Epic's proposed remedies are bad for everyone but Epic(blog.google)
blog.google
Epic's proposed remedies are bad for everyone but Epic
https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/epics-proposed-remedies-are-bad-for-everyone-but-epic/
15 comments
I don't like having to make all play store apps available to all third-party app stores. I would want control of that were I an app developer.
Would it even be legally possible for Google to do this? The Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement [1] doesn't appear to extend to sublicensing -- Google can't designate third-party app stores as having permission to distribute developers' apps.
[1]: https://play.google/developer-distribution-agreement.html
[1]: https://play.google/developer-distribution-agreement.html
Epic wants Google to distribute those apps even when installed through Epic's storefront. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40450522
My interpretation is that the idea is that third-party app stores could, for example, support updating an app installed by another app store.
Or they could modify your app without your knowledge or consent before someone downloads it, while claiming to be the stock configuration. Pre populating app stores sounds great for Epic, but there’s a lot of issues.
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.
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.
Apps are signed.
Epic is trying to make it trivial to set up an App Store by pre populating apps which changes the incentives around burning one’s reputation. So sure looking at signatures is useful for someone who pays attention, not so much in the general case.
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.
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 at signatures
"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.
"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.
That's part of it. The proposal is for everything on Google Play to be available on Epic's store but payments/downloads/updates still managed by Google. Then if an app becomes available via Epic they can "take over".
If you mean that
>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 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.
Epic proposes to get around this by acting as a front-end to Google's catalog but not actually distributing the apps themselves.
> [...] 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 [...]
> [...] 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 [...]
I mean, technically 3rd parties can already scrap packages from Google and repost them through various channels.
But yea, I find this point to be weirdest from all the ones that epic proposed.
But yea, I find this point to be weirdest from all the ones that epic proposed.
It's weird, but I get where it's coming from at least. You have a "smart" device, they don't have a public api (because), they have an app, but using the app requires google play services.
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".
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".
I think it's because Epic doesn't want to be a "second" app store. They want users to be able to completely throw away the Play store, use the Epic store and still get every app that has one of those "Get it on Google Play" badges which to users just means "works on Android."
The blog post links a PDF of a court document containing all of Epic's requests, FYI.
How many people would read that?
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.
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.
>> 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?
>> 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?
"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?
AIUI Google is still permitted to block malware, but its practical ability declines.
Okay. That helps. Now I can isolate that bit of GooglePoo from the rest of the corporate klaxoning.
"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.
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.
> 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.
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.
>Epic’s proposal hurts device manufacturers: Part of the State AG settlement ensures that any app store is free to compete for placement on an Android device. But Epic’s proposal would cut Google Play out of this process, reducing competition and therefore enabling rival app stores to underbid. This would reduce what OEMs can earn from pre-installation and placement on their devices, cutting into already narrow OEM margins in a way that could raise consumer prices.
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
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
I don't like defending Google here but the status quo is also heavily favorable to users. For a good number of years users were begging Google to put their heel to the throats of OEMs who dropped support for their devices after only a few years, couldn't get the latest version of Android, couldn't run new versions of apps, and had to deal with the garbage OS customizations and apps OEMs shipped.
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.
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.
If "google stuff" was part of (open source) android OS, then sure.
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.
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.
Google did a good job summarizing Epic's proposal, and Epic's proposal sure sounds great for me if I'm an Android user! I can't wait, thanks Epic!
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.
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.
>Epic’s proposal hurts the privacy of Android users: Under Epic’s proposal, Google would be forced to tell any and all third party app stores which apps a user has installed on their phone through Google Play. It would wrongly expose a person’s personal apps usage – even for topics like religion, politics, or health — for Epic’s gain. This is a clear violation of user privacy.
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)
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)
> If an app has permissions to work as an app stores, it should already be able to query installed packages, no?
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!)
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!)
>They say "any and all third party app stores." Does that include app stores the user hasn't installed
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.
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.
>Epic’s proposal removes Google’s ability to implement trust and safety measures that keep Android users safe.
you vill ovn nothing, und you vill be, uh, safe
you vill ovn nothing, und you vill be, uh, safe
North Korea is the safest country in the world, just look at their (non-government-initiated) murder rate! lol
If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Under Epic’s proposal, Google would be forced to tell any and all third party app stores which apps a user has installed on their phone through Google Play.
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.
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.
Both Apple and Google provide virtually none of the data they collect to third parties.
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)
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)
Steam provides lots of very valuable data for free, online, without restriction, to anyone who bothers to check about its millions of users. Pray tell, whom was harmed?
Did anyone actually think Epic was pro-consumer in any way?
I mean, I don’t expect Google to be more pro-consumer than Epic either.
Yeah, this is exactly what's happening.
Google is saying Epic is selfish as well, and it wants an opening only for itself to make money.
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.
> Epic is accusing Google (and Apple) of being monopolies since it wants to play in the app store space.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I disagree that it is wrong. It's pragmatic.
So it’s pragmatic to publicly advocate one position and then privately advocate another?
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?
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?
> 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.
Why shouldn't he? Doesn't mean he can't sue.
Why shouldn't he? Doesn't mean he can't sue.
No it doesn't, but leading up to the trial, Epic generally and Sweeney specifically made a _huge_ PR push that he was waging this battle on Apple (and Google) on behalf of all developers everywhere who are getting screwed over by the 30% commission.
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.
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.
I like clown tears.
Google and Epic, please cry harder.
Google and Epic, please cry harder.
Can you name what thing they mention in that blog post is anti-consumer? I can't find anything besides handwaving about security. It's comical considering AFAIK you could always download APKs and install them by flipping a switch and tapping an alert or two.
> Can you name what thing they mention in that blog post is anti-consumer?
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.
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.
Epic is fighting for a part of Google's cake that is protected by anti-competitive means.
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.
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.
So, no, but it sucks they use Google in app purchases so they must be anti-consumer
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
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
> 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.
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.
No, just an old warhouse who went corporate, left 6 months, and is in pre release - I keep forgetting to apply for that, ty.
> Epic is fighting so they can fuck you in place of google.
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.
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.
If two people are fighting to fuck you over one person, the person trying to escape the fucking wins just a bit more.
I don't understand this aproach.
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.
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.
According to Google, Chrome itself is a privacy and security risk to all desktop users, and undermines the security of all non-mobile platforms, as it installs itself from Google servers (from a downloadable file no less) and not from the OS/platform app store.
Amazing stuff. I don't know why Apple and Google do this performance art or who it convinces. If these clowns even just let us point out theyre charging 30%, it's morally defensible. The chain of you must use our payments => we can charge you whatever the "market" will bear => btw you can't tell anyone is absolutely indefensible. It absolutely sickens me to overcharge people for Cupertino and Mountain View's sake.
I see people in every related discussion thread convinced by this kind of performance art, people who don't really understand when a corporation is propagandizing are incredibly common. Corporations wouldn't do this if it wasn't extremely effective, unfortunately.
> I see people in every related discussion thread convinced by this kind of performance art, people who don't really understand when a corporation is propagandizing
This is a good summation of every ISP-related topic discussion.
This is a good summation of every ISP-related topic discussion.
I'm sure Epic's proposals are primarily self-serving, but these accusations fall so flat coming from Google
[deleted]
It feels like they're trying to get Android Stans on Twitter to complain everywhere like I've seen Apple fanboys doing since the EU told Cupertino to allow alternative app stores. I don't think Android users really tie their identity into that product the same way, tbh
Don't bother with this, it's just the usual disgusting PR spin from BigCorp PR Department.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/12/24128531/epic-google-prop...