Well, I’ll be damned. They finally won one it sounds like.
I don’t understand. Android already allows other apps and app stores to be installed. What was the argument here?
Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight
Submitted 11 months ago by flop_leash_973@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.theverge.com/23994174/epic-google-trial-jury-verdict-monopoly-google-play
Comments
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
baronvonj@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I believe that Google wanted in-app purchases in Fortnite to go through Play Store so that Google would get 30%. And Epic wanted to setup their own in-app billing and keep it all.
ElectroNeutrino@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I wonder how that’s going to play out with Apple and their monopoly.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
So even if you download, purchase and install an app via a separate app store, Google still collects a commission!?
Aatube@kbin.social 11 months ago
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
I read that but they don’t expand at all on how they’re doing that. I can buy, download and install games from EGS right now on my Android phone…
I can also buy things from Amazon or any other online store from my browser without Google Play.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Phone makers weren’t allowed to include other app stores by default
Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The Galaxy store app on my phone says otherwise.
Voyajer@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Does the Amazon store, Galaxy Store, AppGallery, Mi GetApps, and AOPPO app market not exist?
bigFab@lemmy.world 11 months ago
On top of what Aatube says about secret unfair deals, Google’s Play Store is necessary to run essential social services. In my case I need it to download my banking app and to sign into my university’s online studies.
Gestrid@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Even something as simp⁶le as the Wikipedia app checks to see if Google Play Services is installed and running before it’ll let you use it.
tabular@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Needing an app to sign into uni Jesus fucking hell. Bet it’s propriety.
Cavemanfreak@lemm.ee 11 months ago
But that won’t necessarily change with this ruling right? Your government doesn’t need to change how their apps function because of this.
Rose@lemmy.world 11 months ago
“Impairment means something is there, it’s being used, it just isn’t as good. Prevented means you shut it down.”
Epic’s expert Bernheim argues that Google’s expert Gentzkow “ignores four critical aspects of Google’s conduct,” including:
-
Google impairs competition without preventing it entirely
-
Google’s conduct targets comeptition as it emerges
-
Google is dominant
-
Google shares its Play profits with its competitors
“When push came to shove, he talked about whether competition is prevented” rather than impaired, says Bernheim.
The upshot of that: Bernheim believes Epic doesn’t need to prove Google actually blocked competition entirely. In his opinion (for Epic), Epic only needs to show there were no good alternatives to Google Play and Google Play Billing. It doesn’t need to show there were no alternatives at all.
For example, says Bernheim, Gentzkow presented a chart titled “Was Fortnite Blocked?” showing that revenue tanked on Google Play after the app was kicked off the store, but didn’t tank for Android phones that got Fortnite a different way.
But “If off-Google Play was a good substitute for Google Play, you’d see when one drops, the other goes up commensurably.” That didn’t happen: demand stayed stable outside of Play, according to the bar graph we just saw. “There’s no indication that any of the people here are substituting to off-Google Play.”
-
OscarRobin@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Google effectively has a monopoly on the Android app ecosystem and this trial brought to light mountains of evidence that they maintain this through extremely anti-competitive means.
Steve@communick.news 11 months ago
None of those are allowed on the Play Store. And when you try to side load an app, it warns you about it being dangerous.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 11 months ago
They’re not disallowed on the Play Store. Google just wants you to give them their cut if consumers make purchases from the Play Store.
But that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing 3rd party app stores. Computers have had warnings about installing software since the beginning of computers, since no one has vetted whether it is malicious (not that the app stores are immune from malicious apps) so I don’t see that as an issue. I would see mandating the removal of those warnings as an issue.
sirdorius@programming.dev 11 months ago
Didn’t Epic lose the fight against Apple? How is Google more of a monopoly than Apple? It is incredibly easy to sideload apps on Android compared to iPhones, and there are even dedicated unofficial stores. These verdicts are not coherent at all between them.
bleuthoot@lemmy.world 11 months ago
From some other comment I read, it apparently was due to google paying companies to set Google’a stuff as their default. Something Apple does not (have to) do.
Aasikki@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
I guess it makes sense that google lost here, but what doesn’t seem to make sense at all, at least for me, is how on earth apple won when on their platform you literally have no other option than to use apples stuff.
Phrodo_00@lemmy.world 11 months ago
True, but that’s more about the relationship between Google and phone manufacturers and and carriers. As far as a party like Epic is concerned, it shouldn’t have any relation. As far as epic goes, they’re only affected by the opt in process to install apks, and apps not being allowed to install apps (which I hope has a way more complicated opt in process or malware will be rampant among casual users)
stewsters@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yeah, it seems Google is way more open to side loading and fdroid existing. Not sure how Apple got away with it.
SCB@lemmy.world 11 months ago
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
From the article. It appears they had receipts that Epic was specifically and intentionally harmed here
poopkins@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Apple has such deals. The difference is that they weren’t caught.
GiddyGap@lemm.ee 11 months ago
the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
Welcome to the US of A. Happens literally all the time. Hence the big fight over control of the Supreme Court.
shirro@aussie.zone 11 months ago
Probably comes down to the unwillingness of US legislators to create clear laws. Too many compromises to satisfy lobbyists and avoid any negative campaign they might sponsor. Judges likely do the best they can trying to interpret the mess of case law they depend on in the absence of modern legislation. I have no idea why the US supreme court gets to decide on matters like abortion based on hand wavy interpretations of historical documents when in any normal democracy the politicians do the will of the people and enact legislation that reflects modern society.
joel_feila@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Key difference, this one had a jury make the final call
andthenthreemore@startrek.website 11 months ago
I understand they are two separate judges, but the law should be the same for all, not at the interpretation of whichever judge you get.
That’s literally a big chunk of law. So there must be something other than it just being the judge’s interpretation.
Rose@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This was a jury trial.
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 11 months ago
ITT: lots of people wondering why Apple won and Google lost, but not reading the article, which explains the difference of the cases.
Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 11 months ago
ITC: Someone not understanding the difference between not understanding and not agreeing.
bassomitron@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yeah, fuck that. I definitely don’t agree with the ruling. iOS is far more restrictive than Android, because at least Android provides the ability to easily install alternatives (F-droid app store is an awesome alternative for many types of apps and it’s all free). Sure, Android dominates the market globally, but in the US–nd many other countries-- Apple has the majority of marketshare. …yahoo.com/…/ios-vs-android-market-share-13525164…
It’s just bullshit to me that Apple gets a free pass for clearly being anti-competitive. I’m glad this trial struck down Google’s app store monopoly, but all phone OS’s should be forbidden from doing it.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 11 months ago
True, thread is full of both types
inverted_deflector@startrek.website 11 months ago
Yeah and honestly Im fine with courts opening up the platforms more to make at ths point, but the issue is that apple got the win.
deweydecibel@lemmy.world 11 months ago
No it doesn’t, it just says that the case was different and that it wasn’t in front of a jury, it doesn’t give the details of the difference.
csolisr@communities.azkware.net 11 months ago
About the only benefit I can personally see from this is the ability to fully integrate F-Droid as an app store in my device, with proper automatic background updates, and without requiring root solutions that void my work’s security measures for mobile devices. On the other hand, I can see Huawei, Amazon, and Epic jumping to the fray with their own app stores and system services, and maybe Google Play being far more lenient with subscription services like Spotify’s in their own App Store. Altogether, I personally loathe Epic’s approach, but appreciate the consequences of their lawsuit.
CaptainProton@lemmy.world 11 months ago
You’re forgetting AppBrain from like 15 years ago.
Increased competition is always better for the customer. I agree on the concerns, but it’s a virtually universal truth, so long as they’re actually forced to treat other app stores fairly.
namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 11 months ago
This may force Google to address their terrible dispute resolution policies though. If they keep removing software without providing any meaningful dispute resolution, then I would hope that there’s a possibility for alternate repositories to fill that void.
Th3D3k0y@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Amazon has/had an app store, it was terrible. Though I welcome competitors to step up after this.
csolisr@communities.azkware.net 11 months ago
Amazon still has its own app store open - mostly because it’s the one Microsoft used as the base for their Android compatibility layer. I expect this ruling to give Amazon a breath of fresh air as “the alternative app store”.
cybersandwich@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is so wild. Google allows side loading and 3rd party app stores…and that is the reason they were found guilty.
Unlike Apple, Google allows people to download apps onto phones running its Android operating system without going through its official app store, but the company strikes deals with phone manufacturers to favor Google’s official app store.
So because they strike deals to favor their store, even though they allow 3rd party stores to begin with, they’ve violated the SAA.
Meanwhile, Apple who refuses to allow competition or 3rd party app stores is sitting pretty because…well, they haven’t “favored” their own store over rival stores. BECAUSE RIVAL STORES CANT EXIST. I don’t know how you could favor your store any harder than that??
The legal shenanigans around all of this are frustrating to watch as a lay person.
Killer@lemmy.world 11 months ago
looks at epic “striking deals” to have games on their storefront
joewilliams007@kbin.melroy.org 7 months ago
thats ok with me. Wouldnt buy a ios device anyways. Exactly, because they dont allow third party apps.
AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Fuck Epic, but this is a good decision for everyone.
agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The golden take imo. Hope they rule against Apple in the similar case.
wafflez@lemmy.world 11 months ago
True. Tencent sucks
alphapuggle@programming.dev 11 months ago
Huh?? They won this one but not the Apple one??
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Different case. This hung on the anti-competitive nature of Google’s backroom deals with big players. That’s what fucked Google. Different rules for different developers.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Apple: this is our system and we’ve always been upfront about it. We’re dictators of our ecosystem. You can’t compel us to open up. Yes there’s less customer choice, but we have a right to say how our own system is run, and we’ve always made that clear to everybody.
The courts say fair enough, that’s correct.
Google: we claim to have an open ecosystem, but actually we don’t. We’re using our market position to impose terms on phone makers, if they’re big like Samsung we might give them permission to have their own app store, with certain concessions. We have backroom deals not to take revenue from some large companies, but to take it from others. We have power over OEMs and we use it to further consolidate our monopoly. They will agree to our terms because they have no other choice.
The courts say whoa that seems like an abuse of your market position.
You’re looking at it from the perspective of user choice. That’s not what the courts care about, they care about the law. The Google case was always more likely to be a win for Epic, despite Reddit and Lemmy not realising it.
Aatube@kbin.social 11 months ago
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
alphapuggle@programming.dev 11 months ago
The thing here is that you don’t have to use play billing for in app purchases outside of the play store. The biggest example of this is Fire tablets, where you don’t even have the option of play billing on your app even if you wanted it, and I’m sure Huawei isn’t using play billing either. Let alone the fact you can sideload apps that have their own verification methods. When I bought gravitybox it was verified based on your PayPal invoice #. The secret revenue sharing, while “designed to keep apps down”, is nothing more than an incentive to stay on their billing platform. If Epic isn’t offered that deal they’re still free to make deals with other app stores.
Meanwhile on camp Apple, there are no alternative vendors using different stores and you’re unable to sideload apps without a developer account. There is no alternative to Apple’s billing if you want to charge for something inside an app, which is precisely what Epic did to get banned in the first place.
I 100% the verdict to be appealed by Google. I’m not a big fan of Google as a company, but when they’ve specifically made it possible for customers to have the ability to sideload while Apple doesn’t and they get spat in the face for it, why would they continue to make pro-consumer choices?
yesdogishere@kbin.social 11 months ago
i hope this one also smashes Apple's business to tiny pieces. All these companies are horrible horrible destructors of humanity.
T4UTV1S@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m not sure how them losing a part of their potential revenue stream does that…
It’s not as if Google or Apple rely soley on IAPs for revenue.
Deceptichum@kbin.social 11 months ago
And they probably won’t.
iOS is only on Apple devices, therefore it’s allowed to have a monopoly or something.
kbotc@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Much like Nintendo’s allowed to have a monopoly on Switch systems and games even though the Steam Deck exists with the ability to install a huge amount of games.
mojo@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Finally a big W. Google backdoored Android with Google Play Services and gives itself special permissions that no other app can do. They should be under the same limitations that other apps are reserved to. That’s why projects like Sandboxed Google play is really awesome.
inverted_deflector@startrek.website 11 months ago
While I understand the concern over the single appstore monopoly that we have on any device, I think it’s worth remembering what ecosystem android and IOS came into.
The old multimedia phones that were sold in the mid 00s were effectively “smart”. Many of them ran java and you could install programs, and freely install ringtones, and browsers that actually worked like opera mini/mobile. The thing is you couldnt by default. At least not in the US. The devices were locked down and everything you did went through the carrier’s store. And US telecom services are some of the greediest and scummiest companies out there so you couldnt even use your own mp3 files as a ringtone.
Apple combated this with their closed off ecosystem, but android did face issues with fragmentation in the early days and needed a way to prevent the telecoms branded phones from stinking up the ecosystem. They did this by leveraging the play services and play store. From the playstore they can also since mainline release various peacemeal updates which helps resolve their other issue with fragmentation and thats android device being abandoned.
Sure enough you can still release your own version of android without it, amazon’s tablets and tv sticks do pretty well.
That said I do think it’s a good to help people move past the default and open up the platforms more, I just wish it would apply to all smart devices,
themurphy@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’m pretty sure this has nothing to do with the EU lawsuits, right?
Both Google and Apple would still have to open up soon (at least in EU)
Sorry if it’s a stupid question.
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Huh? They could just do a Fortnite.apk
localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
I run e/OS, I don’t have google app store or any of the related service software installed. Yet I am able to use a cleaned up version of android and still have access to the google app store through an anonymous account using the in built app.
Epic won this case against google…
Epic lost the same case against apple, with which none of the above would be possible.
I’m not advocating for google, obviously I avoid them. But that’s BS, I hope this is used as precedent to bring a new case against apple.
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 11 months ago
So now Google will be forced to… allow third party app stores? Like F-Droid or Amazon and I think Yandex has a big one as well. If Epic aren’t suing for damages I don’t really see what the goal could be. Another win for all the lawyers I guess.
SCB@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android
This seems.like a poor choice of monetary damages. I have the Epic
Games Launcherfree game downloader for games I forget I own. I’m very unlikely to start using Epic’s services over Google’s.I’d have taken the money and run
Smacks@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Fuck both of those companies, but overall a good ruling.
odium@programming.dev 11 months ago
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android
I wonder how this will work out. If the judge actually forces it, so many large apps might show up on alternatives like fdroid and greatly improve fdroid capabilities.
Psiczar@aussie.zone 11 months ago
I’m confused how this is a win for consumers, it just seems like two companies arguing over who gets to rake in more money.
shirro@aussie.zone 11 months ago
My interpretation of the article is that it wasn’t Google’s app store but the deals Google did with other manufacturers and big studios that caused them problems. Unlike iOS Android has both open source and commercial forks. Amazon have their own app store for their own range of devices and you can load that app store on regular Android I believe if you want to access a shittier range of apps. There are degoogled versions of Android and many people including myself run f-droid or side load apks. It is much more open than Apple’s system which won.
fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Cunting cunting cunts.
The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Fuck both companies but fuck Epic more.
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Maybe Epic can finally build their new HQ now
nixcamic@lemmy.world 11 months ago
What’s with all the Epic hate in the comments? They invest in open source software and take on legal challenges that nobody else is up to?
Aatube@kbin.social 11 months ago
But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.
01adrianrdgz@lemmy.world 11 months ago
oh no google!! it’s not illegal because first of all, epic games dislikes linux because they don’t code anything for it, second, google is open source. the jury was very biased, that’s very bad
MrSqueezles@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Google used to allow third party payments. It turned out to be expensive.
This is like forcing Walmart to let companies take up space in their stores rent free and process their own payments. When it turns out a bunch of those little stores are stealing personal information and credit card info and money, those customers go to the Walmart service desk and when Walmart employees shrug and say, “I don’t know what the fuck those guys are doing. You see, we give you the big store, but once you step into that smaller store hey are you falling asleep?” it’s national news and it’s Walmart’s fault and they’re called to testify in front of congress to get yelled at for not protecting customers. This is a weird precedent.
I don’t agree with Google’s decision to force payments through Google. Since congress and courts and media expect Google to police the safety of all apps downloaded from the Play Store, I can’t think of a better solution that also respects privacy, isn’t, “We’ll monitor everything every app does, but pinky swear it’s just so we can make sure they’re being nice to you.”
vsh@lemm.ee 11 months ago
If google fucking PLAY STORE is a monopoly then I hope they nuke Steam next. No excuses.
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] 11 months ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down.
Mind you, we don’t know what Epic has actually won quite yet — that’s up to Judge James Donato, who’ll decide what the appropriate remedies might be.
Epic never sued for monetary damages; it wants the court to tell Google that every app developer has total freedom to introduce its own app stores and its own billing systems on Android, and we don’t yet know how or even whether the judge might grant those wishes.
Both parties will meet with Judge Donato in the second week of January to discuss potential remedies.
Judge Donato has already stated that he will not grant Epic’s additional request for an anti-circumvention provision “just to be sure Google can’t reintroduce the same problems through some alternative creative solution,” as Epic lead attorney Gary Bornstein put it on November 28th.
We’ll replace it with the final signed form once we have access to a digital copy.
The original article contains 492 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
9
mikerose@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
Similar to any dietary arrangement, one urgent element to consider before setting out on this excursion is its monetary ramifications. keto diet cost
maryjayjay@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Great! Now do Apple
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
It was ruled previously that Apple don’t have a large enough market share
phx@lemmy.world 11 months ago
But if they force Google to open their app store, I hope that do it for fucking everyone.
At least on Google devices you still can sideload apps, and fairly easy TBH. My biggest annoyance is the “you can’t buy stuff in apps without giving us a cut” which fucked up stuff like ebook apps etc
Darkhoof@lemmy.world 11 months ago
In the US it does.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Which is weird because they have a larger market share than Google >.>
anarchy79@lemmy.world 11 months ago
“Sir, SIR, we are a nonprofit? Please leave or I will have to launch the facility with the rocket engines and stay hovering a foot above ground for the rest of time and that is a slight inconcenience for anyone not one of the 23.000.000 souls living aboard the Free Inflationstate iLevitate CorpoHappytat KZ-23”
Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 months ago
And consoles.
Darkncoldbard@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Why? Just don’t buy apple.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That isn’t really relevant when it comes to holding them to a different legal standard.
jack@monero.town 11 months ago
Exactly. The locked down nature is part of the Apple experience, their customers want this
MrSilkworm@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s not an apples to apples comparable situation. Pun intended!