CHATS! Everybody drink.
We may need to make a CHATS T-shirt, like the EMAILS one we used to sell.
(Kolotouros could not swear to it but said he could not recall sending any chats relevant to the legal case during that period.)
Once again, Epic attorney Lauren Moskowitz points out that Google’s slides about the need to have Play compete / protect itself from other app stores do not mention Apple anywhere, cutting at the heart of Google’s argument.
(She’s going through slide after slide, slide deck after slide deck, with Kolotouros, and he’s saying yes, Apple is not mentioned.)
“Oneplus Execs reached out today [...] this is OnePlus-initated request for sustainable long term growth,” reads part of an internal Google email about OnePlus’ decision not to preinstall the app.
Epic’s attorney made this sound like a forced / bribed choice, and while that’s still within the realm of possibility based on what we’ve heard, it seems more complicated than that.
Google also says that OEMs can put some phones in its Premier tier (eligible for full rev share) and other phones in a different tier — and that 95 percent of Android phones in the US are not part of the Premier tier, so nothing prevents them from preloading a non-Google app store on those phones if they wanted to.
Something I missed this AM but confirmed with three sources: Judge Donato is not at all happy with Google about the testimony of its employees (including lawyers!) in the courtroom — as Epic has increasingly shown they ignored or joked or seemed unaware of their obligations to preserve evidence.
So unhappy that he’s considering a mandatory jury instruction — which might tell the jury not to trust Google as much as they otherwise might — unless Google’s chief legal officer Kent Walker shows up Thursday at 3PM PT and can properly explain this mess.
Kolotouros told Google lead attorney Glenn Pomerantz:
➼ Offering Android for free helps Google compete with Apple because other companies can focus on building the hardware and apps instead of a whole operating system
➼ MADA includes tools that help devs make higher-quality apps
➼ Google’s APIs ensure apps are working as users expect
➼ These contracts make sure OEMs give you bimonthly security updates — “no less than 6 security updates in a calendar year.”
Google also pointed out that companies beyond Epic have managed to get their apps preinstalled on Android phones, like Facebook and LinkedIn. I now wonder what Meta, Microsoft, and OEMs paid or gave up for that to happen.
It’s Google’s turn to question its VP of Android platform partnerships, and as usual, it’s focused on explaining to the jury why all these payments and contracts make sense if you’re trying to compete with the iPhone. This specific Kolotouros answer was to a question about what would happen if an Android app didn’t have Google’s contractually required apps out of the box.
I’m receptive to this argument: we at The Verge have decried fragmentation and bloatware for years, often asking why OEMs insist on reinventing the wheel by bundling apps that perform worse than the de facto platform defaults. But I didn’t know Google paid so much to keep it from being so.
While Jim Kolotouros’ chat history may have been deleted, his disgruntled comment-filled notepad file has been shared in court.
Comments include:
“Lack of honesty at Android leadership. Lie to your face and stab you in the back.”
“I am loyal to Google; not any person”
“Andy Rubin culture is rampant; but more passive aggressive, and not out in the open”
“Why am I doing this? To protect Joan the billionaire?”
“Why am I defending these people?”
He also mentions protecting “Jamie,” who we’ve heard is his boss, Jamie Rosenberg... and who just so happens to be testifying after him in court today.
“That is right,” answers Kolotouros. Sounds familiar. Wonder how Google is going to explain all this potentially deleted evidence to the jury in a way that sticks. So far, it hasn’t done a great job.
“That was Samsung’s frame, that is correct,” says Kolotouros.
Samsung’s counteroffer included: “Utilize Google IAP as the main payment module on Galaxy Store.” Samsung was willing to give Google a cut of in-app purchases, that means.
Instead, Google did three other deals with Samsung in 2020 worth $8 billion, Kolotouros agreed. We didn’t get all the details.
“Play Store will still be distributed and placed on the default home screen for all devices via the MADA, but there is room for Samsung to also add the Galaxy Store,” reads an executive summary. “This saves us $1.0B over 4 years.”
Yes, says Kolotouros.
That’s why, in February 2019, Google proposed Project Banyan, aka “How do we continue to keep Play as the preeminent distribution platform for Android?” Or at least that’s the first page of a slide deck about Banyan.
It was a short-lived attempt: after Samsung’s June 2019 counteroffer, Google gave up on it, Kolotouros says.