the U.S. Apple is currently not allowed to collect fees on purchases made through in-app links, an order that came after the court found that Apple had willfully violated the original order requiring links by controlling the appearance of links and charging high fees.

The court is planning to review the proposed Epic v. Google settlement on November 6.

Article Link: Google Agrees to Make Major Play Store Changes to Settle Epic Games Antitrust Lawsuit
 
Last edited:
My solution?
Stores and default apps should show alternatives at the first startup.
If I made the rules, even the OS should. Give me the product without an OS, I'll pick the one I prefer and they must be allowed to run.
See how they'll compete to actually be the best.
And before you object: it's this or mandatory Siri. Siri forever. "This is what I've found on the internet" forever.
 
It's utter BS Apple got away with it and Google didn't.

It’s amazing people don’t understand these two court cases (Epic vs Apple and Epic vs Google).

If so then it becomes clear why Apple won and Google lost.

Google is like Microsoft licensing Android (Windows) to OEMs and then trying to tie certain products/services or making deals that favor some OEMs over others.

Apple doesn’t license iOS to smartphone makers and are therefore exempt from a whole slew of antitrust issues that Microsoft & Google need to watch out for.
 
My solution?
Stores and default apps should show alternatives at the first startup.
If I made the rules, even the OS should. Give me the product without an OS, I'll pick the one I prefer and they must be allowed to run.
See how they'll compete to actually be the best.
And before you object: it's this or mandatory Siri. Siri forever. "This is what I've found on the internet" forever.

Sure. And when I go to a Ford dealership to buy a car they should be forced to show me similar Chevy models as well. 🤷‍♂️
 
Stores and default apps should show alternatives at the first startup.

… And before you object: it's this or mandatory Siri. Siri forever. "This is what I've found on the internet" forever.

(I believe Apple devices ask on the first startup whether you want to enable Siri.)
 
(I believe Apple devices ask on the first startup whether you want to enable Siri.)
And you have to say words to it to set it up. Folks that may not have gone through that process in awhile as they’re upgrading from one phone to another, may not have done that in awhile. :)
 
Sure. And when I go to a Ford dealership to buy a car they should be forced to show me similar Chevy models as well. 🤷‍♂️
It’s anti-competitive that the Ford dealership is closer than the Chevy dealership. I’m FORCED to go to the Ford dealership even though I want a Chevy, so they should be forced to sell me the kind of car I want.
 
It’s amazing people don’t understand these two court cases (Epic vs Apple and Epic vs Google).

If so then it becomes clear why Apple won and Google lost.

Google is like Microsoft licensing Android (Windows) to OEMs and then trying to tie certain products/services or making deals that favor some OEMs over others.

Apple doesn’t license iOS to smartphone makers and are therefore exempt from a whole slew of antitrust issues that Microsoft & Google need to watch out for.
I really wish more people understood this significant difference, but unfortunately they don’t. Apple makes and sells integrated hardware/software products. They don’t license the OSes, as you stated. You can’t have one without the other. It’s not like building a pc and then deciding if you want to run windows, Linux, or both. I would understand and likely agree with these legal proceedings if Apple did license, but they don’t.

It’s frustrating when people point to macOS and say “well I can do it and it works that way there, shouldn’t be different on iOS”. While technically true, they don’t share paradigms. They are separate product categories that don’t need to function the same way. Each one has different goals and use cases. Apple shouldn’t be under any pressure other than consumer pressures to make any changes to their products as they are platforms of singular products of hardware and software. Again, you can’t have one without the other.
 
Sure. And when I go to a Ford dealership to buy a car they should be forced to show me similar Chevy models as well. 🤷‍♂️
I really struggle to understand your analogy, I think that's because it's not a good analogy and terms don't match at all.
What's the dealership? The phone? That I bought?
A better analogy is probably this: a car company with 27% global market share (the major group is Toyota with 11% by the way) shouldn't be allowed to have fuel and all components on their cars that are proprietary and patented and create a software lock that prevents al third party components so they can control everything.
It's not a perfect analogy but it's funny because Apple has also literally done that with components for repair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954
Tim Sweeney, what a free loader.
Devs DO have choice, though. They can choose not to develop for Apple platforms. :)
If other devs are like me then they will favour Apple's App Store over Google's Play simply because it pays better.
WAY better.
That's really the only choice factor I believe.
If I spend X hours/weeks/months writing this app will I get paid enough to justify it?
I struggle to justify my Android apps but never the iOS ones.
The 15% (yes, 15, not 30) is well worth it for all the hassle I avoid with being the "merchant of record" for tax, dealing with credit cards, refunds, charge backs and payment support. Plus a much nicer set of tools to develop the apps on.
If there are alternatives App stores would I use them?
No.
Why not?
Because, for a lone developer, it's just more overhead in supporting one more app store. I tried Amazon fire. Got pennies and it just wasted my time.
So sick of Sweeney going on about how he's the champion of the little guys like me. He aint. He's a freeloader.
 
Last edited:
Devs DO have choice, though. They can choose not to develop for Apple platforms. :)
1) Please don't act like the majority of apps you use are not 3rd party devs. Have some respect.
2) I hope iOS merges to still be secure and like the Mac where devs can build natively for the platform and distribute it on their website just like the Mac. Seems like you disagree. No problem, have a good day
 
It’s frustrating when people point to macOS and say “well I can do it and it works that way there, shouldn’t be different on iOS”. While technically true, they don’t share paradigms.

Thank you for at least admitting that it's technically true.

Each one has different goals and use cases.

Where this falls apart comparing iOS & macOS is usages.
Not use cases (which is a construct), but what they actually get used for.

Those two things are closer than they've ever been before, which is partly why the comparison gets made more and more often.

Look no further than iPads.

Apple basically rebuilt the MacBook with how they've pivoted the iPad Pro and the OS to match and all the accessories.

When people have something that looks like Mac, and they do all the things on it they used to do an a Mac...They naturally start to wonder why it can't just do everything they did on a Mac and/or why it's restricted beyond how their Mac was/is.

(like simply go to a Dev website and download a cool piece of software, that is sand boxed and signed by Apple .. like macOS software is)
 
Last edited:
Tim Sweeney, what a free loader.

If other devs are like me then they will favour Apple's App Store over Google's Play simply because it pays better.
WAY better.
That's the really the only choice factor I believe.
If I spend X hours/weeks/months writing this app will I get paid enough to justify it?
I struggle to justify my Android apps but never the iOS ones.
The 15% (yes, 15, not 30) is well worth it for all the hassle I avoid with being the "merchant of record" for tax, dealing with credit cards, refunds, charge backs and payment support. Plus a much nicer set of tools to develop the apps on.
If there are alternatives App stores would I use them?
No.
Why not?
Because, for a lone developer, it's just more overhead in supporting one more app store. I tried Amazon fire. Got pennies and it just wasted my time.
So sick of Sweeney going on about how he's the champion of the little guys like me. He aint. He's a freeloader.

Another fellow developer. You can tell whose written for both platforms from comments like these. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seoras
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.