Gangster-style businesses show by Epic Game CEO Tim Sweeney

"Gangster-style businesses that will do whatever they think they can get away with." These are the harsh words from CEO Tim Sweeney, and they're directly aimed at tech giants Apple and Google.

For years now, Epic Games and Sweeney have been waging a David vs. Goliath battle against these giants, pushing back at what they believe is monopolistic practice in the app store ecosystem. Last week, while speaking at a Y Combinatoir event, Sweeney wasn't pulling any punches, doubling down on his criticism and painting a bleak picture of how these giants do business. Lets take a technical look at this.

It's a matter of control, naturally, and of money. Apple and Google, via their App Store and Google Play Store, control the gates to the world of mobile phones. If you want your app on billions of phones, you don't have a choice but to do business with them. And that costs a commission, typically 30%, on every sale.

The system has been criticized as unfair and anti-competitive by Fortnite and the developer of the Epic Games Store. They have contended tooth and nail to be freed from the grip of such dominance because Apple and Google are applying their monopoly dominance in the Mobile market.

Sweeney howled foul publicly when customers tried to install the Epic Games Store on Android handsets. Lets take an example as you're a player, and you want to install a brand new game from Epic. Instead of an easy install, you receive a notification from Google: "This app is from an unknown source."

As Sweeney points out, this brief notice – intended to cause hesitation – discourages a staggering 50-60% of potential users! He contends that this is "textbook self-preferencing," i.e., Google employing its platform to guide users toward apps in their Play Store and away from real alternatives. And, it seems, even in Europe where Apple supposedly should be permitting third-party app stores on iOS, there is resistance.

Sweeney didn't just leave it at that, however. He administered the knockout blow, telling Apple and Google that they are "no longer good-faith, law-abiding companies." They are "gangster-style businesses," he alleges, who are willing to bend (or break) rules if they think they can. He argues that such companies consider the value of a fine in comparison to the revenue that they withhold by doing something else and, more likely than not, will pay the fine and keep doing what they were doing.

This is not too much grandstanding, itself. Epic Games has been grandstanding and following it up with action by pursuing high-profile litigation against Apple and Google. They even managed to win a suit against Google, and although they did lose the blockbuster suit against Apple, at least the court was able to get Apple to relax its grip on the App Store a notch.

But Apple's fees and pushback remain deterring the big game houses from releasing their games on the Epic Games Store on iPhones, Sweeney argues. That is evidence of the legal-world effects of those stances on video game creators and perhaps even gamers themselves, too.

Sweeney's arguments are really well-reasoned and address some pretty good questions. Are Apple and Google merely smart companies who are only taking care of themselves, or are they beginning to get on the wrong side of anti-trust legislation?

The case is extremely contentious up to now, and the ruling will have a massive effect on the destiny of the app economy, consumers' freedom of choice, and the influence of such technology moguls.