If Epic accepts that, they will have solve 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.
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.
> 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.
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. "
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.
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.
This looks like to suck so high.
If Epic accepts that, they will have solve 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.
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".
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. "
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.
Wording says permit from "developer website". I expect ugly lockdown when it comes to installing software on Android as freely as on PC.
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?
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.