{"id":41450,"date":"2023-12-13T16:31:03","date_gmt":"2023-12-13T21:31:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=41450"},"modified":"2023-12-22T14:36:05","modified_gmt":"2023-12-22T19:36:05","slug":"epic-wins-antitrust-case-with-google","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2023\/12\/13\/epic-wins-antitrust-case-with-google\/","title":{"rendered":"Epic Wins Antitrust Case With Google"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kyle Orland<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The jury unanimously answered “yes” to all 11 questions on the verdict form<\/a>, indicating that Epic had proven those monopolies existed in every worldwide market except for China. Google “engaged in anticompetitive conduct” to establish or maintain the monopoly and illegally tied the Google Play store to the use of Google Play billing, according to the verdict. The jury also agreed with Epic’s arguments that programs like “Project Hug” and agreements signed with Android phone OEMs represented an “unreasonable restraint on trade,” harming Epic in the process.<\/p>

With the verdict set, US District Judge James Donato will hold hearings next month to determine the best way to remedy Google’s anticompetitive monopoly power. During the trial, Epic did not ask for monetary damages but asked that it and other developers be able to introduce their own Android app stores and use their own billing systems on Android devices “without restriction.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Sean Hollister<\/a> (via Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

It’s a historic victory, particularly because Epic mostly lost its fight against Apple<\/a> two years ago when Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided that fight<\/a> had nothing to do with apps.<\/p>

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

Ben Thompson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Lots of folks are surprised that Epic beat Google but not Apple, except for Stratechery readers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Chance Miller<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

“The big difference between Apple and Google is Apple didn’t write anything down. And because they’re a big vertically integrated monopoly, they don’t do deals with developers and carriers to shut down competition, they just simply block at the technical level,” Sweeney explained.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

And have you ever tried to find anything in iMessage?<\/p>\n\n

Epic Games<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

Over the course of the trial we saw evidence that Google was willing to pay billions of dollars to stifle alternative app stores by paying developers to abandon their own store efforts and direct distribution plans, and offering highly lucrative agreements with device manufacturers in exchange for excluding competing app stores.<\/p>\n

These deals were meant to cement Google’s dominance as the only app store in town - and it worked. More than 95% of apps are distributed through the Play Store on Android.<\/p>\n

Google imposes a 30% tax on developers simply because they have prevented any viable competitors from emerging to offer better deals. And Google executives acknowledged in Court that their offer of a 26% rate on third party payment options is a fake choice for developers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Tim Hardwick<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Google said it would appeal. “We will continue to defend the Android business model and remain deeply committed to our users, partners and the broader Android ecosystem,” said Wilson White, vice-president of government affairs and public policy at Google.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

The Supreme Court will decide in the coming months whether it will hear either or both of Epic’s and Apple’s appeals, but if it does not take up either petition, the previous rulings will stand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

See also: Damien Petrilli<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

[We] have no idea what this will actually mean in practice. I’m still not quite sure what Epic even wants. Android already<\/em> supports third-party app stores, and Epic already runs one<\/a>. I think one thing Epic wants is to force Google to allow third-party app stores to be installed without any sort of warnings or friction, which would be a disaster for device security. […] The other thing Epic wants is to be able to use its own payment processing for apps distributed through the Play Store and Apple’s App Store.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Tim Sweeney<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

I’d suspected a lot of the practices that Google had, you know, since 2018 or so when we first started this, to such an extent that some folks would occasionally call me a conspiracy theorist. It was really, really interesting to see that my understandings of what Google was doing behind the scenes were actually true — you’re leaking our conversations to reporters<\/a> to get negative stories written about us; you’re paying other developers off to convince them not to launch their own stores; they were going around and paying carriers and OEMs secretly not to carry competing stores. <\/p>

And when we tried to bundle Fortnite<\/em> with other smartphone manufacturers like OnePlus and carriers of all sorts, they told us they couldn’t do a deal because Google had done a secret deal with them.<\/p>

It was really disconcerting to see the extent of bad faith efforts that were going on in a company of Google’s size. You’d think a trillion-dollar company would develop to the point where they have pretty respectable processes and leadership structures that provide a check and balance against wrongdoing, but they were rampantly destroying<\/a> all their chats on these topics.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

somenameforme<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The most interesting thing to me in this case is Epic refusing Google’s $150 million ‘offer’, and instead relying on the courts. Epic could have accepted that offer with zero risk, and been all the better off for it, with zero risk. Of course everybody else would be left behind. But by going all the way, and refusing the pay off, they instead make a better world for everybody.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n