“They want to take all the benefits of Android and all the benefits of the Play Store and not pay for them,” Pomerantz said of Epic. ![]() The arguments also echoed the defense that Apple successfully used in its 2021 trial with Epic.Īs Apple’s lawyers did, Pomerantz suggested Epic is primarily interested in finding a way to boost its own profit by evading a payment system that siphons revenue away from its popular Fortnite title and other video games. Pomerantz depicted Google’s tactics as way to make sure Android apps are safe to use and its commission system as a way to defray the costs for an operating system that powers billions of smartphones around the world. “If a competition were a race, it’s like Google gets to run on a nice smooth track and everyone else has to run on quicksand.” “Google makes it a challenge to put a competitor on the phone (powered by Android),” Bornstein said. That figure represented about 13% of the roughly $92 in Google Services operating profit - most of which came from digital ads - during 2021, according to the financial statements of its corporate parent, Alphabet Inc. That is why, Bornstein said, the Play Store handles more than 90 percent of all Android download apps and resulted in the commission store generating more than $12 billion in operating profit. In his opening statement, Bornstein accused Google of deploying a “bribe and block” strategy to discourage competition and then make it too cumbersome or worrisome for consumers to download Android apps from other distribution outlets than the Play Store. Even so, Epic maintains that Google still maintains a stranglehold on the Android app ecosystem and the payment system attached to it - and has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to stifle competition. Supreme Court, where Epic is also challenging most elements of the case that it lost.Įpic is now taking aim at Google’s commission system, even though Android software is already set up to allow other stores, such as Samsung’s installed on its phones, distribute apps that work on the operating system. ![]() ![]() Apple is appealing that part of the ruling to the U.S. The judge and an appeals court both determined Apple should allow apps to provide links to other payment options, a change that could undermine the commissions that both Apple and Google collect on digital purchases made within a mobile app. Although a federal judge sided with Apple on most fronts in that trial, the outcome opened one potential crack in the digital fortress that the company has built around the iPhone.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |