EGS Official Statement "Epic vs. Google Trial Verdict a Win for All Developers"

[nomdeplume]

No comment, will hopefully be tolerated by site staff.

Epic v Google Trial Verdict, a Win for All Developers

Epic v Google Trial Verdict, a Win for All Developers

www.epicgames.com

Today’s verdict is a win for all app developers and consumers around the world. It proves that Google’s app store practices are illegal and they abuse their monopoly to extract exorbitant fees, stifle competition and reduce innovation.

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.

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.

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.

This is, of course, what we know. From the CEO down, Google employees willfully re-directed sensitive conversations to chat, knowing that their contents would be deleted forever.

The evidence presented in this case demonstrates the urgent need for legislation and regulations that address Apple and Google strangleholds over smartphones, including with promising legislation in progress right now with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill in the UK and the Digital Markets Act in the EU.

Thank you to the Court for hearing this important case and for the next steps determining the remedies that will right Google’s decades of anticompetitive conduct.

And thank you to the jury for their historic decision. The one million game developers who couldn't be here thank you!

 

[Solid State Soul ( SSS )]

Funny how they won against Google but lost to Apple, both charge 30% cut, whats so unique about apple here?
Trillion dollar lawyers?

 

[StormLightningSL]

Maybe the Apple suit jury used iPhones?

This is a really needed win. Yes, companies need revenue for innovation. But, "walling in" and abusing market dominance to deprive customers of options and stamping out competition by using that as an excuse is just plain criminal. How can anyone argue that the only person who should be allowed to innovate is themselves, and everyone else who is trying to innovate should be stopped because they will restrict me from innovating? That's plain selfishness and greed, and needs to be stopped completely.

These companies are getting away with this kind of monopolistic mischief because the fines are not very big compared to their cash-in-hand and yearly profits. Plus, the penalties are paid by the companies. The real way is to make the penalties so massive that the companies would collapse and the management would be out of their cushy manipulative jobs. Alternatively, penalize the decision makers along with the company. Why should the board of directors (or whoever takes these decisions) be allowed to go scot-free when they are directly responsible for the actions that these companies are doing?

I am a strong believer of, and in favor of, the right to innovate and the right to have a level playing field. It is high time that monopolistic companies are brought to their knees by global laws that insist upon and strictly enforce the following of best practices in every industry. Sadly, lobbying (read as bribes) has shown itself to be more effective than the collective voices of non-profit people's organizations. Hopefully things will change. Soon™.


Edit: Edited for typos, grammar and readability.

 

[Vayra86]

The only thing Epic continuously does right, glad they won, next is transferring that logic over to Apple, which will inevitably happen now.

These gatekeepers must be limited hard, yesterday. Both Google and Apple are judge jury and executioner now and it cannot last.

 

[Easy Rhino]

I am confused why a third party has more right to the platform the creator built than the creator itself?

 

[StormLightningSL]

I am confused why a third party has more right to the platform the creator built than the creator itself?

Because it is being sold as a platform that will enable services (read: apps) from other sources. Let's face it, if either of these companies had insisted that their platforms would be close-ended systems, they would never have taken off the way they have. They know very well that the only real way to build upon their (somewhat) first-mover advantage was to allow other sellers to use their platform to offer alternative services so that the buyer stays hooked to the platform and does not change to another platform in order to go with the service that they need.

Once their product is sold as a platform that is being purchased because of the option to be able to use services offered by others, it is an unfair practice to control who can access that platform for offering their services by using their dominant position. So, while in isolation a particular decision/action may seem fair, taken as a whole their actions are out and out abuse of their market dominance and it is a criminal act against the consumer who was pulled in by a false/manipulative/mischievous promise.

The only thing Epic continuously does right, glad they won, next is transferring that logic over to Apple, which will inevitably happen now.

These gatekeepers must be limited hard, yesterday. Both Google and Apple are judge jury and executioner now and it cannot last.

Yes, hopefully. The EU is taking good action on this front. Waiting for better results.

Btw, love your sig (or whatever it's called, at the bottom). So true!

 

[Easy Rhino]

Because it is being sold as a platform that will enable services (read: apps) from other sources. Let's face it, if either of these companies had insisted that their platforms would be close-ended systems, they would never have taken off the way they have. They know very well that the only real way to build upon their (somewhat) first-mover advantage was to allow other sellers to use their platform to offer alternative services so that the buyer stays hooked to the platform and does not change to another platform in order to go with the service that they need.

Once their product is sold as a platform that is being purchased because of the option to be able to use services offered by others, it is an unfair practice to control who can access that platform for offering their services by using their dominant position. So, while in isolation a particular decision/action may seem fair, taken as a whole their actions are out and out abuse of their market dominance and it is a criminal act against the consumer who was pulled in by a false/manipulative/mischievous promise.


Yes, hopefully. The EU is taking good action on this front. Waiting for better results.

Btw, love your sig (or whatever it's called, at the bottom). So true!

Interesting. However, Google was not preventing competing companies from creating new platforms for their own app stores, etc. For example, Epic was too lazy to create the Epic Phone.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Next is Overturned in appeals.

 

[StormLightningSL]

That may be so, though I am not up-to-date on that aspect of the fight.

But, it is also a fact that Apple failed to take on the PC because of the market dominance of the Windows-Intel tie-up in the early days. The PC platform just became too big to dislodge. While both Intel and Microsoft did have to refresh themselves over time, nobody else has come close to that kind of dominance till date. Similarly, Apple with the iPhone grabbed so much of the market in such a short time, even displacing Nokia as the world leader. They have been a runaway success since that time, but while they continue to innovate, it's obvious that the rate of innovation is much slower than it might have been as a more open platform. Most of the products available on Apple's app store are derivatives of apps that first came out on Android. (I don't have statistics handy, so don't sue me for that statement )

Also, it has repeatedly been in the news that Apple, Google and Meta as companies have repeatedly abused their dominant position due to access to user data and, for Apple and Google, gate-keeping of their app stores on their mobile phone platforms. They have bought over companies that are creating competing products, sometimes for very high valuations, simply so they can continue to control the market, even though the product may not have been that special by itself (for e.g. Meta with their purchase of Instagram and WhatsApp). Basically, money talks and as long as the pockets are deep, everything stays within the old boys club, so to speak.

I also have an argument about data access. Even though I personally do not wish to allow any company to use even a single bit of my data in any way, I am forced to accept their use and access to my data because I do not have a viable alternative to their services. It's not that there is NO alternative. Just not a a viable alternative. If this is not abuse of dominance, what is it?

 

[Vayra86]

Interesting. However, Google was not preventing competing companies from creating new platforms for their own app stores, etc. For example, Epic was too lazy to create the Epic Phone.

Yes they were, the actively remove start ups from the market, buy them out, etc. Also, every company needs a business case to start battling the competition. In this case, its almost impossible to make one that fits. Its not about being too lazy, its just the fact that if you're first and you've got a dominating concept, responsibilities come with it, for good reason.

The goal here is to have a market that keeps working as it should - and we're still far away from that, but its a step in the good direction.

Also. In the end for the customer: it buys content. It doesn't necessarily buy 'Google' when it buys a phone. It buys a phone that has functionality and offers access to applications. So Google has no business being part of that deal. It needs to facilitate, and facilitate only, and sure, it should receive a fair compensation for it. But Google (and Apple) do so much more. They want the full value chain and with that they have effectively monopolized their whole business and everything it touches on.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Its not about being too lazy, its just the fact that if you're first and you've got a dominating concept, responsibilities come with it, for good reason.

I'm not certain this improves the marketplace so much as it improves the cash balance for Epic. I am wary when the customer can suddenly dictate how the owner does business.

 

[Assimilator]

Funny how they won against Google but lost to Apple, both charge 30% cut, whats so unique about apple here?
Trillion dollar lawyers?

Very different arguments made in both cases, plus this was a jury trial while the Apple one was not.

I'm not certain this improves the marketplace so much as it improves the cash balance for Epic.

Of course Epic isn't in this out of the goodness of their collective hearts. But in this case, the end justifies the means.

I am wary when the customer can suddenly dictate how the owner does business.

The rules are different when the "owner" is a de facto monopoly, for very good reasons.

 

[StormLightningSL]

I'm not certain this improves the marketplace so much as it improves the cash balance for Epic. I am wary when the customer can suddenly dictate how the owner does business.

It's not the customer dictating how the owner can do its business. It is the customer insisting that the owner stand by the promises made to the customer after taking the customer's money.

Ofc, in this case, the customer is represented by the government/organizations who are fighting for a level playing field. The fact that Epic, or anyone else, may benefit from this ruling is more a by-product, rather than the main target of the claims being made. I do understand that perhaps Epic may have lobbied for, and financed, this agitation in hopes of getting some benefit out of it.

But, in this case at least, it might be considered as a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally (not my friend)".

 

[FreedomEclipse]

I tried to find some dirt on EGS after hearing about EGS tanking financially in a few gaming podcasts.

"Epic Games is owned by Tencent" -- Something I already knew but Tencent only hold 40% of the business while Tim Sweeney has 51.4%. (Sony owns 5.4% and some random investment fun owns 3.2%) Can one claim ownership of a business if they own 40%? shouldnt that be Co-Owner?

Maybe Sweeny should sell up.

 

[Vayra86]

I'm not certain this improves the marketplace so much as it improves the cash balance for Epic. I am wary when the customer can suddenly dictate how the owner does business.

It gets profits where they belong, I really don't see how that's a bad thing for the marketplace.

Say you are a dev putting a lot of work in a free game, and you let players buy things in-app to effectively 'donate' to your project. Would a 30% cut sound fair to you for just hosting the game for perhaps a few thousand people across the globe? It doesn't really match the effort put in, if you ask me. 30% is huge. That's like, pretty much a margin you would have yourself just to live and put in the hours. And then you haven't really advertised much, all you have is a spot in the dankest place on the bottom of a search result somewhere. You also haven't got the equipment to build the project. Nor the assets, the actors, whatever. All 30% gets you, is hosting. Pumping a few GBs of data around a pipe.

As for the last part of your remark... I think in a healthy marketplace, the balance of power is quite even. The only good deals are those where everyone feels like they are winning. Everything else is extortion. It comes down to the simple principle we all know and feel: 'Is this a good deal, all things considered?'. If its not, you wouldn't do it, right? This touches on other principles like 'Your freedom ends where mine begins'. Balance is important - a fair social contract keeps people sane.

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

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.

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.

sorry to say this because people won't like this but
could easily be applied to Steam & PC gaming.

 

[Vayra86]

sorry to say this because people won't like this but
could easily be applied to Steam & PC gaming.

No?

EGS itself proves that wrong. They compete with a lower distribution cost for using their store to sell a game. They can do that. Steam doesn't. They offer a better service. They can do that. GOG offers DRM free. They can do that. PC users can access every service even simultaneously. All stores can compete on price. They all do their sales and promotions. We can check everything out just as easily.

The PC is heaven, in terms of fair market. Steam doesn't block anyone. You can do whatever you like. The fact people dont want to, is a personal choice. And that, ladies and gents is exactly why the argument against EGS being anticompetitive for their exclusives is absolute horse manure. You can simply not buy it and get any other game. That's not a monopoly on access. Its a monopoly on a piece of content, but you have every freedom to access it.

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

EGS itself proves that wrong

In addition, as TPU's coverage mentioned, part of Epic's lawsuit was wanting a mobile EGS.

Windows Store becoming the exclusive place to install software for Windows would be the equivalent of the Google Play Store. THAT would be abusing a monoply, as they would be stopping someone from distributing content through alternative means, wheras EGS paying for an exclusive is a simple business transaction. The app developer has every right to choose not to distribute an app through Steam, if Epic makes it attractive enough.

 

[Selaya]

No?

EGS itself proves that wrong. They compete with a lower distribution cost for using their store to sell a game. They can do that. Steam doesn't. They offer a better service. They can do that. GOG offers DRM free. They can do that. PC users can access every service even simultaneously. All stores can compete on price. They all do their sales and promotions. We can check everything out just as easily.

The PC is heaven, in terms of fair market. Steam doesn't block anyone. You can do whatever you like. The fact people dont want to, is a personal choice. And that, ladies and gents is exactly why the argument against EGS being anticompetitive for their exclusives is absolute horse manure. You can simply not buy it and get any other game. That's not a monopoly on access. Its a monopoly on a piece of content, but you have every freedom to access it.

if i were to release a game on steam, but then offer dlcs/microtransactions outside of steam's payment system, would that be against their tos?

 

[Vayra86]

if i were to release a game on steam, but then offer dlcs/microtransactions outside of steam's payment system, would that be against their tos?

I don't know actually, but the examples are abundant, any EA/Ubisoft game on Steam for example, I think there are some deals there we don't see, but I doubt they'll lose 30% on that.

 

[nomdeplume]

Going to step in here finally to install a relevant statement that may help clarify factual reporting of news as opposed to in the news.


AT&T Bell was a US based phone monopoly broken up in 1982 that immensely reshaped the abilities of landlines and phone usability. In doing so it set a large amount of precedence upon which cellular was built. It took no less than the Presidential Office carrying full weight of the government to accomplish this. Should you be compelled, a brief search for the accomplishments of Bell Laboratories might be interesting - 9 Nobel Prizes - in terms of human advancement and corporate responsibility inside a juggernaut careening out of control.

Edit: After personal reflection I decided the body of my post was out of keeping with the aims of the forum side of this site. Specifically, gaming sub-forum. The above loosely related historical event remains highly relevant to drawing in a fuller picture of events unfolding.

 

[StormLightningSL]

There is no doubt that Bell Labs was at the (somewhat) forefront of innovation in communication technology at the time. So, those Nobel awards and stuff was probably justified. However, that has to be taken in perspective because the company at that time was almost an absolute monopoly and did choose to exploit its dominance. Moreover, the pace of innovation has completely changed when we consider the things happening around us today. Bell Labs made a 100 innovations in, say, 75 years (just an example), while today there are potentially 100 innovations being attempted every single day, if not much more. And, many of them are genuine improvements and changes that are stifled by monopolistic practices the world over.

It is probable that with the application of AI into new design methods a lot more innovation may happen. While regulation of this boom is a completely different topic, however, stifling/suffocating the funding options for such innovation may result in a loss or delay of so much potential good, perhaps for years. I know we have all heard of how the Oil and Gas industry has suppressed alternative forms of fuel for decades, and I am sure there are various other monopolies/monopolistic blocks that do the same. For example, artificial diamonds being "Not good enough" while true, is such an eyewash when we talk about regular use for non-top-of-the-line jewellery. Does the average Joe or Jane really care if the diamond is natural from the hardest possible mine (or whatever) when it is half the price or less for day to day wear?

What about electric vehicles and even vehicles that run on Compressed Natural Gas? We have so many cases of large companies spreading mischievous news in order to disparage innovative but competing products to the extent that market perception is completely overturned and the innovating company ends up dropping the product or going bankrupt. I remember reading about an Indian company who came out with a US $2,500 "People's Car" (or some such name) as a mainstream vehicle alternative for the common man, but ultimately lobbying by the then most popular car manufacturer resulted in loss of tax benefits and a perception that the car design was faulty, ultimately resulting in the company dropping the product after a few years of dismal sales. Just imagine how many potential car buyers ended up continuing to use two-wheelers/bikes and compromising on their dreams and family's safety.

I hope I did not end up derailing the main topic. Just trying to point out why monopolies and restrictive trade practices should be completely discouraged, as hard as possible. I'm hoping for a lot more action on these kinds of market abuse by dominant players, in every industry/market.

 

[chrcoluk]

Dont know how anyone in their right mind thinks multiple store fronts is better than one. it isnt.

When Netflix became a dozen or so streaming services, did they all cost 1/12th of the price so the total cost to the consumer is the same? No.

Is the PC market better now with uplay, EA, epic etc. all separate store/launchers? No.

Do we want to give card details and register on extra services? Most people probably no.

Epic moan about monopoly yet on the PC platform, they use anti consumer practices by enticing developers to make "exclusivity" deals with them so they have monopoly on the content. With their launcher/store still missing multiple basic features.

We also know they dont reduce prices to get rid of this so called unfair margin, its unfair to them because they want it as their margin instead.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Dont know how anyone in their right mind thinks multiple store fronts is better than one. it isnt.

When Netflix became a dozen or so streaming services, did they all cost 1/12th of the price so the total cost to the consumer is the same? No.

Is the PC market better now with uplay, EA, epic etc. all separate store/launchers? No.

Do we want to give card details and register on extra services? Most people probably no.

Epic moan about monopoly yet on the PC platform, they use anti consumer practices by enticing developers to make "exclusivity" deals with them so they have monopoly on the content. With their launcher/store still missing multiple basic features.

We also know they dont reduce prices to get rid of this so called unfair margin, its unfair to them because they want it as their margin instead.

Basically since they wanted a better deal from Google and Google told them to pound sand, Epic took it to court and found a sympathetic ear. It's odd they lost the same case with Apple. I assume the stores are fairly different.

 

[ThrashZone]

Basically since they wanted a better deal from Google and Google told them to pound sand, Epic took it to court and found a sympathetic ear. It's odd they lost the same case with Apple. I assume the stores are fairly different.

Hi,
Yes guessing there was no conspiracy on apples case like the second paragraph against google
Paying a alternative app store venture to abort isn't a big deal but the later is a little out of bounds maybe.

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.