Apparently Epic conducted an experiment with Digital Turbine as a partner, where users could click just once to install the Epic Games Store on their Android phone instead of going through the lengthy “unknown sources” flow. Bernheim claimed half of users failed to get through unknown sources, but 90 percent made it through one-click. Not surprising, but Epic is using it to suggest that a settlement where Google offers one-click to registered app stores would be better.
Sean Hollister

Senior Editor
Senior Editor
More From Sean Hollister
Some choice Donato quotes towards Epic’s lead attorney:
- “We have no idea what the world’s going to look like in June of this year, much less three years from now.”
- “They’ve gotten rid of the two things they hated most, and now you’re trying to sell me on the idea this is good for competition and developers?” (“they” referring to Google)
- “I’m not throwing anything out right now. You want something more than that, come and tell me. Why aren’t you building on the edifice rather than tearing it down?”
Judge Donato says he just doesn’t get it.
Here’s Epic’s lead attorney Gary Bornstein to answer:
“We love those remedies, period, full stop. We like them, we asked for them, we like them the way we asked for them. Now we have another option that’s on the table that’s the result of a negotiation with Google. We got something through this negotiation that was not on the table before.”
“The only reason Epic is here is because Epic believes this set of remedies in totality will provide longer-term sustainable competition,” says Bornstein. He says holding out for something like this is “the reason Epic didn’t take payoffs back in the day” from Google’s Project Hug and similar.
Judge Donato says that with three years to set up competing app stores on Android, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and more will surely pile on. “The problem we have now is the box has already been rigged terribly with anticompetitive conduct so that Google is way ahead.”
The overarching question: “Three years and a day, what’s going to happen?”
Bernheim says even if they build those stores, Google will cut off Amazon and co. “Google at that point in time is going to say you can’t have an app that downloads things.” Or erect more friction to sideloading apps.
I don’t quite understand how that changes if were six years rather than three, or why Google wouldn’t shut down its proposed Registered App Store program the same way if that got approved.
“By taking away one part of what I’ve proposed, the effectiveness of the other part declines,” says Bernheim, answering the judge’s question about why he didn’t bring all these proposals before.
“The choice was presented to me that if you want these provisions, which of these do you want? Do you want the ones that are going to provide the better opportunities for competitions to survive, that were in my proposals, or the ones that allow competition to get jumpstarted, which were also in my proposals, which do you pick?”
He seems to be saying that Judge Donato didn’t pick enough of them to make a real dent when he issued his permanent injunction, and didn’t make it last long enough or apply around the world, and so what he truly wanted for competition isn’t happening anyways. So the new settlement is overall better, he’s arguing.
“Why did you press so hard for catalog access if you’re willing to throw it out the window today?” asks Judge Donato.
Bernheim replies: “I don’t want to throw it out [...] I would love to keep it.”
Bernheim says there’s a tradeoff, though. “If you want to get competition going and as a compliment to that you have a remedy that will ensure the competition, once it develops, will continue, that it has a path for continuing, then those remedies that we’ve described will be extremely effective.”
That’s Judge James Donato, continuing to be skeptical, addressing Doug Bernheim, the Epic economist.
Bernheim agrees with the judge that Google still monopolizes the Android app market and payments market; that the facts haven’t materially changed on the ground.
Bernheim says he “would love to have all” of the anti-Google monopoly recommendations he originally argued for, but that he’s just analyzing what’s in front of him, and that Judge Donato’s existing injunction simply doesn’t last long enough at just three years rather than six.
“When that ends, developers are going to be very dependent on off-Google Play distribution,” he says. “To the extent those frictions are still in place, that will be a problem at that point in time [...] they’ll be reliant on a process that has already been shown not to work well.”
He brings up the example of how Amazon’s Appstore never got traction because users had to click through too many Google barriers.
“You called catalog access THE critical remedy to counter the network effects and the pattern of dominance,” says Donato, suggesting that Bernheim is attempting to mislead by suggesting the settlement would be viable without forcing Google to offer up its catalog of apps to rival app stores.
“I questioned you about the need for the duration period, and you said it was such a critical remedy you advocated for a period twice as long,” says Donato.
He appears to have been commissioned by Epic to analyze the settlement’s modified injunction vs. Judge Donato’s original injunction. “There are some very important pluses, there are some very important minuses,” says Bernheim.
His “main pluses” include:
- “Registered app store program offers low-friction path for stores to get onto users’ phones” (but how does he know it’s low-friction?)
- No fees on competing app stores or the apps they distribute
- Global steering and alternative payment systems, with capped fees
Main minuses?
- Removes the catalog access remedy (Google won’t be forced to offer its apps to other stores)
- Removes the store distribution remedy (Google won’t be forced into store-within-a-store)
- Allows Google to insist on side-by-side billing (app devs would still have to offer Google Play Billing alongside their own)