Epic Games files competition lawsuit against Google in the UK over Fortnite's ejection from Play Store Epic Games intends to file a competition lawsuit against Google in the UK as part of the ongoing Fortnite-kicked-off-platforms saga, according to documents lodged with the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The lawsuit will allege that Google, holder of "a dominant position in the Android app distribution market", has unfairly …
Well, I suppose you might say if Epic are getting unfair treatment, and are having to file lawsuits as a result, then there are quite a lot of smaller operators also under the cosh. So even despite any total lack of sympathy for Epic, if they can succeed in this, then some good to more deserving games companies might result.
...and add unto that what ever else Alphabet can grab. Yes, it's an abuse of power and should be fought. No, I don't think Epic has much of a chance by themselves. They need to team up other small players to stand a snowball's chance.
On a side note, I don't really understand why they put all of their eggs in the App Store baskets. They have a popular game that will run on a wide variety of operating systems (except Linux and *BSD) and could make money by releasing it through Steam or GoG or the Humble Store, etc. Maybe they feel they can make more from litigation than from widening their audience.
Re: "On a side note, I don't really understand why they put all of their eggs in the App Store baskets. They have a popular game that will run on a wide variety of operating systems (except Linux and *BSD) and could make money by releasing it through Steam or GoG or the Humble Store, etc. Maybe they feel they can make more from litigation than from widening their audience."
Are you talking about Epic? If you are, the reason they aren't selling through competing App Stores is because they *are* competing App stores, and Epic don't want to pay a cut of their sales to anyone else.
In fact, I'd wager that Epic would rather the other App stores vanished , so every one has to go through theirs. You can bet if they don't ban it already, if the other app stores vanished, Epic would ban their clients from selling through any online services that aren't the Epic game store.
Make no mistake: I don't hate Epic at all (indeed, I have bought several games through the store), but they are not in it to make things easier for small developers. Despite what they say, they are in it to make more money for themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.
"In fact, I'd wager that Epic would rather the other App stores vanished , so every one has to go through theirs."
That's an extremely unsubstantiated assertion. Considering they're calling on anti-unfair competition laws /right now/, they're probably aware of the scrutiny and risks that come with being a monopoly.
"Epic also wants "an order requiring Google to remove or amend the technical restrictions to ensure that [...] those apps/app stores are able to operate in the same way as the Google Play Store with respect to app installation, app updates, and access to operating system features," something likely to ring alarm bells among Android security watchers."
Yes, it does ring alarm bells. The alarm is because Google has, to enhance its own store, poked holes in Android's security model for it to use. There's the anticompetitive aspect of that, which I'd expect to appear in investigations in the near future, but also the risk that someone could find a way to abuse those holes by impersonating Google Play. Unlike other ways to download apps, Google's doesn't have to negotiate to get the required permissions or prompt the user before making changes. Those prompts aren't just security theater or notices so users stay alert, they're also the best opportunity to spot something nefarious and prevent it getting started. A good solution to this is to lock down Android so that any method of installing apps has to go through rather than around the security model. This would apply to FDroid, Google, the manufacturer, the carrier, and everybody else.
This post has been deleted by its author
Give the game away for free, make all their profits in game using their own payments where they keep 100%, so Google and Apple make $0 for the billions in investment creating the platform and developing the distribution infrastructure.
Maybe 30% isn't the right answer in the long run, but with more and more apps moving to a freemium model with all profits made by advertising and in game purchases, these big companies want to cut Google and Apple out of the loop entirely. Well I guess with ad support apps Google gets a cut assuming they use some type of Google service for the ads, but Apple doesn't even have that.
"so Google and Apple make $0 for the billions in investment creating the platform"
Wrong. They get money from hardware sales and software licensing. You know, from the people using all the stuff in the platform? The people who write apps aren't using very much of that platform; it's the users who are. People who write apps don't much care whether the built-in email client works or not. I do. The money for the upkeep of that app and all the other ones comes from the money paid for those things, which is embedded in the sale price of any phone using Googled Android or IOS. In addition, app developers are the main reason the platform has value. Without third-party apps, these platforms aren't so useful. The ones that had nice design but few or no app devs, well most of them aren't around anymore.
"and developing the distribution infrastructure."
Oh, yeah. The thing that has to respond to three requests: search, information page, download app? Extra feature of payment management, which if the developer uses it cuts the store in? Which gives the manufacturers a ton of power over what people download? I can see why they need to be rewarded for that. It's not like someone else might have implemented that independently using basically no resources.
When did I say that. I pointed out that they have a revenue stream for that stuff. It's from users. Who buy devices. Google and Apple get large chunks of profit every time someone does that. Google also gets revenue chunks when companies design new phones and licenses Google Play Services. The APIs you're talking about are earning Google money, and they only do that because app developers make them necessary. Without developers, the APIs in question would not earn Google money. As for Apple, they also charge every developer an annual fee for things like this.
You are saying that, regardless of any other revenue stream, any money that is collected must be necessary for development. The large profit margins demonstrate clearly that they could lose revenue without having to cut spending on development. Given that, the discussion then needs to consider fairness, which is what we could get to if you would stop telling me that anything and everything they do must automatically be justified because I, or rather mobile app devs which I'm not really, owe them so much.
"You think developing and maintaining an API, developer tools, libraries, etc. have zero cost?"
You mean the API they pilfered from Sun and that has "java" written on it all over the place? The one Google itself is arguing now has zero value, can't be copyrighted, and they don't need to pay for it? *That* API?
I'm pretty sure Google is not going to use the defense you suggested in that case.
Yes. The license for Google Play Services. Google charges manufacturers for these, and also requires that they refrain from installing any other variant of Android. It benefits Google in two ways: they get money off Samsung for the code and they prevent competitors from building around AOSP. Both give them plenty of cash. That's quite a healthy revenue stream.
Apple only does advertising inside the app store app and the news app. They don't have ad network for ordinary apps, that's all third party though they do provide a privacy protecting framework those apps can choose to use (but I'm sure the third party ad networks pay them less when they go through that)
I'm not an Epic fan by any means but the way I understand it is they want to offer games through their own store which is not allowed by Google or Apple. They don't want to use Google's infrastructure but there is no choice. An end to this kind of forced store lock-in can surely only be good for consumers and developers?
Everyone who Googles stuff, everyone who believes Chrome is the best browser, everyone who doesn't care, Google ownership of the worlds personal information is down to you. Your apathy is overwhealming.
Al those who hated MS, we the reason we only have two ring fenced mobile phone OSes is down to you, you know MS stuffed up but they have been battered over the years and might have been more approachable, now even they are in bed with Google.
Our only hope is that either the EU or the US (never going to happen) enforce the break up of Google.
"Al those who hated MS, we the reason we only have two ring fenced mobile phone OSes is down to you"
Oh shut up - I actually had a 1020, and trust me when I say it wasn't people buying into Google and apple that was the problem here. Initially the experience was alright, but every update broke something.
Want the main reason the platform died though? The app store was dead. The app store was a sea of lookalike apps that were not by the original service providers and just web portals to the actual service. The reason for this was Microsoft rewrote their API every update - making it incompatible with the previous version. So rather than maintaining 3 mobile apps over 3 platforms, app providers would end up writing a new winmobile app every year. So, they didn't.
I'm a father of 2 and it's next to impossible to manage my kids windows devices these days. Microsoft pushes Skype, several edge versions, and a load of other bloatware to their devices - as well as resetting or outright removing privacy options to not search on the web when they type in an app name into the search bar to load it. They're not "better these days", they're the same Microsoft as always, just a bit more open sourcy in their approach to developers.
"Want the main reason the platform died though? The app store was dead."
I released my first game on WinPhone7 about eight months after the platform launched; even at the point SatNad declared that WinPhone was no longer going to be supported in order to move forward with Azure, that game still ran just fine on any variant of WinPhone. And from what I could see in the five-plus years I was developing games for mobile, the store had pretty much all the big-name apps that most people used from day-to-day - except where it was simply not possible, such as when Google pulled the rug out from under Youtube.
The reason why the platform dies was because Microsoft did a piss-poor job of marketing it. A lot of devs were actively developing for it, based on the theory that while it was a much smaller market than iOS on Android, there was a lot less competition, and therefor potentially bigger bite of the cherry. Had Microsoft done the same with it as with the Xbox - ie: branded it something other than "Microsoft" or "Windows" and thrown money at it until it stuck, I firmly believe that we would have had a third major ecosystem in play by now.
WinPhone was by far my favourite mobile platform to develop for: I didn't need to spend over a grand on a Mac or fight with the app store, and I didn't need to worry about the thousands of different flavours and quirks of handsets or the 90% piracy rate. The biggest irk I had was the lack of in-app purchase system back in the WinPhone7 days - which I managed to develop my way round with a bit of creativity, a web page and a paypal account! It's a shame WinPhone was yet another victim of Microsoft's lack of insight - but then I jumped out of the mobile game market a few years back now... too saturated with shovelware/re-skins, and it has been utterly poisoned by the race-to-the-bottom free-to-play, pay-to-win "milk the whales" style business model.
Regardless of what epic has or hasn't done with other people, I actually think they have a point here what is the justification for apple or google's 30% cut on everything sold via the play store and then microtransactions for digital content. Appreciate they are processing payments for the developers, appreciate they are hosting an infrastructure as well to download and keep upto date the apps and content. However 30% seems a little high for what is being provided especially given the lack of any real competition. For micropayments for digital content it has even less basis as its not like they hosting or providing updates for books purchased via kindle, or providing anything other than payment processing for game microtransactions
Folks will always complain, that's a fact.
But complaining would be a lot more difficult if the fee was 15%. I personally feel that 10% should be largely enough for a Store that resells the same string of bytes indefinitely without having had to do any work to create said bytes.
Comparing to a brick-and-mortar store is not realistic. Those stores generally need to stock items before they can sell them. They need employees who are alert for shoplifters in addition to serving customers. The cost of running any store is higher than the cost of having a server that sells the same app again and again and again on demand, 24/7 and without any shoplifters.
Physical stores are not comparable. Some of the reasons are explained in the first reply to your post, but one other reason is simple: the people selling products to the stores can decide not to sell there and sell somewhere else. On IOS, that's not an option. On Android, it's not a realistic option. That is one reason this discussion is happening, because there is a lot of competition for physical stores, but next to none for Google Play and none at all for Apple's store.
Third to say not the same as a brick & mortar.
Another very large difference:
Most brick and mortars outright buy the products immediately. This means the wholesaler/manufacturer gets the money for the product instantly. They don't have to wait for a customer (end user) to buy it, the brick and mortar has already given them the money.
They get their money back when they sell it on, if they can sell it on. That's on them.
There used to be old "sale or return" policies that some manufacturers had, but these days that practically doesn't exist anymore.
ROFL
Never heard of 30, 60, 90 or even 120 day terms then? Yes, the law says different but...
Ask any small supplier to the major supermarkets how long it takes to get paid... That is if they aren't too scared of being black-listed for speaking out.
I've done this comparison in the past,
you need to compare apples with apples.
App sales are equivalent of an online marketplace IE Amazon Marketplace, Ebay, which charge (all told) IRO 15% on purchases
In game currency is basicaly payment processing, so looking at Square, Paypal, Worldpay, etc.
you are looking at around 7.5%
Google have half (if their lucky) a leg to stand on, as other stores are allowed, but apple have none, as they dont allow any other store on their platform.
They might have more chances with Apple, which restricts the ability of users to install apps from anywhere else... But it's not that hard to sideload on Android. And yes, this is not possible with the default config, but the security argument of not letting people install anything they want by default unless they are at least able to uncheck the right box in the settings is not completely devoid of common sense.
The 30% cut does seem too much. Maybe it should be mandatory to have at least three app stores installed by default on every phone, to add a bit more competition?
They have zero chances with Apple, since Apple cancelled their developer account. Until they can fix that, no Epic software will get on the App Store. And since their last Fortnight version intentionally started breaking the App Store ruled only a few days after it was reviewed by Apple and released to the store, apple isn’t going to want to do business with them.
I think the reference to a greater chance with apple is in relation to the courts.
Apple cancelling their developer account is just further evidence of Apple's monopoly over the IOS app market. There is no way to get an app on an IOS device without using the only available app store, unless the device is jailbroken (voiding the warranty as I understand it).
That said, any judgement against Apple for IOS devices would set a difficult precedent - consider the many TV manufacturers that either include an app store or just their own selection of apps - would a judgement against apple's monopoly mean that smart tvs need to include a choice of app stores?
Epic would have to walk a fine line on any case demanding change.
Not to mention the confusion that could arise from multiple competing app stores where different apps could theoretically end up with the same name depending on the app store used.
The underlying problem can be see if you look at the "Default apps" screen on a stock Android phone. You can set the apps for "assist, browser, caller ID & spam, home screen, phone, and SMS. What you can't change is the "Play Store". That's where Google exercises its monopoly.
You can't remove the play store as an integral app on a stock android device, but there is the option to install apps from other sources.
Just like Microsoft Edge cannot be fully uninstalled* from a windows computer (and internet explorer before it) (* without resorting to more drastic steps of course) but other browsers can still be used/installed.
While android may have a monopoly of convenience with the play store, it is not the same as the monopoly that Apple have with their app store.
30% does seem a bit rich but it's not like it's not been the case for how long now? Seems like the little guys have to put up with it and the larger app companies are now at the point to challenge it. Can't imagine any company risking this back when the first iPhone was released.
As always it boils down to corporate greed regardless of which side of the fence you're on.
As natural monopolies (due to the network effect) app stores ought to be run as independent non-profits*. In practice these could be co-ops of developers who'd get access to the app store by buying a share**. The non-profit nature could be enshrined in the co-op bylaws, as could a prohibition of any party voting with more than a handful of shares (the goal being that the mutual non-profit stays that way).
Further inspiration for regulators (hopefully) sharpening their knives in anticipation of slicing and dicing the likes of Google (Alphabet): compensation for eminent-domaining app stores to convert them to co-ops could come from extra heavy fines to the monopolist, deserved in any case.
* i.e. these would siphon enough fees from the sales to keep them going in the long run but would not pay dividends
** the share price should be nominal or at least low enough for one-man-shops and even non-profit hobbyists
[Okay, sure, this might not be proper socialism as the ownership is not fully public, but by a group that could expected to manage the store in the public interest as it aligns with their own, nor does this apply to all means of production so Marx would see it as a step in the right direction at best; I just couldn't resist putting it in the title. :) ]
A wise man once told me that "if you play with dog shite, you get dog shite on your hands".
Since both these companies are basically dog shite, they... urm well, have each others shite on their hands.
Basically lets allow them to roll around in their own mess whilst we stay away and get on with our lives.
"On top of that, Epic also wants "an order requiring Google to remove or amend the technical restrictions to ensure that consumers can directly download apps/app stores without obstruction, including ensuring that those apps/app stores are able to operate in the same way as the Google Play Store with respect to app installation, app updates, and access to operating system features," something likely to ring alarm bells among Android security watchers."
Actually, I agree. I think phones with the option "allow installation from unknown services" missing, or force-disabled, are an abomination. AT&T did this a few years back, until they started having customers get worked up enough about it that they began losing customers and phone sales as they either went to another carrier, or stayed with AT&T service but bought an unlocked phone instead of buying one AT&T had crapped up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
