Google Loses Epic Games Appeal, Must Open App Store To Rivals (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0178526378
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/07/31/1846249/google-loses-epic-games-appeal-must-open-app-store-to-rivals
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/google-loses-us-appeal-over-app-store-reforms-epic-games-case-2025-07-31/
A jury sided with Epic in December 2023, finding Google paid phone makers and app developers to use its store exclusively.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/google-loses-us-appeal-over-app-store-reforms-epic-games-case-2025-07-31/
the lesser of two evils (Score:3)
Good!
I don't care whether Google's app store is considered a monopoly or not
I don't care whether Epic is doing this for the wrong reasons
the fact is that whenever they lose we (usually) win
Re: (Score:1)
Dafuq could be the "wrong reasons" here, pretty please.
Re: (Score:2)
Detractors claim Epic just wanted Google to run the Play Store infrastructure at a loss to increase Epic's profits.
Nobody numerate believes that but they claim Epic did it for that reason which would be shitty except they didn't.
Somebody could probably make a good business out of running a store at 5% markup.
I swear (Score:4, Funny)
Next thing you know, Epic will be pushing to allow people to bring in outside food on airlines and movie theaters.
Re: (Score:2)
You can already bring outside food on airlines.
airlines don't really stop you from airport food (Score:2)
airlines don't really stop you from airport food
Re: (Score:2)
All captive markets should crumble. They do nothing beneficial to the consumer.
But (Score:1)
Why not Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
Separate case I guess. But Apple is a much worst offender. At least on Android you just have to click "allow unknown sources" to install a 3rd party app store. Apple is still blocking that. And no, it's not because of security, it's because of greed.
Re: But (Score:2)
Apple already has this in effect, only in a much worse way, namely because they lied to the court and blatantly ignored injunctions handed down to them. Probably why they got as far as they did to begin with. I still remember Tim Cook downplaying app store revenue, actually testifying in court that he doesn't even know what it is. Smells of total bullshit, but whatever. Ultimately, as the judge stated, every time he made a decision on the injunction, it was always the wrong one, just assuming the court woul
Re:But (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple lost in part, too. That's why they're forced to allow app developers to link to external billing systems now.
I'm not sure why Google is being forced to allow external app stores in their store, but Apple isn't, but there are two obvious differences:
1. Epic didn't ask for their app store to be distributed by Apple in their lawsuit against Apple, but presumably did ask for that in their lawsuit against Google. (I haven't read the latter case, but usually judges don't award a punishment in a civil trial that the plaintiff didn't ask for.)
2. Epic v. Google was a jury trial and Epic v. Apple was a bench trial. Juries tend to be a lot more easily swayed in favor of punishing a big company.
So I suspect it's more about procedural and structural differences between the two cases, rather than any fundamental difference in the situation. But without a judge actually ruling on whether Apple should be required to distribute other app stores, it's anybody's guess.
Re: (Score:3)
One big difference between the two cases was that Google put pressure on OnePlus to kill a deal between them and Epic to include the Epic store out of the box on OnePlus devices, and then offered financial incentives to handset makers to not make similar deals.
Re: (Score:2)
> One big difference between the two cases was that Google put pressure on OnePlus to kill a deal between them and Epic to include the Epic store out of the box on OnePlus devices, and then offered financial incentives to handset makers to not make similar deals.
It's a difference. Whether it's an important difference is unclear. Google's OS runs on half the market, and so does Apple's. Is having direct control over roughly half the market more or less problematic than exerting influence over half of the market through deal-making? I could see good arguments either way.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is what precedent is set. Does this case set a precedent that affects Apple? Can a company demand to have their own app store on iDevices and quote this case as precedent? Since it doesn't make sense that Google has to allow them while Apple can refuse to allow them.
Re: (Score:2)
> The question is what precedent is set. Does this case set a precedent that affects Apple? Can a company demand to have their own app store on iDevices and quote this case as precedent? Since it doesn't make sense that Google has to allow them while Apple can refuse to allow them.
They can absolutely cite it as a precedent, but whether the judge would agree or not depends on whether the judge considers the circumstances of the case to be similar enough.
That said, I'm pretty sure it's not Apple that Epic is going for. Epic almost certainly wants their store on PlayStation, Switch, and Xbox. Apple and Google are just collateral damage. Those cases will be quite interesting to watch when they happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Google kneecaped alternative app stores where Apple doesn't allow alternative app stores. TFA says Google paid app developers and phone makers to hinder alternative app stores.
Re: (Score:2)
and only Play Store can do background security updates due to special privileges.
For F-Droid you have to run a Magisk extension on a rooted phone. That's bad for security because most people can't or won't.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why not Apple?
WTF are you talking about. Apple lost first. Are you the same idiot who posted this "Why not Google?" in the Apple story a while back?