Epic is asking a court to stop Google from yanking Bandcamp off the Play Store
theverge.com> “However, Google is now modifying its rules to require Bandcamp (and other apps like it) to exclusively use Google Play Billing for payments for digital goods and services, and pay a revenue share to Google,” [Bandcamp CEO Ethan] Diamond says.
A great example of two polar opposite worlds:
- Bandcamp: lets artists set their prices, lets consumers purchase lossless DRM-free files. Mobile site works fine without Google. No uninvited algorithmic feeds ruining your personally curated collection.
- Google: entire business relies on the open web, yet the mobile platform follows a sharecropping model from the 1800s, the video platform pays creators fractions of a penny per view, and everything is nailed down with DRM.
While I generally agree with Epic's positions, it seems like a bit of a stretch here, considering that Android allows both sideloading and alternative app stores.
Unlike on iOS, there's nothing on Android stopping Bandcamp from releasing a standalone sideloadable app with any payment system they desire.
Antitrust rules apply for abuse of dominant market power (which Google certainly has) even if theoretical alternatives exist. It does not matter that it's not literally a monopoly, as that is not the legal bar that needs to be passed for Google to be limited in what they can and can't do.
Bandcamp is using their own billing system, bypassing Google's cut. Every app could do this and cut Google out all together. An app could just let you download the app, pay some amount when you're in the app which would unlock the functionality. I don't think its unreasonable for Google to have a problem with this. They want to get the reach of the app store, and make money off it, without paying a cut to the host like everyone else. What am I missing here?
In the 80s and 90s you could buy software running on Windows, where the vendor of the software didn't pay anything to Microsoft; in fact, I'm sure Microsoft was happy with them supporting and increasing the strength of their platform.
Why does this have to change now? Why does the platform need a cut?
When you bought software at a retail store, the vendor didn't get the full retail price. It's not the platform getting a cut, it's the store. What we need to ensure is that platforms can't force you into their store.
As far back as the 80’s there were means of distributing software without paying a retailer a commission on every sale. Shareware [1] was one such model. The software was distributed by users copying it from floppy to floppy, handing it out at user group meetings, conferences, even on the school playground. It was later included in large CD-ROM collections packaged with computer magazines.
The point is that you could distribute your software any way you wanted to without permission or license fees paid to the maker of the computer or its operating system.
You as the Shareware author were paying for the creation of those discs and their distribution. If you had an FTP server, you paid for the bandwidth.
Epic isn't doing that. Epic wants access to Google's customers, with Google paying all the bills, without paying Google anything. Despite the fact that Android allows them to run their own app store or sideload apps.
Shareware disks _could_ be written and paid for by the shareware author, but user-to-user distribution, at the _user's_ cost was [seemingly] more common.
I recall my local independent PC shop in the mid-90s had a big assortment of shareware on 5.25" floppies, priced per disc. Similar offerings existed in mail-order catalogs. The disc provider made a small margin per disc, presumably, and it created a different distribution network for the shareware copies, in an era pre-ubiquitous Internet.
A few years later, there were shops that specialized in burned or pressed CDs of Linux/BSD distributions back when dialup was the standard and fetching a few gigs of Debian was out of reach.
I think this might be more compelling if Epic were the ones hosting the download, and Google were just like, listing the download in their listings, where the download button would go to Epic's servers.
And we might ask ourselves: why can’t Google do that? They just need to sign the binary, Google doesn’t have to host it.
Oh, for sure, I didn't mean what I said as a dismissal. It seems like it could be a reasonable state of affairs for Google to just link to (and sign?) it, but not host it.
The ship has already sailed on that long ago.
If there's a new store on the iPhone, virtually no one will use it.
The default is good enough, it's already installed on ~1Bn devices, and most of those devices use it somewhat regularly already.
The software vendor instead payed for magazine ads, placement on shop shelves, had their own payment and distribution infrastructure.
Because back then you paid a lot of money for Windows and they also sold you on Office and the likes. Google's business model with android is exactly this, give the OS for cheap but earn money on the apps.
Not saying 10 or 30 is the correct amount. It's just different now.
During most of the time since Windows exists, the majority of its users have not paid for Windows separately, but as a part of the purchase price of a new computer.
Android could also be paid as a part of the purchase price of a smartphone and maybe it already is, but of course a one-time payment would be much less profitable for Google than a continuous stream of revenue from the apps.
majority of the world never paid a single cent for windows
It was built into the cost of the computer.
And cost of Android isn't or can't be?
They make most of their money from user data and search anyway.
Same for Android. Google charges a licensing fee from manufacturers.
I think you meant ads instead of apps.
Not to mention that device makers pay licence fees to Google for the privelege to run the Play Store (and other closed source benefits).
> Why does the platform need a cut?
To meet shareholder expectations of continuous growth.
Exactly. Epic have their own store for games. Would they be fine with each AAA game releasing on the store for “free” but required a credit card to be entered once it was run, with 100% of the money going to the publisher?
Yes, the Epic store enables this exact scenario. Lots of free games on Epic make all of their month through micro transactions billed entirely through their own systems. See Rocket League for one example, but there are many.
I really unsure about EGS monetization model, but Psyonix (developer of Rocket League) are subsidiary of Epic.
UPD: At least while ago in 2019 Epic claimed to give a choice of payment processor to use for games on their store: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-12-06-epic-games...
As I said there are lots of free games on Epic which use their own store fronts for transactions.
Google is running an app store. Why should they have any right to involvement whatsoever after the app has been installed? Once the user has installed the app the transaction has been finalized. And if that app is given away for free, and Google has a problem with that, they should ban all free apps and require charging a fee.
> Google is running an app store. Why should they have any right to involvement whatsoever after the app has been installed?
Running a store means deciding what goes on the shelves. The only features that Google could use to decide whether they want to sell an app are the features that are apparent after installation. Your argument would suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to curate their content at all.
Google use licensing models for many of their products. I'm sure they could devise a model whereby a company such as Epic pay a fee per client download of their software. It could be negotiable. That way everyone wins, and customers get user friendly access to the content they want.
Should you (or Disney, but costs always end up at the customer eventually) have to pay a fee for every single device you sign into Disney+ on? It’s bad enough you can’t use it on an Xbox without Gold Live or whatever it is.
It's one thing for Google to have a problem with something and quite another to anti-competitively leverage their other market positions as the solution.
Other comments describe a few specific examples of that abuse (like also thwarting Epic's attempts to be preloaded by OEMs), but I think it's more interesting to look at how money is changing hands as evidence of market power being abused.
In particular, consider that Google in theory should be fine accepting payments as low as their hosting costs (and probably much less since their app store helps attract phone purchasers to fuel their ad network, since they also take a cut from OEMs, etc). Compare that to each individual developer on the store who in theory is able to afford at most some large fraction of revenue for the privilege of being on the store. Note that the latter number is (usually) much greater than the former and that the latter is what's actually being paid. If there were any real competition for something as trivial to build as an app store then you wouldn't expect Google to be able to successfully price discriminate across so many orders of magnitude of prices and extract nearly all of the surplus value from the end user purchasing an app. The fact that they're able to do so and are doing so should serve by itself as a strong indication that something suspiciously anti-competitive is happening. My $20 app wasn't 20x harder for Google to host than your $1 app, so why are my fees 20x higher? Because they can get away with charging that much because they stomp on any competition.
That isn't any kind of nail-in-the-coffin proof mind you, but it serves as a useful heuristic for spotting abuses of market power in many markets. Throwing that same idea at the right to repair movement, the amount paid to John Deere for tractor repairs is many times greater than what people have been able to achieve on their own (when they've been able to do so), and the only barrier is DRM that was added to prevent unauthorized repairs. If John Deere were really that much better at repairing their tractors than third parties then they wouldn't have to artificially exclude everyone else from attempting it to retain market share and command those prices.
Nobody's saying that Google or John Deere shouldn't be allowed to profit from the things they make, but using existing power to hamper competition and seek greater rents isn't good for society as a whole.
Google also makes google chrome and doesn't get a single cent off of transactions done on that web browser too.
A horrible injustice that will one day be corrected. It just takes a couple generations to change expectations.
That Google’s cut of payments is very high which points to market position abuse
High compared to what? It's the same as Apple's, so you're not comparing to other app stores. Amazon charges the same percentage on Kindle for eBooks.
When people claim that the app store fees are excessively large they're usually comparing to payment processor fees, but neither major app store functions solely as a payment processor. So if not that, what are we comparing to when we say the fee is high?
The fee could be lower. They (the App Store owner) only needs to sign a blob. They (Google/Apple/Amazon) choose to host the blobs, and then charge the developer for it. They claim “marketing” too, but as far as I can tell, that usually involves a sale and the app owner has no choice but to sell their app for less without their consent. I think Apple sometimes has “curated” lists, but it’s questionable how “effective” that is since they don’t release much numbers. What is the ROI of getting randomly chosen to be on that list? Is it worth 30%? We will never know.
But it does matter what the law says. If they’re not a monopoly in the eyes of the law what can a judge do?
The parent meant that antitrust laws usually apply even if there is no monopoly in the strictest possible sense (i.e. literally no competitors). A dominant market position is enough.
>Antitrust rules apply for abuse of dominant market power (which Google certainly has)
Antitrust rules apply to monopolies, and Google has no where near monopoly over app stores or phones, the relevant systems here.
Antitrust rules apply to monopolies
No, they don't. Most antitrust cases don't involve monopolies, since those are actually quite rare, and most monopolies don't involve anticompetitive behavior.
Antitrust is about regulating anticompetitive market activities, which ranges from price fixing to monopolies.
> Antitrust rules apply to monopolies, and Google has no where near monopoly over app stores or phones, the relevant systems here.
I'm sure that will be consolation to the growing number of victims whose businesses and livelihoods were destroyed when an overworked reviewer or an algorithm allowed to go rampant kicked out their products from the app stores where the overwhelming majority of users could discover them.
Your definition of monopolies and applicable antitrust rules is divorced from reality, and from the legal framework based on which these monopolies have been repeatedly fined, and will be forced to open up their platforms.
>which Google certainly has
You’re conflating some ideas here. A marketplace owner always has “dominant market power” over the market they own. That’s the nature of marketplace, the owner gets to set certain rules like the types of payments accepted at the marketplace, because that is literally the job of a marketplace.
Google also has dominant market share, since their App Store is the best for android, but that’s legal (keep in mind Amazon, another $1tn company actively competes in this space) - the government does not want to force consumers to use worse app stores. Competition for the sake of competition is not pro consumer.
What Google probably isn’t doing (and what is illegal) is using its OS market power to crowd out other app marketplaces. As mentioned above Amazon meaningfully competes in this space. The closes you could get there is Google doesn’t publish its own apps to other app marketplaces, but that’s likely not across the bar of anti-competition.
One of things revealed because of the whole Fortnite issue was that Google squashed Epic's attempt to bundle their Android app with various OEMs.
Google controls the platform and they're the ones who set up scary warnings for installing apps via sideloading (despite malicious apps being not uncommon in the Play Store itself.)
No, Google is attempting to engage in a vertical restraint of trade. That is one of the behaviors generally considered to violate antitrust rules, if the company is using its leverage in one market to attempt a vertical restraint of trade in another market.
In this case, the leveraged market is the app store, and the restrained market is mobile payment processing.
>No, Google is attempting to engage in a vertical restraint of trade.
My friend, does Lyft take Mir as a payment method? Can you choose to use Stripe to pay for your Airbnb (vs. their in-house processor)?
I really am curious about the legal precedent you're relying on - when has a marketplace ever been found to be acting anti-competitively by choosing the payment rails they use?
"Google also has dominant market share, since their App Store is the best for android, "
No, it's preloaded on every device, that's why.
If some other App Store, 'App Store B' were preloaded on every device, and App Store were not, then that 'App Store B' would ultimately be 'that much better'.
That said - I don't agree with Epic here.
If you want your merchandise in Walmart, it's fair that Walmart does the selling and the checkout. You can't put your merch in there, and expect to be able to buy it 'online' and walk out with it. This is irrespective of Walmart's position in the general market.
Google Play preloads are another question.
Sideloading is also another question.
But stuff in Google Play, I think it's fair if they set the rules there.
These are in-app purchases, right? Imagine if Walmart demanded a 30% cut not of merely the sale price for anything they sold you, but had a policy that any later sale that that product caused--such as an app on a phone, if the phone was purchased for Walmart ;P--had to use Walmart.com's billing and they were entitled to a 30% cut... and then place that ridiculous scenario in a world where half the people in the US only could shop at Walmart and the other half only could shop at Target (and it would cost the user $500 to switch stores and then they would only be able to use the other store). If you want to say that apps shouldn't be free with later purchase, that would at least make more sense? Like, sure: Walmart isn't going to stock and hand out phones for free. But I feel like the honest version of that business makes it so that app developers just pay Apple for hosting fees--which would correlate with downloads, not revenue--which is how all of this really should work.
> If some other App Store, 'App Store B' were preloaded on every device, and App Store were not, then that 'App Store B' would ultimately be 'that much better'.
Did you enjoy your Fire phone, because that's exactly what you're describing. Somehow people decided they did not like it...
But those "alternatives app stores" can never do the things Play Store can, like automatic installing/updating apps without user needing to click "Install" for each one. (which gets quite annoying)
Google could've made it possible but did not, that's monopoly.
They can with new versions of Android:
https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st...
What percentage of Android phones out there will be able to install and run Android 12 without needing to be hacked?
>Unlike on iOS, there's nothing on Android stopping Bandcamp from releasing a standalone sideloadable app with any payment system they desire.
On iOS, just as on Android, there is nothing stopping you from handling purchases and payments through your own website and having your app only handle content consumption as companies like Netflix and Spotify have done on iOS for years.
At least in the past Android wouldn't allow security updates without having the user take a bunch of steps each time. Users couldn't just add a trusted authority permanently. Google also allegedly colluded with phone maker storefronts to keep them from working out deals with Epic.
Though the install rate would drop considerably. Most users are not comfortable with sideloading.
Google ensures that they are they are frightened away with scary warnings.
I don't know, I just tried downloading an APK directly (telegram). Android warns me file might be harmful.
Do you suggest they shouldn't warn someone when they download an APK? It's also browser specific and I imagine all major browser give the same kind of warning because , you know, downloading an APK directly from a website might be harmful.
Why isn't the same warning shown when installing from the play store? Apps installed from the play store can have the exact same permissions as side loaded apps. You can claim that Google vets the apps, but this is pretty much false. Just go make an app and experience the process for yourself, it's laughable. Any checks they perform are automated, and there's no reason those couldn't just run on-device.
And besides, even for side loaded apps they have a database of "bad" apps that get deleted by Google called "play protect"
So you've gone through all the weird flows to accept and enable installing. Now how do you get security updates? Google scares them again every time, even though android apps can already execute arbitrary downloaded unsigned code at runtime (otherwise V8 and other JITs that generate machine code can't work), so it isn't really protecting much and mainly makes things more insecure by not letting you add your own trusted providers permanently for timely updates.
Self updates can be a thing now in Android 12 I believe[1]. The initial install and updates should be easier though, and not just on 12.
[1] https://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.per...
Something like enabling instant apps and play protect scanning for any apk on the web could mean a nicer and safer experience for users. I think people would still use the app stores for their discovery/convenience but safer web installs could be an option for both users and developers.
This model exists on desktops and laptops, where there is signing or browser scanning, just not on mobile.
To be fair, installing an app from the store might be harmful too.
Yes. Require them to give the same dire warnings about apps from their own store, or remove them both.
The difference is that the store includes any amount of heuristic tests meant to scan for malicious activity, and directly installing an APK has no such safety net.
You can argue that the testing Google does is bad or minimal, but it seems like the ideal solution would then be "improve the testing". I'd also prefer to see such tests moved on-device so they could apply to APKs from any source, but I don't know how technically feasible that'd be; depends on how they're doing the testing, I guess.
This puts google in the position of being the arbiter of what testing is "good enough" when they're also one of the supposed competitors. If there's no mechanism by which the other app stores meet the "good enough" bar for testing that would eliminate the dire warnings, then they shouldn't be penalized for not being google.
This is pretty par for the course, though. Who else is incentivized to determine what is "good enough" wrt user experience/safety on Google's platform? Microsoft, Apple, Canonical, Samsung, Steam, Amazon, etc are all the arbiters of what's "good enough" (or safe enough) for their respective platforms (and marketplaces) because it's their brand at bat when something _isn't_ good enough (or safe enough).
"Android" (by Google) takes a reputation hit when someone downloads malicious APKs from anywhere, including Google's store. Google, therefore, wants to reduce the availability of bad apps in their ecosystem; maintaining an app store that enforces their standard of quality is one approach to accomplishing this goal, dissuading unknown apps they can't vouch for is another.
Obviously, there are both pros and cons to these approaches (from both Google and the end-user's perspectives), and they could definitely be improved, but they accomplish a concrete goal of "reduce malware on Android".
> You can argue that the testing Google does is bad or minimal, but it seems like the ideal solution would then be "improve the testing"
Yes why would we believe Google on the APK scanning? There's zero transparency on this subject, zero code shared and the store is visibly full of scams anyways.
There's absolutely no reason you couldn't provide that automated testing for non-store APKs too.
Edit: Sorry, didn't read to the end of your comment. Yeah doing it on-device would be good but I'd guess there's some stuff they want to keep secret.
This seems necessary and good. There are occasional bad actor apps that slip through Google's app store review process and there are good apps that get sideloaded, but sideloading entails literally zero review. It's entirely up to the user to determine whether they're trustworthy or not, which is a paradigm shift for most who don't think phones could harbor anything worse than just obtrusive ads in apps.
There are plenty of good apps I've sideloaded, but thinking of the majority of the population being relatively tech-illiterate, there's a big difference between a bad actor having to convince someone to change their settings to enable sideloading (despite a big, scary warning) and then convincing them to install an app versus just convincing someone to run/install a random APK. Case in point: a huge percent of the population unknowingly opens and/or installs random bad binaries on Windows every day.
Sideloading (and all that entails) should absolutely be allowed, but the "scary warnings" do a great job preventing a huge portion of people from unknowingly opening a huge threat avenue to some of their most valuable devices/information.
> There are occasional bad actor apps that slip through Google's app store review process
It happens on a regular enough basis that consumer tech sites are warning users to be careful of what they install from inside Google's walled garden.
>With malicious apps infiltrating Play on a regular, often weekly, basis, there’s currently little indication the malicious Android app scourge will be abated. That means it’s up to individual end users to steer clear of apps like Joker. The best advice is to be extremely conservative in the apps that get installed in the first place. A good guiding principle is to choose apps that serve a true purpose and, when possible, choose developers who are known entities. Installed apps that haven’t been used in the past month should be removed unless there’s a good reason to keep them around.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/09/joker...
this makes sense. Users who don't know what they are doing should be dissuaded. Those that do know what they are doing will not be dissuaded. Given the potential security consequences the warning approach is entirely appropriate.
...and is also appropriate for apps from the Play store. Google certainly isn't guaranteeing otherwise. If malware slips through, they will take no responsibility.
They currently have it both ways: 3rd party app stores get scary warnings front and center, whereas Play store gets the scary warnings and disclaimers of responsibility buried in TOS.
I'd guess most users don't know what sideloading is.
I doubt that.
I don't think users really even care.
'Download Here' and it's good to go.
I don't think people think that much about 'viruses' in their mobile.
Some do of course.
If there is a path to sideload an app without google scaring the pants off users, then I agree. Making apps from the play store sound safe and apps from a 3rd party store sound scary and dangerous is abusing your position, however.
Side-loading was covered in previous filings: https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/22/22583467/epic-fortnite-go...
Sideloading is crippled behind warnings, that's never been a viable option.
Maybe Google should put the playstore behind a developer option flag in the menu with a warning that it's unsafe and see themselves if it'll work.
More and more it looks like Epic just wants access to these major platforms and wants other companies and developers to pay for it.
Is that what happens when a Windows program is not put on Windows Store? Thieves!
They’re free to distribute an APK like everyone else.
It is not about buying/delivering the app.
It is about doing payment within the app once it is installed. In that case Epic is paying/maintaining its payment infra. Your point is irrelevant
Got it.
So if back in 1999, internet explorer only allowed you to download something, if they took a percentage fee, then you'd be OK this with use of monopolistic power.
Can you think of any reasons why this might not be a realistic choice?
I didn't think about it this way before, but it really looks like Epic might have bought out Bandcamp just to make this strategic legal play.
Some (niche reddit subs) think Musk bought out Twitter just to shit on the short sellers of TWTR that overlap with targeting Tesla, and "just because he could".
My cynical opinion is that it feels Tim Sweeney is purchasing companies in hopes he finds the “right” one that that causes enough public outrage to get his way in regards to App Store cuts.
So far he has lost a ton of cash on lawyer fees, M&A costs, etc. And EPIC now has to individually manage the acquired companies, make sure they're not competing against each other in the same market, etc, etc. I don't think this type of "spending current money to save future money" works. I don't care which company is doing it, but someone needs to break the App Store toll-booth.
Apple/Google/Anyone else trying to limit general purpose computing on mobile/PC platforms is a terrible thing for computing, but thats just my view. The ideal situation is we have a default app store - where the system integrator enforces all their policies, but then a user can voluntarily choose to download a separate app store where that store is run by different less exploitative policies. To make it easy for users, you can have an central store-front which then re-directs users to the different store pages. No different than a "Nike store" on Amazon.
> And EPIC now has to individually manage the acquired companies, make sure they're not competing against each other
Tim Sweeney is buying creator marketplaces. The Github in each market: 3D (sketchup/artstation), 2D (artstation), music (bandcamp), etc. It's the Microsoft play, but for creatives.
He's trying to leapfrog the gaming industry and build a content creation engine that encompasses Hollywood, marketing, architecture, automotive, you name it. He's actively cultivating skilled creator mindshare and winning.
He's also trying to set legal precedent that siloed distribution marketplaces can't charge an arm and a leg and enforce draconian rules, because his play is a two sided multi-channel marketplace where he wins regardless of where you buy or sell.
The endgame for Tim is huge if it works.
The thing that sucks for me is that while I fundamentally agree with everything Tim is doing, he has got to get some better PR because I am so tired of this. I am tired of Tim Sweeney and Epic this multi billion dollar company going “boohoo I’m so bullied,” like, shut up and just do the thing without trying to smear anyone and everyone who isn’t yourself.
At least in Android it is already the case, I have installed both F-Droid and Huawei's AppGallery in an otherwise stock android. (And prefer to get as much as possible from F-Droid)
Apple on the other hand has a war against "evil" sideloading. :P
> At least in Android it is already the case
There are roadblocks and deficiencies though, a major one being that sideloaded app stores cannot automatically update their applications, making them permanently inferior and crippled compared to Google's offering.
They're actually fixing that finally (I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with Epic's lawsuits...)
Also, some apps from F-Droid are crippled compared to what they can do when downloading from Play Store, eg. the K9 mail app from F-Droid doesn't have support for push email, it can only check at intervals.
I don't know what the reason for this is, but the result is that Android is not a truly "open" platform.
At this point I feel its fairly obvious that only real solution is a completely new mobile OS.
I think it is pretty outrageous to spend a grand on a phone and then be told that I’m not allowed to put what I want on it or spend money supporting artists or publishers without a middle man. It’s absolutely insane and I’m not sure why it isn’t subject to a huge antitrust investigation. And this is coming from someone that likes Apple!
Except this is about Google, and about Android, where you can put what you want and spend money without that middle man. You just need to side load, or install some other app store.
Good. It should cause outrage.
The only outrage I feel is that Tim Sweeney is using the compensation of starving artists, the main demographic on Bandcamp as I understand it, to try and make himself and EPIC richer or more relatively powerful. I don't give two hoots about "breaking up the App Store Model" and I doubt many/most musicians do either. I personally feel that 30% isn't even outrageous considering the value proposition.
Relatively rich/privileged software developers making their problem (App Stores wanting a 30% cut) the musicians' problem isn't noble, it's evil.
Edit: The way I see it, Tim Sweeney/EPIC is responsible for breaking the status quo that allowed bandcamp’s niche to operate the way they did, which seems a reasonable assumption. That acquisition turned the userbase into a pawn in the App store battle.
The thing is… 30% is a lot for the artists on Bandcamp.
Say I sell my album for $10 for easy math.
I think Bandcamp takes something like 10-15%, there’s a small PayPal fee (~1%) and the rest goes to me.
That’s ~$8.41 in my pocket.
If Google takes their cut at the beginning for providing…the App Store where the buyer downloaded the app… the artist’s cut becomes ~$5.89. For a $10 album.
It just doesn’t line up with the whole point of Bandcamp.
> The thing is… 30% is a lot for the artists on Bandcamp.
How do you feel about 10%, which is what it probably would be according to TFA?
> I don't give two hoots about "breaking up the App Store Model" and I doubt many/most musicians do either
Well you should. Because regardless of if Epic bought bandcamp or not, the fee that google charges would come directly out of musicians pockets.
Regardless of who is running bandcamp, that feel would directly cause artists to not make as much money.
> I personally feel that 30% isn't even outrageous
Ok, and now the end result is that fee is coming out of artists pockets.
If you don't care about artist compensation, and want them to make less money, well fine. But don't pretend like you are on the side of artist compensation.
Yes, 100%. Epic or no, google announced that they were going to start taking an additional (and rather large) cut of payments for music sales which they have no part in. Bandcamp built a payment system that facilitates artists making money at zero cost to google, and now google wants to prevent that unless they get a cut.
You can argue that google provides the foothold that gets the app on the device, so maybe a small fee could be justified, but taking place in all transactions that enables in perpetuity despite providing no technical contribution to them is ridiculous.
Bandcamp could do a billion dollars a week in sales and it wouldn’t cost google a dime.
Sweeney / Epic donated $144 million to Ukraine. As far as virtue signaling goes, I think they've shown they do in fact have a fair amount of principles. Platform monopolies are real problems.
Bless him for it.
Also - I think Android is still a superior OS for Bandcamp users, since iOS doesn't allow local loading of music through the app. Nevertheless, I downloaded all my purchases and put them on my Android FS.
I’ll side with Epic when they agree to let me sideload skins in Fortnite. Open your platform, Epic!
The difference, of course, being that Google controls ~50 percent of the smartphone OS markets whereas Epic does not control anywhere close to half of the video game market.
Yes, if epic controlled 1 of only two serious video games in the entire world, then yes anti trust law should apply to them.
But that is clearly not the case, whereas Google and Apple clearly are much closer to being anti-competitive.
Fortnite skins are a store, not a marketplace. There's a big difference.
While this is an absolutely true statement that distinction is an active choice by Fortnite to monopolize their platform.
Do other people allowed to sell skins on the store? Is side-loading an official feature elsewhere? I feel like if side-loading or community skins aren't actually supported then it's an important distinction
Neither side-loading nor community skins are supported, and that is my point. Epic prefers complete monopoly control over their platform.
It's not a platform, it's a store. The term monopoly does not apply. It's not a clever gotcha, it's just you not understanding the difference.
Again, Epic is the one who has made that decision. Epic has decided to be the exclusive vendor of skins and emotes for Fortnite.
The only reason it’s a store is because… Epic wanted to be the only vendor. Whereas you’re acting like it’s something inherent to the product category. No, it was a decision Epic made.
This is not a noteworthy observation. Opening a marketplace for third party skins is basically entering an entirely new business. You need suddenly to manage obscenity censorship, ip infringement, fraud, aml for vendors, rendering issues with the skins.
Epic doesn't want to be in that business. That's fine. We can regulate them like a store. Apple wants to be in that business. Also fine. Let's regulate them like a marketplace.
So... Sweeney wasn't happy with 30%, and now he's not happy with a sweetheart 10% deal?
Pull the app and pull a Fortnite at this point and make people sideload it. I'm too tired of watching this fight over and over again, especially now that they're in the position of actually having a special deal that was given to them (even if it was pre-Epic).
He's not ok with sweet heart deals conceptually. Because they're bullshit
Then I have good news, in that this isn't some special "sweetheart deal". 10% is the standard rev share for music streaming apps that participate in Google's "Play Media Experience Program".
That's still a sweetheart deal, and also looks like it's 5% better than the standard play media deal https://play.google.com/console/about/programs/mediaprogram/
To qualify you must
- App primarily offering video, audio, or books in which users pay to consume content - Over 100,000 monthly active installs on Google Play - High quality user experience with strong Google Play rating - Developer account in good standing - Integration of specific Google platforms and APIs based on type of media content - Additional requirements apply depending on the type of media content
Feels like Epic bought Bandcamp just to use them as a pawn in their crusade.
Hoping nothing bad happens to it as it’s one of my favourite places on the Web.
So why can I make an Amazon purchase, using Amazon pay, through their android app installed through the Play Store. Is Google getting a cut there? Bandcamp must really be a threat to Google.
I find it fascinating that the base assumption here is that it’s all a level playing field, rules are evenly enforced and it’s up to each developper to pull themselves from their bootstraps to make it work.
I have of course no idea how Amazon does their deals (just anyone outside Amazon I guess).
I'm torn on this one.
I agreed with epic when they made this argument with Apple but that's because the App Store was the only way around.
Epic could just distribute an APK they build themselves. They just can't use the play store. Simple link on a website. Or the app. Doesn't the desktop launcher auto update?
Android is a lot more open so it's just weird to cry foul here but I also understand it does have an effect on their visibility.
I guess this is how I find out that Bandcamp was acquired by Epic...