4 ms·

My favorite part of the blog post was when they explained in detail what Epic is proposing so the reader can evaluate each point carefully. /sarcasm Skimming t

My favorite part of the blog post was when they explained in detail what Epic is proposing so the reader can evaluate each point carefully. /sarcasm 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.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
>> 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'm having trouble parsing this. What is them? Sideloaded apps? How would removing some 3rd party's app decrease security?
- romanows 2y ago
  "them" refers to the "important protections" that Google would supposedly need to remove. It's written that Google can still block malware and bad app stores, although that's probably a judgement call that'll be expensive to litigate?
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    Okay. That helps. Now I can isolate that bit of GooglePoo from the rest of the corporate klaxoning.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    AIUI Google is still permitted to block malware, but its practical ability declines.
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  "Them" refers to "important protections". 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.
scotty79 2y ago
> 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. 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.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

>> 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'm having trouble parsing this. What is them? Sideloaded apps? How would removing some 3rd party's app decrease security?

romanows 2y ago
"them" refers to the "important protections" that Google would supposedly need to remove. It's written that Google can still block malware and bad app stores, although that's probably a judgement call that'll be expensive to litigate?
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  Okay. That helps. Now I can isolate that bit of GooglePoo from the rest of the corporate klaxoning.
- Arnt 2y ago
  AIUI Google is still permitted to block malware, but its practical ability declines.
dialup_sounds 2y ago
"Them" refers to "important protections". 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.

scotty79 2y ago

> 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. 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.