Sean Hollister

It never happened. “My proposal has not launched in that form,” says Kleidermacher.

Epic attorney Yonatan Even seems to be trying to suggest it was the genesis of the Unknown Sources idea that adds friction when users sideload apps — but hasn’t yet made a firm link.

Is Google justified in charging its fees because it protects Android users?

Before the break, we saw Google present an internal slide that included the phrase: “75% of Android Owners say Google Play is a safe place to get apps even while less than half are aware of Google Play Protect.”

I really do use the blue cushion every single day in court. Keeps this laptop from slipping off my lap.

It was a presentation titled “What we worry about.” She said: “There’s an Apple logo on that phone.”

Epic had previously pointed out that several of Google’s presentations about competition made no mention of Apple.

Epic, by the way, did not miss that paragraph about the “world of pain.” Hueston made sure the jury saw it and heard it.

“Which store is a safe place to get apps?” Android declined from 78 percent to 75 percent, while iOS went up from 80 percent to 84 percent in three months. I wonder if Google had anything related to security around that time that made the news?

“6 percent may seem like a small number, but out of 3 billion...” she does the math, seemingly instantly, and says it’s 180 million people potentially switching.

On the giant spreadsheet we saw earlier, Google points out a different number than Epic did: nearly 14 percent of Android users switch to iOS in the United States specifically, according to Google’s internal estimates.

Another Googler replied:

Here is part of that same 2018 email that Google did not try to highlight for the jury, for obvious reasons:

One yawned. I saw another looking down at his hands. Some were looking around the room, etc. Maybe they’re just hungry. We’re 23 minutes away from lunch.

The jurors have typically been extremely attentive. This is the first time in seven days I’ve noticed otherwise.

She claims fairness was another reason: it was a firm rule because Google didn’t want to disadvantage smaller developers.

There was also a suggestion that security was a reason, that Google wanted to be responsible since it was effectively selling the apps, but I don’t follow how that logic applies to mandating GPB. Maybe I missed it.