Doing this on Android is still trivial compared to doing it on iOS. Doesn't the US use "case law"? And would the verdict in the iOS case set the precedent here?
Saying that, Apple was ordered to do some other things they don't like so maybe that's what they want applied to Google?
I don't think the Apple case sets a precedent, because that court didn't say that Apple wasn't a monopolist.
> “The court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist,” [U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers] wrote.
Yeah, what Android has seems like a very reasonable balance of protecting users who don't know better vs usability. I do have complaints about Google embedding itself and privileging its apps in Android but difficulty of sideloading is not one of them.
One problem is that until recently (Android 13) it's two clicks for every app every update. Google Play Store gets to update apps in the background, but that's impossible with F-Droid (without rooting).
If I want to update 10 apps on F-Droid, that's a prompt for each one.
It still requires a button to bring up the prompt. It would be a worse user experience to prompt the user without any warning. Compared to Google being able to do it all in the background.
Samsung store can do it as it's bundled with the Samsung phone and installed as a system application that gets the same permissions as Google Play Store. A user can't give these permissions to a user installed app store without turning it into a system application, which isn't possible without root. For example if I tried to install Samsung's store on my Pixel.
Compare the ease of using a pre-bundled Play Store with one click install, versus having to respond to multiple prompts saying "Yes, I know that doing this can give hackers all my data and steal my bank account"
Not really, Windows and Mac only show warnings for unsigned applications, and the policies for signing don't include revenue sharing with Microsoft or Apple.
Android of course has an app signing system which could be used the same way to verify the authenticity of third party app downloads, but Google chooses not to protect users in that situation the way that Microsoft or Apple do.
They do have Google Play Protect which scans all apps regardless of installation source but as far as I'm aware they don't go out of their way to confirm to the user that they are installing the real Epic Games Store.
It's even worse on Huawei devices. You get all their warnings and the google warnings.
From memory I had to start an unlock process and then wait two weeks to actually be allowed to unlock it. The two week wait is part of the process for "security reasons" but really it's just because they know not everyone will persist through it.
You don't need to be a perfect monopoly for antitrust laws to apply to you in the US. You just need to be in a "dominant position" in the relevant market. Even if Google allows side-loading, so long as 95% of users go through the app store they need to take care not to abuse that position.
For the most part, Google and Apple are allowed to choose which apps come preinstalled on their own devices. If there is evidence of pressure to keep a competitor from making a deal to preinstall apps on somebody else's devices (Samsung, Verizon, etc.), that's a problem. I don't see why Google would bother in this case, but I wouldn't be surprised if the discovery process exposes enough management stupidity to get a favorable outcome for Epic.
> starting in 2019, Google ran a “Premier Device Program” that gave Android phone makers a greater share of search revenue than they would normally receive. In exchange, the OEMs agreed to ship their devices without any third-party app stores preinstalled.
That's what I thought this was about. It was buried under Epic v. Apple, but Epic Sued Google in the same time because Google blocked a deal with an OEM to include Fortnite on their phone. Surprised it went under the radar. I guess they settled to little fanfare.
This seems to be a weaker case if they couldn't win against Apple. But then again, it sounds like it did a chip in the armor, so not a complete loss.
The headline is wrong to claim that Epic lost to Apple. Epic didn't get everything they wanted, but:
> U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple must allow app developers to “steer” customers to alternatives to the tech giant’s payment processing service, which collects a 30 percent fee on most digital transactions. That was previously not allowed by the company, and marks a major victory for developers which have long complained of the tight grip the tech giant holds over its App Store on the roughly one billion iPhones currently in use.
So even if this case is weaker, and even if a weaker case leads to a worse outcome for Epic (not guaranteed), Epic might still win something they desire.
> Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Epic, said in a tweet that, “Today’s ruling isn’t a win for developers or for consumers.”
Also,
> Epic lost, though, on the foundational allegation of its lawsuit. Epic tried to convince Gonzalez Rogers that Apple’s App Store was in itself a “market,” over which Apple is a monopolist, and wanted the judge to force Apple to allow alternative app stores and payment processing systems on its phones.
My understanding is that Apple must allow app devs to tell customers about alternatives (and even provide a link to those alternatives), but Apple is still allowed to dictate what the in-app payment options are.
That's my understanding as well, so I guess the question is: if you lose on one claim, and win on another, and win a significant change in terms, did you win or lose the case?
They lost on almost all the claims - critically, any claim that would have allowed them to circumvent app store fees - so it's reasonable to simply say that they lost. The anti-steering provision was the one exception.
Even Apple said that steering customers to other payment methods is a way to avoid app store fees:
> To give developers even more flexibility to reach their customers, Apple is also clarifying that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app. As always, developers will not pay Apple a commission on any purchases taking place outside of their app or the App Store. Users must consent to the communication and have the right to opt out.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but didn't this ruling give developers the option of "steering" directly from the app instead of via email, and thereby circumvent app store fees?
That'd actually be significant, because Apple used to be incredibly strict about this. For example, I had an App Store submission that showed a privacy policy in a WebView, but through a series of clicks on the header or footer of that page you could get to a pricing page and purchase a subscription. That was enough for a rejection.
Yes, as I stated above, the judge ruled against Apple's anti-steering provision. But that is a small win in light of the other rulings. It's also tied up in courts on appeal, so nothing has actually gone into effect. Even if the anti-anti-steering ruling is eventually upheld, I suspect all that will end up being allowed is stating the alternative pricing, not actually integrating linking and payment via redirects between web and app.
Huh? That's not even the point. If that is upheld, it will still be an significant and overall loss for Epic. Apple's request for a stay on appeal could have been denied too, but it wasn't, so the appeals court at least doesn't see it as obviously working out in Epic's favor.
Google's market position, actions, and internal statements could net a different result. Particularly:
1) The "Premier Device Program" where they offered additional search revenue to OEMs who promised not to preinstall any app stores other than Play Store.
2) Made a number of efforts to combat Epic's plan, which they called a "contagion", including trying to make a special deal with Epic, paying out hundreds of millions in special deals with huge devs like Tencent and Activision-Blizzard to stay on the Play Store, and even considering purchasing Epic to make it go away.
3) Had internal communications that acknowledge the considerable friction presented by sideloading
4) Had internal communications that discuss the serious financial risk to Google if an alternative App Store took off through OEM bundling.
That said, this is all info from Epic's filing and shouldn't really be taken as an unbiased presentation of the facts or that any of it was actually illegal. It mostly just goes to say that Google extended themselves differently when defending their app store income stream.
Sort of. Google is more vulnerable in some ways because they allow options, but then engage in tactics to prevent other stores being set as the default.
They lost a case earlier this year or last year related to it.
Effectively, by having choice they allow for competition. But by then trying to ensure their dominance despite that choice, it turns into anti competitive behaviour.
Just update your /etc/hosts file to map archive.today and archive.ph to 23.137.248.133. If they're going to muck with DNS, the net can interpret their muckery as damage and route around them.
The headline feels incorrect. From what I remember Epic v Apple was a split decision where both Epic and Apple got some ruling in their favour.
Wikipedia seems to agree:
> Rogers did rule against Apple on the final charge related to anti-steering provisions, and issued a permanent injunction that, in 90 days from the ruling, blocked Apple from preventing developers from linking app users to other storefronts from within apps to complete purchases or from collecting information within an app, such as an email, to notify users of these storefronts.
Yes. Authors Guild v Google also comes to mind, in a narrow technical sense Google won the last case but Authors Guild got everything it wanted in a settlement and Google couldn’t do any of what it actually wanted to do. Odds are Apple will be forced to reduce fees on alternative payment methods as litigation continues.
Clearly they are in violation of California law. And anyway, Google could momentarily pause GPS payments for freemium games, for 24h, nothing bad would happen to anyone, and in that time Apple suddenly becomes a “monopoly” in the definition of the market that Gonzalez made, and then lose in all counts, which should make clear to you what an absolute garbage decision it is.
Your overall point makes sense, but the law doesn't work the way programmers think. Nobody will say "yep, yep, according to these words, with Google paused for a day, Apple is a monopoly now." Instead, lawyers and judges have this tendency to say "well, okay, but that's not what they really meant" and just move on, ignoring what's merely technically true.
I'm not sure, short of quoting the entire article you just linked, how to convince you how badly Epic lost that argument. Epic lost nine counts and winning the tenth count forced Apple to do something they were already doing, except slightly faster. Apple had already lost Cameron v. Apple legally requiring them to stop anti-steering provisions.
That feels like a consolation prize more than anything. Epic still isn't a position where they want to put Fortnite back on iOS in any capacity, which I think tells you exactly how they feel about the outcome of the trial.
At this point perhaps Epic should just bite the bullet and make their own game console like the Steam Deck. I have to imagine many contract manufacturers such as Quanta, Foxconn, etc. would jump at the chance to manufacture a white labelled device for Epic to develop a platform on and brand.
Perhaps they could even make it in a phone form factor like the Nokia N-Gage so they can compete with Apple and Google.
Then Epic would be in a great place to show everyone how to provide an open platform that has no developer fees and no costs for developer tools. They can also allow other app marketplaces to be installed on it directly without the need for side loading.
They would probably half-ass it like they did with the Epic Game Store then wonder why everyone thinks it's the dumpy alternative that only gets attention through bribery.
How is that a point in favor of epic? AI generated assets to me are indicative of game developers who put the least amount of effort into their game. That stuff can stay on the epic store next to the nft games where it belongs.
Steam allows AI generated content in games, otherwise The Finals wouldn't be on Steam.
To the user however, this means nothing. EGS is just that crappy storefront with less features than steam that you are required to use for some games because Tim Sweeney whipped out his wallet.
to steam users, you mean. People who just want to buy and play a game don't care about having a social media embedded in their game launcher. But sure, it's extra friction which is why I buy from GOG when I can.
Not too relevant either way. If Epic sells their own hardware you'd still end up with a decent computer (even if you have to "jailbreak" it) at worst.
The app store fee battle has such an interesting history. Apple arrives with a new special-purpose custom hardware platform and follows the lead of earlier similar platforms including gaming consoles and prior smartphones/cellphones. They take a small fixed fee and royalty on sales in exchange for developer tools, certification, hosting, listing, access, etc. Google joins the game and does the same thing.
Fast forward a few years, and these new devices turn out to be transformative. Countless developers and publishers who have no experience with gaming consoles or Blackberries or BREW applications have heated debates all over the internet about how unfair these fees are. They see these devices more like computers than specialty hardware and are used to sorting out their own solutions for marketing and distribution. They'd never pay royalties to publish a Windows, Mac, or Linux application, so why should they pay so much here? Others try to make arguments, but the debate can't really settle.
But nobody can really afford to make a legal challenge against Apple or Google. For all the cost of pursuing action, there's just not enough money to claw back by winning.
And then Epic shows up with Fornite. They know all about royalties agreements on gaming consoles and even have their own software royalty agreements for products build on Unreal. They know there was no true malfeasance to it. If they made a hardware platform, they'd have done the same thing. Yet they tap into such a goldmine with Fortnite that they would be dumb not to pick not to try to challenge Apple and Google's requirements. Escaping the royalty requirements is worth ridiculous money to them, and public sentiment is mostly behind their cause because of all those desktop/web/first-time publishers that got pulled into mobile applications.
And so now he we are. One greedy behemoth swinging at two others, fighting over which of them gets the next billion dollars, and we just get to watch and hope things get cheaper for the rest us developers/publishers without spoiling the variously-curated ecosystems that made these markets exist in the first place. So far, it's worked out pretty well..
57 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 116 ms ] threadSaying that, Apple was ordered to do some other things they don't like so maybe that's what they want applied to Google?
> “The court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist,” [U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers] wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-e...
That said, isn’t Epic Store (or what its name is) on PlayStore already? Unable check due to network issues.
If I want to update 10 apps on F-Droid, that's a prompt for each one.
I'm not sure about fdroid but samsung store updates are seamless same as play store.
Samsung store can do it as it's bundled with the Samsung phone and installed as a system application that gets the same permissions as Google Play Store. A user can't give these permissions to a user installed app store without turning it into a system application, which isn't possible without root. For example if I tried to install Samsung's store on my Pixel.
F-droid is able to do it if you have root: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/
Android of course has an app signing system which could be used the same way to verify the authenticity of third party app downloads, but Google chooses not to protect users in that situation the way that Microsoft or Apple do.
They do have Google Play Protect which scans all apps regardless of installation source but as far as I'm aware they don't go out of their way to confirm to the user that they are installing the real Epic Games Store.
From memory I had to start an unlock process and then wait two weeks to actually be allowed to unlock it. The two week wait is part of the process for "security reasons" but really it's just because they know not everyone will persist through it.
ops no it looks like they found some workarounds (https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-honor-bootloader-unloc...)
You can even sideload whole other app repos like https://f-droid.org/en/
Edit: "Matchgroup dropped out because google agreed to allow other payment channels"
I get the feeling the real problem Match had was that it was too easy for customers to cancel a subscription.. They are notorious for constantly renewing subscriptions.. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/apr/10/matchcom-charg...
> starting in 2019, Google ran a “Premier Device Program” that gave Android phone makers a greater share of search revenue than they would normally receive. In exchange, the OEMs agreed to ship their devices without any third-party app stores preinstalled.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632806/google-epic-prem...
This seems to be a weaker case if they couldn't win against Apple. But then again, it sounds like it did a chip in the armor, so not a complete loss.
> U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple must allow app developers to “steer” customers to alternatives to the tech giant’s payment processing service, which collects a 30 percent fee on most digital transactions. That was previously not allowed by the company, and marks a major victory for developers which have long complained of the tight grip the tech giant holds over its App Store on the roughly one billion iPhones currently in use.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-e...
So even if this case is weaker, and even if a weaker case leads to a worse outcome for Epic (not guaranteed), Epic might still win something they desire.
> Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Epic, said in a tweet that, “Today’s ruling isn’t a win for developers or for consumers.”
Also,
> Epic lost, though, on the foundational allegation of its lawsuit. Epic tried to convince Gonzalez Rogers that Apple’s App Store was in itself a “market,” over which Apple is a monopolist, and wanted the judge to force Apple to allow alternative app stores and payment processing systems on its phones.
My understanding is that Apple must allow app devs to tell customers about alternatives (and even provide a link to those alternatives), but Apple is still allowed to dictate what the in-app payment options are.
> To give developers even more flexibility to reach their customers, Apple is also clarifying that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app. As always, developers will not pay Apple a commission on any purchases taking place outside of their app or the App Store. Users must consent to the communication and have the right to opt out.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/08/apple-us-developers-a...
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but didn't this ruling give developers the option of "steering" directly from the app instead of via email, and thereby circumvent app store fees?
The rulings against Epic are also being appealed, so by that standard it would still be wrong to say that Epic lost.
1) The "Premier Device Program" where they offered additional search revenue to OEMs who promised not to preinstall any app stores other than Play Store.
2) Made a number of efforts to combat Epic's plan, which they called a "contagion", including trying to make a special deal with Epic, paying out hundreds of millions in special deals with huge devs like Tencent and Activision-Blizzard to stay on the Play Store, and even considering purchasing Epic to make it go away.
3) Had internal communications that acknowledge the considerable friction presented by sideloading
4) Had internal communications that discuss the serious financial risk to Google if an alternative App Store took off through OEM bundling.
That said, this is all info from Epic's filing and shouldn't really be taken as an unbiased presentation of the facts or that any of it was actually illegal. It mostly just goes to say that Google extended themselves differently when defending their app store income stream.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/6/22612921/google-epic-antit...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-h...
They lost a case earlier this year or last year related to it.
Effectively, by having choice they allow for competition. But by then trying to ensure their dominance despite that choice, it turns into anti competitive behaviour.
... and no. Routing "around" to reward bad behavior is not acceptable.
Wikipedia seems to agree:
> Rogers did rule against Apple on the final charge related to anti-steering provisions, and issued a permanent injunction that, in 90 days from the ruling, blocked Apple from preventing developers from linking app users to other storefronts from within apps to complete purchases or from collecting information within an app, such as an email, to notify users of these storefronts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision
The didn't get everything they wanted but that's a big win.
Clearly they are in violation of California law. And anyway, Google could momentarily pause GPS payments for freemium games, for 24h, nothing bad would happen to anyone, and in that time Apple suddenly becomes a “monopoly” in the definition of the market that Gonzalez made, and then lose in all counts, which should make clear to you what an absolute garbage decision it is.
Perhaps they could even make it in a phone form factor like the Nokia N-Gage so they can compete with Apple and Google.
Then Epic would be in a great place to show everyone how to provide an open platform that has no developer fees and no costs for developer tools. They can also allow other app marketplaces to be installed on it directly without the need for side loading.
To the user however, this means nothing. EGS is just that crappy storefront with less features than steam that you are required to use for some games because Tim Sweeney whipped out his wallet.
Not too relevant either way. If Epic sells their own hardware you'd still end up with a decent computer (even if you have to "jailbreak" it) at worst.
Fast forward a few years, and these new devices turn out to be transformative. Countless developers and publishers who have no experience with gaming consoles or Blackberries or BREW applications have heated debates all over the internet about how unfair these fees are. They see these devices more like computers than specialty hardware and are used to sorting out their own solutions for marketing and distribution. They'd never pay royalties to publish a Windows, Mac, or Linux application, so why should they pay so much here? Others try to make arguments, but the debate can't really settle.
But nobody can really afford to make a legal challenge against Apple or Google. For all the cost of pursuing action, there's just not enough money to claw back by winning.
And then Epic shows up with Fornite. They know all about royalties agreements on gaming consoles and even have their own software royalty agreements for products build on Unreal. They know there was no true malfeasance to it. If they made a hardware platform, they'd have done the same thing. Yet they tap into such a goldmine with Fortnite that they would be dumb not to pick not to try to challenge Apple and Google's requirements. Escaping the royalty requirements is worth ridiculous money to them, and public sentiment is mostly behind their cause because of all those desktop/web/first-time publishers that got pulled into mobile applications.
And so now he we are. One greedy behemoth swinging at two others, fighting over which of them gets the next billion dollars, and we just get to watch and hope things get cheaper for the rest us developers/publishers without spoiling the variously-curated ecosystems that made these markets exist in the first place. So far, it's worked out pretty well..