The sideloader weeps tonight: Unsealed court docs claim Google said 'install friction' would ‘drastically limit' Epic's reach

Plus: Google 'contemplated buying some or all of Epic'


A freshly unsealed filing [PDF] in the Epic smackdown between the maker of the Fortnite video game and Google reveals claims that a "senior Google Play" exec had noted users might be put off by the "frankly abysmal... awful experience" of directly downloading and installing games on Android kit.

Another juicy detail uncovered by the still partially redacted document was that Google had thought about buying all or part of Epic and had approached the company about establishing a "special deal" for Fortnite.

The allegations were made public late last week.

The case was first flung at Google by the Fortnite maker on 13 August last year in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. In the complaint, the developer alleged anticompetitive practices by the tech giant across the Android ecosystem, which Google largely controls, after it was booted from the Play Store.

On the morning of the lawsuit, the developer had announced a method for Epic's players to buy in-game currency without using Apple and Google's proprietary payment systems. The sueball was one of two 60-plus-page pre-prepared suits filed by Epic Games, which also develops the Unreal Engine, on the afternoon of 13 August 2020 after it was yanked from both Apple and Google's official app stores earlier that day for its move. The action was described by Apple at the time as "calculated," and it soon countersued for breach of contract; here's The Register's take on the Apple v Epic trial, whose closing arguments were delivered in late May this year.

As for the Google action, Epic's original complaint against the Alphabet offshoot, also dated 13 August 2020, [PDF], characterised Google's commission as a "30 per cent 'tax' on app purchases and in-app transactions".

The 2020 complaint claimed that Google "unlawfully maintains monopolies in multiple related markets" in the Android mobile ecosystem.

Google, however, soon fired back, claiming developers were trying to abuse antitrust laws to force the tech giant to help its competitors. Last year it asked the California federal court to dismiss both the claims of Epic Games and other app developers taking aim at Google's app store and in-app payment system, claiming in a November 2020 motion [PDF] that Google has "no duty under the antitrust laws to allow competing app stores on Google Play" and that Epic et al had failed to show anticompetitive harm.

The comments by the execs aired in the recently unsealed filing, therefore, seemingly aren't great news for Google, which the docs additionally claim had contemplated purchasing part or all of Epic Games.

The filing stated:

Google ... has developed a series of internal projects to address the "contagion" it perceived from efforts by Epic and others to offer consumers and developers competitive alternatives, and has even contemplated buying some or all of Epic to squelch this threat.

The dev's filing also cited an internal Google document titled "Response to Epic", wherein a staffer is said to have "explained that the 'install friction' associated with direct downloading was 'not only a bad experience' for users but that Google knew 'from its data that it will drastically limit [Epic's] reach'."

It went on to claim that a "senior Google Play manager... contacted Epic's vice president and co-founder to gauge Epic's interest in a special deal and, among other things, discussed "the experience of getting Fortnite on Android" via direct downloading.

The manager's call notes state that she viewed direct downloading Fortnite as "frankly abysmal" and "an awful experience," and that Epic should "worry that most will not go through the 15+ steps."

Google [PDF], meanwhile, noted in a January response this year about Epic's allegations "challenging Google's conduct protecting users from malware" that the Fortnite maker could not "dispute they want Google to change its unilateral practices to address security concerns on Android, which, in the context of product design, is not a basis for antitrust liability."

It further contended that "OEMs and consumers are free to install competing app stores, and users are free to directly download apps."

As with the Apple lawsuit, Epic's complaint against Google seeks injunctive relief, meaning it wants the court to stop future exclusionary conduct in the Google Play Store (and ultimately the Apple Store too). It is hoping to change the way developers distribute and monetise software. During the Apple trial, Cupertino sought to paint Epic Games as aiming to get the benefits of the iOS app store, including security protection for users, but without paying towards it.

Although Epic has made a point of not filing for monetary relief, a decision in its favour would obviously be hugely financially beneficial.

We have asked Google for comment.

The case continues. ®


Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022