6 ms·

Google begs court for relief from Epic Games' Play Store demands

69 points by rolph 2y ago

0xTJ 2y ago
The use of "begs" in that title it a bit dramatic. Sure Google is being childish, but that's just making a more inflammatory headline.
- kevingadd 2y ago
  It's legal terminology
  - CyberDildonics 2y ago
    You think begging for something is legal terminology?
    - kevingadd 2y ago
      You can literally type "beg the court" into google and the first result is a .gov site. "pleading" is also legal terminology.
      - CyberDildonics 2y ago
        Don't just say 'google it', show me what you're actually talking about. All I found was "May I beg the court’s indulgence for a moment?" which isn't the context being used here, where the title says google is begging for a result.
      - 0xTJ 2y ago
        "I beg [...] for" is a common figure of speech, not specifically legal terminology, but it's not actual "begging". The first-person part of that phrase is important context.
    - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
      In the age of information, why double down on ignorance after a correction has been pointed out?
      - CyberDildonics 2y ago
        In the age of information, what are you specifically talking about? Someone saying something without evidence is not 'a correction'.
sublinear 2y ago
This is crazy. The case against Apple is much stronger than the one against Google. Android devices don't even require the Play Store. Tons of devices out there are sold without it. Android is on far more than just phones. Google doesn't have as much control over its presence on devices as Apple does with the App Store on iOS.
- natdempk 2y ago
  I would encourage you to read more about the two cases and the differences between them and the rulings. Stratechery has some good articles though some are paywalled.
  - sublinear 2y ago
    > "Google has a history of malicious compliance and has attempted to circumvent legislation and regulation meant to reign in their anti-competitive control over Android devices," Epic said of its demands of the search behemoth. "Our proposed injunction seeks to block Google from repeating past bad-faith tactics and open up Android devices to competition and choice for all developers and consumers." Sorry forgot to quote what I'm talking about. I agree Google tightly controls the Play Store specifically with regard to popular apps such as games. They do not have "anti-competitive control over Android devices" though. Epic's quoted claim is categorically false. If they want to compete they need to release their own phone with their own store to sell games for it. This was in fact common practice on a lot of early Android devices. Play Store might as well be a games console and if Epic wins then they probably would want to go after Nintendo and other licensed platforms next. That's ridiculous.
    - boesboes 2y ago
      Release their own phone? Really? That is not really better then apple, is it?
      - sublinear 2y ago
        Releasing your own distro of Android and rebranding existing hardware is a reasonable path to competition. The cost would just be minimal dev work and a profit sharing plan with any of dozens of hardware manufacturers. Not a big deal and probably even cheaper than the legal fees they're incurring here. In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly.
no_wizard 2y ago
I can take the point with Google on transferring already installed apps from the Play Store to a 3rd Party store. That is a real issue which warrants further scrutiny, because the vectors for potential abuse. I think the free ride of the Play Store having back links automatically in 3rd party app stores to “fill the gaps” is also problematic for representation reasons and is actually bad for users, as origin becomes obfuscated and so does support. If you want apps as a 3rd party store you need to recruit developers to publish to it. This is a clear and transparent attempt by Epic to undercut the Play Store while simultaneously benefiting from it at the same time. It’s not a pro consumer move. I have trouble siding with them on the claims of distribution. Distributing 3rd party app stores via Google Play Store isn’t hard, it’s just another app, effectively. It would actually allow them to police for exploitation and malware more transparently I would think, since the store itself would have to get approved like any other app.
- mminer237 2y ago
  I feel like any security issues could be solved by just letting app developers sign their own app bundles again. Then you could ensure an app is legitimate whether from the Play Store, F-Droid, or Shady Free App Store. Currently, Google makes it so painful to try to use independently-distributed software because apps signed by Google can't be upgraded by independently built versions and vice-versa. (Plus Play Protect pops up and disguisedly asks if I want to delete all F-Droid apps like every month.)
  - pohuing 2y ago
    I'm not sure where play protect is supposed to come in. I haven't had a single play protect pop up ever and have been using fdroid and my own apps for years. This was on a pixel and now an Asus. I am in the EU tho, so maybe there's difference policies?
    - DEADMINCE 2y ago
      There are not different policies, you are just not triggering Play Protect because your fdroids apps are not malicious.
throw1234875 2y ago
> The Chocolate Factory filed a briefing [PDF] objecting to Epic's demands on Monday, arguing that its internal estimate of up to $137 million to implement catalog access, library porting and distribution of third-party app stores, plus ongoing charges to keep the whole thing running, was simply too much to bear. They could staff a hefty-sized team, have that team ship their deliverables wrapped in SAP middleware deployed on Oracle with metal racked by NASA astronauts on the dark side of the *fucking moon* and I still don't understand how it costs 137 million to CRUD a few models and wrap a REST API around it.
- the_other 2y ago
  Also “$137 million” sounds like pocket change for Google.
- bitwize 2y ago
  Xerox PARC operated on a budget of $12m/year in today's money. Out of that we got the laser printer, Ethernet, the GUI, much of the innovation behind object-oriented programming, etc. Just one of those innovations (laser printer) paid for the entire lab's operations 200 times over. Today's startups need twice that to ship a fucking terminal emulator: https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/05/warp-raises-23m-to-build-a-better-terminal/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/05/warp-raises-23m-to-build-a...
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > Today's startups need twice that The laser printer was invented in the 70s. Back then, property prices (both rental and purchase) were much much MUCH more reasonable for both companies and their employees, with the latter being a significant contributor to the explosion in wages. Or to rephrase, you needed way less money for any given thing 50 years ago because the associated costs were much lower.
    - mminer237 2y ago
      The associated costs being higher is inflation, which he adjusted for, and there's lots of working from home nowadays, which means you need even less property per person than back then.
mistercheph 2y ago
In an alternate universe, I wonder what would happen if we went the other way, allowing the walled groundskeepers their fences, but taking away all 'platform'-based legal protections that they enjoy; not just section 230: Apple liable for all copyright infringement, users defrauded by an app on the Play Store could claim damages from Google, etc. These protections are also precisely what the faux-libertarian defenders of Apple and Google's rights to shine their gnomes and trim their hedges ignore.
kotaKat 2y ago
Why should Epic Games get the right to the Google Play Store catalog, exactly? This would be like Target getting the rights to Walmart's inventory, wouldn't it?
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  Only if Walmart owned 90% of retail stores.

69 points by rolph 2y ago

0xTJ 2y ago

The use of "begs" in that title it a bit dramatic. Sure Google is being childish, but that's just making a more inflammatory headline.

kevingadd 2y ago
It's legal terminology
- CyberDildonics 2y ago
  You think begging for something is legal terminology?
  - kevingadd 2y ago
    You can literally type "beg the court" into google and the first result is a .gov site. "pleading" is also legal terminology.
    - CyberDildonics 2y ago
      Don't just say 'google it', show me what you're actually talking about. All I found was "May I beg the court’s indulgence for a moment?" which isn't the context being used here, where the title says google is begging for a result.
    - 0xTJ 2y ago
      "I beg [...] for" is a common figure of speech, not specifically legal terminology, but it's not actual "begging". The first-person part of that phrase is important context.
  - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
    In the age of information, why double down on ignorance after a correction has been pointed out?
    - CyberDildonics 2y ago
      In the age of information, what are you specifically talking about? Someone saying something without evidence is not 'a correction'.

sublinear 2y ago

This is crazy. The case against Apple is much stronger than the one against Google. Android devices don't even require the Play Store. Tons of devices out there are sold without it. Android is on far more than just phones. Google doesn't have as much control over its presence on devices as Apple does with the App Store on iOS.

natdempk 2y ago
I would encourage you to read more about the two cases and the differences between them and the rulings. Stratechery has some good articles though some are paywalled.
- sublinear 2y ago
  > "Google has a history of malicious compliance and has attempted to circumvent legislation and regulation meant to reign in their anti-competitive control over Android devices," Epic said of its demands of the search behemoth. "Our proposed injunction seeks to block Google from repeating past bad-faith tactics and open up Android devices to competition and choice for all developers and consumers." Sorry forgot to quote what I'm talking about. I agree Google tightly controls the Play Store specifically with regard to popular apps such as games. They do not have "anti-competitive control over Android devices" though. Epic's quoted claim is categorically false. If they want to compete they need to release their own phone with their own store to sell games for it. This was in fact common practice on a lot of early Android devices. Play Store might as well be a games console and if Epic wins then they probably would want to go after Nintendo and other licensed platforms next. That's ridiculous.
  - boesboes 2y ago
    Release their own phone? Really? That is not really better then apple, is it?
    - sublinear 2y ago
      Releasing your own distro of Android and rebranding existing hardware is a reasonable path to competition. The cost would just be minimal dev work and a profit sharing plan with any of dozens of hardware manufacturers. Not a big deal and probably even cheaper than the legal fees they're incurring here. In contrast, Apple flat out doesn't allow anyone else to sell their hardware or software. Now that's a monopoly.

no_wizard 2y ago

I can take the point with Google on transferring already installed apps from the Play Store to a 3rd Party store. That is a real issue which warrants further scrutiny, because the vectors for potential abuse. I think the free ride of the Play Store having back links automatically in 3rd party app stores to “fill the gaps” is also problematic for representation reasons and is actually bad for users, as origin becomes obfuscated and so does support. If you want apps as a 3rd party store you need to recruit developers to publish to it. This is a clear and transparent attempt by Epic to undercut the Play Store while simultaneously benefiting from it at the same time. It’s not a pro consumer move. I have trouble siding with them on the claims of distribution. Distributing 3rd party app stores via Google Play Store isn’t hard, it’s just another app, effectively. It would actually allow them to police for exploitation and malware more transparently I would think, since the store itself would have to get approved like any other app.

mminer237 2y ago
I feel like any security issues could be solved by just letting app developers sign their own app bundles again. Then you could ensure an app is legitimate whether from the Play Store, F-Droid, or Shady Free App Store. Currently, Google makes it so painful to try to use independently-distributed software because apps signed by Google can't be upgraded by independently built versions and vice-versa. (Plus Play Protect pops up and disguisedly asks if I want to delete all F-Droid apps like every month.)
- pohuing 2y ago
  I'm not sure where play protect is supposed to come in. I haven't had a single play protect pop up ever and have been using fdroid and my own apps for years. This was on a pixel and now an Asus. I am in the EU tho, so maybe there's difference policies?
  - DEADMINCE 2y ago
    There are not different policies, you are just not triggering Play Protect because your fdroids apps are not malicious.

throw1234875 2y ago

> The Chocolate Factory filed a briefing [PDF] objecting to Epic's demands on Monday, arguing that its internal estimate of up to $137 million to implement catalog access, library porting and distribution of third-party app stores, plus ongoing charges to keep the whole thing running, was simply too much to bear. They could staff a hefty-sized team, have that team ship their deliverables wrapped in SAP middleware deployed on Oracle with metal racked by NASA astronauts on the dark side of the *fucking moon* and I still don't understand how it costs 137 million to CRUD a few models and wrap a REST API around it.

the_other 2y ago
Also “$137 million” sounds like pocket change for Google.
bitwize 2y ago
Xerox PARC operated on a budget of $12m/year in today's money. Out of that we got the laser printer, Ethernet, the GUI, much of the innovation behind object-oriented programming, etc. Just one of those innovations (laser printer) paid for the entire lab's operations 200 times over. Today's startups need twice that to ship a fucking terminal emulator: https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/05/warp-raises-23m-to-build-a-better-terminal/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/05/warp-raises-23m-to-build-a...
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Today's startups need twice that The laser printer was invented in the 70s. Back then, property prices (both rental and purchase) were much much MUCH more reasonable for both companies and their employees, with the latter being a significant contributor to the explosion in wages. Or to rephrase, you needed way less money for any given thing 50 years ago because the associated costs were much lower.
  - mminer237 2y ago
    The associated costs being higher is inflation, which he adjusted for, and there's lots of working from home nowadays, which means you need even less property per person than back then.

mistercheph 2y ago

In an alternate universe, I wonder what would happen if we went the other way, allowing the walled groundskeepers their fences, but taking away all 'platform'-based legal protections that they enjoy; not just section 230: Apple liable for all copyright infringement, users defrauded by an app on the Play Store could claim damages from Google, etc. These protections are also precisely what the faux-libertarian defenders of Apple and Google's rights to shine their gnomes and trim their hedges ignore.

kotaKat 2y ago

Why should Epic Games get the right to the Google Play Store catalog, exactly? This would be like Target getting the rights to Walmart's inventory, wouldn't it?

DEADMINCE 2y ago
Only if Walmart owned 90% of retail stores.