Latest news with #PlayStore
Phone Arena
19 minutes ago
- Business
- Phone Arena
Google loses control over Android app billing after Epic court win; Epic Store coming to Play Store
Epic Games has won a big legal battle against Google, as a U.S. court has ruled that Google's control over the Play Store and its payment system breaks antitrust laws. This means Epic can now launch its own app store inside Google's Play Store. The decision comes from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with a 2023 jury verdict that called Google's practices illegal monopolies. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney called it a "total victory" and said the Epic Games Store will arrive on Android soon. Epic CEO announces that the Epic Games Store is coming to the Play Store. | Image credit — @TimSweeneyEpic (X) However, this isn't just about Epic. The court's ruling forces Google to let other companies launch competing app stores on Android for at least three years. That includes giving them access to apps and preventing Google from requiring its own billing system. This legal fight started in 2020, when Epic sued both Apple and Google after Fortnite was removed from their stores. Epic lost its case against Apple, but the Google case turned out very differently. During the trial, the jury saw emails and documents showing that Google made secret deals with phone makers and game developers to shut out rivals. In a statement to The Verge, Google stated it plans to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court as the company believes the decision could hurt user safety, reduce choice, and slow innovation. Google argues that Android already allows more freedom than Apple's iOS, which doesn't let other companies run their own app stores at all. But the judges didn't buy that argument and said Apple and Google work in different ways, and Apple's locked-down system doesn't excuse Google's control over Android. The court made clear that Google has a monopoly over Android app distribution and billing. This ruling could definitely change the way the Android app market works from this point on. Developers might get more options for how to sell their apps and use their own payment methods. But there are also risks, like security problems, if Google has less control over what gets published. For users, it might mean more choices. For Google, it means big changes. Whether Epic's store becomes a hit or not, this case sets a new standard for app stores and how they're allowed to operate on Android. We'll be paying close attention to Google's next move and how this will affect the Play Store.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Google agrees to relax policy after CCI probe
NEW DELHI: has proposed opening up the in India to a wider set of real-money gaming (RMG) apps in response to an ongoing probe by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). This information was provided in a notice inviting public comments issued by fair play regulator. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The broader Play Store access is part of a set of proposed remedies submitted by Google to CCI, in addition to relaxation in Ads policy. Acting on a complaint filed by Winzo Games in December 2022, the CCI ordered an investigation in November last year. tnn
Engadget
3 hours ago
- Business
- Engadget
Google lost its antitrust case with Epic again
Google's attempt to appeal the decision in Epic v. Google has failed. In a newly released opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to uphold the original Epic v. Google lawsuit that found that Google's Play Store and payment systems are monopolies. The decision means that Google will have to abide by the remedies of the original lawsuit, which limits the company's ability to pay phone makers to preinstall the Play Store, prevents it from requiring developers to use its payment systems and forces it to open up Android to third-party app stores. Not only will Google have to allow third-party app stores to be downloaded from the Play Store, but it also has to give those app stores "catalog access" to all the apps currently in the Play Store so they can have a competitive offering. In October 2024, Google won an administrative stay that put a pause on some of those restrictions pending the results of this Ninth Circuit case. "The stay motion on appeal is denied as moot in light of our decision," Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who oversaw the case, writes. "This decision will significantly harm user safety, limit choice, and undermine the innovation that has always been central to the Android ecosystem," Lee-Anne Mullholand, Google's Global Head of Regulatory Affairs, told Engadget. "Our top priority remains protecting our users, developers and partners, and maintaining a secure platform as we continue our appeal." Google intends to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court. The origin of the Epic v. Google lawsuit was Epic's decision to circumvent Google's payment system via a software update to Fortnite. When Google caught wind, it removed Fortnite from the Play Store and Epic sued. Epic pulled a similar gambit with Apple and the App Store, though was far less successful in winning concessions in that case — its major judicial success there has been preventing Apple from collecting fees from developers on purchases made using third-party payment systems.
The Verge
4 hours ago
- Business
- The Verge
Epic just won its Google lawsuit again, and Android may never be the same
Epic has won again. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will not overturn the unanimous jury verdict from 2023 that Google's app store and payments system have become illegal monopolies — and it appears to be pressing play on a previously paused permanent injunction that would crack open Android to undo the damage of those monopolies. Today, a three-judge panel affirmed the lower court's decision in Epic v. Google, according to an full opinion you can read below — and Google will now appeal again, the company confirms to The Verge. It could be appealed to the Supreme Court next. Judge M. Margaret McKeown begins her opinion for the panel: In the world of adrenaline-fueled survival that epitomizes the video game Fortnite, winners are decided in blazes of destruction and glory. By contrast, the outcome of this case—centered on Fortnite's developer, Epic Games, and the Google Android platform—turns on longstanding principles of trial procedure, antitrust, and injunctive remedies. 'Total victory in the Epic v Google appeal!' tweets Epic CEO Tim Sweeney. Google will appeal: 'This decision will significantly harm user safety, limit choice, and undermine the innovation that has always been central to the Android ecosystem. Our top priority remains protecting our users, developers and partners, and maintaining a secure platform as we continue our appeal,' writes Google global head of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland in a statement shared with The Verge. But the Google Play Store may not be protected from the consequences of its monopoly while Google appeals — it may need to start cracking open Android for third-party stores the way Judge James Donato ruled in his permanent injunction back in 2024. Last October, Donato pressed pause on all but one specific piece of his ruling while Google appealed, but today, Judge McKeown writes 'The stay motion on appeal is denied as moot in light of our decision.' 'The stay is lifted,' Epic spokesperson Cat McCormack confirms to The Verge. And as a result, Epic says it will put its own app store within Google's app store. 'Thanks to the verdict, the Epic Games Store for Android will be coming to the Google Play Store!' Sweeney tweeted. The consequences of the full permanent injunction would stretch far beyond Epic's game Fortnite: they would force Google to effectively open up its app store to competition for three whole years. Google would have to distribute other rival app stores within the Google Play store, too, give rivals access to the full catalog of Google Play apps, and it would be banned from a variety of anticompetitive practices including a requirement that apps use Google Play Billing. You can read a summary of the details here. Epic originally sued both Google and Apple in 2020 over the removal of its hit game Fortnite from both stores, though the case was more complicated than that. Epic intentionally used Fortnite as a wedge to challenge the app store monopolies, and in the case of Apple, it mostly lost. The appeals court did recognize Epic's gambit today, writing that 'Google removed Fortnite from the Play Store after Epic embedded secret code into the app's software' that bypassed Google's payment systems. (Epic has never denied it.) But Epic v. Google turned out to be a very different case, we saw when attending the trial in person and reading all the receipts. A jury saw secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and game developers. The jury saw internal emails between Google execs that suggested Google was scared of how Epic might convince its fellow game developers to join or create rival app stores, creating unwanted competition for Google. Here are a few thoughts about why Epic won against Google, but not Apple. Today, the Ninth Circuit rejected the idea that the decision in the Apple case should impact the Google case, at least in terms of the all-important question of market definition, aka 'can Google really have a monopoly on Android apps if it's competing against Apple?' 'The market definition question was neither identical to the issue in this case nor litigated and decided in Apple,' McKeown writes, adding that the 'commercial realities are different': Apple's 'walled garden' is, as the district court in Apple noted, markedly different from Google's 'open distribution' approach […] Google admits as much, noting that 'Android's open philosophy offers users and developers wider choices' than iOS does, even as that openness 'limit[s] Google's ability to directly protect users from encountering malware and security threats when they download apps.' As a consequence of its business model, Apple does not license iOS to other OEMs in the way that Google licenses Android to Samsung, Motorola, and other smartphone manufacturers. She also uses McDonalds and Chick-fil-A to make a point that markets can overlap: McDonald's might compete against Chick-fil-A in the fast- food market yet not compete against Chick-fil-A in the hamburger fast-food market (and instead compete with Wendy's, Burger King, Sonic, and In-N-Out Burger. Although Google and Apple compete for mobile-gaming downloads and mobile-gaming in-app transactions, they do not compete in the Android-only app distribution and in-app billing markets. Those two markets, Android app distribution and in-app billing, are where a jury unanimously decided that Google has a monopoly. Developing… we're adding more to this story now, refresh in a few minutes for more. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Sean Hollister Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Gaming Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Google Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All News Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Google proposes allowing all real-money games on Play Store in India
Google has proposed changes to its Play Store and advertising policies for India's real-money gaming (RMG) sector, potentially allowing more such apps on the platform. The move comes on the heels of tech major moving the Supreme Court against an NCLT order, which partially upheld the Competition Commission of India's (CCI's) ruling that Google had leveraged its dominance in the Android ecosystem. The tech giant also said it was finalising an approach for an 'appropriate business model' that would take into account the commercial model used by developers in the RMG ecosystem. Google has proposed to replace its current pilot program to allow the distribution of all RMGs in India. These games are required to be self-declared by developers as 'as permissible online real money games as per applicable laws/jurisprudence, on Google Play in India'. Apps will be required to submit proof to demonstrate that their app is legally permissible and that it is in good standing with a reputable and authoritative third party body recognised in Google's policies. Games intended for distribution on the Play Store would need to be certified by designated industry associations, which will determine whether a game qualifies as a 'permissible game of skill'. These industry bodies may include online skill gaming associations such as the All India Gaming Federation (AIGF), the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS), or the E-Gaming Federation (EGF). It will also allow RMGs, that constitute games of skill, to be advertised in India subject to third party certification. 'By permitting all RMGs self-declared by developers as permissible online RMGs as per applicable laws/jurisprudence, any alleged advantage previously conferred to DFS (Daily Fantasy Sports) and Rummy apps is eliminated, and the competitive field is levelled,' Google said in its proposal. Compliant RMG apps would be enabled to be distributed on the Google Play Store within 120 days of the acceptance of the tech giant's proposal. In the digital world, RMG refers to skill-based games such as rummy, poker, or fantasy sports, among others, where players can stake money to compete for cash rewards. If the proposal is accepted, Google may also end up earning revenue from an expanded pool of RMG apps and associated advertising.
