Civilization 6 may be an older strategy game, but it retains immense popularity and replay value for fans of the Civilization franchise. If you’re a Mac gamer who has Civilization VI (Civilization 6 for those who aren’t fans of roman numerals), you might have come across a situation where you go to play Civilization 6 ... Read More

Google has proposed sweeping changes to its Play Store and Android to end an ongoing antitrust dispute with Epic Games. The two companies filed a joint settlement agreement with the court last night, and if approved, Apple will be left as the only company embroiled in a public antitrust fight with Epic.


Google will allow Android app developers to use alternative payment methods in apps or through external links instead of forcing them to use Google Play Billing. Google is supporting Registered App Stores, which are alternative app stores that can be easily installed alongside Google Play. ‌Epic Games‌ would be a Registered App Store, able to be installed on Android devices to offer its own catalog of app titles.

As for fees, Google will charge a maximum of 9 percent or 20 percent based on transaction type and date of install, with the lowered fees applicable worldwide instead of solely in the United States. Google can charge a fee for transactions completed using alternative payment methods, and it is also able to charge an additional fee for transactions processed by Google Play Billing.

The wording around fees is complicated and could be somewhat open to interpretation for virtual items in games, plus it applies to new app installs, not existing app installs. Google can charge a 20 percent fee for in-game purchases providing more than a de minimis gameplay advantage, which would presumably be things like power ups, items that increase experience, or loot boxes.

Google can only charge a 9 percent fee for items that do not affect gameplay, such as additional levels, events, or Fortnite skins that are considered cosmetic. The 9 percent maximum fee is also applicable to in-app subscriptions, non-game app purchases, or up front app and game purchases. In a situation where there's a mixed bundle that includes in-game items like weapons and in-game skins, Google can charge the higher 20 percent rate. Google told The Verge that it would also charge a five percent fee for apps that choose to use the Google Play Billing system, which would be in addition to the 9 to 20 percent fee.

To simplify, the base fee for all apps will be 9 percent, while fees for games will range from 9 percent to 20 percent. Developers will pay another five percent if using Google Play Billing. For alternative app stores, Google is able to charge reasonable fees that cover operational costs, but nothing additional. ‌Epic Games‌ will be able to create an ‌Epic Games‌ Store on Android, paying minimal fees to Google, which is what the company set out to do when it initially filed lawsuits against Apple and Google back in 2020. ‌Epic Games‌ CEO Tim Sweeney said that Google's proposal is "awesome" and a "comprehensive solution that stands in contrast to Apple's model of blocking all competing stores."


Google agreed not to enter into agreements that would see apps launch "first or exclusively" on Google Play, and it will not require an app to provide the same features on Google Play that it does on another app store. Developers are also free to communicate with customers about cheaper prices available outside of the Google Play Store.

It's possible that Google's settlement with ‌Epic Games‌ could impact the eventual outcome of the ‌Epic Games‌ v. Apple case. Apple and Google have charged developers similar fees historically, and there is inevitable change coming to the ‌App Store‌ ecosystem.

There are important differences between the two legal disputes, however, so what's going on with Google is not directly applicable to Apple. In Epic v. Apple, Apple largely won the case. The judge did not find that Apple had a monopoly, and Apple was only required to allow developers to link to web-based purchase options.

In Epic v. Google, Google lost. If Google didn't settle with Epic, it was going to be forced to make Play Store changes anyway. A jury decided that Google abused its power by operating an app store monopoly and charging developers exorbitant fees. Google has also always allowed for sideloading on Android devices and has been more open to it, even though it isn't as easy as it will be in the future.

Apple has consistently opposed sideloading and will not likely make the same concessions that Google made without being forced into it.

In Epic v. Apple, Apple is currently fighting an injunction requiring it to allow developers to link to outside purchase options in apps in the U.S. Apple is currently not allowed to collect fees on purchases made through in-app links, an order that came after the court found that Apple had willfully violated the original order requiring links by controlling the appearance of links and charging high fees.

The court is planning to review the proposed Epic v. Google settlement on November 6.
This article, "Google Agrees to Make Major Play Store Changes to Settle Epic Games Antitrust Lawsuit" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple returned to court this week to argue that a federal judge exceeded their authority when they held the company in contempt and barred it from collecting any commission on external in-app transactions, Bloomberg reports.


Apple told the appeals court that a U.S. District Judge went further than their 2021 order allowed when they banned Apple from taking any commission on purchases made outside apps. Apple said the order only required it to allow links to outside payments, not to stop collecting fees entirely.

Apple argued that if the judge disagreed with its approach, they should have clarified the order instead of punishing the company for contempt. It told the judges that the contempt ruling was "punitive" and that Apple is entitled to "some compensation" when developers use its platform and ecosystem.

Epic told the court that Apple knowingly violated the order instead of asking for clarification. The company said Apple only started claiming it should be paid for external purchases after it was caught violating the injunction.

The case arises from Epic's 2020 decision to add an external payment link to Fortnite, which led to its removal from the App Store. In response to the 2021 order allowing alternative payments, Apple created a new 27% fee on external transactions. Epic argued this violated the spirit of the order. A judge later agreed and held Apple in contempt, banning any commission on external payments. Apple is now asking the Ninth Circuit to overturn that contempt ruling.
This article, "Apple and Epic Return to Court as Judges Question Prior Rulings" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Gamers and Mario enthusiasts in particular are sure to get a kick out of Super Mario Brothers Remastered, a fan-made unofficial remake of the original Nintendo Super Mario Bros game that includes new levels, new options and game modes, new characters, a level editor, physics improvements, and more. Super Mario Bros Remastered is not meant ... Read More

The court order that required Apple to collect no fees from developers who link to purchases outside of the App Store is unconstitutional, Apple said today in a reply brief directed at Epic Games and filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Apple argues that it has been stripped of its rights to be compensated for its intellectual property in a ruling that sets a dangerous precedent for all companies.


Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has been overseeing the Apple vs. ‌Epic Games‌ lawsuit, first ordered Apple in 2021 to let developers add in-app links directing customers to third-party purchase options on the web. Apple didn't have to implement the changes until 2024, and when it did, Apple charged a 12 to 27 percent fee for purchases made through links in an app. ‌Epic Games‌ went back to the judge and said Apple was charging "unjustified fees" and should be held in contempt of court.

Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic and said that Apple was in "willful violation" of the original order. In April 2025, Apple was given a much more specific mandate to allow linking with no fees and no control over how links are presented in an app, which was a win for ‌Epic Games‌ and for other app developers unhappy with paying fees to link out to the web. Apple implemented the changes, but appealed the ruling.

According to Apple, the 12 to 27 percent fee that it was charging and the rules that it had implemented around link design complied with the original order. The April ruling [PDF] forcing Apple to implement ‌App Store‌ changes said that Apple had not followed the "spirit of the injunction" and had instead used a "dubiously literal interpretation," a point that Epic emphasized in its own filing with the court. In response, Apple argues that this is a weak argument that led to the injunction being expanded beyond what is permissible by law.

The new injunction imposes, in meticulous detail, new design and formatting rules and dictates the messages that Apple may convey to its own users on its own platform. These requirements represent an improper expansion and modification of the original injunction—rather than an attempt to enforce compliance with the original injunction—and violate the First Amendment by forcing Apple to convey messages it disagrees with. Epic doubles down on the district court's emphasis on the "spirit" of the original injunction and Apple’s supposed bad faith, but civil contempt turns on whether a party has violated the actual terms of an injunction—which Epic does not meaningfully try to show

Apple argues that it should be able to ask for compensation for its IP protected technologies, and that the court should have forced compliance with the original injunction instead of rewriting the injunction with new terms that prohibit Apple from collecting fees.

The district court's sweeping new zero-commission rule also is not tailored to Epic's claimed harm, improperly imposes a punitive sanction, and effects an unconstitutional taking.

Should the Ninth Circuit Court find the updated injunction lawful, Apple suggests that the recent Trump v. Casa Supreme Court ruling [PDF] needs to be considered. The ruling said courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions that are "broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to the plaintiffs in the case. ‌Epic Games‌ is the only plaintiff in the case, so Apple also argues that the injunction changing the ‌App Store‌ rules for all developers is too broad. Apple says that the injunction should be tailored to Epic and Epic's interests alone.

Epic has never demonstrated how requiring Apple to permit all manner of linked-out purchases from any developer—and prohibiting Apple from collecting any commission on such purchases—is necessary to remedy Epic’s full harm, particularly for linked-out transactions that do not involve Epic. Just the opposite, Epic has lined up amici to describe how they wish to steer on the back of Apple's IP-protected technologies at zero cost to themselves, and not to the Epic Games Store.

... Requiring Apple to permit linked-out transactions to Spotify, Microsoft, or Amazon does not benefit Epic in any way and is not necessary to remedy any harm suffered by Epic.

Apple wants the new injunction vacated, and the original injunction reconsidered to determine whether it is too broad.

As of right now, Apple is required to allow all developers in the U.S. to provide links to external websites with no restrictions on link design and no fees. If the appeals court rules in Apple's favor, Apple could change its ‌App Store‌ rules again to reimplement fees.
This article, "Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

The Playstation 4 remains a wildly popular gaming console, and now if you have a Mac, Windows PC, or Linux machine, you can play quite a few Playstation 4 games on a fantastic free PS4 emulator called ShadPS4. So connect a PS4 Controller to your Mac and have at it! Emulators are so much fun, ... Read More

If you’re a Mac gamer and you love free games, you won’t want to miss out on this deal; Borderlands 2, the classic popular first-person action RPG shooter, is free to download this weekend on Steam (until the morning of June 8 at 10am PDT). And because it’s on Steam, you’ll be able to play ... Read More

Gamers everywhere are happy that Fortnite is back for iPhone and iPad users, but there’s no Mac client in sight (yet anyway). That doesn’t mean you can’t play Fortnite on the Mac though, because if you have an Apple Silicon Mac, and you’re comfortable running some mods and tweaks, you can get the iOS/iPadOS version ... Read More

Fortnite, the wildly popular online action game, is back on the App Store for iPhone and iPad users to download and play. The app has returned after Apple removed the popular game roughly five years ago while Apple and Epic engaged in an expensive drawn out legal squabble, which ultimately ended up disappointing and irritating ... Read More