Google loses app store antitrust appeal, must make sweeping changes to Play Store
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
It's a shame that the Epic Games Store is such a poor competitor to Steam. It's missing so many features, including the ability to give games as gifts. It certainly seems to exist mostly to provide a pretext for lawsuits.
Upvote
149
(165
/
-16)
I don't have a problem with this ruling, but in the utmost fairness, all of these really need to apply to Apple's much more closed off walled garden.
Also, while again fair, a little rich given that Epic engaged in the same practices for a bunch of games.
Upvote
189
(227
/
-38)
Correct. Apple has a walled garden, but the wall is the same height for everyone. The court found Google was using its influence to keep alternative app stores off of phones.
Upvote
217
(222
/
-5)
Yes. Apple never pretended they were open, and didn’t engage in shady practices to undermine that supposed openness.
Personally, as an Apple user, I’d prefer that Apple would have been forced to be more open. But they were up front about their closed-ness, so here we are.
Upvote
129
(144
/
-15)
It's not the same issue pr se because these aren't cases setting some precedent on all app stores, only weather each one on its own has constituted some form of monopoly and what a remedy would be if true.
Upvote
10
(14
/
-4)
It's looking pretty bad for Android - because one by one the ways in which Google monetizes it seem to be going away, or being dramatically reduced.
Upvote
54
(55
/
-1)
I really would love to see "Google Play Services" declared a monopoly if it hasn't already as part of these cases, the way Google force bundled all G apps together in to a package with other onerous terms like no shipping (or even manufacturing for other clients) android devices that don't include play services reeks of anticompetitive coercion.
Upvote
61
(72
/
-11)
There are legal distinctions between the two ecosystems. Apple runs their own show top to bottom, and the law generally lets a firm do that unless they defraud, discriminate against protected classes or amass enough market share to manipulate mobile phones as a whole.
Google has to manage other companies who can fork the OS, implement their own stores, etc. How it manages that ecosystem can run afoul of the letter of the law. You, the consumer, aren't necessarily harmed more by Google than Apple, but other players in the Android ecosystem can have their arms twisted illegally. Android dances a fine line between uncontrolled chaos and antitrust issues with both monopolistic practices and cartel collusion.
So yes, you can get different legal outcomes in Apple and Android cases. Both were found to have coerced partners into using their respective payment platforms (and have to loosen that part up), but Apple wasn't forced to add competing app stores to their closed system. Google, which technically allows 3rd part app stores on Android (even if it doesn't support it) is not allowed to stop anyone from installing one.
Basically, the courts aren't going to compel Apple to add 3rd party stores to iOS. Google can be compelled to not interfere with new or existing 3rd party stores. Would the consumer be better if the law said both need to host 3rd party stores? Probably. Is that what the law is now? No. It's asymmetric.
Google would likely reduce their liability if they either closed up Android (going the Apple model and only using Android on Google-produced devices), or opened it up like other open source projects headed by an independent board. However, that would also reduce their ability to control and monetize the platform. Ultimately, this litigation is a cost of business, and one they accept because Android is highly profitable to Google as a whole.
Last edited:
Upvote
162
(166
/
-4)
Apart from that time when South Korea and the Netherlands said they had to allow third-party payment processors for in-app purchases and reduce their own commission, so they reduced their own commission from 30% to 27% (Netherlands) and 26% (S. Korea)...
Upvote
37
(47
/
-10)
Still seems odd. I've never had issues using a third party repo (F-Droid, etc.) or just installing an application directly from an installer (.apk file). I don't even bother rooting anymore since I can install 99.99% of things I want without superuser rights.
Meanwhile, on the iPad I inherited from my gf, if it's not blessed by Apple, I am SOL. At least on the ancient 2nd gen iPad I had years ago I could jailbreak and install Cydia or whatever. But it looks borderline impossible these days so I don't even bother trying anymore, and the iPad gets a lot less use as a result.
Meanwhile, on the iPad I inherited from my gf, if it's not blessed by Apple, I am SOL. At least on the ancient 2nd gen iPad I had years ago I could jailbreak and install Cydia or whatever. But it looks borderline impossible these days so I don't even bother trying anymore, and the iPad gets a lot less use as a result.
Upvote
-3
(46
/
-49)
Nope. Google provides an OS. Apple's iOS is a closed system, hardware linked. They don't licence to anyone else, it is attached only to their hardware. This is not MacOS either, which stemmed from OS' of old. If iOS has to come under the same rules, so does Sony and Nintendo and anything else with an OS linked to its hardware.
Upvote
47
(60
/
-13)
Since when does a store dedicated to Android compete with a store that is dedicated to Apple?
Upvote
74
(82
/
-8)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
You know, I really don’t understand how this is such a baffling concept for some people. I made my purchasing decisions based on more than one criteria. “Allows sideloading apps” is a check in the “Android” column. There are still more checks in the “Apple” column, so I buy Apple devices.
That doesn’t mean I don’t think there are things that Apple should change (or be forced to change). That just means that I had to pick the better compromise, and did so.
Just because Google uses really good cheese on the shit sandwich they call Android, it doesn’t mean I’m going to eat shit so I can try to enjoy that cheese. I’d still like Apple to offer that cheese, though.
Upvote
34
(64
/
-30)
Until Sweeney stops having Epic buy out exclusivity for games AND lowers prices in the store, anything he says is not for the benefit of the customer. It's so his company can take bigger or entire cuts of revenue without having to share it WHILE not making any of the infrastructure needed to do it. Ride the coattails and collect the gold without doing anything but screaming.
Upvote
42
(53
/
-11)
While Google absolutely deserved to lose this case, I can't help but wonder at what point does Google decide to outright kill off some of these products if they are legislatively prevented from monetizing them and hitting them with very large legal penalties. As far as I am aware, Google doesn't charge for Android itself. The revenue from Google Play Store is a sizable, but still only something like 10% or so of their overall yearly total. At what threshold do they just... walkaway? I almost want it to happen so that someone new can spring up the fill the void, but it would absolute chaos if half the phones in the world just stopped being supported and their services ended.
Upvote
35
(37
/
-2)
So when are the XBox, Playstation, and Nintendo stores opened up to alternatives with no exclusives? Nintendo even goes so far as to brick hardware running officially licensed software bought second hand ... or just simply having it loaded on a multi-cart (regardless if it was purchased through their store.)
Upvote
-6
(21
/
-27)
Except that they did lose, just not initially. For Apple, the anti-steering provisions was the game... their initial judgement on that was to simply explain their reasoning for their cut and the steps taken to satisfy the judgement over Apple's own anti-steering provisions. Apple didn't, they slow rolled it & lied about their reasoning for the anti-steering provisions.
The Judge simply wasn't having it, and now they can't collect ANY cut.
Upvote
16
(18
/
-2)
Allow Me to celebrate a bit today and repeat my favorite phrase - " Break them up"
Upvote
1
(13
/
-12)
I don't think that's a bad thing. They had an enormously strong market position and the ability to kill competitors.
If they want to retain market share, they need to offer actual worthwhile features and improve their platform, rather than being the only business on Android.
Upvote
9
(14
/
-5)
I bought an iPad Pro for the hardware and accessory ecosystem in spite of the software. There wasn't and still isn't an Android tablet that's competitive in those regards. So I made a compromise.
Yes, I knew that it was less open than Android. That doesn't mean that I'm happy about it and don't want to see it change. No product is perfect.
Upvote
42
(51
/
-9)
Will this force Amazon to open up their hideous 'app' store or allow Amazon to use the google play catalogue?
Upvote
3
(7
/
-4)
InfiniteJester
Ars Centurion
Epic Games Store is somewhere between a legitimate platform and a legal device to sue and procure more revenue for Epic.
Very hypercapitalist entity.
Upvote
30
(36
/
-6)
I think that does not matter. Just so long as their sale prices are deep that keeps steam honest. Not going to swap to Epic store from steam as I have a huge collection dating back to HL2 release, back when steam was new, just DRM and hated.
Steam under Gabe I trust fully, he has proven he it great at the helm. At some point there will be succession though and having the likes of Epic and GOG with credible price competition will keep steam honest when that day comes
Upvote
19
(23
/
-4)
Nintendo never pretended to allow alternate stores only to then get punitive when someone tried to exercise that supposed freedom
Upvote
23
(24
/
-1)
Most likely (but still far fetched) a new alternative app store for Android grows popular enough and with enough mainstream app developer support that Amazon kills their anemic app store in favor of it. The ruling doesn't require Google to get nicer about licensing their own app store and so far they have shown no desire to do it, and Amazon kind of wanted their own walled garden
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
You’re insinuating that my choice to purchase Apple products should equate with an endorsement of the whole of their business practices, which is ridiculous. You’re also suggesting that if no product fully serves my needs then I should abstain from any purchase, which in the context of smartphones and other computing devices in 2025 is even more ridiculous.
So let me make this very straightforward: I do not endorse all of Apple’s business practices. But because I live in the real world, I still have to purchase computing devices. I still have a right to celebrate when Apple either chooses to or is forced to improve their business practices.
They’re not religious objects, they’re tools, tools made by unelected entities that have entirely too much power for the common good. I’m not going to treat either as something requiring blind obedience.
Upvote
62
(66
/
-4)
I'm a solo indie game developer, and I've honestly TRIED to release on the Epic store. Their support staff is pretty helpful and I have no complaints there. The trouble is that they have a policy that requires any achievements on Steam have equivalents on Epic. Well, for a Unity project that means maintaining two separate codebases because with their tools you can't just have them passively disable if no Epic connection is detected. That plus the same-as-Steam $100 fee means that it's just not worth the time/energy investment - especially since the earnings are likely to be 10% of Steam, give or take. I also develop in Unreal, but I haven't tried to support two stores with a single codebase in Unreal due to my Unity experience.
I honestly hope they succeed, but they'll need to do a LOT more to make it easy for indies before they become an indie game hub. If they had a setup system where it's FREE to list a game if it's already on Steam and it auto-imports the data from that as a base to start from I'd ALWAYS publish on Epic. Their app setup is pretty involved (brutal even), but not any more difficult than Steam. So different that none of your experience will transfer, though.
Maybe indie games are a non-goal. If they want to become the best store for AAA and AA games and leave indies to Steam, that's fine.
Upvote
38
(40
/
-2)
It will
Epic could try to force publishers to pass their savings to the customer.
Publishers decide what to charge. Neither Epic nor Steam have a most favored nation clause.
Epic could try to force publishers to pass their savings to the customer.
Upvote
10
(13
/
-3)
As much as I like the overall notion of opening up Android and iOS/iPadOS as computing platforms, I'm not looking forward to the increased cries for tech support aid from friends and relatives when they inevitably try to install a third party store to play a game, but get tricked along the way into installing malware instead.
This has long been a problem with desktop OSes, and for this reason it was easy to recommend an iPhone to the less tech-literate, but even Android has been less prone to getting malware from outside the Play Store, because the majority of users aren't even aware that they can sideload. (That certainly hasn't prevented me from dealing with folks' badly-infected phones from apps that they did acquire from the Play Store, however; but it's been less common in my experience than it ever was with Windows.)
As more companies push for sideloading and third-party stores to get bigger cuts of money (and that's truly the only reason they are doing this: to get more money; or to get more control in order to get more money), the likelihood of tech-illiterate users stumbling upon disaster is going to go up. Will it be the Wild West of the days of Windows XP? Time will tell.
(God I wish webOS phones and Windows Phone were still around.)
This has long been a problem with desktop OSes, and for this reason it was easy to recommend an iPhone to the less tech-literate, but even Android has been less prone to getting malware from outside the Play Store, because the majority of users aren't even aware that they can sideload. (That certainly hasn't prevented me from dealing with folks' badly-infected phones from apps that they did acquire from the Play Store, however; but it's been less common in my experience than it ever was with Windows.)
As more companies push for sideloading and third-party stores to get bigger cuts of money (and that's truly the only reason they are doing this: to get more money; or to get more control in order to get more money), the likelihood of tech-illiterate users stumbling upon disaster is going to go up. Will it be the Wild West of the days of Windows XP? Time will tell.
(God I wish webOS phones and Windows Phone were still around.)
Upvote
19
(25
/
-6)
I get what you are saying, but I don't know if I completely I agree.
The idea that MacOS has to support other stores because it is OS of old versus iOS doesn't, just seems like a post-hoc rationalization.
As for the Sony/Nintendo, my counter argument here is weak, but I think there are levels between a fairly general purpose device like a mobile phone vs. a fairly targeted device. Plus I do think those should allow alternate digital stores too.
But mostly, I think the justification on Apple's walled garden is more that it acts an effective monopoly on the user base which is rather large. We have an effective duopoly in terms of mobile phones, and I would want the rules to apply equally across both.
Last edited:
Upvote
18
(25
/
-7)
Um, why do you think they would invest in improving their platform when there's no money in it? What reason is there for Google not to just let it coast? They may have a motive for making the Play store better but they increasingly have no motive for making Android better. In fact they're motivated to start putting all their IP into Play store specific APIs.
Upvote
1
(7
/
-6)