Google and Epic look to bury the hatchet with new app store settlement
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
No doubt.
I suspect more than a little thanks for this new arrangement is owed to the European Union.
They've been gradually accelerating enforcement of complementary pieces of 2022 legislation, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act. Together these Acts bring a series of competition law and consumer protections to bear on App stores.
The details of this Google / Epic settlement are similar to what Apple recently implemented in the EU to comply with their legislation.
I think one takeaway here is that all the hyperbolic corporate lobbying and bafflegab that sets up regulation as the anti-matter that annihilates healthier marketplaces is, once again, nonsense.
Upvote
79
(85
/
-6)
Upvote
18
(23
/
-5)
No, but it had a happy ending for Tim Sweeney, whose nearly $10 billion net worth will now climb even faster. Hooray! /s
Upvote
46
(58
/
-12)
If you're on iOS it's still 30%. I believe the vast majority of revenue comes from iOS even though android has a much larger install base
Upvote
12
(15
/
-3)
As a guess, a new install is one where you didn't already have an account, likely time bound in some way to when you initially download the app.
I took the 20% for existing to be in addition to the 5% billing fee, so it would be 20% total for new installs and 25% total for existing.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Well, Google is using this as an excuse to lock down the ability to run unsigned code.
That means more companies can come in and provide competition, but users have now lost control of their own hardware in the process. So...not really.
Upvote
66
(70
/
-4)
There's an opt-out provision, but I haven't seen any details on how it (or pricing/payment for mirrored apps in general) works.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Apple also has some tiers and in Europe they are also forced to allow alternate app distribution.
Regarding the cases in the US, the main difference between the two is that Apple was found to be enforcing the same rules for everyone, which is why Epic lost the case. Google was found to be playing favourites with sweetheart backroom deals for certain developers, which is why Google lost and we ended up in this settlement.
Upvote
49
(50
/
-1)
I already can't install from other sources because of Advanced Protection. I can still adb install if needed though.
I don't think I have a problem with signing software, depending on how it's implemented. If the key server is free and you don't have to tie personal information to it, then it's a net good thing. As long as the developer isn't an idiot and protects their key properly, you're protected from bogus updates.
I haven't looked into how Google is handling keys for signing apps on Android though.
Upvote
-5
(6
/
-11)
Maybe it's just my reading comprehension at the moment, but this made me wonder if it's all just a "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit" things...
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
Upvote
7
(17
/
-10)
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
While I haven't read the legal agreement, the article states "when people choose to use Google's billing platform"... So 5%+15% is only if the app developer decides to use Google's billing platform with the Play Store; if they use a different billing provider, then they only pay Google the 15% for new app purchases and IAP in new installs/20% for IAP on old installs/10% for subscriptions (and obviously pay the billing provider whatever it is they charge).
And, I suppose theoretically, this means someone distributing apps in an alternative app store, not using Google billing, would pay 0% to Google.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Yeah, that sucks. Thats an issue with Google's implementation of code signing, not code signing in principle.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Competition is good for consumers. Having more app stores means competition, both for users and developers
Upvote
-9
(9
/
-18)
In a capitalist setup, that is correctly controlled by the government, sure. That's a valid argument.
The USA isn't there. Government is fully captured by the billionaire class.
This entire case is about billionaires making more money from other billionaires. It has nothing to do with letting end consumers get a better deal.
Upvote
38
(43
/
-5)
It's only 30% on iOS for developers with over $1 million in sales, 15% for the rest
Upvote
16
(20
/
-4)
My interpretation is: If you choose to use a third-party payment processor, you only pay the service fee of 15%, which might represent a saving if you have a good fee structure from your payment processor.
Existing install is everyone who has the app on their device right now or who has installed it at some point in the past. New install is anyone who installs the app for the first time after the rules are rolled out.
Basically, the fees go from 30% for IAP to 25 or 20% for devs who use IAPs + Google Billing, and they will be 20% or 15% for users of third-party payment services. A modest reduction indeed, but it doesn't completely disincentivize the use of third-party payment services, the costs in that case will be 15 or 20% plus whatever the third-party processor charges, so it might be worthwhile for businesses that process high enough volumes where saving around 5% to 10% makes it worthwhile to forego the most frictionless payment method on the platform.
The article is a little hazy so I read the linked blog.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
I feel like any time companies waste the courts time like this (go to court but settle out of court) they should have to pay double fees.
Upvote
-1
(7
/
-8)
I'm glad mobile phone users will finally have a choice of app stores. Unless they have an iPhone. After all, according to the courts, the iOS App Store does not have a monopoly that needs to be broken up, because an alternative exists: just buy an Android phone. However, the Google Play Store was a monopoly that needed to be broken up, because although there were previously some alternatives, Google made them more difficult than necessary. Much more difficult than the alternative provided by Apple, clearly.
And Europe doesn't care, because not enough Europeans use iPhones, so by definition nothing they do can be a monopoly.
(The actual precedent here is "if you create a platform, it must be either fully open or fully locked down; you can't have a semi-open platform which still favors first-party tools." Android was semi-open, and has been punished for it, while iOS was fully locked down from the start, which is fully legal. It's not surprising that no corporate-backed platform since Android itself has officially supported sideloading.)
And Europe doesn't care, because not enough Europeans use iPhones, so by definition nothing they do can be a monopoly.
(The actual precedent here is "if you create a platform, it must be either fully open or fully locked down; you can't have a semi-open platform which still favors first-party tools." Android was semi-open, and has been punished for it, while iOS was fully locked down from the start, which is fully legal. It's not surprising that no corporate-backed platform since Android itself has officially supported sideloading.)
Upvote
-11
(8
/
-19)
This just changes the proportion that goes to Google though, doesn't it? As a consumer, I don't see this changing the overall amount we pay. Maybe some companies might say "You can pay $x here or go to our platform and save y%"
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
No doubt the reduction in 30% fees won't result in any price changes, just a shift in where the money goes.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
In case you weren’t already appalled and disgusted enough with this situation (and late-stage capitalism in general):
https://www.theverge.com/news/88959...away-his-right-to-criticize-google-until-2032
I hate this timeline.
https://www.theverge.com/news/88959...away-his-right-to-criticize-google-until-2032
I hate this timeline.
Upvote
12
(14
/
-2)
Well, isn't that special. I have a total of ONE Epic game purchase. I only got Wonderlands because of a friend not wanting to wait until it was on Steam.
As to Google Play my total is Zero. I do not see that changing
Epic has no honor, and they never have, nor will they ever. Buying exclusive access for the first year sucked, I never pay full price for any other game that was an Epic exclusive. It was out for a year, so it needs to be discounted like normal
As to Google Play my total is Zero. I do not see that changing
Epic has no honor, and they never have, nor will they ever. Buying exclusive access for the first year sucked, I never pay full price for any other game that was an Epic exclusive. It was out for a year, so it needs to be discounted like normal
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
Not really. Epic Games is merely now more profitable.
25% is suspiciously close to the 27% rate that Apple’s malicious compliance with the DMA proposed. In both cases developers using other payment systems still have to pay credit card transaction fees.
I don’t really see how this is a win for anyone but Epic Games.
EDIT: per @habilaim (quoted below), I think I misunderstood and the 5% billing fee is only for Play transactions, so this is not as awful as Apple’s policies.
Last edited:
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
Yes just think of all the extra money of funneling everyone to your own store where you can be just like Google and take all the other companies money just like them! And now you get back first class citizen status on Google's platform and all the extra visibility of their audience for less money too!
It really isn't going to do shit all for much of anyone except those who already have the biggest purses. Maybe getting out of the Play Store will be worth it. But it won't let you simply de-google your phone either. Still forced to keep Play services and all that stuff installed.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Cannot read beyond the paywall but i assume a side effect of this settlement? Hilarious if so, and deserved. Sick of that guy talking out of both sides of his mouth and pretending to give a shit about small people.In case you weren’t already appalled and disgusted enough with this situation (and late-stage capitalism in general):
https://www.theverge.com/news/88959...away-his-right-to-criticize-google-until-2032
I hate this timeline.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
If you build a better product make more money well sorta…
Upvote
-6
(0
/
-6)