11 ms·

Epic targets Google app store after losing to Apple

59 points by pretext 3y ago

xnx 3y ago
IANAL but the case against Google has to be even weaker than the one against Apple, right? Sideloading is much easier on Android and iOS.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Yep, Supermarket A complains they cannot sell their branded goods at Supermarket B.
- flashback2199 3y ago
  Yeah, this is strange to me. How can play store be a monopoly when you can just download and install any APK file anytime..
  - loceng 3y ago
    One of the main arguments will be that Google doesn't make it easy enough to sideload apps, purposefully, adding friction as a dark pattern.
    - lawlessone 3y ago
      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?
      - leereeves 3y ago
        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. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-epic-decision-judge-market-monopoly/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-e...
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        Precedent is not set by a district court, but through the appeals process.
    - wruza 3y ago
      How exactly could Google improve the experience?
      - lawlessone 3y ago
        Does windows still have to show that menu when you install of alternative browsers? Maybe like that?
        wruza 3y ago
        This could works for stores, not for apks. But I believe Epic would be happy to appear on that list anyway. That said, isn’t Epic Store (or what its name is) on PlayStore already? Unable check due to network issues.
    - kyriakos 3y ago
      It's literally 2 clicks
      - kevincox 3y ago
        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.
      - ThatPlayer 3y ago
        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.
        kyriakos 3y ago
        Only the first app you side load requires to accept allowing non play store apps. I'm not sure about fdroid but samsung store updates are seamless same as play store.
        ThatPlayer 3y ago
        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. F-droid is able to do it if you have root: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/ https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    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"
    - flashback2199 3y ago
      So like the warning messages macOS and windows show when you install an app you downloaded from the internet?
      - enragedcacti 3y ago
        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.
    - lawlessone 3y ago
      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.
      - g-b-r 3y ago
        Last I heard even the two-weeks process has been removed, you can't unlock the bootloader on Huawei devices anymore ops no it looks like they found some workarounds (https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-honor-bootloader-unlock-potatonv/ https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-honor-bootloader-unloc...)
  - henryfjordan 3y ago
    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.
    - flashback2199 3y ago
      That makes even less sense because everywhere I look I see not-total-monopolies abusing their position every day
- lawlessone 3y ago
  Yes. You can even sideload whole other app repos like https://f-droid.org/en/ 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-charged-me-cancelled-subscription https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/apr/10/matchcom-charg...
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  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.
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    They did in fact do that: > 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-premier-device-program-lg-motorola-hmd https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632806/google-epic-prem...
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    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.
- leereeves 3y ago
  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. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-epic-decision-judge-market-monopoly/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16 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.
  - labcomputer 3y ago
    From your source: > 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.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      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?
  - willseth 3y ago
    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.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  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. https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/6/22612921/google-epic-antitrust-case-court-filings-unsealed https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/6/22612921/google-epic-antit... https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-hug-game-developers-play-store-millions-epic-lawsuit-complaint https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-h...
- dagmx 3y ago
  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.
enahs-sf 3y ago
https://archive.ph/U23nx https://archive.ph/U23nx
- urda 3y ago
  Archive.today actively sabotages requests from CloudFlare / Quad9 users. Please avoid linking them. ... and no. Routing "around" to reward bad behavior is not acceptable.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    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.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dgellow 3y ago
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision The didn't get everything they wanted but that's a big win.
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  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.
  - CobrastanJorji 3y ago
    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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tl 3y ago
  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.
olliecornelia 3y ago
Tim Epic on some weirdo shit as usual
rwl4 3y ago
That screen protector in the headline picture...
alex_young 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20231106163020/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/06/epic-google-antitrust-trial-play-store/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231106163020/https://www.washi...
somethoughts 3y ago
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.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  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.
  - sillysaurusx 3y ago
    It’s not a dumpy alternative. It’s the only alternative that currently allows AI generated content in games.
    - Lariscus 3y ago
      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.
    - babypuncher 3y ago
      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.
      - 3y ago
swatcoder 3y ago
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..

59 points by pretext 3y ago

xnx 3y ago

IANAL but the case against Google has to be even weaker than the one against Apple, right? Sideloading is much easier on Android and iOS.

pjmlp 3y ago
Yep, Supermarket A complains they cannot sell their branded goods at Supermarket B.
flashback2199 3y ago
Yeah, this is strange to me. How can play store be a monopoly when you can just download and install any APK file anytime..
- loceng 3y ago
  One of the main arguments will be that Google doesn't make it easy enough to sideload apps, purposefully, adding friction as a dark pattern.
  - lawlessone 3y ago
    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?
    - leereeves 3y ago
      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. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-epic-decision-judge-market-monopoly/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-e...
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        Precedent is not set by a district court, but through the appeals process.
  - wruza 3y ago
    How exactly could Google improve the experience?
    - lawlessone 3y ago
      Does windows still have to show that menu when you install of alternative browsers? Maybe like that?
      - wruza 3y ago
        This could works for stores, not for apks. But I believe Epic would be happy to appear on that list anyway. That said, isn’t Epic Store (or what its name is) on PlayStore already? Unable check due to network issues.
  - kyriakos 3y ago
    It's literally 2 clicks
    - kevincox 3y ago
      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.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      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.
      - kyriakos 3y ago
        Only the first app you side load requires to accept allowing non play store apps. I'm not sure about fdroid but samsung store updates are seamless same as play store.
        ThatPlayer 3y ago
        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. F-droid is able to do it if you have root: https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/ https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension/
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  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"
  - flashback2199 3y ago
    So like the warning messages macOS and windows show when you install an app you downloaded from the internet?
    - enragedcacti 3y ago
      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.
  - lawlessone 3y ago
    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.
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      Last I heard even the two-weeks process has been removed, you can't unlock the bootloader on Huawei devices anymore ops no it looks like they found some workarounds (https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-honor-bootloader-unlock-potatonv/ https://www.xda-developers.com/huawei-honor-bootloader-unloc...)
- henryfjordan 3y ago
  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.
  - flashback2199 3y ago
    That makes even less sense because everywhere I look I see not-total-monopolies abusing their position every day
lawlessone 3y ago
Yes. You can even sideload whole other app repos like https://f-droid.org/en/ 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-charged-me-cancelled-subscription https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/apr/10/matchcom-charg...
lern_too_spel 3y ago
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.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  They did in fact do that: > 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-premier-device-program-lg-motorola-hmd https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632806/google-epic-prem...
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  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.
leereeves 3y ago
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. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/10/apple-epic-decision-judge-market-monopoly/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16 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.
- labcomputer 3y ago
  From your source: > 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.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    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?
- willseth 3y ago
  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.
enragedcacti 3y ago
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. https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/6/22612921/google-epic-antitrust-case-court-filings-unsealed https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/6/22612921/google-epic-antit... https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-hug-game-developers-play-store-millions-epic-lawsuit-complaint https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632818/google-project-h...
dagmx 3y ago
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.

enahs-sf 3y ago

https://archive.ph/U23nx https://archive.ph/U23nx

urda 3y ago
Archive.today actively sabotages requests from CloudFlare / Quad9 users. Please avoid linking them. ... and no. Routing "around" to reward bad behavior is not acceptable.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  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.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dgellow 3y ago

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision The didn't get everything they wanted but that's a big win.

doctorpangloss 3y ago
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.
- CobrastanJorji 3y ago
  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.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tl 3y ago
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.

olliecornelia 3y ago

Tim Epic on some weirdo shit as usual

rwl4 3y ago

That screen protector in the headline picture...

alex_young 3y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20231106163020/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/06/epic-google-antitrust-trial-play-store/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231106163020/https://www.washi...

somethoughts 3y ago

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.

babypuncher 3y ago
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.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  It’s not a dumpy alternative. It’s the only alternative that currently allows AI generated content in games.
  - Lariscus 3y ago
    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.
  - babypuncher 3y ago
    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.
    - 3y ago

swatcoder 3y ago

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..