Fortnite-maker Epic Games is suing tech giants Google and Samsung, it announced Monday, accusing them of illegally colluding to block competition on Samsung devices.

CEO Tim Sweeney said his company would file a claim in a US federal court in California, the same jurisdiction where the company won a years-long legal battle with Google in 2023.

He said he would take the fight to authorities in Europe and Asia if necessary, amid his long-running battle to force Apple and Google to open up their smartphone to other app stores.

“This is a major global fight, which is ultimately for the right of consumers to get all the benefits of competition and choose freely who they want to do business with,” Sweeney told reporters.

The latest lawsuit focuses on Samsung’s Auto Blocker feature.

Epic claims that feature was implemented in coordination with Google to undermine a recent US court decision against Google’s app store practices.

Following that decision, Epic in August launched its own app store, which allows users to bypass the Google-run store and offer content directly to smartphone users.

Epic alleges that Auto Blocker surreptitiously blocks the new app store and others like it by obstructing the ability to install apps from sources other than the Google Play Store and Samsung Galaxy Store.

Epic said that in July 2024, Samsung changed Auto Blocker from an “opt-in” feature to the default setting, forcing users to navigate a cumbersome 21-step process to download apps from third-party stores or the web.

Epic argues that this move cements Google Play Store’s monopoly and violates the jury verdict in Epic’s court victory against Google.

In that case, a jury found Google’s app-store practices, including agreements with phone manufacturers, to be illegal.

“Allowing this coordinated illegal anti-competitive dealing to proceed hurts developers and consumers and undermines both the jury’s verdict and regulatory and legislative progress around the world,” Epic stated in its announcement.

Epic, maker of the hugely popular Fortnite video game, is asking the court to prohibit what it calls anti-competitive conduct and mandate that Samsung remove Auto Blocker as the default setting on its devices.

As part of Epic’s ongoing battles with major tech companies over app store policies and fees, the company previously sued Apple, in a case it mostly lost, and Google, arguing that its app store practices are monopolistic and harm developers and consumers.

The new lawsuit comes at a time of increasing scrutiny of big tech companies’ market power by regulators and lawmakers worldwide, with new laws passed in Europe, Japan and South Korea limiting the way the giants can do business.

Google and Samsung have not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit.

© 2024 AFP

Young people in Britain could be forgiven for despairing at the financial pressures they face—and feeling that previous generations enjoyed a much fairer economic environment. Then just to add to their worries about home ownership and a precarious jobs market, along comes the gloomy announcement that the UK’s public debt is now 100% of GDP.

That debt burden will have to be carried by tax-payers for decades to come. Paying the interest—just the interest—of the country’s debt currently accounts for around 7.3% of public spending. That’s more than what is spent on defense (4.8%) or transport (3.8%).

And while some of what’s left will go to towards essential future public services, it will also go towards fixing problems caused by a historic lack of public investment (less money being spent by previous generations) in water, railways and other crucial infrastructure.

In fact, in the 1980s much of that infrastructure was used by the UK government to help finance itself, with assets including British Gas sold off at a bargain price. Those baby boomers and older generations who could afford to buy shares often made a decent profit.

There are other kinds of costs that today’s younger generations have had to bear too. During COVID lockdowns, universities and schools were closed as the young were forced to stay at home, predominantly to protect the elderly. They have lost the freedom to live and work in the EU after 60% of retired people voted for Brexit, while most young people voted against. Leaving Europe has also made the UK less well-off.

But not everyone is poorer. In the last 20 years, the average income of pensioners has increased on average by more than 50%, while that of working-age adults has risen by less than 10%. The median income of pensioner households is now higher after housing costs than that of households with children.

Most of the country’s wealth is now in the hands of older people. In 2018, one in four people aged over 65 was living in a household with a total wealth of over a £1 million pounds. Poverty rates of pensioners are now lower than for the rest of the population.

Yet pensioners receive all sorts of unconditional discounts and benefits, such as free or discounted public transport. Their income is exempt from national insurance contributions, and there is a triple-lock on state pensions, which is guaranteed to grow faster than work income.

Until recently, the winter fuel allowance meant that anyone born in 1944 or before received £300 (reduced to £200 for younger pensioners).

Boomer and bust?

While there is mild popular support for limiting the fuel allowance to poorer pensioners, the question of recouping money from older people remains highly sensitive. (Back in 2017, the then prime minister Theresa May had to quickly U-turn when she suggested using pensioners’ wealth to finance the rising cost of care.)

One reason for this reluctance to prise money from older people may be that while most pensioners are doing better (compared to the working population) this is not true of the poorest ones. Also, some pensioners do not claim the benefits they are entitled to, and the last thing a civilized society wants is to let its older people freeze.

But the apparent economic divide raises a broader question about inter-generational justice. What does one generation owe the generations that follow?

And it’s not just about money. Global warming is another thing older people have not spent most of their lives having to pay for, with the burden for repairing environmental damage again falling mostly on the young.

Perhaps a fair philosophical approach would be that it’s OK to leave certain costs to be paid in the future if the next generation can generally expect to live longer and in better health, with more consumer choice and comfort, and an improved quality of life.

But this does not seem to be the expectation right now. Incomes have stalled, and so has life expectancy, while housing prices have not been so expensive relative to earnings since the 19th century.

In that sense, many people, however old they are, would probably sympathize with young people today. And they may even argue that it’s time for the government to focus on policies that explicitly benefit the young—like house building, different forms of taxation or subjecting pension income to national insurance.

There could also be a change in fiscal rules to allow for more investment in national infrastructure, higher taxes on fossil fuels to pay for the energy transition, or sharing the cost of funding higher education more evenly among all graduates, regardless of when they got their degree.

Such changes would provide a dramatic shift towards an economic system which seeks to redistribute wealth not just among citizens—but between the generations.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has just published alarming statistics showing that employee mental health issues result in a US$1 trillion (£747 billion) loss in productivity each year. The WHO has called on employers to take urgent action by introducing comprehensive well-being programs to tackle the escalating mental health crisis in the workplace.

But the problem is that many workplace well-being programs don’t work. A UK study which looked at 46,336 employees from 233 organizations found there was no evidence that a range of common workplace well-being initiatives—including mindfulness and stress management classes, one-to-one mental health coaching, well-being apps or volunteering work—improved employee well-being.

So despite companies investing over US$60 billion annually worldwide in well-being programs, they appear to make little impact.

There are a number of reasons why these programs don’t work—and understanding them is the only way companies will be able to make these programs effective.

Motivation

Organizations often opt for easy-to-implement initiatives, such as hosting well-being talks or offering mindfulness or yoga classes. They then complain that employees don’t attend or don’t appreciate them.

Many employees say they don’t attend these activities because they find them irrelevant, unhelpful or they don’t value them enough to attend—meaning their workplace has failed in identifying their needs.

Understanding what motivates people to participate in well-being programs is crucial in improving its effectiveness. For example, one survey found employees were more interested in learning about healthy lifestyles than having a discussion about stress management. Although not directly related to mental well-being, prioritizing these kinds of talks would have a greater effect on improving well-being in the end.

Content matters

Well-being programs tend to be more effective for people whose well-being is average or below average. So when people with high levels of well-being participate in such programs, they often see little benefit. This can make it appear the program isn’t effective—when in reality, it still is for those who need it most.

This is why it’s so important to determine what type of help employees need most when designing well-being programs.

For employees who aren’t experiencing poor mental health, a program that primarily addresses depression or anxiety may be less effective as they’re probably already practicing many of the strategies such programs would discuss. But if the well-being program goes beyond reducing symptoms and focuses on promoting flourishing, meaning and purpose in life, it could provide value to a broader audience.

This is where a program designed by an expert in positive psychology would be beneficial in workplaces. Positive psychology is the science of well-being. It focuses on building on the positive aspects of life that make life worth living—rather than solely addressing symptoms of mental ill health which only affect 10%–20% of the population.But positive psychology measures still have a positive impact on those who experience mental health issues at the same time. They include such activities as identifying and using your character strengths at work, re-thinking your past events positively, learning optimism or practicing gratitude.

The content of workplace well-being programs is crucial. Avoiding generic self-help approaches will enhance their overall impact.

Everyone is different

Factors such as whether or not an employee enjoys a specific well-being activity or program, whether they believe that well-being can be changed or their level of distress when starting a program can all affect whether or not workplace well-being initiatives work.

Even a person’s genetics can significantly affect whether such programs have any impact. Research shows that people who have a higher genetic predisposition towards change are more likely to benefit disproportionately from these programs—and their positive effect tends to last longer.

All of these factors should be carefully considered when designing a workplace well-being program. And given how difficult this will make it to design one that’s effective, it’s important employee well-being programs are actually developed by experts in the field—not consultants who lack in-depth knowledge of psychology.

Implementation

The way a well-being program is implemented is just as important as its content—though this aspect is often overlooked by well-being consultants.

For instance, overusing gratitude exercises can lead to disengagement from a program. Similarly, offering too many well-being activity options can overwhelm participants and result in them discontinuing the program.

To maximize the impact a well-being program has in the workplace requires careful attention not only to the content but also how it’s implemented.

There are many nuances involved in designing a workplace well-being program. Employers must ensure the programs they offer not only promote well-being but also avoid causing unintended harm to others in the process. Consulting experts who know the nuances of psychology and of well-being programs is key, as they will ensure programs will be effective and helpful. Programs that combine positive psychology and lifestyle medicine (which focus on helping people improve their health and fitness) may be particularly beneficial in workplaces.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.