# The Epic v. Google Saga: What Lies Ahead for the Play Store?
It might never actually transpire.
In a pivotal decision, Judge James Donato has mandated Google to implement substantial alterations to its Play Store policies as part of the resolution for its anticompetitive behavior. This ruling arises from the 2020 **Epic v. Google** trial, where Google was determined to have functioned as an unlawful monopoly concerning its management of the Play Store and its developer policies. The verdict has reverberated throughout the tech sector, but the lingering question is: Will these alterations truly occur, or will they be overturned during the appeals process?
## The Verdict: Unpacking the Play Store
Judge Donato’s ruling is in the “penalty” stage of the trial, and it encompasses several significant requirements for Google. The most attention-grabbing element is the obligation for Google to permit third-party app stores, like the **Epic Games Store**, to be linked to Google Play. This change would enable developers to circumvent Google’s payment systems, which typically retain a 30% commission on all transactions.
Moreover, Google must alter its billing stipulations and payment policies, giving developers the ability to direct users to external sites for transactions. This marks a substantial victory for developers who have long voiced grievances about Google’s stringent oversight regarding in-app purchases and its considerable commission rates.
However, while some of these adjustments appear to favor a more open app environment, the reality is that not all may materialize. Google has already initiated the appeal process, and it remains uncertain which aspects of the ruling will endure in the protracted legal dispute to come.
## What Is Most Likely to Persist?
One of the probable outcomes is that Google will be compelled to revise its approach to third-party payments. This longstanding issue has led many to argue that developers deserve the freedom to direct users to external sites for purchases. Google’s existing policy, which mandates the use of its payment system and a 30% commission, has faced widespread backlash for being inequitable.
For instance, users can currently bypass Google’s payment system for services like **YouTube Premium** by subscribing via a web browser rather than through the app, thereby saving money. This ruling could potentially extend that independence to a broader array of applications, granting consumers additional options and possibly reducing costs.
## The Technical Challenge of Opening the Play Store
While the notion of opening the Play Store to third-party app stores is enticing, the technical hurdles are substantial. According to the ruling, Google must permit third-party app stores, such as the **Epic Games Store**, to function within the Play Store. These third-party stores would gain access to every app on the Play Store and be able to process payments independently of Google—unless a developer opts out.
This is where complexities arise. The logistics surrounding the coexistence of multiple app stores within the Play Store, each operating with distinct payment systems and regulations, could lead to a technical quagmire. Ensuring security, maintaining app quality, and providing a seamless user experience would prove to be extraordinarily challenging. It’s improbable that this aspect of the ruling will operate as intended, and it may be among the first points contested on appeal.
## Should Google Be Permitted to Pay for Exclusivity?
Another divisive element of the ruling is whether Google should have the ability to compensate developers for exclusive access to the Play Store. This is a prevalent tactic in the tech realm—corporations such as **Microsoft**, **Sony**, **Apple**, and even **Epic Games** routinely pay for exclusive content or features to draw users to their platforms.
While some contend that this practice is anticompetitive, others view it as a valid business strategy. If Google is required to cease paying for exclusivity, it could establish a precedent that reverberates throughout the tech industry. However, this concern is relatively minor compared to the overarching issue of whether Google will be compelled to open the Play Store to third-party app stores.
## The Apple Parallel: Why Is Google Facing Issues?
Whenever Google encounters legal challenges regarding its Play Store policies, comparisons to **Apple** inevitably emerge. After all, Apple operates a similarly restricted ecosystem through its **App Store**, yet it has mostly evaded the level of scrutiny and legal issues that Google is currently experiencing.
Several factors contribute to this disparity. For one, Apple is not regarded as a monopoly in the same manner as Google. Apple commands a smaller share of the global smartphone market and has consistently positioned itself as a premium, closed ecosystem. On the other hand, Google’s **Android** operating system is open-source and licenses its software to a diverse range of manufacturers, rendering it more susceptible to antitrust allegations.
Another significant distinction is the legal framework itself. As one observer noted, “Apple had a different judge.” The legal results in these cases often hinge on the specific judge presiding over the trial.
