Epic vs. Google settlement: Opening up Android | Hacker News Reader

Epic vs. Google settlement: Opening up Android

twitter.com

117 pointsazhenley23 comments

The proposed language of the injunction is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

I think but am not sure that part 13 actually does forbid Google's plan to forbid installing third party apps from the internet unless the developer pays a fee to google first, unless that App is an app store.

It requires that

> For a period beginning on the Effective Date through June 30, 2032, Google will [...] and will continue to permit the direct downloading of apps from developer websites and [...] without any fees being imposed for those downloads unless the downloads originate from linkouts from apps installed/updated by Google Play (excluding web browsers). [...]

It does provide an exception that

> Google may create reasonable requirements for certification as a Registered App Store, including but not limited to review of the app store by Google’s Android team and the payment of reasonable fees to cover the operational costs associated with the review and certification process. Such fees may not be revenue proportionate.

But that's a carve out that only allows imposing registration fees for app stores, not for other apps.

Of course this still threatens to kill, or at least inflict unjust fees upon, f-droid.

It says no fee for downloads, but I don't think that excludes a one time fee for developer "registration", unfortunately.

Google still gets to maintain it's monopoly control if "the downloads originate from linkouts from apps installed/updated by Google Play".

This looks like to suck so high.

If Epic accepts that, they will have solved their case without fixing the issue that we were all hoping for.

Google would settle with their terms but that are still quite bad as I see it. Like if you were to install an app like f-droid from the store, it's not only the app that would be subject to Google terms but all the one installed later by f-droid.

Also, this would prevent the justice to set the precedent that Google actions are not ok. The case would still be "undecided".

And regarding what is proposed, I would be surprised that Epic is satisfied with a settlement that is limited in time to 2032. Especially a "short" duration like that. I don't remember when the first trial started but a case like this in justice can easily take 7 years all by itself.

That was obvious from the start, anyone that thinks Epic is some kind of white knight deserves the same outcome as those that believed in "Do no evil" motto from Google's marketing team.

From the motion to modify the injunction:

> The parties have identified reasonable, neutral criteria that third-party stores would need to meet to qualify as “Registered App Stores,” and the parties have agreed on the streamlined installation flow that would apply to Registered App Stores and apps from such stores

So no distributing apps from a store without Google's stamp of approval. This doesn't sound like it is going to address Google's new requirement for all Android developers to register with them before being allowed to distribute apps.

> In addition, the Proposed Modified Injunction specifies certain maximum fees that Google would be allowed to charge—for what Google contends are the valuable services provided by the Google Play store—on transactions in Play-distributed apps that use alternative payment options (either 9% or 20%, depending on the type of transaction)

So you're still required to pay Google fees for in-app purchases if the app is downloaded from the Play Store, even if Google isn't processing the payments.

It'll be good to have third party stores available globally, and it's better than what Apple's doing for sure, but the developer registration requirements coming soon are still a step backwards, and those unjustified middleman fees are still going to suck.

A bit more info at Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

The million dollar question is how this will interface with the locking down of software from outside the Play Store (I.e. side loading).

Will Google still gatekeep all binaries running on Android?

The cynic in me says it will make no difference, because Tencent, Tim Sweenie, and the rest of the Epic Games stockholders care about money; not software freedom.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. "

For those like me who didn't know, this is Adam Smith.

Wording says permit from "developer website". I expect ugly lockdown when it comes to installing software on Android as freely as on PC.

Linked documents in other comments force Google not to charge any fees for thurd party app installs.

The mandatory registration can therefore still continue and limits can still be in place, they just can't ask for money when registering users.

They can still use the trick Apple uses to prevent malware/add an OS blacklist by just revoking certificates.

Epic's lawsuit serves Epic's needs, they're not the EFF trying to protect user freedoms.

The problem with Epic's case is that they don't care about freedom or opening up Android itself. They want to open up Google Play so they don't need to put effort into writing their own app store.

Epic Games for Android could've been a thing for years now. Android has native APIs for things like auto updates from trusted sources since what, Android 11? That used to be the big problem with stores like F-Droid.

These megacorps only care about themselves. The fact they're settling rather than waiting for an actual judgement that would apply to everyone else is a clear sign of that.

> They want to open up Google Play so they don't need to put effort into writing their own app store.

They already have an Android app store: https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/mobile/android

Yet their demands are almost entirely about limiting restrictions imposed by Google Play. There is a paragraph about not doing anticompetitive shit like banning partners from installing other stores (antitrust by settlement, what a world), but nearly all of the rest of the document is about making sure they don't need to pay with Google's payment processor or that the rates are lowered to a decent percentage.

> Yet their demands are almost entirely about limiting restrictions imposed by Google Play.

Because most people only ever use the Google Play store. Epic can invest all the effort they want into their own store, but that won't help if the audience is elsewhere. You are basically making the "just build your own Twitter/Facebook" argument - it's about the audience, not the technology.

> it's about the audience, not the technology.

My take is that the biggest feature of the Play store and Steam is their collection and moderation of user reviews at scale - it is this that Epic are unable or unwilling to take on.

Docket with link to the filings (See item 756, which should be at the top of your page): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17443962/epic-games-inc...

So does this mean F-Droid will be on an equal basis with Google's store? That no-Google Android phones will work?

I think only if F-Droid bends the knee to Google and pays whatever price they want to be "allowed" to be an app store, sans some sort of lawsuit.

Whatever it is, I do not get good vibes from it.

Probably the best we can get lacking any enforcement of antitrust.

"Even though you can already sideload on Android, we really don't want to pay Google the same kind of commissions that we're paying to Apple and Nintendo, because we like your money and want to keep more of it in our own pockets rather than in the pockets of filthy monopolists like Google."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com