# Neither Company Cares About You: The Epic vs. Google Saga
In the ongoing conflict between Epic Games and Google, the most recent lawsuit initiated by Epic Games against Google and Samsung has once again highlighted the intricate and frequently contentious relationship between tech giants. The lawsuit alleges that Google and Samsung have partaken in anti-competitive practices, especially through Samsung’s Auto Blocker feature, which inhibits the installation of software from unofficial sources. Epic contends that this feature, activated by default, unjustly restricts its ability to distribute its software, including the Epic Games Store, beyond conventional app stores such as Google Play.
At first sight, this might appear to be a typical instance of a smaller enterprise opposing a tech giant. However, a deeper investigation reveals that neither party is genuinely advocating for the consumer. Instead, both companies are mainly focused on their own financial interests. In this article, we will examine the reasons behind this legal conflict and why, in the end, neither entity is on your side.
## The Lawsuit: A Familiar Battle
Epic Games is well-acquainted with legal disputes involving tech behemoths. In 2020, the company famously took legal action against both Google and Apple regarding their app store regulations, especially the 30% commission imposed on in-app purchases. Epic argued that this fee was unreasonable and inhibited competition. Although Epic succeeded in some facets of the case, the outcome did not lead to the extensive changes the company desired.
Now, Epic reenters the courtroom, this time focusing on Samsung’s Auto Blocker feature. According to Epic, this feature, which is set as default on Samsung devices, complicates the process for users wishing to install third-party software, including the Epic Games Store. Epic asserts that Google coerced Samsung into adopting this feature to preserve its supremacy in the app distribution arena.
Google, on the other hand, refutes these claims. In a statement shared on X (formerly Twitter), David Kleidermacher, a member of Google’s Security and Privacy team, labeled Epic’s lawsuit as “meritless and dangerous.” He contended that the Auto Blocker feature aims to safeguard users from the hazards associated with sideloading apps from unofficial channels, which can leave devices vulnerable to malware and other security issues.
## The Real Issue: Money
Central to this legal confrontation is money. Epic aims to circumvent paying Google (or Apple) the 30% commission on in-app purchases, which is why it is so eager to distribute its software beyond official app stores. By urging users to sideload the Epic Games Store, Epic can evade Google’s fees and retain a larger portion of the revenue generated from games like *Fortnite*.
Conversely, Google and Samsung maintain that their policies are established to shield users from security threats. Sideloading apps from unofficial sources can indeed expose users to malware, phishing attempts, and other types of cybercrime. Google’s Play Protect, for instance, examines apps for harmful behavior, irrespective of their download source, to ensure user protection.
Yet, while these security concerns are legitimate, it’s difficult to overlook the financial incentives driving Google’s policies. By keeping users within the Google Play ecosystem, Google guarantees its continued collection of the 30% commission on app sales and in-app purchases. In simple terms, both companies are vying for control over the profitable app distribution market, and neither shows much concern for what might be in the consumer’s best interest.
## The Back-and-Forth: A PR Battle
As is often the case in legal disputes among tech giants, much of the battle is being waged in public perception. Both Epic and Google have turned to social media to advocate for their positions, with Epic CEO Tim Sweeney accusing Google and Samsung of intentionally making it difficult for users to install the Epic Games Store.
Sweeney argues that the 21 steps required to install the Epic Games Store on Samsung devices are riddled with “intentional dead ends and misleading scare screens,” portraying Epic as an unfamiliar and potentially hazardous entity. He emphasizes that other operating systems, such as Windows and macOS, permit users to install software from third-party sources without such obstacles.
Google, however, upholds that its policies are in place to protect users from the actual dangers associated with sideloading apps. Kleidermacher’s statement highlighted that governments and security professionals worldwide have called for enhanced protections against the threats posed by sideloaded applications, and that Samsung’s Auto Blocker feature is a response to these apprehensions.
## The Reality: Neither Company Is on Your Side
Despite both Epic and Google claiming to prioritize consumer interests, the truth is that neither company genuinely looks out for you. Epic seeks to avoid paying Google’s fees to retain more revenue from its games, while Google aims to uphold its dominance in the app distribution sphere and persist in collecting its 30% commission.
Epic’s assertion that it’s a “trusted source” because “y’all know us” is particularly troubling. Trust in
