Huge win for Epic Games in their court case against Google. The court decided that Google’s Play app store operated as an illegal monopoly and the case also challenged the transaction fees of up to 30% that Google imposes on Android app developers.
Fast Key Highlights:
It’s still unclear what the penalty will be, court won’t rule on this till January
There’s speculation in the media that this could lead to forcing Google to offer alternative app stores
Google ironically used privacy measures (self-deleting messages) to hide the anti-competative behavior internally. (see below)
Epic filed a similar antitrust case against Apple in 2020, but a US judge ruled in favor of Apple in 2021
Very Brief Background:
The court case originally began when Epic Games began collecting payments from users directly, bypassing Apple and Google’s steep fees. As backlash, the two companies banned Epic’s apps from their respective app stores. So Epic took it to court. First the Apple ruling went against them, but now the Google one is in their favor.
Why Google but Not Apple?
The big difference between the Google case and the Apple one was revenue sharing deals between Google and various other gaming industry participants such as the game developers and even the smartphone makers themselves. Epic’s lawyers were able to clearly demonstrate that “Project Hug”, which involved both direct investment in games and promotional benefits, was designed to shut out competition. This was the key evidence and arguments missing from the Apple case.
Ultimately, the full effects of this ruling are still unclear and most of the internet talk is now just speculation.
Kicker:
The judge in the California court case scolded Google during the trial for deleting many internal chats that would have incriminated the company. The ultimate ironic move for a company whose past CEO Eric Schmidt claimed “if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
The Epic Games that ironically has monopolised exclusive titles on their platform? That Epic Games? The same Epic Games done for violating kids privacy rights? Epic Games that makes it hard to get refunds? The Epic Games partly owned by Tencent who are known to be in bed with the CCP? That one? Epic who my be selling user data to the CCP and broke GDPR laws? And the Epic Games CEO who actively shits on Linux gamers? Are we talking about that Epic Games?
One of your questions don’t seem to be that based?
“shits on Linux gamers”, are you talking about the store not beeing available on linux? Meh already got heroic which is better.
Their easy anticheat is available through proton tho, it’s on the game dev to chose to enable it or not (and I understand why they don’t do it for fortnite : the Linux market is pretty small, but also because the game is so huge that hackers will not hesitate a bit to switch to Linux in order to hack with custom kernels).
Upgrading to DirectX 11 and 64-bit is a valid reason. The Linux version would probably require a rewrite for the 0.3%. Compare this to Valve making Steam unavailable on Windows 7 despite it being used by 0.75% of their users.
Sure. But in the context of Epic claiming that Google is a bad guy for telling Epic to pound sand, Epic telling video game owners who have owned a game for years to get fucked is a bad look.
I was a heavy Rocket League player on Windows and I quit when Epic told Linux users to get bent and I won’t use their game store. Epic knew it would piss off a small but vocal minority and they considered it a cost of doing business. Good luck to em.
In the post I linked, they talk about issuing refunds and that the game is played well via Proton, so I wouldn’t classify that as telling the users to get effed. And again, it’s not unheard of for games and software to no longer support specific operating systems after a while. If you’re a Windows 7 user, your whole Steam library would become unavailable unless you switch. Sure, you can upgrade, but a Linux player of Rocket League can also switch to the Proton/Wine version, which is even less drastic.
This is a really boring direction of conversation. It’s boring to talk about the false equivalency regarding a decade old OS that the OS maker themselves don’t support vs Linux today. It’s boring to debate the finer points of continuing support in games. It’s boring to talk about Epic outsourcing work to Proton.
But I really hope you find someone that finds it interesting. Good luck.
I think that much of the disparity is explained by the fact that the Apple case was decided by a judge but the Google case was decided by a jury, so the people making the decisions had very different perspectives.
Also, because the decisions were so different despite the similarities between them, Google probably actually has a pretty good case it can make in the appeals process, so I wouldn’t consider this outcome to be the final word just yet.
It came down to the fact that Google has a lot of deals with different companies giving favourable terms whereas Apple either didn’t do that or was smart enough to hide it
@soupcat Probably the fact that Google presents Android as an open, level playing field, when in reality it isn’t, whereas Apple is not misleading customers or developers in this case (they just say “fuck you no alternative app stores for you”).
That doesn’t make sense, because Android is quite open. You can literally download apps everywhere from the internet.
The only thing that you’re not allowed to do is to take advantage of the Google store and circumvent their microtransaction system. If you want to have own microtransactions, do it on yourself.
The case established that Google acted intentionally to prevent apps, hardware manufacturers, and basically their entire sphere of influence from using other app stores and services.
So no, they are in fact making massive efforts to stop you from using alternative apps and stores.
Same with their search.
Google is a bad guy, buddy. Time to internalize that.
But isn’t Apple also even worse in that regard? At least Google is embracing open standards, unlike Apple who is deliberately refusing to do so? I am not saying Google is good but that Apple isn’t great either.
That’s a very fair question. I think that from the perspective of a power user (which let’s be honest, giving a shit about this makes one a power user), the difference is sorta bullshit. In Googles case they make it hard but in Apple’s case it’s not allowed at all, so how is Apple better? If Fdroid exists for Android, then choice exists and so Apple is at least as shitty, if not more so.
You’re not wrong.
From the court’s perspective, Apple is the honest party. Apple users are never given the illusion of choice. By contrast, Google sells the illusion of choice while actively working against choice and abuses its market position to do so.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !privacyguides@lemmy.one
In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.
This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We’ve tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!
Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!
This community is the “official” Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other “Privacy Guides” communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.
Moderation Rules:
We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
No soliciting engagement: Don’t ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
Don’t repost topics which have already been covered here.
News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don’t abuse our community’s willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.
Epic Games is a hellhole of antiprivacy, CCP dick sucking, invasive spyware nightmares.
This isn’t a win. Just evil satanic corps trying to get one up on each other
How do I block posts by link domain
The Epic Games that ironically has monopolised exclusive titles on their platform? That Epic Games? The same Epic Games done for violating kids privacy rights? Epic Games that makes it hard to get refunds? The Epic Games partly owned by Tencent who are known to be in bed with the CCP? That one? Epic who my be selling user data to the CCP and broke GDPR laws? And the Epic Games CEO who actively shits on Linux gamers? Are we talking about that Epic Games?
Meh, they can go to hell along with Google.
One of your questions don’t seem to be that based?
“shits on Linux gamers”, are you talking about the store not beeing available on linux? Meh already got heroic which is better.
Their easy anticheat is available through proton tho, it’s on the game dev to chose to enable it or not (and I understand why they don’t do it for fortnite : the Linux market is pretty small, but also because the game is so huge that hackers will not hesitate a bit to switch to Linux in order to hack with custom kernels).
They bought Rocket League and discontinued the Linux version for seemingly no reason. It was a dick move for sure.
Upgrading to DirectX 11 and 64-bit is a valid reason. The Linux version would probably require a rewrite for the 0.3%. Compare this to Valve making Steam unavailable on Windows 7 despite it being used by 0.75% of their users.
Sure. But in the context of Epic claiming that Google is a bad guy for telling Epic to pound sand, Epic telling video game owners who have owned a game for years to get fucked is a bad look.
I was a heavy Rocket League player on Windows and I quit when Epic told Linux users to get bent and I won’t use their game store. Epic knew it would piss off a small but vocal minority and they considered it a cost of doing business. Good luck to em.
Fuck em
In the post I linked, they talk about issuing refunds and that the game is played well via Proton, so I wouldn’t classify that as telling the users to get effed. And again, it’s not unheard of for games and software to no longer support specific operating systems after a while. If you’re a Windows 7 user, your whole Steam library would become unavailable unless you switch. Sure, you can upgrade, but a Linux player of Rocket League can also switch to the Proton/Wine version, which is even less drastic.
This is a really boring direction of conversation. It’s boring to talk about the false equivalency regarding a decade old OS that the OS maker themselves don’t support vs Linux today. It’s boring to debate the finer points of continuing support in games. It’s boring to talk about Epic outsourcing work to Proton.
But I really hope you find someone that finds it interesting. Good luck.
deleted by creator
Where’s the guide?
I don’t understand how they lost against Apple but won against Google - which actually does allow you to download alternative app stores.
I think that much of the disparity is explained by the fact that the Apple case was decided by a judge but the Google case was decided by a jury, so the people making the decisions had very different perspectives.
Also, because the decisions were so different despite the similarities between them, Google probably actually has a pretty good case it can make in the appeals process, so I wouldn’t consider this outcome to be the final word just yet.
It came down to the fact that Google has a lot of deals with different companies giving favourable terms whereas Apple either didn’t do that or was smart enough to hide it
Ahh, that makes sense.
They don’t allow it in their TOS
O, how you can’t have the alternative app stores on the google app store? I mean I suppose.
@soupcat Probably the fact that Google presents Android as an open, level playing field, when in reality it isn’t, whereas Apple is not misleading customers or developers in this case (they just say “fuck you no alternative app stores for you”).
That doesn’t make sense, because Android is quite open. You can literally download apps everywhere from the internet.
The only thing that you’re not allowed to do is to take advantage of the Google store and circumvent their microtransaction system. If you want to have own microtransactions, do it on yourself.
The case established that Google acted intentionally to prevent apps, hardware manufacturers, and basically their entire sphere of influence from using other app stores and services.
So no, they are in fact making massive efforts to stop you from using alternative apps and stores.
Same with their search.
Google is a bad guy, buddy. Time to internalize that.
But isn’t Apple also even worse in that regard? At least Google is embracing open standards, unlike Apple who is deliberately refusing to do so? I am not saying Google is good but that Apple isn’t great either.
That’s a very fair question. I think that from the perspective of a power user (which let’s be honest, giving a shit about this makes one a power user), the difference is sorta bullshit. In Googles case they make it hard but in Apple’s case it’s not allowed at all, so how is Apple better? If Fdroid exists for Android, then choice exists and so Apple is at least as shitty, if not more so.
You’re not wrong.
From the court’s perspective, Apple is the honest party. Apple users are never given the illusion of choice. By contrast, Google sells the illusion of choice while actively working against choice and abuses its market position to do so.
And that’s how we get here.
Google embraces open standards? Sure, but you’re missing two words there.