Sean Hollister

Epic just showed us a document from 2022 titled “GPB as Platform of Choice.”

It asks one key question: once developers and users have more choices for billing systems, “what are we doing to make GPB the platform they *want* to choose?”

It suggests that “for developers, we must show demonstrable & indisputable ROI” and “we must also connect directly with users and give them a compelling case to check out with Play Billing based on trust, convenience & value.”

“In other words, we’ll need to compete,” asks Epic’s attorney.

Correct, says Loew.

The document mentions two Google codenames that have something to do with alternative check-out options: “Halla” and “Everest.” I suspect “Everest” is Google’s “User Choice Billing” based on the context of the document, but I can’t be sure.

We’ll never know what she would have said, I guess!

Today, in court, she seemed amused by her boss’s language.

“But in that case Google still takes 30 percent of Candy Crush’s revenue even though it didn’t help me discover the app, correct?”

Loew says both things are correct. She also agrees with Epic’s attorney that a theoretical competing Android app store could charge lower service fees, offer better discovery, etc., etc.

She points out that Google allows games to be consumption-only apps.

She also says developers can communicate any way they want with their customers outside of the app.

Inside the app, she confirms, Google does not allow developers like Down Dog to communicate other ways to pay — but Google argues that has a benefit for developers and users:

“If users have a purchase intent... we believe we convert quicker if they can do it in the moment without friction.”

And “if we charged the developer afterwards we’d have to invest in an invoicing system and a collection system,” she says.

Google examined lots of payment models, she says, but found them more convoluted.

“This way when a user pays, everyone gets paid.”

Google has to monitor payment laws around the world at federal, state, and local levels — some cities have specific taxes, and Vermont has “a very specific rule for subscriptions,” she says.

“Does Google bill users for these services it provides?” No, says Loew.

Then there’s fraud prevention, too.

Google isn’t yet showing how much it has to spend on these things, and... wouldn’t other giant payment processors that charge less have to do these things, too? But I get it — Play isn’t free to run.

Let’s give it a go! The first page we’re seeing shows all the different features Google Play Billing offers from “Setup” to “Retention” to “Insights”:

Page three shows Google Play offers credit / debit card support in 150-plus countries, direct carrier billing in 58 markets with 180-plus carriers, gift cards at 950,000 locations in 32 countries, and offers PayPal in 20-plus countries, and there’s a map that shows Google offers UPI in India, as well as E-Wallets and Mobile Money in some places.

What does that mean?

Loew says that Google serves its developers and its users.

“Are Google Play Store and Google Play Billing separate products?” Another question that the jury will explicitly decide, according to the tentative jury instructions (pdf) the court submitted last night.

“No they are not,” she says.

OCV did — and received help from Google.

But we didn’t see evidence OCV any help that a normal app developer wouldn’t get. OCV’s CTO testified that he didn’t get any special benefit or service for his testimony, wasn’t told anything about the case when it asked him to testify, and doesn’t own any Google stock personally (not that it was alleged he did).

He said earlier that OCV primarily builds website for clients in the law enforcement and public safety sectors — police, fire, public health, clerk of courts.

One of OCV’s apps is HCPH Overdose Rescue, we just saw — it’s an app that explains how to administer Narcan.

Epic is countering by asking Beaty whether OCV could have decided just to make apps for Android users instead of also building them for iOS (presumably to show Android and iOS don’t compete for the same users).

It “wasn’t really a consideration for us because we wanted the widest reach possible,” he says.