Google vs Epic: App Store Monopoly

[Scott_Arm]

Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight

Victory Royale.

www.theverge.com

Three years after Fortnite-maker Epic Games sued Apple and Google for allegedly running illegal app store monopolies, Epic has a win. The jury in Epic v. Google has just delivered its verdict — and it found that Google turned its Google Play app store and Google Play Billing service into an illegal monopoly.
After just a few hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too, and that its distribution agreement, Project Hug deals with game developers and deals with OEMs were all anticompetitive.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364325/gov.uscourts.cand.364325.606.0.pdf

Interesting that this had a different result than the case against Apple.

But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case. It hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. It showed that Google was running scared of Epic specifically. And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling.

Could have huge implication in the phone and console markets, depending on how things follow from here.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It's quite possible that if the Apple case had been decided in front of a jury, that they would also have ruled in Epic's favor in that case.

Regards,
SB

 

[Pressure]

It's quite possible that if the Apple case had been decided in front of a jury, that they would also have ruled in Epic's favor in that case.

Regards,
SB

Ah yes, the old "it works 50% of the time".

It is much easier to sway a jury of peers (average Americans) than an actual judge with moral fibre who has presided over hundreds of cases in their field.

The Android phone market dwarfs the iOS phone market so Google are truly a monopoly in that sense when everyone else failed (BlueBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Sony, etc.).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Are there any notable differences between the Google and Apple cases? AFAICS you have the same situation ruled with two completely different outcomes. That's making a bit of a mockery of the law is it's not at all obvious what's right here. It should be the same outcome for all parties in the same situation, so people know what they can and can't do in future. As it is, seems you are entitled to ignore a platform's rules and must adhere to them, and like Schroedinger's Cat, you won't know whether you'll live or die until decided by the flip of a lawcourt coin.

Edit: The devil may be in the details with Google using dodgy behind-the-scenes moves leveraging their position, whereas Apple played by its rules fairly?

 

[wco81]

Are there any notable differences between the Google and Apple cases? AFAICS you have the same situation ruled with two completely different outcomes. That's making a bit of a mockery of the law is it's not at all obvious what's right here. It should be the same outcome for all parties in the same situation, so people know what they can and can't do in future. As it is, seems you are entitled to ignore a platform's rules and must adhere to them, and like Schroedinger's Cat, you won't know whether you'll live or die until decided by the flip of a lawcourt coin.

Edit: The devil may be in the details with Google using dodgy behind-the-scenes moves leveraging their position, whereas Apple played by its rules fairly?

Google's Project Hug supposedly paid some developers, including games developers, to stay with Google Play instead of other app stores or side loading.

But yeah the difference is a jury vs. judge decision.

Google has already said they will appeal.

Of course Epic isn't going to reduce their prices if they end up not having to pay 30%.

And the Epic Games Store is not said to be any more open.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's quite possible that if the Apple case had been decided in front of a jury, that they would also have ruled in Epic's favor in that case.

I believe that like the UK, in the US only criminal cases can be ruled on by a jury. This case is civi. Ergo, the only way that would happen is if somebody can convince the FTC to investigate and it really feels like they should.

 

[Sonic]

Civil cases can be tried with juries in the US. Federal and state laws may differ.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I believe that like the UK, in the US only criminal cases can be ruled on by a jury. This case is civi. Ergo, the only way that would happen is if somebody can convince the FTC to investigate and it really feels like they should.

As Sonic mentioned, almost any type case may be tried before a jury (doesn't have to be a criminal case) depending on how the case was brought to court. There are also situations where a Judge may make a determination that a trial should be held in front of a jury even if the plaintiff and/or defendant do not want it tried in front of a jury (rare) and vice versa, a judge may determine that a case doesn't meet the requirements to be tried in front of a jury.

If I was more interested in this and had the time, I'd try to look up the specifics of why one was tried in front of a Jury and why one wasn't.

Regards,
SB

 

[Scott_Arm]

 

[Deleted member 11852]

As Sonic mentioned, almost any type case may be tried before a jury (doesn't have to be a criminal case) depending on how the case was brought to court.

Interesting. This case was not on my radar at all, I had no idea it was going on and saw nothing in the tech news.

Having had a chance to read why this case was different to the Epic vs Apple case, I'm not sure this will do much for the situation, vis-a-vis, digital market places in the US, but in yeh EU and UK, specific legislation will mean Apple can't escape scrutiny and oversight.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Replies at EG say:

It's a different court and the issues at hand were different: Android is technically open but Google is engaging in a lot of anticompetitive stuff with their suite of apps including the store. Anyone can ship an Android phone but including the Google Play store comes with big restrictions, especially for including other stores and browsers.
Also it's generally possible in the US for different courts to set conflicting precedents that then need a higher court to sort out. I think both of these cases are in the same circuit so the appeals court may need to decide one way or another, if it was different circuits then the supreme court would be in charge of resolving that conflict.

Because one was about a monopoly and the other was about anti-competitive behaviour and dodgy shenanigans.
They’re two very different matters.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That's the danger of random forum comments, some sound credible but are actually mad.

Both cases, Epic vs Apple and Epic vs Google, were heard in a Federal Court and both were predicated on federal legislation, including the Sherman Act. For anybody interested, the US Courts website has information about jury involvement in federal courts. Juries are mandatory in certain cases but optional in others.

The simple explanation for the different approach is in the 2021 Epic vs Apple case, both parties declined trial by jury because they felt this should be ruled on by a knowledgable judge rather than 12 random idiots. There is a full account in the Wikipedia article and it seems like Epic learned a valuable lesson from that case, and it seems like Google was not paying attention.

 

[pharma]

January 9, 2024
Apple is still defying the European Union to avoid having to open its App Store to competition

Apple défie encore l’Union européenne pour ne pas avoir à ouvrir son App Store à la concurrence

Le fabricant d’iPhone cherche tous les moyens possibles pour échapper aux nouvelles règles européennes forçant l’ouverture à la concurrence. Hors de question pour le constructeur de desserrer la vis autour de l’App Store.

www.clubic.com

The iPhone maker is looking for every possible way to evade the new European rules forcing the opening up to competition. It is out of the question for the manufacturer to loosen the screws around the App Store.

This was to be expected. The entry into force of the DMA and the DSA, the two European articles formalizing new legal rules for the major digital players, is not well received by Apple. For months now, the company has been trying to avoid the opening up to competition pushed by Brussels. Before the General Court of the European Union, the trade mark finally explained itself.

According to the manufacturer, the European Commission has made "significant factual errors, considering that the brand's five App Stores constitute a single platform," Reuters reveals. For the company, the app stores on iPad, iPhone, Apple Watch, Apple TV and Mac are separate services and must therefore be analysed by Brussels independently of each other.

The tactic Apple employs here is simple. By trying to convince the courts that its various stores have nothing to do with each other, the company wants to bring them below the critical threshold of users above which a platform is forced to offer alternative software distribution methods.

For Apple, the outcome of this lawsuit is of paramount importance. By keeping the exclusivity of software distribution on its platforms, the company retains the financial windfall that comes with it since it deducts 30% of the amount of each transaction made on its services. According to the brand, it's also a security issue since opening its App Store to competition "would also allow bad actors to bypass our arsenal of privacy protections," Tim Cook noted in 2022.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Developing for iOS requires Apple dev tools. Surely a condition of use of the tools is not publishing to other stores, as the build and distribute is (or could be) seamless within the tools. So how does the EU regulate for that, how tools providers operate? Will we see the iOS tools become expensive?

 

[pcchen]

Some of the tools are open sourced (e.g. the compilers). One tactic Apple might use is to open source the essential tools and keep most of their tools proprietary to the App Store. Then they can say, of course you can publish your app on a 3rd party store, but you can't use our proprietary tools. The 3rd party stores are welcome to develop their own tools, of course.
But I'd imagine that Apple don't want to go there. It's much better for them to keep iOS App Store only.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Developing for iOS requires Apple dev tools. Surely a condition of use of the tools is not publishing to other stores, as the build and distribute is (or could be) seamless within the tools. So how does the EU regulate for that, how tools providers operate? Will we see the iOS tools become expensive?

iOS developer here. You do not need to use Apple's tools (Xcode) or SDK to develop iOS applications, but they are pretty much necessary to submit and publish on the platform. I would imagine most mobile multi-platform developers use a common third party environment and only use Xcode to submit/publish. Xcode actually includes example AppleScript examples on how to automate that, which is presumably for people who don't want to use Xcode.

 

[pharma]

January 10, 2024

Developers Will Require An Apple Silicon Mac To Start Making visionOS Apps

Developers who wish to make visionOS apps for the AR headset will have to be in possession of an Apple Silicon Mac to do so

wccftech.com

Apple wants developers to forget about the utility of owning an Intel-based Mac if they ever want to make visionOS apps for the Vision Pro. The company has provided a disclaimer that they will need a machine featuring an M1, M2, M3, or their more powerful SoC variants to make apps for the mixed-reality platform.
...
Though Apple has not provided a reason for introducing a limitation for visionOS developers, Intel-powered Macs could have displayed performance and compatibility issues when running the SDK, so Apple decided to bring this change. The rest of the details provided below were from the company’s guidelines.

It is also possible that Apple chose to deliberately introduce an SDK limitation to push more Mac sales. Currently, the company’s entire Mac family consists of an Apple Silicon, with the Mac Pro being the last member to transition to a custom solution. Regardless, it is Apple’s platform, and whether developers like it or not, to use the visionOS SDK, they will have to use an Apple Silicon Mac.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

January 10, 2024

Developers Will Require An Apple Silicon Mac To Start Making visionOS Apps

Developers who wish to make visionOS apps for the AR headset will have to be in possession of an Apple Silicon Mac to do so

wccftech.com

I presume that is required to run the device simulator. I'm not convinced the VisionPro is going to take off that quickly, so how much developers care about their ability to build apps for the thing is debatable. But I thought that about the iPad too so..

 

[Shifty Geezer]

iOS developer here. You do not need to use Apple's tools (Xcode) or SDK to develop iOS applications, but they are pretty much necessary to submit and publish on the platform. I would imagine most mobile multi-platform developers use a common third party environment and only use Xcode to submit/publish. Xcode actually includes example AppleScript examples on how to automate that, which is presumably for people who don't want to use Xcode.

What are Apple's options for changing that? eg. Console development requires a developer license regardless of tools. If Apple can't make their license fee a requirement to develop for iOS, how does that impact consoles? Surely they too shouldn't require a license or a fixed store? But if the store model is burst for them, consoles as a business model of 'affordable' hardware is surely doomed?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

What are Apple's options for changing that? eg. Console development requires a developer license regardless of tools. If Apple can't make their license fee a requirement to develop for iOS, how does that impact consoles? Surely they too shouldn't require a license or a fixed store? But if the store model is burst for them, consoles as a business model of 'affordable' hardware is surely doomed?

I remember this coming up during the Epic vs Apple trial. The argument at the time was that the console maker's closed ecosystem and 30% cut was justifiable due to the hardware itself not being profitable vs. Apple where the hardware is hugely profitable on it's own, thus arguing that the business models weren't comparable in terms of how much of a cut a platform owner gets. IE - without a 30% cut Apple would still make a lot of money while console makers would likely go out of business due to needing to make the hardware profitable on its own which would likely lead to greatly reduced sales of consoles as the cost would increase dramatically.

The argument then being that Apple's OS devices (iOS specifically in this case as there are other storefronts on MacOS) should be treated more similarly to PC software development as competing storefronts, while reducing Apple's revenue and profits, would not turn their mobile business ventures (phone, tablets, etc.) unprofitable or untenable.

Of course, the fly in the ointment is Nintendo which does sell their hardware at a profit. So perhaps the future of console gaming is hardware that is more similar to Nintendo's consoles than to Sony or Microsoft's consoles?

Regards,
SB