After a US court ruled earlier this week that Google must open its Play Store to allow for third-party app stores and alternative payment options, Microsoft is moving quickly to slide into this slightly ajar door.
Sarah Bond, president of Xbox, posted on X (formerly Twitter) Thursday evening that the ruling “will allow more choice and flexibility.” “Our mission is to allow more players to play on more devices so we are thrilled to share that starting in November, players will be able to play and purchase Xbox games directly from the Xbox App on Android,” Bond wrote.
Because the court order requires Google to stop forcing apps to use its own billing system and allow for third-party app stores inside Google Play itself, Microsoft now intends to offer Xbox games directly through its app. Most games will likely not run directly on Android, but a revamped Xbox Android app could also directly stream purchased or subscribed games to Android devices.
Until now, buying Xbox games (or most any game) on a mobile device has typically involved either navigating to a web-based store in a browser—while avoiding attempts by the phone to open a store’s official app—or simply using a different device entirely to buy the game, then playing or streaming it on the phone.
Injunction in Epic case gives rival app stores three years to catch up to Google.
Google Play gift cards in a shop in New York on July 5th, 2024.
A federal judge yesterday ordered Google to open up the Google Play Store and its collection of apps to third-party app stores as part of a US-wide injunction stemming from Epic Games’ antitrust victory over the company. The injunction is scheduled to take effect on November 1, though Google will have up to eight months to implement certain provisions.
For three years, Google will have to let third-party Android app stores access the Google Play Store’s catalog of apps “so that they may offer the Play Store apps to users,” said the injunction issued by US District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California.
App developers will have some control over which app stores their software is distributed on. “Google will provide developers with a mechanism for opting out of inclusion in catalog access for any particular third-party Android app store,” the injunction said.
Google will be required to allow distribution of third-party Android app stores through the Google Play Store, making it easier for users to install different app stores without sideloading. Donato further prohibited Google from requiring the use of its own billing system for apps distributed on the Google Play Store, including for in-app purchases.
Some provisions relate to deals with phone makers and carriers that may offer devices with preinstalled app stores. “For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement with an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or carrier to preinstall the Google Play Store on any specific location on an Android device,” the injunction said. A similar condition applies to any “agreement with an OEM or carrier not to preinstall an Android app distribution platform or store other than the Google Play Store.”
Judge gives competitors three years to catch up
In an order explaining the injunction, Donato said he limited the requirements to three years “because the provisions are designed to level the playing field for the entry and growth of rivals, without burdening Google excessively. As competition comes into play and the network effects that Google Play unfairly enjoys are abated, Google should not be unduly constrained as a competitor.”
At trial, the jury ruled in Epic’s favor on its Sherman Act claims of monopolization, unlawful restraint of trade, and tying. Donato explained that a remedy in antitrust cases “is not limited simply to prohibiting conduct found to be anticompetitive. Rather, the Court has discretion to fashion a remedy directed to the effect of the anticompetitive conduct.”
Epic was “illegally and unfairly foreclosed from using its own in-app billing services while distributing its Fortnite app through the Google Play Store because of Google’s anticompetitive practices,” and “illegally and unfairly foreclosed from competing in the market for Android in-app billing services for digital goods and services transactions,” Donato wrote.
Donato added that the “harms are ongoing and cannot be made right simply by Google writing Epic a large check.” The injunction is in the public interest because it will help restore “free and unfettered competition,” he wrote. Google is also “enjoined from sharing Play Store revenues with current or potential Android app store rivals, and from imposing contractual terms that condition benefits on promises intended to guarantee Play Store exclusivity.”
Donato’s order said that Google on several occasions “fired a blunderbuss of comments and complaints that are underdeveloped and consequently unhelpful in deciding the issues.” He also rejected some of Epic’s proposals because they would have “threatened a degree of judicial oversight that would amount to micromanagement of Google’s business. It is not for the Court to decide the day-to-day business issues of Android app distribution and in-app billing.”
Google plans appeal
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney wrote that the injunction “means all app developers, store makers, carriers, and manufacturers have 3 years to build a vibrant and competitive Android ecosystem with such critical mass that Google can’t stop it.”
Google issued a response saying it will appeal the underlying verdict and “will ask the courts to pause Epic’s requested changes, pending that appeal.”
The court-ordered “changes would put consumers’ privacy and security at risk, make it harder for developers to promote their apps, and reduce competition on devices,” Google VP of Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland wrote. “Ultimately, while these changes presumably satisfy Epic, they will cause a range of unintended consequences that will harm American consumers, developers and device makers.”
Mulholland also said the injunction will “undercut Android’s ability to compete with Apple’s iOS.”
“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 wrote.
Judge dismisses Google arguments
Donato’s order allows Google to impose security restrictions on third-party apps, but he said that Google must show that any restrictions are necessary.
“As Google has suggested, there are potential security and technical risks involved in making third-party apps available, including rival app stores,” Donato wrote. “The Court is in no position to anticipate what those might be, or how to solve them. Consequently, Google will have room to engage in its normal security and safety processes. To the extent Google imposes requirements along these lines on rival app stores, it will… bear the burden when challenged of establishing that the requirements were strictly necessary to achieve safety and security for users and developers.”
The injunction, Donato wrote, “must not only prohibit the specific anticompetitive conduct that Google engaged in, but also undo the consequence of Google’s ill-gotten gains.” But the requirements, such as the one forcing Google to let third-party app stores access the Google Play Store catalog, have some limits:
The injunction must bridge the moat. Even so, the catalog access provision is narrowly tailored to remediate the unfairly enhanced network effects Google reaped without unfairly penalizing its success as a first mover. To that end, if a rival app store does not have a relationship with a developer and so cannot fulfill a download request by a user, the rival will direct the download request to the Google Play Store. In that case, the Google Play Store will fulfill the download request and keep the associated revenue, if any, and the download will be made pursuant to the Google Play Store’s policies. All that the catalog access does is level the playing field for a discrete period of time so that rival app stores have a fighting chance of getting off the ground despite network effects and the disadvantage of offering a “catalog of app/games” that is too “limited” to attract users and developers in a two-sided market.
Donato is giving Google eight months to implement the technology needed to allow distribution of third-party app stores through Google Play, and eight months to give third-party stores access to the Google Play Store catalog of apps.
“Google will have up to eight months from the date of this order to implement the technology and procedures necessary to comply with this provision, and the three-year time period will start once the technology and procedures are fully functional,” he wrote. A technical committee will oversee the process, “with the Court serving as the final word when necessary.”
Donato’s 17-page order did not address every one of Google’s arguments, because the judge decided some of them were too weak to warrant a response. “As noted, Google’s modus operandi in this case has been to deluge the Court in an ocean of comments, many of which were cursory and undeveloped. The Court declines to take up Google’s objections that were not fully developed in their presentation to the Court,” he wrote.
Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.
Enlarge/ It’s never explained what this collection of app icons quite represents. A disorganized app you tossed together by sideloading? A face that’s frowning because it’s rolling down a bar held up by app icons? It’s weird, but not quite evocative.
You might sideload an Android app, or manually install its APK package, if you’re using a custom version of Android that doesn’t include Google’s Play Store. Alternately, the app might be experimental, under development, or perhaps no longer maintained and offered by its developer. Until now, the existence of sideload-ready APKs on the web was something that seemed to be tolerated, if warned against, by Google.
This quiet standstill is being shaken up by a new feature in Google’s Play Integrity API. As reported by Android Authority, developer tools to push “remediation” dialogs during sideloading debuted at Google’s I/O conference in May, have begun showing up on users’ phones. Sideloaders of apps from the British shop Tesco, fandom app BeyBlade X, and ChatGPT have reported “Get this app from Play” prompts, which cannot be worked around. An Android gaming handheld user encountered a similarly worded prompt from Diablo Immortal on their device three months ago.
Google’s Play Integrity API is how apps have previously blocked access when loaded onto phones that are in some way modified from a stock OS with all Google Play integrations intact. Recently, a popular two-factor authentication app blocked access on rooted phones, including the security-minded GrapheneOS. Apps can call the Play Integrity API and get back an “integrity verdict,” relaying if the phone has a “trustworthy” software environment, has Google Play Protect enabled, and passes other software checks.
Graphene has questioned the veracity of Google’s Integrity API and SafetyNet Attestation systems, recommending instead standard Android hardware attestation. Rahman notes that apps do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach to integrity checking. Rather than block installation entirely, apps could call on the API only during sensitive actions, issuing a warning there. But not having a Play Store connection can also deprive developers of metrics, allow for installation on incompatible devices (and resulting bad reviews), and, of course, open the door to paid app piracy.
Google
“Unknown distribution channels” blocked
Google’s developer video about “Automatic integrity protection” (at the 12-minute, 24-second mark on YouTube) notes that “select” apps have access to automatic protection. This adds an automatic checking tool to your app and the “strongest version of Google Play’s anti-tamper protection.” “If users get your protected app from an unknown distribution channel,” a slide in the presentation reads, “they’ll be prompted to get it from Google Play,” available to “select Play Partners.”
Enlarge/ I like the idea of clicking “Realistic,” “MMORPG,” and “Word” boxes, just to see what comes back.
Google
Google Play is a lot of things—perhaps too many things for those who just want to install some apps. If that’s how you feel, you might find “Google Play’s next chapter” a bit bewildering, as Google hopes to make it “more than a store.” Or you might start thinking about how to turn Play Points into a future Pixel phone.
Google Play’s “new way to Play.”
In a blog post about “How we’re evolving Google Play,” VP and General Manager of Google Play Sam Bright outlines the big changes to Google Play:
AI-generated app reviews and summaries, along with app comparisons
“Curated spaces” for interests, showing content from apps related to one thing (like cricket, and Japanese comics)
Game recommendations based on genres and features you select.
Google Play Games on PC can pick up where you left off in games played on mobile and can soon play multiple titles at the same time on desktop.
Play Points enthusiasts who are in the Diamond, Platinum, or Gold levels can win Pixel devices, Razer gaming products, and other gear, along with other game and access perks.
Those are the upgrades to existing Play features. The big new thing is Collections, which, like the “curated spaces,” takes content from apps you already have installed and organizes them around broad categories. I spotted “Watch,” “Listen,” “Read,” “Games,” “Social,” “Shop,” and “Food” in Google’s animated example. You can toggle individual apps feeding into the Collections in the settings.
It’s hard not to look at Google Play’s new focus on having users actively express their interests in certain topics and do their shopping inside a fully Google-ized space, against the timing of yesterday’s announcement regarding third-party cookies. Maybe that connection isn’t apparent right off, but bear with me.
The Play Store is still contractually installed on the vast majority of Android devices, but competition and changes could be coming following Google’s loss to Epic in an antitrust trial and proposed remedies Google deeply dislikes. Meanwhile, the Play Store and Google’s alleged non-compliance with new regulations, like allowing developers to notify customers about payment options outside the store, are under investigation.
If the tide turns against tracking users across apps, websites, and stores, and if the Play Store becomes non-required for browsing and purchasing apps, it’s in Google’s interests to get people actively committing to things they want to see more about on their phone screens. It’s a version of what Chrome is doing with its Privacy Sandbox and its “Topics” that it can flag for advertisers. Google’s video for the new Play experience suggests “turning a sea of apps into a world of discovery.” The prompt “What are you interested in?” works for the parties on both ends of Google’s Play space.
Google urged a federal court to reject Epic Games’ request for an injunction that would reduce Google’s control of the Android app distribution and in-app payment markets.
“Rather than a judicial injunction against alleged violations of law, Epic asks this Court to create a new global regulatory regime that would set prices, impose ongoing duties to deal, and require the Court to micromanage on an ongoing basis a highly complex and dynamic ecosystem that is used by billions of consumers and millions of app developers and that supports the business of hundreds of OEMs and carriers around the world,” stated Google’s objections filed yesterday in US District Court for the Northern District of California.
In December 2023, the maker of Fortnite won a jury ruling that found Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct in order to maintain monopolies in the Android app distribution market and the Android market for in-app billing. The jury sided with Epic on every question it was presented.
Following up on its trial win, Epic submitted a proposed injunction last month. Google yesterday said it objects to proposed provisions “requiring Google to distribute other app stores and make its entire app catalog available to every other app store, prohibiting Google from negotiating with OEMs for non-exclusive placement and with developers for differentiated content, and chilling Google’s business relationships by restricting conduct that ‘incentivizes’ or ‘disincentivizes’ third parties.”
Epic’s proposal would require Google to allow distribution of third-party app stores on the Google Play store for at least six years. Google would also have to provide third-party app stores access to the Google Play app catalog for at least six years.
Google: Settlement with states is enough
Google said there is no need for Epic’s proposed injunction because Google already agreed to remedies in a $700 million settlement with US states that had sued on similar grounds. Google’s settlement with states was announced about a week after Epic’s win.
“Those remedies—endorsed by all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and two territories—span nearly every topic covered by Epic’s proposed injunction and fully address the alleged anticompetitive conduct and effects that Epic presented to the jury at trial,” Google wrote in yesterday’s filing. “Those remedies would further promote competition among app stores, ensure that competing app stores can enter preload agreements with OEMs, simplify direct installation, and allow developers to choose among billing systems.”
“By contrast, Epic’s proposed injunction seeks to tilt competition in its favor to the detriment of other developers, OEMs, consumers, and Android users,” Google said. Google contends that Epic’s proposed injunction would harm other developers and OEMs “by depriving them of choices and reducing competition for their business and while undermining the security and privacy of Android users.”
According to Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes’ office, the settlement with states lets Google users “pay through in-app billing systems other than Google Play Billing for at least five years,” and lets developers “steer consumers toward alternative, non-Google billing systems by advertising lower prices within their apps for at least five years.”
The deal with states prohibits Google from “enter[ing] into contracts that require the Play Store to be the exclusive, pre-loaded app store on a device or home screen for at least five years,” and requires Google to “allow third-party apps on Android phones outside the Google Play Store for at least seven years.” Google also has to “revise and reduce the warnings on an Android device if a user attempts to download a third-party app from outside the Google Play Store for at least five years,” and “maintain Android system support for third-party app stores, including automatic updates, for four years.”
Epic is suggesting that competition on the Android mobile platform would be opened up if the court orders Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed for six years in the Google Play Store and blocks Google from entering any agreements with device makers that would stop them from pre-loading third-party app stores. This would benefit both mobile developers and users, Epic argued in a wide-sweeping proposal that would greatly limit Google’s control over the Android app ecosystem.
US District Court Judge James Donato will ultimately decide the terms of the injunction. Google has until May 3 to respond to Epic’s filing.
“Epic’s filing to the US Federal Court shows again that it simply wants the benefits of Google Play without having to pay for it,” Google’s spokesperson said. “We’ll continue to challenge the verdict, as Android is an open mobile platform that faces fierce competition from the Apple App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices, PCs, and gaming consoles.”
If Donato accepts Epic’s proposal, Google would be required to grant equal access to the Android operating system and platform features to all developers, not just developers distributing apps through Google Play. This would allow third-party app stores to become the app update owner, updating any apps downloaded from their stores as seamlessly as Google Play updates apps.
Under Epic’s terms, any app downloaded from anywhere would operate identically to apps downloaded from Google Play, without Google imposing any unnecessary distribution fees. Similarly, developers would be able to provide their own in-app purchasing options and inform users of out-of-app purchasing options, without having to use Google’s APIs or paying Google additional fees.
Notably, Epic filed its lawsuit after Google removed the Epic game Fortnite from the Google Play Store because Epic tried to offer an “Epic Direct Payment” option for in-game purchases.
“Google must also allow developers to communicate directly with their consumers, including linking from their app to a website to make purchases and get deals,” Epic said in a blog post. “Google would be blocked from using sham compliance programs like User Choice Billing to prevent competing payment options inside an app or on a developer’s website.”
Unsurprisingly, Epic’s proposed injunction includes an “anti-retaliation” section specifically aimed at protecting Epic from any further retaliation. If Donato accepts the terms, Google would be violating the injunction order if the tech giant fails to prove that it is not “treating Epic differently than other developers” by making it “disproportionately difficult or costly” for Epic to develop, update, and market its apps on Android.
That part of the injunction would seem important since, last month, Epic announced that an Epic Games Store was “coming to iOS and Android” later this year. According to Inc, Epic told Game Developers Conference attendees that its app-distribution platform will be the “first ever game-focused, multiplatform store,” working across “Android, iOS, PC and macOS.”
Google has sued two app developers based in China over an alleged scheme targeting 100,000 users globally over four years with at least 87 fraudulent cryptocurrency and other investor apps distributed through the Play Store.
The tech giant alleged that scammers lured victims with “promises of high returns” from “seemingly legitimate” apps offering investment opportunities in cryptocurrencies and other products. Commonly known as “pig-butchering schemes,” these scams displayed fake returns on investments, but when users went to withdraw the funds, they discovered they could not.
In some cases, Google alleged, developers would “double down on the scheme by requesting various fees and other payments from victims that were supposedly necessary for the victims to recover their principal investments and purported gains.”
Google accused the app developers—Yunfeng Sun (also known as “Alphonse Sun”) and Hongnam Cheung (also known as “Zhang Hongnim” and “Stanford Fischer”)—of conspiring to commit “hundreds of acts of wire fraud” to further “an unlawful pattern of racketeering activity” that siphoned up to $75,000 from each user successfully scammed.
Google was able to piece together the elaborate alleged scheme because the developers used a wide array of Google products and services to target victims, Google said, including Google Play, Voice, Workspace, and YouTube, breaching each one’s terms of service. Perhaps most notably, the Google Play Store’s developer program policies “forbid developers to upload to Google Play ‘apps that expose users to deceptive or harmful financial products and services,’ including harmful products and services ‘related to the management or investment of money and cryptocurrencies.'”
In addition to harming Google consumers, Google claimed that each product and service’s reputation would continue to be harmed unless the US district court in New York ordered a permanent injunction stopping developers from using any Google products or services.
“By using Google Play to conduct their fraud scheme,” scammers “have threatened the integrity of Google Play and the user experience,” Google alleged. “By using other Google products to support their scheme,” the scammers “also threaten the safety and integrity of those other products, including YouTube, Workspace, and Google Voice.”
Google’s lawsuit is the company’s most recent attempt to block fraudsters from targeting Google products by suing individuals directly, Bloomberg noted. Last year, Google sued five people accused of distributing a fake Bard AI chatbot that instead downloaded malware to Google users’ devices, Bloomberg reported.
How did the alleged Google Play scams work?
Google said that the accused developers “varied their approach from app to app” when allegedly trying to scam users out of thousands of dollars but primarily relied on three methods to lure victims.
The first method relied on sending text messages using Google Voice—such as “I am Sophia, do you remember me?” or “I miss you all the time, how are your parents Mike?”—”to convince the targeted victims that they were sent to the wrong number.” From there, the scammers would apparently establish “friendships” or “romantic relationships” with victims before moving the conversation to apps like WhatsApp, where they would “offer to guide the victim through the investment process, often reassuring the victim of any doubts they had about the apps.” These supposed friends, Google claimed, would “then disappear once the victim tried to withdraw funds.”
Another strategy allegedly employed by scammers relied on videos posted to platforms like YouTube, where fake investment opportunities would be promoted, promising “rates of return” as high as “two percent daily.”
The third tactic, Google said, pushed bogus affiliate marketing campaigns, promising users commissions for “signing up additional users.” These apps, Google claimed, were advertised on social media as “a guaranteed and easy way to earn money.”
Once a victim was drawn into using one of the fraudulent apps, “user interfaces sought to convince victims that they were maintaining balances on the app and that they were earning ‘returns’ on their investments,” Google said.
Occasionally, users would be allowed to withdraw small amounts, convincing them that it was safe to invest more money, but “later attempts to withdraw purported returns simply did not work.” And sometimes the scammers would “bilk” victims out of “even more money,” Google said, by requesting additional funds be submitted to make a withdrawal.
“Some demands” for additional funds, Google found, asked for anywhere “from 10 to 30 percent to cover purported commissions and/or taxes.” Victims, of course, “still did not receive their withdrawal requests even after these additional fees were paid,” Google said.
Which apps were removed from the Play Store?
Google tried to remove apps as soon as they were discovered to be fraudulent, but Google claimed that scammers concocted new aliases and infrastructure to “obfuscate their connection to suspended fraudulent apps.” Because scammers relied on so many different Google services, Google was able to connect the scheme to the accused developers through various business records.
Fraudulent apps named in the complaint include fake cryptocurrency exchanges called TionRT and SkypeWallet. To make the exchanges appear legitimate, scammers put out press releases on newswire services and created YouTube videos likely relying on actors to portray company leadership.
In one YouTube video promoting SkypeWallet, the supposed co-founder of Skype Coin uses the name “Romser Bennett,” which is the same name used for the supposed founder of another fraudulent app called OTCAI2.0, Google said. In each video, a completely different presumed hired actor plays the part of “Romser Bennett.” In other videos, Google found the exact same actor plays an engineer named “Rodriguez” for one app and a technical leader named “William Bryant” for another app.
Another fraudulent app that was flagged by Google was called the Starlight app. Promoted on TikTok and Instagram, Google said, that app promised “that users could earn commissions by simply watching videos.”
The Starlight app was downloaded approximately 23,000 times and seemingly primarily targeted users in Ghana, allegedly scamming at least 6,000 Ghanian users out of initial investment capital that they were told was required before they could start earning money on the app.
Across all 87 fraudulent apps that Google has removed, Google estimated that approximately 100,000 users were victimized, including approximately 8,700 in the United States.
Currently, Google is not aware of any live apps in the Play Store connected to the alleged scheme, the complaint said, but scammers intent on furthering the scheme “will continue to harm Google and Google Play users” without a permanent injunction, Google warned.
Enlarge/ EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton talks to media about non-compliance investigations against Google, Apple, and Meta under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Not even three weeks after the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) took effect, the European Commission (EC) announced Monday that it is already probing three out of six gatekeepers—Apple, Google, and Meta—for suspected non-compliance.
Apple will need to prove that changes to its app store and existing user options to swap out default settings easily are sufficient to comply with the DMA.
Similarly, Google’s app store rules will be probed, as well as any potentially shady practices unfairly preferencing its own services—like Google Shopping and Hotels—in search results.
Finally, Meta’s “Subscription for No Ads” option—allowing Facebook and Instagram users to opt out of personalized ad targeting for a monthly fee—may not fly under the DMA. Even if Meta follows through on its recent offer to slash these fees by nearly 50 percent, the model could be deemed non-compliant.
“The DMA is very clear: gatekeepers must obtain users’ consent to use their personal data across different services,” the EC’s commissioner for internal market, Thierry Breton, said Monday. “And this consent must be free!”
In total, the EC announced five investigations: two against Apple, two against Google, and one against Meta.
“We suspect that the suggested solutions put forward by the three companies do not fully comply with the DMA,” antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said, ordering companies to “retain certain documents” viewed as critical to assessing evidence in the probe.
The EC’s investigations are expected to conclude within one year. If tech companies are found non-compliant, they risk fines of up to 10 percent of total worldwide turnover. Any repeat violations could spike fines to 20 percent.
“Moreover, in case of systematic infringements, the Commission may also adopt additional remedies, such as obliging a gatekeeper to sell a business or parts of it or banning the gatekeeper from acquisitions of additional services related to the systemic non-compliance,” the EC’s announcement said.
“These are the cases where we already have concrete evidence of possible non-compliance,” Breton said. “And this in less than 20 days of DMA implementation. But our monitoring and investigative work of course doesn’t stop here,” Breton said. “We may have to open other non-compliance cases soon.
Google and Apple have both issued statements defending their current plans for DMA compliance.
“To comply with the Digital Markets Act, we have made significant changes to the way our services operate in Europe,” Google’s competition director Oliver Bethell told Ars, promising to “continue to defend our approach in the coming months.”
“We’re confident our plan complies with the DMA, and we’ll continue to constructively engage with the European Commission as they conduct their investigations,” Apple’s spokesperson told Ars. “Teams across Apple have created a wide range of new developer capabilities, features, and tools to comply with the regulation. At the same time, we’ve introduced protections to help reduce new risks to the privacy, quality, and security of our EU users’ experience. Throughout, we’ve demonstrated flexibility and responsiveness to the European Commission and developers, listening and incorporating their feedback.”
A Meta spokesperson told Ars that Meta “designed Subscription for No Ads to address several overlapping regulatory obligations, including the DMA,” promising to comply with the DMA while arguing that “subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a well-established business model across many industries.”
The EC’s announcement came after all designated gatekeepers were required to submit DMA compliance reports and scheduled public workshops to discuss DMA compliance. Those workshops conclude tomorrow with Microsoft and appear to be partly driving the EC’s decision to probe Apple, Google, and Meta.
“Stakeholders provided feedback on the compliance solutions offered,” Vestager said. “Their feedback tells us that certain compliance measures fail to achieve their objectives and fall short of expectations.”
Apple and Google app stores probed
Under the DMA, “gatekeepers can no longer prevent their business users from informing their users within the app about cheaper options outside the gatekeeper’s ecosystem,” Vestager said. “That is called anti-steering and is now forbidden by law.”
Stakeholders told the EC that Apple’s and Google’s fee structures appear to “go against” the DMA’s “free of charge” requirement, Vestager said, because companies “still charge various recurring fees and still limit steering.”
This feedback pushed the EC to launch its first two probes under the DMA against Apple and Google.
“We will investigate to what extent these fees and limitations defeat the purpose of the anti-steering provision and by that, limit consumer choice,” Vestager said.
These probes aren’t the end of Apple’s potential app store woes in the EU, either. Breton said that the EC has “many questions on Apple’s new business model” for the app store. These include “questions on the process that Apple used for granting and terminating membership of” its developer program, following a scandal where Epic Games’ account was briefly terminated.
“We also have questions on the fee structure and several other aspects of the business model,” Breton said, vowing to “check if they allow for real opportunities for app developers in line with the letter and the spirit of the DMA.”
There are relatively few 2D Android apps available on the Quest Store, which seems odd since the Quest hardware runs a modified version of Android. According to Meta CTO Andrew ‘Boz’ Bosworth, Google simply isn’t interested in bringing the full Play Store of apps to Quest.
“There’s nothing preventing Android developers who have an APK running on Android phones today from bringing that into VR,” Bosworth said in a recent AMA via Instragram. “They just need to ship the APK to us, and maybe they need to do some light modification depending on how the control scheme would work, but not necessarily much after that.”
So much is clear when it comes to publishing the app directly to the Quest Store, which is the case for apps such as Peacock, Pluto TV, WhatsApp, and Instagram. But what about the millions of apps on Google’s official Play Store?
“We don’t have a way of automatically ingesting those [APKs],” Bosworth continues. “We would love for Google to bring their Play Store of apps to VR. We’ve asked them. They don’t want to do it, so it’s kind of up to the developers to do that.”
While Google’s Play Store is chock-full of useful, oftentimes free apps, what Bosworth doesn’t mention in his AMA are some of the complications that would naturally arise from having the Play Store on Quest. Not only could it open up a host of hypothetical issues with how revenue is split, but also how developers might choose to publish their apps.
For non-subscription-based apps, Google takes a 30% revenue cut from developers, while Meta does the same for both the Quest Store and App Lab. But why would Meta want Google sneaking away revenue, or vice versa? It seems doubtful that two such prominent digital storefronts could coexist on a single device.
There’s also the matter of the Samsung-Google-Qualcomm partnership we heard about earlier this year, which is set to bring an Android-powered XR headset to market, suggesting that Google hasn’t given up on headsets despite having completely shelved both its Daydream VR platform and AR glasses Project Iris.
Whatever the case, Quest headsets are fundamentally Android devices, so enterprising users can thankfully sideload APKs fairly easily via the ever-useful SideQuest software. Granted, the onus is on the user to source the APK in the first place, but with no other way to listen to Spotify while browsing the web without needing to tether to a computer, or using a Netflix app that’s actually updated, it’s thankfully feasible.
If you’re interested in giving it a go, check out our guide on How and Why to Sideload Games on Quest, which takes you step-by-step on the process of getting both 2D and VR-native apps on your Quest headset, but also (if it isn’t apparent by now) why you’d want to do it in the first place.
