9 ms·

While I generally agree with Epic's positions, it seems like a bit of a stretch here, considering that Android allows both sideloading and alternative app store

While I generally agree with Epic's positions, it seems like a bit of a stretch here, considering that Android allows both sideloading and alternative app stores. Unlike on iOS, there's nothing on Android stopping Bandcamp from releasing a standalone sideloadable app with any payment system they desire.

PeterisP 4y ago
Antitrust rules apply for abuse of dominant market power (which Google certainly has) even if theoretical alternatives exist. It does not matter that it's not literally a monopoly, as that is not the legal bar that needs to be passed for Google to be limited in what they can and can't do.
- bko 4y ago
  Bandcamp is using their own billing system, bypassing Google's cut. Every app could do this and cut Google out all together. An app could just let you download the app, pay some amount when you're in the app which would unlock the functionality. I don't think its unreasonable for Google to have a problem with this. They want to get the reach of the app store, and make money off it, without paying a cut to the host like everyone else. What am I missing here?
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    That Google’s cut of payments is very high which points to market position abuse
    - lolinder 4y ago
      High compared to what? It's the same as Apple's, so you're not comparing to other app stores. Amazon charges the same percentage on Kindle for eBooks. When people claim that the app store fees are excessively large they're usually comparing to payment processor fees, but neither major app store functions solely as a payment processor. So if not that, what are we comparing to when we say the fee is high?
      - withinboredom 4y ago
        The fee could be lower. They (the App Store owner) only needs to sign a blob. They (Google/Apple/Amazon) choose to host the blobs, and then charge the developer for it. They claim “marketing” too, but as far as I can tell, that usually involves a sale and the app owner has no choice but to sell their app for less without their consent. I think Apple sometimes has “curated” lists, but it’s questionable how “effective” that is since they don’t release much numbers. What is the ROI of getting randomly chosen to be on that list? Is it worth 30%? We will never know.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - alasdair_ 4y ago
    Exactly. Epic have their own store for games. Would they be fine with each AAA game releasing on the store for “free” but required a credit card to be entered once it was run, with 100% of the money going to the publisher?
    - mdoms 4y ago
      Yes, the Epic store enables this exact scenario. Lots of free games on Epic make all of their month through micro transactions billed entirely through their own systems. See Rocket League for one example, but there are many.
      - SXX 4y ago
        I really unsure about EGS monetization model, but Psyonix (developer of Rocket League) are subsidiary of Epic. UPD: At least while ago in 2019 Epic claimed to give a choice of payment processor to use for games on their store: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-12-06-epic-games-store-implements-in-game-purchases-for-third-parties https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-12-06-epic-games...
        mdoms 4y ago
        As I said there are lots of free games on Epic which use their own store fronts for transactions.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - amelius 4y ago
    In the 80s and 90s you could buy software running on Windows, where the vendor of the software didn't pay anything to Microsoft; in fact, I'm sure Microsoft was happy with them supporting and increasing the strength of their platform. Why does this have to change now? Why does the platform need a cut?
    - bobviolier 4y ago
      Because back then you paid a lot of money for Windows and they also sold you on Office and the likes. Google's business model with android is exactly this, give the OS for cheap but earn money on the apps. Not saying 10 or 30 is the correct amount. It's just different now.
      - tester756 4y ago
        majority of the world never paid a single cent for windows
        josh2600 4y ago
        It was built into the cost of the computer.
        belltaco 4y ago
        And cost of Android isn't or can't be? They make most of their money from user data and search anyway.
        oauea 4y ago
        Same for Android. Google charges a licensing fee from manufacturers.
      - adrian_b 4y ago
        During most of the time since Windows exists, the majority of its users have not paid for Windows separately, but as a part of the purchase price of a new computer. Android could also be paid as a part of the purchase price of a smartphone and maybe it already is, but of course a one-time payment would be much less profitable for Google than a continuous stream of revenue from the apps.
  - oauea 4y ago
    Google is running an app store. Why should they have any right to involvement whatsoever after the app has been installed? Once the user has installed the app the transaction has been finalized. And if that app is given away for free, and Google has a problem with that, they should ban all free apps and require charging a fee.
    - zyemuzu 4y ago
      Google use licensing models for many of their products. I'm sure they could devise a model whereby a company such as Epic pay a fee per client download of their software. It could be negotiable. That way everyone wins, and customers get user friendly access to the content they want.
    - lolinder 4y ago
      > Google is running an app store. Why should they have any right to involvement whatsoever after the app has been installed? Running a store means deciding what goes on the shelves. The only features that Google could use to decide whether they want to sell an app are the features that are apparent after installation. Your argument would suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to curate their content at all.
  - novok 4y ago
    Google also makes google chrome and doesn't get a single cent off of transactions done on that web browser too.
    - ydlr 4y ago
      A horrible injustice that will one day be corrected. It just takes a couple generations to change expectations.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Should you (or Disney, but costs always end up at the customer eventually) have to pay a fee for every single device you sign into Disney+ on? It’s bad enough you can’t use it on an Xbox without Gold Live or whatever it is.
  - hansvm 4y ago
    It's one thing for Google to have a problem with something and quite another to anti-competitively leverage their other market positions as the solution. Other comments describe a few specific examples of that abuse (like also thwarting Epic's attempts to be preloaded by OEMs), but I think it's more interesting to look at how money is changing hands as evidence of market power being abused. In particular, consider that Google in theory should be fine accepting payments as low as their hosting costs (and probably much less since their app store helps attract phone purchasers to fuel their ad network, since they also take a cut from OEMs, etc). Compare that to each individual developer on the store who in theory is able to afford at most some large fraction of revenue for the privilege of being on the store. Note that the latter number is (usually) much greater than the former and that the latter is what's actually being paid. If there were any real competition for something as trivial to build as an app store then you wouldn't expect Google to be able to successfully price discriminate across so many orders of magnitude of prices and extract nearly all of the surplus value from the end user purchasing an app. The fact that they're able to do so and are doing so should serve by itself as a strong indication that something suspiciously anti-competitive is happening. My $20 app wasn't 20x harder for Google to host than your $1 app, so why are my fees 20x higher? Because they can get away with charging that much because they stomp on any competition. That isn't any kind of nail-in-the-coffin proof mind you, but it serves as a useful heuristic for spotting abuses of market power in many markets. Throwing that same idea at the right to repair movement, the amount paid to John Deere for tractor repairs is many times greater than what people have been able to achieve on their own (when they've been able to do so), and the only barrier is DRM that was added to prevent unauthorized repairs. If John Deere were really that much better at repairing their tractors than third parties then they wouldn't have to artificially exclude everyone else from attempting it to retain market share and command those prices. Nobody's saying that Google or John Deere shouldn't be allowed to profit from the things they make, but using existing power to hamper competition and seek greater rents isn't good for society as a whole.
- gigatexal 4y ago
  But it does matter what the law says. If they’re not a monopoly in the eyes of the law what can a judge do?
  - AnssiH 4y ago
    The parent meant that antitrust laws usually apply even if there is no monopoly in the strictest possible sense (i.e. literally no competitors). A dominant market position is enough.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >which Google certainly has You’re conflating some ideas here. A marketplace owner always has “dominant market power” over the market they own. That’s the nature of marketplace, the owner gets to set certain rules like the types of payments accepted at the marketplace, because that is literally the job of a marketplace. Google also has dominant market share, since their App Store is the best for android, but that’s legal (keep in mind Amazon, another $1tn company actively competes in this space) - the government does not want to force consumers to use worse app stores. Competition for the sake of competition is not pro consumer. What Google probably isn’t doing (and what is illegal) is using its OS market power to crowd out other app marketplaces. As mentioned above Amazon meaningfully competes in this space. The closes you could get there is Google doesn’t publish its own apps to other app marketplaces, but that’s likely not across the bar of anti-competition.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - goosedragons 4y ago
    One of things revealed because of the whole Fortnite issue was that Google squashed Epic's attempt to bundle their Android app with various OEMs. Google controls the platform and they're the ones who set up scary warnings for installing apps via sideloading (despite malicious apps being not uncommon in the Play Store itself.)
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    No, Google is attempting to engage in a vertical restraint of trade. That is one of the behaviors generally considered to violate antitrust rules, if the company is using its leverage in one market to attempt a vertical restraint of trade in another market. In this case, the leveraged market is the app store, and the restrained market is mobile payment processing.
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      >No, Google is attempting to engage in a vertical restraint of trade. My friend, does Lyft take Mir as a payment method? Can you choose to use Stripe to pay for your Airbnb (vs. their in-house processor)? I really am curious about the legal precedent you're relying on - when has a marketplace ever been found to be acting anti-competitively by choosing the payment rails they use?
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >Antitrust rules apply for abuse of dominant market power (which Google certainly has) Antitrust rules apply to monopolies, and Google has no where near monopoly over app stores or phones, the relevant systems here.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    Antitrust rules apply to monopolies No, they don't. Most antitrust cases don't involve monopolies, since those are actually quite rare, and most monopolies don't involve anticompetitive behavior. Antitrust is about regulating anticompetitive market activities, which ranges from price fixing to monopolies.
  - dessant 4y ago
    > Antitrust rules apply to monopolies, and Google has no where near monopoly over app stores or phones, the relevant systems here. I'm sure that will be consolation to the growing number of victims whose businesses and livelihoods were destroyed when an overworked reviewer or an algorithm allowed to go rampant kicked out their products from the app stores where the overwhelming majority of users could discover them. Your definition of monopolies and applicable antitrust rules is divorced from reality, and from the legal framework based on which these monopolies have been repeatedly fined, and will be forced to open up their platforms.
Tagbert 4y ago
Though the install rate would drop considerably. Most users are not comfortable with sideloading.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Google ensures that they are they are frightened away with scary warnings.
  - JoshTko 4y ago
    this makes sense. Users who don't know what they are doing should be dissuaded. Those that do know what they are doing will not be dissuaded. Given the potential security consequences the warning approach is entirely appropriate.
    - heleninboodler 4y ago
      ...and is also appropriate for apps from the Play store. Google certainly isn't guaranteeing otherwise. If malware slips through, they will take no responsibility. They currently have it both ways: 3rd party app stores get scary warnings front and center, whereas Play store gets the scary warnings and disclaimers of responsibility buried in TOS.
  - bko 4y ago
    I don't know, I just tried downloading an APK directly (telegram). Android warns me file might be harmful. Do you suggest they shouldn't warn someone when they download an APK? It's also browser specific and I imagine all major browser give the same kind of warning because , you know, downloading an APK directly from a website might be harmful.
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      To be fair, installing an app from the store might be harmful too.
cma 4y ago
At least in the past Android wouldn't allow security updates without having the user take a bunch of steps each time. Users couldn't just add a trusted authority permanently. Google also allegedly colluded with phone maker storefronts to keep them from working out deals with Epic.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Mk2000 4y ago
But those "alternatives app stores" can never do the things Play Store can, like automatic installing/updating apps without user needing to click "Install" for each one. (which gets quite annoying) Google could've made it possible but did not, that's monopoly.
- akvadrako 4y ago
  They can with new versions of Android: https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-stores-update-apps-background/ https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    What percentage of Android phones out there will be able to install and run Android 12 without needing to be hacked?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
GeekyBear 4y ago
>Unlike on iOS, there's nothing on Android stopping Bandcamp from releasing a standalone sideloadable app with any payment system they desire. On iOS, just as on Android, there is nothing stopping you from handling purchases and payments through your own website and having your app only handle content consumption as companies like Netflix and Spotify have done on iOS for years.
hamburglar 4y ago
If there is a path to sideload an app without google scaring the pants off users, then I agree. Making apps from the play store sound safe and apps from a 3rd party store sound scary and dangerous is abusing your position, however.
makeitdouble 4y ago
Side-loading was covered in previous filings: https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/22/22583467/epic-fortnite-google-play-store-lawsuit-amended-complaint-filed https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/22/22583467/epic-fortnite-go...
realusername 4y ago
Sideloading is crippled behind warnings, that's never been a viable option. Maybe Google should put the playstore behind a developer option flag in the menu with a warning that it's unsafe and see themselves if it'll work.

PeterisP 4y ago

Antitrust rules apply for abuse of dominant market power (which Google certainly has) even if theoretical alternatives exist. It does not matter that it's not literally a monopoly, as that is not the legal bar that needs to be passed for Google to be limited in what they can and can't do.

bko 4y ago
Bandcamp is using their own billing system, bypassing Google's cut. Every app could do this and cut Google out all together. An app could just let you download the app, pay some amount when you're in the app which would unlock the functionality. I don't think its unreasonable for Google to have a problem with this. They want to get the reach of the app store, and make money off it, without paying a cut to the host like everyone else. What am I missing here?
- colechristensen 4y ago
  That Google’s cut of payments is very high which points to market position abuse
  - lolinder 4y ago
    High compared to what? It's the same as Apple's, so you're not comparing to other app stores. Amazon charges the same percentage on Kindle for eBooks. When people claim that the app store fees are excessively large they're usually comparing to payment processor fees, but neither major app store functions solely as a payment processor. So if not that, what are we comparing to when we say the fee is high?
    - withinboredom 4y ago
      The fee could be lower. They (the App Store owner) only needs to sign a blob. They (Google/Apple/Amazon) choose to host the blobs, and then charge the developer for it. They claim “marketing” too, but as far as I can tell, that usually involves a sale and the app owner has no choice but to sell their app for less without their consent. I think Apple sometimes has “curated” lists, but it’s questionable how “effective” that is since they don’t release much numbers. What is the ROI of getting randomly chosen to be on that list? Is it worth 30%? We will never know.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- alasdair_ 4y ago
  Exactly. Epic have their own store for games. Would they be fine with each AAA game releasing on the store for “free” but required a credit card to be entered once it was run, with 100% of the money going to the publisher?
  - mdoms 4y ago
    Yes, the Epic store enables this exact scenario. Lots of free games on Epic make all of their month through micro transactions billed entirely through their own systems. See Rocket League for one example, but there are many.
    - SXX 4y ago
      I really unsure about EGS monetization model, but Psyonix (developer of Rocket League) are subsidiary of Epic. UPD: At least while ago in 2019 Epic claimed to give a choice of payment processor to use for games on their store: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-12-06-epic-games-store-implements-in-game-purchases-for-third-parties https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-12-06-epic-games...
      - mdoms 4y ago
        As I said there are lots of free games on Epic which use their own store fronts for transactions.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- amelius 4y ago
  In the 80s and 90s you could buy software running on Windows, where the vendor of the software didn't pay anything to Microsoft; in fact, I'm sure Microsoft was happy with them supporting and increasing the strength of their platform. Why does this have to change now? Why does the platform need a cut?
  - bobviolier 4y ago
    Because back then you paid a lot of money for Windows and they also sold you on Office and the likes. Google's business model with android is exactly this, give the OS for cheap but earn money on the apps. Not saying 10 or 30 is the correct amount. It's just different now.
    - tester756 4y ago
      majority of the world never paid a single cent for windows
      - josh2600 4y ago
        It was built into the cost of the computer.
        belltaco 4y ago
        And cost of Android isn't or can't be? They make most of their money from user data and search anyway.
        oauea 4y ago
        Same for Android. Google charges a licensing fee from manufacturers.
    - adrian_b 4y ago
      During most of the time since Windows exists, the majority of its users have not paid for Windows separately, but as a part of the purchase price of a new computer. Android could also be paid as a part of the purchase price of a smartphone and maybe it already is, but of course a one-time payment would be much less profitable for Google than a continuous stream of revenue from the apps.
- oauea 4y ago
  Google is running an app store. Why should they have any right to involvement whatsoever after the app has been installed? Once the user has installed the app the transaction has been finalized. And if that app is given away for free, and Google has a problem with that, they should ban all free apps and require charging a fee.
  - zyemuzu 4y ago
    Google use licensing models for many of their products. I'm sure they could devise a model whereby a company such as Epic pay a fee per client download of their software. It could be negotiable. That way everyone wins, and customers get user friendly access to the content they want.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    > Google is running an app store. Why should they have any right to involvement whatsoever after the app has been installed? Running a store means deciding what goes on the shelves. The only features that Google could use to decide whether they want to sell an app are the features that are apparent after installation. Your argument would suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to curate their content at all.
- novok 4y ago
  Google also makes google chrome and doesn't get a single cent off of transactions done on that web browser too.
  - ydlr 4y ago
    A horrible injustice that will one day be corrected. It just takes a couple generations to change expectations.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Should you (or Disney, but costs always end up at the customer eventually) have to pay a fee for every single device you sign into Disney+ on? It’s bad enough you can’t use it on an Xbox without Gold Live or whatever it is.
- hansvm 4y ago
  It's one thing for Google to have a problem with something and quite another to anti-competitively leverage their other market positions as the solution. Other comments describe a few specific examples of that abuse (like also thwarting Epic's attempts to be preloaded by OEMs), but I think it's more interesting to look at how money is changing hands as evidence of market power being abused. In particular, consider that Google in theory should be fine accepting payments as low as their hosting costs (and probably much less since their app store helps attract phone purchasers to fuel their ad network, since they also take a cut from OEMs, etc). Compare that to each individual developer on the store who in theory is able to afford at most some large fraction of revenue for the privilege of being on the store. Note that the latter number is (usually) much greater than the former and that the latter is what's actually being paid. If there were any real competition for something as trivial to build as an app store then you wouldn't expect Google to be able to successfully price discriminate across so many orders of magnitude of prices and extract nearly all of the surplus value from the end user purchasing an app. The fact that they're able to do so and are doing so should serve by itself as a strong indication that something suspiciously anti-competitive is happening. My $20 app wasn't 20x harder for Google to host than your $1 app, so why are my fees 20x higher? Because they can get away with charging that much because they stomp on any competition. That isn't any kind of nail-in-the-coffin proof mind you, but it serves as a useful heuristic for spotting abuses of market power in many markets. Throwing that same idea at the right to repair movement, the amount paid to John Deere for tractor repairs is many times greater than what people have been able to achieve on their own (when they've been able to do so), and the only barrier is DRM that was added to prevent unauthorized repairs. If John Deere were really that much better at repairing their tractors than third parties then they wouldn't have to artificially exclude everyone else from attempting it to retain market share and command those prices. Nobody's saying that Google or John Deere shouldn't be allowed to profit from the things they make, but using existing power to hamper competition and seek greater rents isn't good for society as a whole.
gigatexal 4y ago
But it does matter what the law says. If they’re not a monopoly in the eyes of the law what can a judge do?
- AnssiH 4y ago
  The parent meant that antitrust laws usually apply even if there is no monopoly in the strictest possible sense (i.e. literally no competitors). A dominant market position is enough.
RC_ITR 4y ago
>which Google certainly has You’re conflating some ideas here. A marketplace owner always has “dominant market power” over the market they own. That’s the nature of marketplace, the owner gets to set certain rules like the types of payments accepted at the marketplace, because that is literally the job of a marketplace. Google also has dominant market share, since their App Store is the best for android, but that’s legal (keep in mind Amazon, another $1tn company actively competes in this space) - the government does not want to force consumers to use worse app stores. Competition for the sake of competition is not pro consumer. What Google probably isn’t doing (and what is illegal) is using its OS market power to crowd out other app marketplaces. As mentioned above Amazon meaningfully competes in this space. The closes you could get there is Google doesn’t publish its own apps to other app marketplaces, but that’s likely not across the bar of anti-competition.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- goosedragons 4y ago
  One of things revealed because of the whole Fortnite issue was that Google squashed Epic's attempt to bundle their Android app with various OEMs. Google controls the platform and they're the ones who set up scary warnings for installing apps via sideloading (despite malicious apps being not uncommon in the Play Store itself.)
- gamblor956 4y ago
  No, Google is attempting to engage in a vertical restraint of trade. That is one of the behaviors generally considered to violate antitrust rules, if the company is using its leverage in one market to attempt a vertical restraint of trade in another market. In this case, the leveraged market is the app store, and the restrained market is mobile payment processing.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    >No, Google is attempting to engage in a vertical restraint of trade. My friend, does Lyft take Mir as a payment method? Can you choose to use Stripe to pay for your Airbnb (vs. their in-house processor)? I really am curious about the legal precedent you're relying on - when has a marketplace ever been found to be acting anti-competitively by choosing the payment rails they use?
ChrisLomont 4y ago
>Antitrust rules apply for abuse of dominant market power (which Google certainly has) Antitrust rules apply to monopolies, and Google has no where near monopoly over app stores or phones, the relevant systems here.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  Antitrust rules apply to monopolies No, they don't. Most antitrust cases don't involve monopolies, since those are actually quite rare, and most monopolies don't involve anticompetitive behavior. Antitrust is about regulating anticompetitive market activities, which ranges from price fixing to monopolies.
- dessant 4y ago
  > Antitrust rules apply to monopolies, and Google has no where near monopoly over app stores or phones, the relevant systems here. I'm sure that will be consolation to the growing number of victims whose businesses and livelihoods were destroyed when an overworked reviewer or an algorithm allowed to go rampant kicked out their products from the app stores where the overwhelming majority of users could discover them. Your definition of monopolies and applicable antitrust rules is divorced from reality, and from the legal framework based on which these monopolies have been repeatedly fined, and will be forced to open up their platforms.

Tagbert 4y ago

Though the install rate would drop considerably. Most users are not comfortable with sideloading.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Google ensures that they are they are frightened away with scary warnings.
- JoshTko 4y ago
  this makes sense. Users who don't know what they are doing should be dissuaded. Those that do know what they are doing will not be dissuaded. Given the potential security consequences the warning approach is entirely appropriate.
  - heleninboodler 4y ago
    ...and is also appropriate for apps from the Play store. Google certainly isn't guaranteeing otherwise. If malware slips through, they will take no responsibility. They currently have it both ways: 3rd party app stores get scary warnings front and center, whereas Play store gets the scary warnings and disclaimers of responsibility buried in TOS.
- bko 4y ago
  I don't know, I just tried downloading an APK directly (telegram). Android warns me file might be harmful. Do you suggest they shouldn't warn someone when they download an APK? It's also browser specific and I imagine all major browser give the same kind of warning because , you know, downloading an APK directly from a website might be harmful.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    To be fair, installing an app from the store might be harmful too.

cma 4y ago

At least in the past Android wouldn't allow security updates without having the user take a bunch of steps each time. Users couldn't just add a trusted authority permanently. Google also allegedly colluded with phone maker storefronts to keep them from working out deals with Epic.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Mk2000 4y ago

But those "alternatives app stores" can never do the things Play Store can, like automatic installing/updating apps without user needing to click "Install" for each one. (which gets quite annoying) Google could've made it possible but did not, that's monopoly.

akvadrako 4y ago
They can with new versions of Android: https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-stores-update-apps-background/ https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...
- anonymousab 4y ago
  What percentage of Android phones out there will be able to install and run Android 12 without needing to be hacked?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

GeekyBear 4y ago

>Unlike on iOS, there's nothing on Android stopping Bandcamp from releasing a standalone sideloadable app with any payment system they desire. On iOS, just as on Android, there is nothing stopping you from handling purchases and payments through your own website and having your app only handle content consumption as companies like Netflix and Spotify have done on iOS for years.

hamburglar 4y ago

If there is a path to sideload an app without google scaring the pants off users, then I agree. Making apps from the play store sound safe and apps from a 3rd party store sound scary and dangerous is abusing your position, however.

makeitdouble 4y ago

Side-loading was covered in previous filings: https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/22/22583467/epic-fortnite-google-play-store-lawsuit-amended-complaint-filed https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/22/22583467/epic-fortnite-go...

realusername 4y ago

Sideloading is crippled behind warnings, that's never been a viable option. Maybe Google should put the playstore behind a developer option flag in the menu with a warning that it's unsafe and see themselves if it'll work.