Google Offered Epic $147 Million To Launch Fortnite on the Play Store (theverge.com) 21
Google has confirmed in court that Epic was offered a $147 million deal to launch its hit game Fortnite on Android's Google Play Store. From a report: The deal, which Google's VP of Play partnerships, Purnima Kochikar, says was approved and presented to Epic but not accepted, would have seen the money dispensed over a three-year period of "incremental funding" (ending in 2021) to the games publisher. It was meant to stem a potential "contagion" of popular apps bypassing Android's official store and, with it, Google's lucrative in-app purchase fees.
Epic launched Fortnite on Android in 2018 directly through its website, avoiding the Play Store. That allowed it to sell Fortnite's in-game currency, V-Bucks, without paying the commission required of Play Store apps. It relented in 2020, saying that "scary, repetitive security pop-ups" and other factors had put it at a severe disadvantage. But in an antitrust lawsuit filed later that year -- and currently being argued before a jury -- it alleged its initial decision had thrown Google into a panic. It cited internal documents claiming Google feared a "contagion risk" if other game developers (including Blizzard, Valve, Sony, and Nintendo) followed Epic's lead, and it claimed Google attempted to forestall it by offering special benefits or even buying Epic.
Epic launched Fortnite on Android in 2018 directly through its website, avoiding the Play Store. That allowed it to sell Fortnite's in-game currency, V-Bucks, without paying the commission required of Play Store apps. It relented in 2020, saying that "scary, repetitive security pop-ups" and other factors had put it at a severe disadvantage. But in an antitrust lawsuit filed later that year -- and currently being argued before a jury -- it alleged its initial decision had thrown Google into a panic. It cited internal documents claiming Google feared a "contagion risk" if other game developers (including Blizzard, Valve, Sony, and Nintendo) followed Epic's lead, and it claimed Google attempted to forestall it by offering special benefits or even buying Epic.
Can they both lose in court? (Score:1)
Not much good to say about either side in this case, although I admit I'm more on Google's side here, based mostly on Sweeney's slimy behavior.
What slimy behavior? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm an old, old man and I remember freaking Nintendo losing these kinds of lawsuits in the 80s. That was right around the time we stopped enforcing anti-trust and anti-competitive laws though...
If you don't want to pay rent... (Score:1)
You have to buy the building and the land underneath it at the marketplace. But you're still going to have to pay for the infrastructure in the form of property tax and .
That's how it's done everywhere. Sounds to me like Epic wants to avoid certain realities. Or perhaps Epic is worried that their own expenses have gotten out of control and they're trying to pass their largesse onto others.
Re: (Score:2)
I think epic are a bag of dicks but it would best for all consumers if they win.... and then promptly go out of business.
Play Store Mafia behavior (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Play Store Mafia behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike Apple, Google actually allows sideloading quite easily.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Google have a vested interest in the reputation of their phones. They push software makes to use their stores so that they can ensure "apps" go through a vetting process to reduce the risk of malware, scams, privacy issues, and worse. The risk isn't just to consumers, but also Google/Apple's reputation because these apps run on their devices.
Even Microsoft has matured and now has code-signing, app store, and similar processes to try to limit the risk to consumers. "Windows" had (and still suffer
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and Google have a vested interest in the reputation of their phones. They push software makes to use their stores so that they can ensure "apps" go through a vetting process to reduce the risk of malware, scams, privacy issues, and worse. The risk isn't just to consumers, but also Google/Apple's reputation because these apps run on their devices.
Even Microsoft has matured and now has code-signing, app store, and similar processes to try to limit the risk to consumers. "Windows" had (and still suffers from) a terrible reputation for getting easily "hacked", even though the vast majority of hacks were consumers downloading "movie.exe" or "sexy-photo.exe"
This!
Trust is something that takes a long time to build; but only seconds to destroy.
And once it's gone, it's gone forever.
Re: (Score:3)
A ton of people still trusts Facebook, twitter, google, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk, and many other large companies that do shitty things.
The power of locking users into certain services with no real alternatives, that aren't at least very inconvenient, on the market that is stronger than on the larger scale than losing the trust of a number of people.
Re: (Score:2)
That is contrary to reality.
A ton of people still trusts Facebook, twitter, google, Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk, and many other large companies that do shitty things.
The power of locking users into certain services with no real alternatives, that aren't at least very inconvenient, on the market that is stronger than on the larger scale than losing the trust of a number of people.
But the Vast Majority of Apple Users Elect to have it that way.
What could be a greater demonstration of Outrageous Government Intervention, indeed of outright Denial of their Right to Freedom of Expression, than to say that overwhelming majority of Apple User's Choice simply doesn't matter?
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that people who have developed a dependence on a product will go along with a lot of changes as long as the conveniences outweigh the change for the worse. For example I know a lot of people that have been telling me that they're "deleting twitter" for over a year now, and they're still using it on a daily if not hourly basis.
The twitter thing is actually a quite interesting social expriment to observe here. I do wonder how much it'll take to make the people that complain ab
Re: (Score:2)
You're deflecting.
My point is that people who have developed a dependence on a product will go along with a lot of changes as long as the conveniences outweigh the change for the worse.
But you have already misinterpreted the typical Apple Users' mindset about this.
It's not "Dependence on a Product"; it is a "Preference for a Product."
Also, Apple Users don't see the App Store policies as "putting them through 'Changes' ". Rather, they see it as a fairly well-thought-out System, Operating as Intended, and As It Has Always Been. See the difference? I figured you wouldn't!
I myself for example am tired of Microsoft's shit and have been for years. But since my main market for the software commisions I do is Windows users, where am I supposed to go otherwise? Anywhere else would cut my revenue to less than 5% of what I have now. So at least I thave to run Windows in a VM to offer proper support. Should I convince people to go to some Linux distro? I tried, lots of people in the "nerd space" tried. That seems to have worked out so great given how many people still use Windows on their PCs.
And that's the difference that makes all the difference: Very Few people Want to Use Windows; they just Have to. Whereas,
Re: (Score:2)
But that does not reflect what I and most people I've ever talked to outside of the internet have seen first hand in Apple user outside of the echochambers of the internet where people celebrate their intellectual superiority and like to berate the Linux and Windows untermensch.
I've had people switch from iPhone to Android
Re: (Score:2)
Google and Apple are both acting as though there's no safe way to spend money in applications without their "protection". Protection in this case means you don't stay in business if you don't do business their way. Can you imagine how much extra money everything would cost if buying anything else from e-tailers like Amazon also had to pass through the protection racket? This cash-cow needs to be slaughtered
15% Commission on App sales for the vast majority of App Publishers is hardly a "Protection Racket".
Rather, the Publishers that use the "Free to Download" (which means nothing for the App Store) model, and then want to Charge Users forever with IAPs and forever "Subscriptions" (which also drop to 15% after 1 year), while still whining about "Exorbitant fees" and "Rent-Seeking" while they themselves endeavor to soak up effectively 100% of all Revenue, are the real Scammers here!
And no, $100/yr for Developer
Re: (Score:2)
Google and Apple are both acting as though there's no safe way to spend money in applications without their "protection". Protection in this case means you don't stay in business if you don't do business their way. Can you imagine how much extra money everything would cost if buying anything else from e-tailers like Amazon also had to pass through the protection racket? This cash-cow needs to be slaughtered
15% Commission on App sales for the vast majority of App Publishers is hardly a "Protection Racket".
It is, if you are not free to setup your alternative store to avoid the fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Google and Apple are both acting as though there's no safe way to spend money in applications without their "protection". Protection in this case means you don't stay in business if you don't do business their way. Can you imagine how much extra money everything would cost if buying anything else from e-tailers like Amazon also had to pass through the protection racket? This cash-cow needs to be slaughtered
15% Commission on App sales for the vast majority of App Publishers is hardly a "Protection Racket".
It is, if you are not free to setup your alternative store to avoid the fee.
Too bad.
Buy Android. Simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Fortunately, Apple didn't win the smartphone war. Otherwise it would have been really bad. 0-5% market share is usually the sweet spot for Apple. More than that and they start doing stupid anti-consumer things.
idiotic (Score:2)
Dumb boomer at Google: them there kids will play an FPS with their giant, imprecise fingertips because Fortnite wooo! And nobody ever uses mice on an emulator to cheat at FPSes, right? Send the bribe!