Google begs court for relief from Epic Games' Play Store demands

Google has asked a California judge to deny Epic Games' requested remedies after the Play Store was found to be an illegal monopoly, arguing the changes would be too costly and create new security risks for Android users.  The Chocolate Factory filed a briefing [PDF] objecting to Epic's demands on Monday, arguing that its …

[JWLong]

Here they go again.

.......""These estimates reflect the technical and review costs to Google," the company says in the filing. "They do not include the incalculable costs that Google would suffer from the harms to the Google and Play brands or to the security and viability of the Android ecosystem caused by these remedies."

And, they can say crap like this with a straight face...............effing LIARS.

[NoneSuch]

Re: Here they go again.

I'll make the changes for 100 Mil even.

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

Re: Here they go again.

Lawyers, it's what they're for.

[Jamie Jones]

Re: Here they go again.

Even if those figures were accurate, " we don't want to obey the laws because it will cost us" is an interesting defence.

[jlturriff]

Re: Here they go again.

A ridiculous defence.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Here they go again.

the incalculable costs that Google would suffer from the harms to the Google and Play brands

"Incalculable" due to underflow, presumably.

[Whitter]

"Google says gives third-party app stores a free ride to benefit from Google's own app catalog"

There is no value to "Google's own app catalog" other than the restriction that, without sideloading, you have to use it.

A worse search engine/discovery interface one would struggle to find - even worse that Amazon, and that's a very low bar.

[TheWeetabix]

Half a percent of quarterly profits

is an unbearable expense?

Give your heads a shake. No one is that stupid.

[Bendacious]

Epic activists

I expect both Google and Apple are regretting the way they treated Epic. Demanding 30% of all revenue, after Epic worked for years to create a fantastically popular game. That's clearly unjust enrichment. It makes me very happy to see that this turned Epic into unstoppable legal activists, trying to make the world better for all app developers and users, not just themselves. I hope that their victories continue and Google/Apple are forced to abide by the court's judgement.

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

Re: Epic activists

Google and Apple will regret it if there's a loss to profits. I imagine they're fighting this case because they expect to lose more by letting Epic win than by fighting the case. Each day that the existing rules are in place allows Google and Apple to collect their store fees from major developers, which will come to a halt if Epic get their way. At this point, Epic's adversaries have quite a lot to lose, so they'll fight this case to the bitter end.

[DS999]

Re: Epic activists

You're gonna ignore all the unjust enrichment from Epic selling V-bucks that cost them nothing and is pure profit?

If you're gonna call out Google and Apple for their unjust enrichment and claim that 30% revenue is way too much because it is far above their cost to deliver, it is only fair that you do the same with Epic!

Why not hold Epic to the same rules you want Google and Apple to be held to? If I want to buy a V-buck I shouldn't have to be restricted to only buy it from Epic, they should be forced to live by the same rules they want Google and Apple to live by and allow third party sellers of V-bucks. I'd love to hear your defense of why Google and Apple making 30% on their app stores is unjust enrichment but Epic making 100% on the sale of V-bucks is not!

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Epic activists

Why not hold Epic to the same rules you want Google and Apple to be held to? If I want to buy a V-buck I shouldn't have to be restricted to only buy it from Epic, they should be forced to live by the same rules they want Google and Apple to live by and allow third party sellers of V-bucks. I'd love to hear your defense of why Google and Apple making 30% on their app stores is unjust enrichment but Epic making 100% on the sale of V-bucks is not!

That one could be fun and spawn V-bucks forex trading. That could have interesting consequences, although usually also a lot of fraud, exploits and bot farming. I've also heard a few games companies that sell in-game resources or currencies coming a bit unstuck. Players discovered they could change their country settings and buy those packs cheaper. So a 49,99 pack in Europe may cost a lot less in somewhere like Vietnam or Indonesia. Players were caught and ToS'd, probably because there would also have been a looming VAT liability.

Bbut that kind of regional pricing or licensing has been a problem with store apps like Steam. If I'm in the US and don't want to find some entertainment in a bar, I might want to fire up Steam and play a game. Except Steam didn't like that and either refused to let me log in, or use my UK library in the US. Some of that is down to geographical publishing deals, some down to poor design of the Steam app to recognise that use case. Not tried that with Epic, or mobile apps because I don't really use those, or use a US-specific laptop & phone instead. But it's one of those things that's puzzled me about 'globalisation'. Devices use geolocation so they know where I am, people travel, so sort out that stuff on the back-ends, don't give me errors saying 'Unxpected person in foreign area'.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Epic activists

> But it's one of those things that's puzzled me about 'globalisation'.

The Global Copyright Cartels persist - along with their carving up of the world into "exclusive" regions

[Bendacious]

Re: Epic activists

V-Bucks are entirely optional. If a game cannot be enjoyed without in-game purchases then I won't play it but that is a very rare occurrence.

If I want to buy a car but there is only one dealer allowed to sell cars, that's a serious problem. If I want heated seats but only the car manufacturer can sell me those then I have a choice to make. It would be nice if there were 3rd party heated seats available to put downward pressure on the price but again it's not at all the same as a monopoly on access to the main item.

It was wrong of me to praise the actions of for-profit company though, thanks for picking me up on that. I should remember to only praise actions I like if they are done by saintly organisations.

[Irongut]

Re: Epic activists

Buying apps on Play is entirely optional - I have only ever paid for 1 app on Play.

Hell even using Play is optional, I have apps from Samsung & Amazon stores as well as sideloaded apps and apps I wrote myself on my phone.

[DS999]

Re: Epic activists

V-Bucks are entirely optional

So are apps. Modern smartphones can do a hell of a lot of useful things even if you never install a single third party app.

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Epic activists

And your point is?

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Epic activists

Why not hold Epic to the same rules you want Google and Apple to be held to? If I want to buy a V-buck I shouldn't have to be restricted to only buy it from Epic

OK, sure, that's fine. It has nothing to do with what Google and Apple ought to be compelled to do.

(Disclaimer: I have very little idea what "Fortnite" is, and even less what a "V-buck" is. I could guess, but I'm not going to bother.)

[C.Carr]

If the Play Store is a monopoly, what the heck is is the Apple App Store? On Android, one can at least fairly easily side-load apps, by flipping a settings toggle. Last I heard, that's not possible on iOS at all without a jailbreak.

[Falmari]

@C.Carr "If the Play Store is a monopoly, what the heck is is the Apple App Store?" Better lawyers ;)

[Claptrap314]

I upboated you, but I'm struggling with the icon...

[Falmari]

That's the joke it's true.

Some might say it was because the Google trial was before a jury. But trial by jury was Google's choice so better lawyers. ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

Library porting

> Second, Google doesn't want to support library porting that would allow Android users to change ownership for apps installed via Google Play to the same app available from a third-party store

So, if I understand correctly, Epic are in favour of a situation whereby criminals can release an innocuous small app, immediately re-home to a "store" under their control, and then self-update to a malware laden version that drains punter's bank accounts faster than a very fast thing?

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: Library porting

Considering what a great job Google are doing of keeping malware out of the Play Store, I'm not sure that possibility moves the needle much.

In practice most users won't install other app stores, just like most users don't sideload apps. Some of the users who do install third-party app stores will be cautious about what they install. The rest will do something else equally foolhardy, so they won't gain any significant additional exposure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Library porting

> In practice most users won't install other app stores,

Thanks Michael, that makes sense. For some reason I (the original ac) was thinking the "re-homing" meant the app itself could force the install of or connection to the alternate app store.

As long as users can refuse to enable a second app store even if an app tries to re-home then that's reasonable.

[rw.aldum]

Re: Library porting

Except when forced to by some Epic gaming company refusing to play game with standards set by stores, wanting to push their own half baked solutions down on every device while locking in exclusives left right and centre.

When then, will epic games be treated by the same requirement? Shouldn’t “exclusive” games be banned in the same legal regulation? It’s one thing to have platform lock in - it takes dev hours to support different platforms… locking in a specific store? Not allowing all goods to be sold in a store?

Wonder if the EU wants to look at how physical stores are run and then try and evaluate how to navigate the digital landscape,,, or is it purely “I have enough money to buy the property next to you and build my own store” the only counter argument?

Fundamentally, I don’t want epic to get anything on my phone that doesn’t pass at least some lame requirements from Apple / Google. My phone is not my pc - it has a lot more direct access to things I view private and dear - it’s my life. Not just a work dev / excel / web browser machine… the same reason I won’t own a windows phone… don’t ruin this - make it better if it has to be cracked open, not worse.

[teebie]

"the Play Store as it exists today is designed to distribute apps, not app stores."

Can this be dismissed as, prima facie, bollocks

[Groo The Wanderer]

Google earned how many billion in profit this year?

Apparently they've never heard of "investing in the business," and expect those profits to just keep on magically appearing with no effort on their part.

[jlturriff]

' "Google has a history of malicious compliance and has attempted to circumvent legislation and regulation meant to reign in their anti-competitive control over Android devices," '

I think you mean "rein in" (an analogy with controlling a horse by pulling on its reins) rather than "reign in" (a misguided analogy to government's supposed majestic power over Big Tech). :-)