Sean Hollister

Wonder if a jury will take that into account. Surely, Epic will ask the same question of Google’s expert now.

Speaking of Google’s expert, a Professor Qian — Google says Qian warned Epic’s expert that agencies like CISA recommend against one of his suggestions (I missed which, sorry), and he admits he didn’t incorporate those warnings into his report.

Correction: We’re now learning it’s Professor Qian, not Chen. Dr. Zhiyun Qian. I apologize for the error.

“You don’t say how much Google should charge for a centralized app review process, right?”

The phrases “Cost to Google: ???” and “Cost to developers: ???” appear on Google’s slide, which is clearly designed to suggest Mickens hasn’t thought his proposal through.

Google’s point seems to be that his proposal would give Google more, not less control and burden, but I’m not seeing the problem with that just yet...

Now Google’s asking whether Mickens asked any OEM or developer if they’d prefer it that way. “You didn’t ask any OEM whether they’d be willing to accept this change, correct?”

Mickens says no.

Google puts a phrase up on the screen: “Would OEMs agree: ???” It appears alongside “Google carries the entire burden for Android App Review” and “Warning screen for any app not reviewed by Google.”

Here are some of Mickens’ words that are being thrown back at him now, from his written report:

Google is narrowly asking him about his “centralized” approach, though — he also suggested a decentralized one.

“Would your proposals require Google to police the entire internet?” asks Epic’s attorney, referring to this quote from earlier in the trial.

“They would not,” replies Mickens, pointing to existing third-party entities like Verisign, Digicert, and GoDaddy — and saying that Google already trusts some of them with websites it displays in Chrome. (I don’t know if I buy that third parties do a good job in the aggregate.)

Mickens has even been asked about the testimony of witnesses that were in this courtroom on previous days, and he’s been ready to go.

Then, if you click allow, and an app has not yet been scanned and reviewed by Google, there’d be a second optional friction screen:

What do you think?

“I agree on a high level that friction, when it’s proportional and commensurate to the risk... is appropriate,” he says.

He thinks a single screen should be enough to get the user’s informed consent.