Google Makes First Play Store Changes After Losing Epic Games Antitrust Case (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0179917406
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/10/30/1929241/google-makes-first-play-store-changes-after-losing-epic-games-antitrust-case
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/google-begins-loosening-developer-restrictions-in-play-store-against-its-will/
> Since launching Google Play (nee Android Market) in 2008, Google has never made a change to the US store that it didn't want to make -- until now. Having [1]lost the antitrust case brought by Epic Games, Google has [2]implemented the first phase of changes mandated by the court . Developers operating in the Play Store will have more freedom to direct app users to resources outside the Google bubble. However, Google has not given up hope of reversing its loss before it's forced to make bigger changes. Epic began pursuing this case in 2020, stemming from its attempt to sell Fortnite content without going through Google's payment system. It filed a similar case against Apple, but the company fell short there because it could not show that Apple put its thumb on the scale. Google, however, engaged in conduct that amounted to suppressing the development of alternative Android app stores. It lost the case and came up short on appeal this past summer, leaving the company with little choice but to prepare for the worst.
>
> Google has updated its [3]support pages to confirm that it's abiding by the court's order. In the US, Play Store developers now have the option of using external payment platforms that bypass the Play Store entirely. This could hypothetically allow developers to offer lower prices, as they don't have to pay Google's commission, which can be up to 30 percent. Devs will also be permitted to direct users to sources for app downloads and payment methods outside the Play Store. Google's support page stresses that these changes are only being instituted in the US version of the Play Store, which is all the US District Court can require. The company also notes that it only plans to adhere to this policy "while the US District Court's order remains in effect." Judge James Donato's order runs for three years, ending on November 1, 2027.
[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/07/31/1846249/google-loses-epic-games-appeal-must-open-app-store-to-rivals
[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/google-begins-loosening-developer-restrictions-in-play-store-against-its-will/
[3] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/15582165
This is how your app never gets featured again (Score:2)
... funny how that works. Of course, if it never got featured, this isn't important.
I will never understand this case (Score:4, Informative)
I just don't get how Google was found liable and Apple was not. Google had at least alternate store (Amazon) while Apple has had none. Google allowed sideloading so there was (and still is) a way to load apps not in the store while Apple doesn't allow sideloading. You can say Google suppressed the development of alternative app stores, but Apple never even had to suppress because there was simply no way to get them on the device. I am not saying it was wrong to find Google liable, but the fact they have to make changes and Apple continues to have the most locked down device and app store around just boggles my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
> I just don't get how Google was found liable and Apple was not.
Three reasons: Firstly Google control an ecosystem beyond their device directly impacting Epic's business dealings with 3rd parties, while Apple only controls Apple devices impacting dealings with themselves.
Secondly: Because you're making shit up, Apple got their arse handed to them by Epic and was forced to make changes in the App Store.
Thirdly: Because none of this has anything to do with the ability to load apps making sideloading irrelevant.
You won't ever understand what's going on if everything you kn
Re: (Score:2)
> I just don't get how Google was found liable and Apple was not. Google had at least alternate store (Amazon) while Apple has had none. Google allowed sideloading so there was (and still is) a way to load apps not in the store while Apple doesn't allow sideloading. You can say Google suppressed the development of alternative app stores, but Apple never even had to suppress because there was simply no way to get them on the device.
Easy, you're looking at it wrong.
The market is not Apple vs. Google. it's Appl
nice enforcement.... (Score:2)
I wasn't aware Nov. 1st, 2027 is three years away.
Re: (Score:3)
2024 to 2027 looks like three years to me. It can suck sometimes, but the appeal process does exist for good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
When a criminal appeals their case they don't get to walk around free during the process.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a civil case. There are rules around whether an order is stayed during the appeal process. I would assume this happened within those rules.
Re: (Score:2)
[1]https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23833876&cid=65762504
Re: (Score:2)
And?
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point of a punishment if you get credit for non-compliance? Using this logic Google could have dragged the process out another two years and even if they ultimately lost they wouldn't have to do anything at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
> I wasn't aware Nov. 1st, 2027 is three years away.
The aforementioned [1]judge's decision [reuters.com] came in October of 2024.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-judge-orders-google-open-up-app-store-competition-2024-10-07/
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they only just now started making changes. Essentially reducing their compliance period by a third.