Epic Games demands that Google make the Play Store more open. The company wants Android users to be able to download apps more easily from other places, in Epic’s case of course from the Epic Games Store. The company has wanted the same thing with Apple for years.
Epic has filed a request in a US court. The company says in an accompanying blog post that it does this after a jury in the American state of California previously decided that Google’s Play Store practices ‘are illegal’. Epic Games then wrote a letter explaining what exactly it expects from Google. This is part of a lawsuit that the company previously started against the tech giant.
According to Epic, Google should allow users to download apps from anywhere ‘without intervention’. In practice, this is already possible because Android allows the installation of apk files, but Epic wants Google to stop what it calls ‘deterrent tactics’, such as warning screens. “Consumers should be able to download apps directly, similar to how they do on their computers,” Epic writes.
Epic also wants Google to make it easier to make in-app purchases that are ‘free of anti-competitive amounts and restrictions’. Epic wants developers to be able to communicate directly to users that they can also make an in-app purchase on another platform and that Google allows alternative payment methods in apps.
Most of the requirements are not new. Epic has been citing exactly the same demands for years in a lawsuit it is pursuing against Apple. The game manufacturer wants to release its own game launcher, the Epic Games Store, for iOS and also on Android. Apple has now started to comply with several of those demands, but this has more to do with the entry into force of the Digital Markets Act in Europe than with the lawsuit. Google says in a response to Reuters, among others that it disagrees with Epic. “This once again shows that Epic simply wants the benefits of Google Play without having to pay for it.” The company says that Android sees a lot of competition from Apple, among others, and that it is therefore not anti-competitive.
