Google Formed 'Fortnite Task Force' in Response To Epic's Moves

Google was so worried about Epic Games sidestepping its app store with Fortnite that it created a task force to confront the issue, according to a legal filing by the game developer. From a report: The task force was created after Epic began offering an Android version of the hugely popular game through Samsung Electronics's Galaxy Store and directly through Epic's website in 2018, giving users a way to bypass the Google Play store, according to the filing. Epic's efforts to avoid paying commissions on app stores from Google and Apple reached a flashpoint last year when both companies removed Fortnite and the game's creator sued them. The legal showdown has help draw criticism and regulatory scrutiny to the app store policies of Alphabet's Google and Apple, which are seen as a dominant force in mobile software. In October, Google countersued, arguing that Epic pushed an "unapproved" version of Fortnite on Android phones that placed users at risk. Google has said that its app store isn't a monopoly since the company allows other stores to run on Android devices, unlike Apple.

Should it not be the case

[puddingebola]

Shouldn't you be able to install applications however you choose on an open source operating system.

Re:

[S_Stout]

Yes, but the phone price is heavily subsidized knowing they'll get money/data from you. If they can't do that they lose money.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

I do not know where you get your phone but I can pay the full price at many places. The subsidized pricing is usually done by carriers for those that cannot afford a lump sum. The trade off is lock-in for a few years. Also people can buy older or refurbished phones for less.

Re:

[Powercntrl]

Yes, but the phone price is heavily subsidized knowing they'll get money/data from you. If they can't do that they lose money.

Android is free because Google is able to get their snoop on and that's worth money to them. On the hardware side, a discounted phone is generally the result of a subsidy by the wireless carrier, and they couldn't care less whether you're using Android or iOS, as long as you pay for the service.

IMHO, the mobile OS duopoly sucks ass because your choice is between an OS that's free because you're the product, or an OS that's free because of draconian vendor lock-in.

Re:

[dhaen]

Actually that's a very interesting claim, do you have any references for it?

Re:Should it not be the case

[drinkypoo]

Shouldn't you be able to install applications however you choose on an open source operating system.

And you can! Android devices permit sideloading. And if you choose a vendor whose phones are unlockable without losing functionality (e.g. Moto) then you can replace the whole OS distribution with one that doesn't even include any Google services... nor require them. You can install Firefox not just as your browser but also as your internal web view (Bromite) and be free of all that jazz. I am using lineageos with firefox and bromite right now and while there is a definite shortage of apps it still does all the necessary phone stuff and browses the web. I even get access to android versions that Moto hasn't bothered to bring to my device, since google has made it so drivers work on newer versions. All in all there is very little standing in the way of using an Android device the way you want to, if you do a little research ahead of time. It would be nice if all devices were that open, but at least you can still get ones which are.

Re:

[Brandano]

I think that this is a case that Epic would be happy to lose if it gives them leverage against Apple's walled garden. Epic can survive having to use a 3rd party store on Android, but there's no such thing on Ios.

Re:

[Dan East]

If you distribute your app through the Google Play Store, which is what this is about, then you have to abide by the rules of the Google Play Store and that marketplace gets a share of the revenue of that app.

Re:Should it not be the case

[timeOday]

I think google's ploy here is exclusivity - if you want it available in our store, you cannot also make it available elsewhere.

So technically this isn't about being allowed to install things on your phone (Android will allow you to install it from wherever you got it); but rather competing proprietary distribution channels for a commercial application.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

I think google's ploy here is exclusivity - if you want it available in our store, you cannot also make it available elsewhere.

No. This is not factually true. You can have an app in multiple Android stores simultaneously. This article [appsflyer.com] even gives you advice on how to do that.

So technically this isn't about being allowed to install things on your phone (Android will allow you to install it from wherever you got it); but rather competing proprietary distribution channels for a commercial application.

Not sure what this point is about. If you can install Android apps from anywhere then how can Google enforce exclusivity unless the app developer agrees.

Re:

[chmod a+x mojo]

Not sure what this point is about. If you can install Android apps from anywhere then how can Google enforce exclusivity unless the app developer agrees.

Umm, gee, let's see. Maybe, just MAYBE by saying "if we find this in any other app stores we will kill your google play store account and not let you sell it / give it away on OUR play store"?

Not that hard to parse, as the god damn summary even states google appears to have done something just like that...

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Umm, gee, let's see. Maybe, just MAYBE by saying "if we find this in any other app stores we will kill your google play store account and not let you sell it / give it away on OUR play store"?

Since when has Google done that? Citation needed

Not that hard to parse, as the god damn summary even states google appears to have done something just like that...

What you have is an accusation of what Google could do and no evidence that they done that. When Google themselves instructs developers on how to use multiple stores [android.com], it seem unlikely that they are trying to impose exclusivity.

Re:

[jellomizer]

If you want to pay $2000 for a mid-tier phone, and assume legal responsibility for being the source of any virus or worm, that comes from your device.

I do wish we had the option to pay for a "Freedom Package" for our phone. Where we can get an non-subsidized by ads and purchased software phone, which we can do whatever we want with it. However, one of the constants out there is the fact that people are cheap, as they are well aware of the price of things, but no so aware of the cost of things.

A lot of peo

Re:

[bn-7bc]

Well then car leasing is not for you, but it might be an ok deal for people thst want to change car often. Allso the"just ad oetrol an go" concept js atractive to some people, no ceparate insurance, road tax ( iff aplicable) to worry about, if the car is stuck in servuce for more than a set amount of time the leasing company will probably provide you wit anorher one ( if you are lucky maby even one compareble to the one you kease) . I can see how this can be atractive to guite a few people. For phones howev

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

1) You can already side load apps on an Android, and that is not what Google's complaint about Epic. 2) Google's specific complaint is that if Epic uses the Google Play Store and all Google's infrastructure to distribute Epic's app, Epic has to abide to the terms of using the Play Store. 3) Epic does not want to abide by the terms of using someone else's store specifically payment terms which have been defined for years. 4) Epic hypocritically has their own store where they dictate terms to others.

Sounds anticompetitive

[HalAtWork]

They have formed a task force to confront a particular business that is competing? All Epic is doing is using Android the way it's supposed to be used.

Does Alphabet have a similar task force to confront the Amazon Android app store as well?