Google is appealing a judgement given on 7 October by US District Judge James Donato in California, which would diminish the company’s control over the distribution of Android apps.
The federal judge has ordered Google to open up its app store, Google Play, to enable third-party app stores and allow software developers to offer Android apps directly to Android smartphone and tablet users.
The case, brought on by Epic Games, the developer of Fortnite, concerns Google’s control of the Android apps market. The judge has ordered Google to put in place provisions to unblock Google policy of preventing third-party developers from distributing Android apps, either on a rival app store or directly as a download from their website.
For its quarterly financial filing, which ended 30 June, Alphabet, the parent company of Google, reported Google Services revenue of almost $74bn, an increase of over $11bn compared with the same quarter in 2023.
Google Services is the part of the company’s business that includes products and services such as ads, Android, Chrome, devices, Google Maps, Google Play, Search and YouTube. To distribute apps via its Play Store, Google charges 15% for the first $1m revenue earned by the developer each year and 30% for earnings in excess of $1m. Software paid via an annual subscription is charged at 15% each year. The ruling could severely impact Google’s Play Store revenue stream and its ability to charge developers a commission when in-app purchases are made, since these are currently only possible via its own payment system.
In a blog post, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Alphabet’s vice-president of regulatory affairs, said: “These changes would put consumers’ privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps and reduce competition on devices. Ultimately, while these changes presumably satisfy Epic, they will cause a range of unintended consequences that will harm American consumers, developers and device makers.”
Google is contesting the ruling, claiming it goes against a similar case Epic brought against Apple, in which the judge ruled in favour of the latter. “These Epic-requested changes stem from a decision that is completely contrary to another court’s rejection of similar claims Epic made against Apple – even though, unlike iOS, Android is an open platform that has always allowed for choice and flexibility like multiple app stores and sideloading,” she added.
The comparison to iOS and the Apple App Store is the main focus of the Google appeal. The company claimed Epic’s proposal removes Google’s ability to implement trust and safety measures that keep Android users safe.
Mulholland also inferred that opening up the Android platform would make software development more complex. “Developers have finite resources and have to decide how much time and money to devote to building and updating their apps for each platform,” she said.
“Like any business, Google wants developers to offer their best features for Android and to release them on Android first. So, we build tools, run training programmes and invest in making it as easy as possible to develop for Android. Apple, of course, does the same – competing to convince developers to prioritise iOS.”
