Your post count prohibits you from posting new replies in this forum!
Users with less than 1 posts cannot reply to threads here. Your post count is currently . You need to post first in the Intro thread.
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Epic Games, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

  1. #1 SP
    Manager paul's Avatar

    Exclamation Epic Games, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

    Pe modelul Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Epic a dat in judecata si Google.

    Pe forum am scris despre asta aici, aici, aici si aici.

    Original complaint: COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (.pdf). Amended complaint: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (.pdf).

    1. Pentru a scapa de acuzatiile de monopolizare a pietei, Google a vrut sa cumpere Epic Games - gov.uscourts.cand.364325.159.5.pdf (.pdf):
    - "has even contemplated buying some or all of Epic to squelch this threat."

    2. Games Futures - 2025-2021-google-vision-game-plan-multiplatform.pdf (.pdf):
    - a tentative five-year plan to create what Google dubbed “the world’s largest games platform.”

    3. Project Hug, mai tarziu Apps and Games Velocity Program - gov.uscourts.cand.364325.165.1.pdf (.pdf):
    - Google a platit milioane de dolari altor companii pentru a nu se ajunge in aceeasi situatie cu Fortnite, sa plece din Play Store
    - “hundreds of millions of dollars on secret deals with over 20 top developers”
    - "By the end of 2020, Google had signed deals with most of its Project Hug targets — most notably Activision Blizzard"

    Pe 14 octombrie incepe procesul.
    Attached Images Attached Images epic_games_inc_v_google_inc.jpg google_gameplan_2.0.jpg google_gameplan_3.jpg universal_controller_mobile_google.jpg

  2. #2 SP
    Why so serious ? razvanrazy's Avatar
    Astia cred ca o fac doar pentru reclama, ca nu au sanse sa castige vreun proces de genu...

  3. #3 SP
    Manager paul's Avatar
    4. "Premier Device Program" - mai mare revenue share pentru producatori pentru a nu pune third-party stores pe telefoanele lor - Epic v. Google unredacted complaint - DocumentCloud:
    - "gave Android phone makers a greater share of search revenue than they would normally receive."
    - "In exchange, the OEMs agreed to ship their devices without any third-party app stores preinstalled."
    - "12 percent share of Google search revenue compared to the 8 percent they’d normally earn."
    - "Google sweetened the deal further for companies like LG and Motorola, offering them between 3 and 6 percent of what customers spent in the Google Play Store on their devices."

  4. #4 SP
    Senior Member dronology's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by The Verge
    There was never any question what Epic Games wanted when it took Apple to court: the 48-second “Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite” made it clear App Store hypocrisy was the agenda. But the justification for a parallel case against Google wasn’t as clear-cut until today — it’s only now we’re learning about the most damning accusations against the Android giant.

    On Thursday, Judge James Donato unsealed a fully unredacted version of Epic’s original complaint against Google (via Leah Nylen), and it alleges the company was so worried about Epic setting a precedent by abandoning the Play Store that it unleashed a broad effort to keep developers from following the company’s lead. That included straight-up paying top game developers, including Activision Blizzard to stick around, and sharing additional chunks of its revenue with phone makers if they agreed not to preinstall any other app stores.
    The Epic v. Google lawsuit finally makes sense

  5. #5 SP
    Manager paul's Avatar
    Project Hug - intelegeri intre Google si 24 entitati pentru reclame si marketing, dar Epic acuza ca sunt plati ca sa nu-si faca propriul store sau payment system:
    - $360 milioane in 3 ani - Activision Blizzard - au anuntat ca vor propriul store, dar neaga acuzatia Epic ca asa au renuntat la idee
    - $30 milioane in 1 an - Riot Games - verifica intelegerea
    Google struck $360-mln Activision deal to block rival app store, lawsuit says

  6. #6 SP
    Manager paul's Avatar
    Juratii au decis: au gasit Google vinovata de toate cele 3 capete de acuzare:
    Quote Originally Posted by The Verge
    After just a few hours of deliberation, the jury unanimously answered yes to every question put before them — that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets, that Google did anticompetitive things in those markets, and that Epic was injured by that behavior. They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too, and that its distribution agreement, Project Hug deals with game developers, and deals with OEMs were all anticompetitive.
    Epic win: Jury decides Google has illegal monopoly in app store fight

    Cazul Apple a fost foarte slab pregatit, de-asta Epic n-a castigat acolo, dar aici a fost diferit, si cu multe probe directe.

    Se asteapta decizia judecatorului pentru remedieri, ca sa stim ce trebuie schimbat.

  7. #7 SP
    Senior Member Espiritus's Avatar
    Fascinant cum justiția poate concluziona că Google are monopol ilegal pe app store, dar Apple nu are același lucru.

  8. #8 SP
    Why so serious ? razvanrazy's Avatar
    Nu e chiar asa. Situatiile sunt diferite.

    Nu am apucat sa citesc detalii de la proces, dar google are parteneriate cu diversi producatori si practic inclusiv acolo detine monopol.
    E ciudat pentru ca in verdict zic de monopol si tot acolo zic ca de fapt sunt in competitie cu Apple in piata de smartphone OS.

    Si da, pare o contradictie dar nu este.

    Situatia a fost asa - la Apple, Epic au gresit primii pt ca au incalcat termenii, daca stii lansasera atunci o versiune cu payment service - pe cand la Google, Epic nu au gresit, Google au fost prinsi ca au sters documente si ca au facut deal-uri secrete pt a limita competing stores.

    Uite ce explica cineva in comentarii:
    So the cases looked similar, but were actually very different, By virtue of not having to do anything because of its closed ecosystem (Apple didn't need to bribe third party app stores, it simply wasn't possible to install them), Apple didn't nothing wrong. By contrast, Google claimed you could do something like access different app stores, but went about everybody's backs to deny them that choice. It's like claiming you are a democracy, but going out of your way to rig the elections.

  9. #9 SP
    Manager paul's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Espiritus View Post
    Fascinant cum justiția poate concluziona că Google are monopol ilegal pe app store, dar Apple nu are același lucru.
    "Justitia" lucreaza "pe materialul partilor", pe proceduri, reguli si lege. Ca aici s-au incurcat Epic in cazul Apple (punctul 2.): https://www.consolegames.ro/forum/f8...ml#post1536459.
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanrazy View Post
    E ciudat pentru ca in verdict zic de monopol si tot acolo zic ca de fapt sunt in competitie cu Apple in piata de smartphone OS.
    Piata definita este "Android app distribution market", n-are treaba cu Apple-iOS.
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanrazy View Post
    la Apple, Epic au gresit primii pt ca au incalcat termenii, daca stii lansasera atunci o versiune cu payment service
    Tot insisti pe asta, dar nu e vorba de incalcat/respectat contractul, ci mai degraba e un punct de plecare. Au incalcat de buna voie contractul (ca si cel cu Google) ca sa se ajunga unde vor ei, caz in care contractul era ilegal. Dar nu au putut demonstra asta, cum au facut-o in cazul Google, deci au ramas in vigoare clauzele pentru incalcarea lui.

    Norocul lor cu Google ca lucreaza din topor. Nici singurul jurat cu Android n-a fost de partea lor:

  10. #10 SP
    Member biagyydog's Avatar
    Care ar fi urmarile pentru noi, consumatori oarecare din RO/ EU?

  11. #11 SP
    Manager paul's Avatar
    Cumperi un telefon cu Android, instalezi magazinul Epic Games, instalezi Fortnite de acolo, cumperi V-Bucks direct de la Epic prin ce metode de plata ofera ei in aplicatie.

    Epic zice ca in felul asta nu se mai ingrijoreaza de comisionul de 30% si pot oferi preturi mai mici.

  12. #12 SP
    Why so serious ? razvanrazy's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by paul View Post
    Tot insisti pe asta, dar nu e vorba de incalcat/respectat contractul, ci mai degraba e un punct de plecare. Au incalcat de buna voie contractul (ca si cel cu Google) ca sa se ajunga unde vor ei, caz in care contractul era ilegal. Dar nu au putut demonstra asta, cum au facut-o in cazul Google, deci au ramas in vigoare clauzele pentru incalcarea lui.
    Pai te contrazici singur si-mi dai dreptate

    Oricum mor pe asta cu "preturi mai mici" daca nu se mai ingrijoreaza de comisionul respectiv. De parca nu e vorba de items digitale/cosmetice care efectiv nu au nicio valoare si valoarea e data doar de cum au ei chef. D-aia un skin poate fi 1$ sau 100$.

    Cel mai probabil initial vor oferi valori mai mici, urmand ca dupa un timp sa creasca si ei pretul cu "inflatia" sau alte nebuneli, dar sa fie mereu putin sub cat ar fi fost daca ar fi fost acceptat in google play store sau app store.

  13. #13 SP
    Manager paul's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanrazy View Post
    Pai te contrazici singur si-mi dai dreptate
    Nu si nu. Au incalcat contractele de buna voie pentru ca ei considera ca sunt clauze abuzive. Au venit reactiile din partea Apple si Google cu scoaterea Fortnite din magazine. Ala e punctul de plecare, de acolo au inceput procesele.

    Putea Epic sa-i dea in judecata direct? Nu stiu, nu cunosc codurile lor de procedura.

  14. #14 SP
    Why so serious ? razvanrazy's Avatar
    Hai sa luam un exemplu sau 2.

    Huawei si-a facut propriul magazin si sunt o companie mica. In 5 ani dispare Apple si Google si ramane doar Huawei + altii mai mici, iar Huawei nu lasa alte app store-uri pe telefoanele lor, ca nah..sunt ale lor. De acolo fac banii. Daca vrei sa vinzi ceva si sa aibe reach-u respectiv, dai o taxa de x% catre "casa".
    Vine gigel suparat ca tre sa piarda bani (chiar daca el spune ca de fapt clientii dau mai multi bani, ca sa apeleze la partea sensibila) si incalca regulamentul si apoi ii da pe ei in judecata.

    Sau inlocuieste Huawei cu tine, ca om, care faci o afacere de la inceput, scoti un produs, te chinui, ajungi la x milioane de utilizatori si oricine vrea sa intre in hora aia pe produsul tau, trebuie sa treaca prin appstore-ul tau unde ai stipulat clar ca exista o taxa de x% pentru orice tranzactie - cum e firesc, pt ca e munca ta, nu?

    Ti se pare corect?

    Scenariu nr 2. Xbox se decide sa deschida Xbox Store pe Playstation si pt ca Sony nu e ok, ii da in judecata. Acel store ar insemna 0 bani dati catre Sony, desi piata de desfacere = acele multe zeci de milioane de console deja in casele oamenilor. Dar pe Xbox nu-i intereseaza. Ei vor sa faca bani pe un hardware care nu este al lor.

    Acum...de ce ar trebui sa se accepte lucrurile astea? Pentru ca este monopol pe platforma lor - agree. Dar e platforma lor, nu?

    Diferenta dintre procesul cu Apple (adica exemplele date de mine mai sus) si procesul cu Google este fix faza aia mizerabila pe care o face Google - spune in fata ca ei sunt deschisi la astfel de lucruri, dar pe la spate au deal-uri secrete cu diverse entitati, ca sa nu-si deschida magazin la ei pe platforma. Asa ca da, era imposibil sa castige Google.

  15. #15 SP
    Manager paul's Avatar
    @Razvan: Inteleg ce zici, dar aici e despre lege si interpretarea ei oficiala, poti sa vii cu cate scenarii vrei pe care le consideri corecte sau nu.

    Avem asa:
    a) iOS - 30% market share; App Store: percepe comisioane, platile prin sistemul lor; inchis - nu permite alte stores/app sideloading
    b) Android - 70% market share; Google Play: percepe comisioane, platile prin sistemul lor; deschis - permite alte stores/app sideloading

    Ce doreste Epic conform "Free Fortnite":
    1. app stores/sideloading - aici ar fi Apple vizat
    2. in-app payment options alternative - pentru ambele companii; cand aplicatiile sunt descarcate din App Store/Google Play
    3. sa fie interzice practicile de genul "nu aveti voie sa dati link si sa spuneti ca e mai ieftin daca va abonati pe site" sau sa fie multi pasi de facut ca sa instalezi un .apk

    a)+1. EU prin legea Digital Markets Act considera ca Apple e gatekeeper, deci la anul noi o sa avem sideloading. Se gandesc si americanii la astfel de legislatie. In proces Epic n-a reusit partea asta.
    2. Atat Apple, cat si Google au intelegeri cu anumite aplicatii/firme pentru exceptii. In procesul Apple nici partea asta nu a reusit-o Epic, dar in cazul Google a castigat.
    3. Aici Epic a castigat impotriva ambelor companii.

    Epic considera ca smartphones sunt essentials, cum e PC si web, iar Apple si Google ar trebui sa se comporte mai competitiv si mai putin restrictiv.

Your post count prohibits you from posting new replies in this forum!
Users with less than 1 posts cannot reply to threads here. Your post count is currently . You need to post first in the Intro thread.

Similar Threads

  1. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. By paul in forum Apple
    Replies: 21 Last Post: 10-09-2021, 20:31
  2. Invisible, Inc. Console Edition By OEE in forum Sony PlayStation 4
    Replies: 3 Last Post: 25-04-2016, 01:36
  3. Invisible, Inc. By MonkY in forum Console Club
    Replies: 2 Last Post: 14-05-2015, 04:14
  4. User Review: Stealth Inc: A Clone in the Dark By erik95 in forum Game Reviews & Previews
    Replies: 1 Last Post: 11-08-2013, 07:51
  5. Mercs Inc. anuntat By erik95 in forum Console News
    Replies: 1 Last Post: 27-11-2009, 22:37

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts