Epic's proposed remedies are bad for everyone but Epic
blog.google
blog.google
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/12/24128531/epic-google-prop...
[1]: https://play.google/developer-distribution-agreement.html
Instead I would rather let 3rd parties provide different UI for Google’s App Store backend for a small cut of any transaction. Minor improvements like being able to permanently block any idle games, IAP, advertisements, etc would go a long way. But frankly Epic doesn’t give a shit about users here.
Or perhaps they do hand out your app at a discount, and then never pay you. Or, do several things all at the same time.
"Looking"? AFAIK one can't update an app that had already been installed with a different signature. Correct me if I'm wrong and that's not the current behavior on Android.
>Google to allow third-party app stores access to Google Play’s catalog of apps for six years and let users make those third-party app stores perform their app updates
That doesn't mean the developers are forced to because the app store still needs the developers license to publish it.
> [...] Google shall allow Third-Party App Stores to access the Google Play Store’s catalog of apps not then available on those Third-Party App Stores. If a Third-Party App Store’s User wishes to download and install an app not then available on that Third-Party App Store, Google shall have the Google Play Store download and install that app on the Third-Party App Store User’s device through a background process [...] Such apps installed by the Google Play Store shall be governed by the Google Play Store’s distribution agreements with Developers [...]
But yea, I find this point to be weirdest from all the ones that epic proposed.
It's not a choice between "google app store" and "3rd party app store", it's a choice between "have a phone that can access my devices, my bank, my credit card, etc" and "have a phone that can do nothing except browse the internet and make calls".
Skimming through the Epic proposal the points seem far more reasonable than this blog post would make them seem.
The most questionable point for me seems to be the following:
> For a period of six (6) years, Google shall provide Third-Party App Stores access to the Google Play Store app catalog.
As a developer, if I published my app on one platform it seems weird that it would show up on other platforms without me having opted in or agreed to anything.
From the Google blog post:
> We’ve implemented important protections to ensure users are still protected while enjoying choice in apps. However, Epic’s proposal would force Google to remove them — severely curtailing our ability to protect users from potentially malicious apps.
I don't understand why Google would no longer be able to provide this as a service. Heck, if they open it up maybe other companies would try to compete and offer alternatives?
> But Epic wants to entirely restrict Google’s ability to offer any financial incentives to developers to distribute their apps in the Play store, even on a non-exclusive and app-by-app basis.
This point really rubs me the wrong way because I hate platform / paid exclusives. Maybe it's better for the developer's pocket, but as a user platform exclusivity is usually a bad thing. It's also a bit funny to see Epic requesting this when they've made paid so much for platform exclusives on PC.
It's kind of weird that there's expectation of manufacturers of software to be able to control how each copy is used or sold. If you get paid what you requested you should have zero control over the use and resale of your product. That's an essential customer and reseller freedom. That gets eroded from many sides.
It's weird what Epic requests because it goes against current anti-consumer practice.
I'm not a fan of 6 year time window because it's just kicking off the ladder.
>> However, Epic’s proposal would force Google to remove them — severely curtailing our ability to protect users from potentially malicious apps.
I'm having trouble parsing this. What is them? Sideloaded apps? How would removing some 3rd party's app decrease security?
Epic's proposal forbids Google from doing as little as displaying any kind of warning that a side loaded app or store could be malicious.
Yea sure, apps stores are 'free to compete' but Google store HAS TO be installed out of the box if you want to have access to GMS services (alongside the entire suite of Google apps).
Let's not play dumb here and pretend like current status quo isn't heavily favorable for Google
People wanted a PC like experience where it doesn't matter what hardware you bought you ran the same Google provided software. And we're still not there yet. The marketing for the original Nexus devices was "Android with the Google stuff you wanted and not the OEM shovelware." I think it's a very reasonable stance that folks buying Android are doing so because they want and expect the Google stuff and this was just the stick Google had to get there.
But it's not, it's exactly the same shovelware that any other OEMs push at You, except people give it a pass because "it's from google". My phone app should be my phone app, not google contacts.
And sure, GMS integration are de facto 'the android experience', but let's not pretend like Google’s version of calendar being preloaded is crucial for GMS to work.
In all seriousness, Google has been spending a lot of time and energy to make everything far worse, not better, for the user. With every update the user is another step further from actually owning their device. While Google is _strictly better than Apple_ in this department, they have been removing knobs left and right for a while now. I need to use _adb_ to properly back up files, which is totally insane, and I am sure they will close that hole soon. I can't root my devices either as many apps then refuse to run properly without full end-to-end validation that they are running within the Google Play Trust Zone of Freedom.
I can't argue that Google isn't making things better for App Developers, though. The ability to _prove_ an app is unmodified and running in a secure context is mighty powerful. If you don't want me to muck with app data, I understand. But at least let me at least disable the protections if I so choose.
On MacOS you have SIP, and neither MacOS nor SIP are not without problems and annoyances, but at least, for now, you can turn it off temporarily. I can't believe we have less control with Android than with MacOS. What a disgrace.
And lastly, Epic's proposed remedies are most definitely not bad for _everyone_ but Epic. They might actually be good for everyone but Google.
If an app has permissions to work as an app stores, it should already be able to query installed packages, no? So Epic's proposal wouldn't expose information about whether or not app is installed, but only about the source of installation.
You can ofcourse still think it's unreasonable to give this information to 3rd parties, but that's different then exposing just the fact of having an app installed, which is what Google implies here (imo)
They say "any and all third party app stores." Does that include app stores the user hasn't installed?
Google may collect a massive amount of data, but virtually none of it ever leaves Google. I believe, but I'm not sure, that requests to use data collected about users has to pass through something like a Google equivalent to a IRB, and strictly only used in aggregate ways or anonymized?
Google does not tell anyone what apps you install (though they also don't prevent apps you install from collecting and reporting what apps you have installed...) Third parties could do whatever they want.
That said, Android app permissions are so permissive, anyone using Android effectively doesn't have much privacy from third parties to begin with. It's why I switched to iOS - apps are much more restricted in terms of what data it's even possible to collect, and you even have a lot of control over many types of data provided to Apple (for example, you can turn off WiFi geolocation collection, traffic data collection, etc. It's great for battery life and data savings!)
I don't see how it would even be feasible to share this data with non-installed stores, not to mention it being completely ridiculous.
you vill ovn nothing, und you vill be, uh, safe
Just to be clear... doesn't Google tell Google everything that is installed on the entire phone through Google Play? Here's my proposal: nobody needs to be able to do that.
Apple collects less data overall, more heavily restricts what apps can collect, and was the first to require disclosure of what general types of data are collected (ie aggregate statistics, vs info associated with you specifically)
Epic: Google is bad!
Google: Epic is bad too! They're only looking out for themselves.
Google is saying Epic is selfish as well, and it wants an opening only for itself to make money.
I think that’s a secondary effect. The primary reason is so Epic gets to keep all the money it makes on digital purchases, which is pretty much all margin for them.
And any pretense that Epic is doing this for anyone other than, or in addition to, Epic went out the window during the Apple trial when Sweeney admitted on the stand that had Apple offered Epic, and only Epic, a sweetheart deal, he would’ve gladly taken it in a heartbeat.
I don't observe any pretense that Epic is doing any of this _for the greater good_. Epic is correct in that what they want to see change can benefit others.
Epic deserves all the money they make from digital purchases. They shouldn't have to share 30% of _every_ transaction with app stores just because the creators of those app stores force everyone to use them. It can be both. It's not wrong for Epic to support changes that also happen to benefit everyone while also prioritizing their own goals.
No, but it’s wrong for Epic to position those changes as part of a battle to ensure everybody gets their money, and then admit on the stand that they were perfectly happy to let everybody else to continue to get screwed over as long as they (Epic) got their cash.
--
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/30/23962920/epic-just-admit...
"The Coalition for App Fairness is an independent nonprofit organization founded by industry-leading companies to advocate for freedom of choice and fair competition across the app ecosystem."
--
https://www.imore.com/epic-games-would-have-accepted-special...
Lawyer: If Apple had told you that it would offer you a deal and no other developers, would you have accepted that?
Sweeney: Yes, I would have.
Isn’t that what Google is doing here, publicly advocating one position (Epic are a bunch of selfish bastards) and privately advocating another (Google is entitled to screw over everybody else)? Why is Google selfish and Epic pragmatic for the exact same actions?
Why shouldn't he? Doesn't mean he can't sue.
While it’s perfectly fine for him to sue, I think it’s extremely disingenuous for him to make that huge PR push about how he’s standing up for the common developer and then admit on the stand that he’s perfectly happy to let the common developer continue to twist in the wind as long as he gets his pay-off.
In that sense, Google’s post did get one thing right — Epic’s only interested in itself; any impact for anybody else, positive or negative, is just incidental.
Google and Epic, please cry harder.
Ofcouse Epic wants to make more. So?
Good changes are good changes, we should judge them on their own merit regardless of who are pushing them.
Being 'sceptical' because the underdog is still a massive company thus we should give current leader (who is many times larger) a free pass, isn't really a skepticism, it's just irrational.
Candidly, Epic: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/...
Epic isnt fighting for the consumer. Epic is fighting so they can fuck you in place of google.
I'm a mobile dev so they're actually helping me out a fair bit here, and the consumer as well. Right now I literally cannot tell you that Google and Apple are making me do a 30% surcharge
You're making more than a million a year as a mobile dev?
Because less than a mill, or for subscription services it's 15% from Apple.
Candidly if your a small team, 15% to not have to chase chargebacks on digital goods is a raw deal.
I'm under no illusion that Epic is doing this for any other reason than profit but that is structurally impossible. Google owns the OS, in my personal case makes the phone I use and runs about half of the essential services on it. The worst thing Epic can make me do is not to play Fortnite.
Anything that annoys Google and makes Epic happy is, given that dynamic, likely competition and market enhancing.
In this case, even if they were a morally bankrupt organization, they are doing something that in the end will benefit users.
We should be able to recognize that even if we don't like Epic.
This is a good summation of every ISP-related topic discussion.