Sean Hollister

Epic’s lawyer just asked about the frosting (is this it?), and Google’s security expert says he’s heard of it. The point seems to be that Google does already have a mechanism for signing some apps outside the Play Store, reportedly for peer-to-peer distribution. Epic pointed out a while ago that some countries, including India, tend to distribute apps peer to peer rather than solely over the internet.

Epic’s attorney is trying to get Dr. Qian to admit that Google has the capability to block bad apps, period. But apparently he already, did in an old deposition, so he didn’t need to say it again in court today.

We’re looking at a spreadsheet of Android devices by country that Google’s expert used to come to the conclusion that 53 percent of Android users outside China have successfully enabled the sideloading flow.

Told ya. He’s Epic’s witness again, and it was the very first line of questioning.

Dr. Qian is asserting that Android would be less, not more safe if it notarized apps because they could become compromised over time — requiring Google to follow up.

“There are profound ramifications on the entire Android ecosystem, all the stakeholders.” says Dr. Qian, who suggests Android OEMs would need to agree and would want to negotiate.

Google’s own head of security explained this to us a few days ago, but Qian is taking another stab — he says that because Google Play doesn’t have a “relationship” with off-Play apps, has less information, it isn’t as effective.

Dr. Qian is explaining the security concept of “defense in depth,” using a castle with a moat, drawbridge, walls, and guards as an analogy.

That’s Google’s security expert. He told Google’s lawyer that sideloaded apps inherently have a higher risk of being malware (because they haven’t been reviewed, which seems obvious), that the research is consistent that sideloaded apps are riskier, and that entities like Samsung and Verizon warn their users about the risks of sideloaded apps.

Now that Epic’s expert Professor Mickens is no longer on the stand, his Google counterpart is taking advantage — twice suggesting to the jury that Mickens would agree that some of Google’s existing screens make sense, at least in terms of ensuring user consent to an app install.