'Irresponsible' Google Refused Fortnite's Request To Delay Vulnerability Disclosure To Score Cheap PR Points, Says Epic's Chief (bbc.com) 230
The leader of the firm behind the hit game Fortnite has accused Google of being "irresponsible" in the way it revealed a flaw affecting the Android version of the title. BBC, with additional input from Slashdot staff: On Friday, Google made public that hackers could hijack the game's installation software to load malware. The installer is needed because Epic Games has bypassed Google's app store to avoid giving it a cut of sales. Epic's chief executive said Google should have delayed sharing the news. "Android is an open platform. We released software for it. When Google identified a security flaw, we worked around the clock (literally) to fix it and release an update. The only irresponsible thing here is Google's rapid public release of technical details," he said. "We asked Google to hold the disclosure until the update was more widely installed," tweeted Tim Sweeney. "They refused, creating an unnecessary risk for Android users in order to score cheap PR points."
They're miffed (Score:5, Insightful)
Google isn't playing nice. Don't get a cut of the profit? Well screw your security alerts.
Re:They're miffed (Score:5, Insightful)
People should've already been aware that Google isn't above playing politics with software vulnerabilities.
We've also seen it go the other way - where Google held onto vulnerability announcements regarding its own software far longer than the 90 days (or whatever it specifically is) Project Zero generally says is how long they're willing to wait.
Re:They're miffed (Score:5, Insightful)
There's 2 sides to this:
1. Google wants to get a cut
but
2. Users really, really, really, don't need yet another gaping security hole AKA "installer" on their devices.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of my android software comes from F-droid, and that's been true for years!
Re: (Score:2)
I should amend, I feel Google is going against the spirit of their policies (with their extension on disclosure) even though they didn't technically violate the letter of it. If you disagree, then to each their own.
Re: (Score:2)
it may be worse because Google is taking a MASSIVE cut of revenue for doing next to nothing anymore with Google Play
The whole reason Epic is able to make billions of dollars on Fortnite Android is because of development done by Google. Are you saying the billions and billions of dollars they spent building the Android ecosystem over the last decade is "next to nothing"?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean what Microsoft is now doing again with Edge?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Epic didn't want a security hole publicly announced while they were running their Android rollout campaign, making people think twice about the security warning they accept when side-loading apps on their phone.
Especially since they were already told doing things this way would put the security of their users at risk.
So what's the full story (Score:3)
Would hate to unpack the pitchfork for nothing and all that.
Re:So what's the full story (Score:5, Informative)
Google followed its own guidelines. Their guidelines are that they will release the details when the first of 2 things happens, either 90 days has expired OR a general availability patch has been released. The second happened, but Epic wanted google to violate its own guidelines for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Google does not provide level of details that id did for Epic flaw immediately after the patch is made generally available.
Re: (Score:2)
If their software was distributed via Google Play, the patch would have been installed automatically for the majority of users after a few days. By default phones are set to auto-update apps when they're on WiFi and charging. Google Play itself always auto-updates. Epic is saying after a week hardly anyone has updated their installer.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually before they released the patch they ensured that darn near everyone had the patch, even Epic stated that:
"Sweeney concedes that "Google did privately communicate something to the effect that they're monitoring Fortnite installations on all Android devices(!) and felt that there weren't many unpatched installs remaining"."
Also pretty much every disclosure I have seen has had technical details.
Re:So what's the full story (Score:5, Insightful)
This is well stated. And for those that think that it's vindictive on Google's part, well... you're not wrong, but it's the consequence of releasing outside the ecosystem that would automatically deploy the update to the install base.
I think a lot of people are failing to realize that the 30% cut isn't just to make Google money, but also to fund the infrastructure to host and deploy apps according to their own best practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Some money is appropriate, but 30% is pretty damn excessive. Factor in the taxes and most of the companies are lucky to get half of what they are charging and a bunch of that I'm sure is overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't pay tax on the 30% Google took.
They also don't need to run any of their own infrastructure, pay for bandwidth or pay a payment processor, which for very small transactions like in-app purchases, will charge a lot higher than the "normal" 2.5%.
They also don't need to worry about the security implementation of the payment system in their app. Or the security of the installation manager software, which apparently did Epic not worry about, they completely disregarded any attempt at security.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I'd like to add that in this case, it doesn't seem like they should have followed the rules.
Epic's game and installer is a non-essential add-on. Removing a downloaded exploit is a fine and normal solution to cleaning the device. The users should have been notified immediately to implement the obvious solution.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming Epic gave Google that information, that the information was correct and Epic a believable source.
Google make bad judgements but are serious about bugs they didn't deliberately intend. Epic are more often just clueless and slow to acknowledge bugs.
It's hard to take Epic's bleating seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
If Epic didn't give Google the information, then Google doesn't have it and can't act based on it!
Re: (Score:2)
Of because Google knows about all app installations, because users agreed to let Play Protect scan all installed apps.
Google probably have a better idea than Epic. As the users actually need to run the software for it to notify Epic that it's installed and what version it is. Google already has that software running on virtually every Android phone.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'd at least like to hear Google's side of this first.
You heard google already. They told what they had to when they announced the security issue. Only then Epic has reacted. In this instance, Google is outright greedy and wants to kill anybody who wants to distribute software outside of Google Play store. So much for the open Android platform. Manufacturers cannot fork Android otherwise none of the phones can be connected to Play Store. They must install dozens of privacy invading Google apps in default settings otherwise no Play Store. Android are simply Goo
Re:So what's the full story (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's think about what Epic were asking for. They'd prefer users not be notified of a critical vulnerability for three months and instead just wait to see how many upgrade naturally.
Google on the other hand have a published policy that they will notify of security events after 90 days if un-patched or after a patch is widely available, exactly what happened here.
While Google does have a strong financial incentive to stop other companies from operating outside the play store, they also have an incentive for Android not to be viewed as a less secure mobile operating system. It seems to me that, if you want to encourage security patches to be applied, you would want to let users know that their existing install has a critical vulnerability. Why Epic would prefer silence can be inferred, but it's not to the benefit of their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
For commercial software aimed at general users, the benefits of (very) prompt disclosure are more questionable:
- Regardless of the disclosure status, these users will most likely never hear about it.
- Even if they hear about it, in the specific case of games such as Fortnite, a significant proportion of the
Re:So what's the full story (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't help that if Epic's launcher had been distributed through the play store, I think having it update would be less of a problem. And this is one of the major security advantages of distributing through the play store. So you can view the entire decision of Epic to not distribute through the Google store as sacrificing user security for more money. I don't even want to know how many scam download sites there are. It is a lot harder to tell the difference on a phone than on a desktop. If this is any indication of how seriously Epic takes their customers' security, one better assume it's pretty much a field day of vulnerabilities.
I happen to agree that the Google play store is kindof onerous, but what Epic has done is a worse solution from the user standpoint and failed in a completely predictable way in this case. There are other possible solutions, but the handset vendors are too used to having Google do a lot of things for them to push the issue, or too hostile to each other to work together. ...or maybe it actually all comes back to DRM such that an actual open and fair platform is untenable from the start.
Re: (Score:2)
In finding the vulnerability, yes they were concerned. Given how popular the game is though, the disclosure should have been delayed and Google knows it. If they had worked with Epic they probably could have waited until at least a 75% patch rate (which is reasonable) was attained before making the disclosure. Especially given how new this thing is right now. Because of Google's practices on Android, it is more complex for users to patch Epic's installer and Google knows that too, but doesn't care. It
Hard to care about either party... (Score:3)
It's not clear what level of ownership Google should be expected to take on this. It seems to me that they technically did more than I'd feel obligated to in their shoes. Epic appears to have been responsible for the bug, Google appears to have found it for them. Honestly I think they already went the extra mile right there.
Of course if Epic used the app store, then I'd expect a more appropriate arrangement of identification, fix and announcement.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not clear what level of ownership Google should be expected to take on this. It seems to me that they technically did more than I'd feel obligated to in their shoes.
That is in fact the nature of Epic's objection. Google did more than they were obligated to do, and the thing they did put users at risk, it did not protect them.
Epic appears to have been responsible for the bug, Google appears to have found it for them. Honestly I think they already went the extra mile right there.
And that's where they should have stopped. If Epic were not addressing the bug, then full and immediate disclosure would have been warranted, but that was not the situation.
Of course if Epic used the app store, then I'd expect a more appropriate arrangement of identification, fix and announcement.
Nice bug you've got there. Shame if someone announced it unnecessarily while you were fixing it. Guess you should have paid the protection money, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
That is in fact the nature of Epic's objection. Google did more than they were obligated to do, and the thing they did put users at risk, it did not protect them.
I disagree. In order to install the app they had to disable several security mechanisms, and probably not turn them back on. They told epic about the flaw and waited for them to fix it, once it was fixed and released a patch it is best for all people to know they need to immediately patch, since there are no guarantees their loader auto patches.
and that's where they should have stopped. If Epic were not addressing the bug, then full and immediate disclosure would have been warranted, but that was not the situation.
incorrect. Google has an obligation to continue, unless you think flaws should not be disclosed unless they fail to fix them?
Nice bug you've got there. Shame if someone announced it unnecessarily while you were fixing it. Guess you should have paid the protection money, eh?.
Again they did not disclose it during th
Re: (Score:2)
Again they did not disclose it during the fix, they disclosed it after a patch had been released. They followed their own guidelines.
It's pathetic to see people justify abuse under the law, but it's even more pathetic to see people justify abuse under corporate policy.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying Google should have put users in danger by holding on to the discloser, for what reason?
Re: Hard to care about either party... (Score:5, Insightful)
AFTER it has been patched so uses can patch? That is not how it works dude. If they announced the bug BEFORE a patch was made available then sure, but after a patch is released it is more irresponsible to NOT release the details because people wont know they need to patch, but exploiters will know there was a patch and can seek it out.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pathetic to see people justify abuse under the law, but it's even more pathetic to see people justify abuse under corporate policy.
It looks more like you said they shouldn't have published a vulnerability before the patch was ready, and GP pointed out Google published the vulnerability after the patch was already released and being installed by users for a week.
Most of us get the advisory that a patch fixes a critical vulnerability the second the patch is released. It's right there in the release notes, right up front.
Google did more than they were obligated: they kept quiet a week longer than required to let Epic make the annou
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nice bug you've got there. Shame if someone announced it unnecessarily while you were fixing it. Guess you should have paid the protection money, eh?
The fix was already made available. As per Google's guidelines, they either announce the issue 90 days after reporting it, or a week after the fix is made broadly available. From the article, the fix was made available on Aug 17, and Google announced the flaw Aug 24 (a week after it was made available).
Now, whether a week is enough time or not is another question... Epic wanted the full 90 days, Google said nope. How much time would be sufficient? Will everyone who downloaded it update, without knowing
Re: (Score:3)
If Epic used the app store, the vulnerability never would have existed. It's because they're sidestepping the security there that the problem came to be.
Re: (Score:3)
You're confusing facts vs wishes (Score:2)
Gp stated correctly that this serious vulnerability would not have existed had Epic not insisted that users disable security protections. That's a fact. Not a wish, not a "best possible future", but a simple fact.
Kinda like the fact that all your money you've been paying into Social Security is gone. It's been spent. It's not sitting there waiting for you to get it when you're older. Wishing things were different doesn't change the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
> So you honestly think that getting software from only on place is the best possible future?
So you honestly think an army of millions of 12 year olds can properly vet and secure their Android device? Like it or not, Android, IOS and similar mobile OSs operate on a walled-garden approach to the average user. Half of the reason we have massive malware problems on Windows is due to anyone and anything installing any application any time without proper vetting. Your Grandma gets a scary popup? She does
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, PalmOS and Symbian apps were open - there was no app store or anything. You downloaded the files and installed them on your phone.
Of course, it meant that every app had to implement some sort of demoware thing, and not everyone took a credit card so paying for your software was a PITA (especially if you were outside the US). And you often had the trouble of upgrades so you had to hunt down your registration codes again.
Yes, things are better now since everyone's pr
Re: (Score:2)
> Actually, PalmOS and Symbian apps were open - there was no app store or anything. You downloaded the files and installed them on your phone.
I remember well, and the thing about it was you had to use your PC to download them and then go to the trouble of purposely uploading them to your device. Which, as I mentioned I think is a great idea and is exactly how sideload .apk files should have to work because that would dramatically reduce the chances of someone tricking the average user into running somet
Re: (Score:2)
> My generation did it in the 80/90/00s and we had no problem.
I'm part of "that generation" as well, and I can recall massive problems that started back then which we still live with today. Except back in the olden days the vector was a floppy disk. These days it's wireless and OTA. Back then you fed a stupid prompt a cookie, these days your gran's phone gets locked out while it mines crypto or has its file system encrypted and held for ransom.
Walled garden ecosystems exist for a reason and that reaso
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hard to care about either party when two evil companies are battling it out for the evil crown that only hurts the two evil companies.
They both suck, just in different ways.
Re: (Score:2)
When you think you're going the "extra mile" for somebody else, but you're not actually part of their team, and they tell you to stop... That means you weren't helping.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> Google has nothing to lose by delaying disclosure of an exploit that isnt even in its ecosystem...
They do have something to lose, the security of and confidence in Android. Disclosing this bug lets users know about it so they can make sure the vulnerability is closed (like by updating the installer).
Re: (Score:2)
Google is not to blame here. (Score:5, Informative)
Google followed its own guidelines. Their guidelines are that they will release the details when the first of 2 things happens, either 90 days has expired OR a general availability patch has been released. The second happened, but Epic wanted google to violate its own guidelines for them.
The problems is in bypassing the play store they did open themselves up some and now they want google to change, not them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Google have any role in this at all? Their role is to develop Android and run their own store. Why are they policing independent developers not using the Google store? Isn't it only Epic's responsibility to communicate with their own customers?
Re: (Score:2)
No they are not. They released the patch to the general public patch. Google waited 7 days more and released the vulnerability.
Re: (Score:3)
What abuse? The patch was released in a matter of a day or so..
What happens if a hacker finds the vulnerability and targets the users who dont know they need to patch? Well Epic and Google would have put those people in jeopardy by holding it. This way people know they need to patch.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That actually sounds like a good strategy: let them have rope enough to hang themselves, then blame Epic for the sudden rush of malware-laden Android phones after their sideload software gets everything hacked to hell. Frighten the world into running as far away as possible from anything you haven't blessed.
Lock vulnerable app, can update, can not run (Score:3)
"We asked Google to hold the disclosure until the update was more widely installed," tweeted Tim Sweeney. "They refused, creating an unnecessary risk for Android users in order to score cheap PR points."
Allowing the unpatched game to continue running also unnecessarily risks Android users. Doesn't google have the ability to delete an app in Android? If so perhaps they should have deleted the unpatched game versions?
Looking forward maybe google should have the ability to lock out a vulnerable version of an app. Don't delete it, just prevent it from running, only allow it to be updated to a newer version.
Re: (Score:2)
Google can do that for Play apps. This whole pissing match started because Epic decided NOT to publish Fortnite on the Play Store.
Pay/Non-play, a choice not a technical issue (Score:2)
Google can do that for Play apps. This whole pissing match started because Epic decided NOT to publish Fortnite on the Play Store.
If they can remove a Play app then they can remove a non-Play app. They may not do so currently but that is a choice not a technical issue.
Re: (Score:2)
...amazing how that can be obverted to say "Tim Sweeney refused to prioritize publishing the update and an apology because it would cost Epic PR points".
...although seriously, I'm not carping on you about that. You're totally right that Google could have simply dropped a signature for Epic's installer into their vulnerability monitor and instantly yanked it off every Android device if they'd wanted to, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You want google to be able to lock side-loaded apps? You realize the whole point of the article was the app was not installed via the play store right?
With respect to malware or a serious infection vector for malware, why not? Play or non-Play is irrelevant. Its little different than anti-virus software quarantining or deleting detected malware.
Re: (Score:2)
If google started deleting or blocking the apps that I choose to sideload onto my android, I would ditch them ASAP and join the class action lawsuit which would surely follow.
If they were doing so only in cases of genuine malware, you would lose. And the terms of service could easily be updated to permit this if not already allowed to further weaken your actions.
Reverse Engineer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You would think most slashdot readers would understand this, apparently not.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Slashdot readers also understand that if upstream requests that disclosure be delayed because mitigation procedures are in process, then it is normal to respect such a request.
Re: (Score:2)
Except there were no mitigating procedures in process, and google had already identified that nearly all downloads had patched.
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish, a patched downloader was being distributed, this is a mitigation procedure. Weasel word "nearly" does not save your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
The patch downloader had ALREADY been distributed, not *being*. and that is not what is meant by "mitigating procedures" I dont know of a reporting company in the world who would say, "well you released a patch, no need to release the details", they all do, all that holding it does is lead to more exploits by people who figure the issue out.
Re: (Score:2)
The patch downloader had ALREADY been distributed, not *being*
Where did anybody say that the patched downloader had been completely distributed. Oh right, you made that up. You do understand that the more Google apologists spin this pout with their lame deflections, the longer is stays in view and the worse it looks for Google. don't you? Of course you do. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If someone uninstalls then searches the web to re-download it using compromised wifi they could be taken to a fake site serving malware. So if someone is naive enough to trust a malicious wifi connection they're even more at risk with this exploit being made public. T
Re: (Score:2)
My god you really went around the neighborhood to try and attack google.
the exploit was vulnerable to any APP with WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE permission. Any app with the name com.epicgames.fortnite could have been downloaded an installed via that. It did not have to come from a hijacked access point. It was mostly a glorified permissions issue.
Again, no PR attack, just them following their procedures and being responsible.
Spite (Score:2)
Google jumped at the chance to punish out of spite, because Epic chose to operate its own store. This is how it looks.
Comment removed (Score:3)
We need standards for this (Score:2)
Everybody has their own rules and guidelines around responsible disclosure. We need an organization like like the IEEE or ACM or CERT to make standard practices for this. This is important because there is always a question of liability. I'd like to know that if I followed the IEEE rules for responsible disclosure that I can be reasonably sure that someone can't sue me.
There are no right sides here. (Score:2)
It's very simple, and it's not what this headline says.
Epic decided to forgo the Play Store for releasing Fortnite.
Google said "Okay, but this sort of thing can make our platform less secure. Be careful out there."
Epic releasesd an installer for Fortnite that could install Fortnite without the Play Store.
Google looks at it, and sees that it can be used to install more than just Fortnite, because it contains some stupidCode that can be used to install all sorts of malicious things because someone at
childish of google (Score:2)
That's really childish of google, especially as Google is only using the 7 day deadline when it's due to a security risk if it's already being actively misused, but it isn't. Normally they have 90 days (or sooner if they notice it being actively being misused).
So why did they release it with the 7 day deadline? well we all know why...
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the policy says 7 days after a patch has been released, not if being misused, that is their policy.
Literally (Score:2)
> we worked around the clock (literally) to fix it
So they put a clock in the middle of the room and arranged their desks around it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google doesn't distribute Android? When did that happen?
Regardless, anyone with two brain cells to rub together could see this shitshow (and more in future) coming the second Epic announced that in order to install their software you'd have to allow uncertified install packs on Android. Many many people do not have the technical acumen to understand the full ramifications of that, and will probably forget to flip the switch when they're done, so a whole host of malware providers are even as we speak licki
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are a bit confused if you think this bug was in Android...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this bug was in Android. I said that Google distributes Android. Totally separate pieces of information. I then added my opinion that Epic is for their own enrichment opening up additional security holes in a very irresponsible fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
I see two major problems with your argument. First, Android is supposed to be open source/marketed as being the open platform, but the practices of Google are really counter to this. Normally I don't care to get into the pissing matching between companies (frankly I don't care if the companies kill each other usually), but these particular pissing matches are actually harming consumers. Then, Google is intentionally distributing Android with some built in dark patterns to scare users into only being comf
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your arguments are you're applying expectations of open-ness for PC OSs to the mobile phone market. You complain that:
> On top of that, they have taken great pains to prevent other stores from taking much hold or allowing for simplified individual distribution to the Android platform in any way. Imagine the uproar if Microsoft did this with Windows.
We're not talking about Windows, Android's main competitor is Apple's IOS. How's Android look compared to that? How are those IOS competit
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your arguments are you're applying expectations of open-ness for PC OSs to the mobile phone market.
While true, why should they be applied different? Phones are just mini computers and in many cases people use them as their main computer anyway. The only reason the markets are treated differently in that regard is the companies behind the major developments engineered the market that way. It was a much more organic process with PCs originally and they were not able to force-feed consumers their own ideas with as much success (Plus as much as I dislike Torvalds, Linux gave a big middle finger to closed
Re: (Score:2)
>> We're not talking about Windows, Android's main competitor is Apple's IOS. How's Android look compared to that? How are those IOS competitors to the App Store there doing? Exactly.
> Apple is just as guilty if not more. The argument that "It isn't as bad as they other guy" is still weak. Using a more extreme example would be, "I'm not so bad, I only beat that guy into a state or paralysis/coma, while that guy beat another to death!" Neither one is right, just less wrong...
I think that's a bit of
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Epic also continued to say ".... and on top of that, we're telling them to install an app with a massive security hole in it"
Re: (Score:2)
Google don't take all of the 30% for themselves. You can get Visa et all will be getting a decent cut of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucked up like an amature.
And their reason for doing this is because they want to handle the in-app purchases themselves to make more profit.
So they can't write a secure installer and we're expecting them to securely handle peoples credit card information?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not google's responsibility to hold on to the release beyond 7 days because Epic asks them for more time to ensure everything is long since patched.
It's not Google's responsibility to announce the vulnerability, either. They choose to do so, nobody is forcing them.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not Google's responsibility to announce the vulnerability, either. They choose to do so, nobody is forcing them.
It's only their responsibility if you assume they have an interest in protecting the security of their users.
Are you for bug disclosures or against them? There is / was a serious security issue w/ the Epic installer. Bug disclosures are a Good Thing. We are all better off for them. Attributing malice to the action doesn't change that fact.
Unless you are looking for a reason to bash Google. If so, disregard the above.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's policy seems reasonable. There's a fixed version, so disclose the info.
Not only is it a shitty installer, the whole idea of an installer app on Android is shitty. Just have people download the APK and use the built in package installer. If it's about download size, use the same trick most big games do and have the app load data files on first launch into its own protected data directory. All of that is built in and is quite safe and audited.
Not that Google never does anything shitty, but this one i
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is it a shitty installer, the whole idea of an installer app on Android is shitty. Just have people download the APK and use the built in package installer.
That's not a fully working solution because it leaves out people who get confused during the download process. If you download an APK then it appears in your downloads list and as a notification. If you clear that notification and your downloads list then there is no way whatsoever to install that APK without installing additional software, like a file manager, unless you download it again. Many people are probably not even aware of the downloads list, and if someone has a lot of notifications they might no
Re: (Score:2)
There are file managers with recent Android.
Maybe older ones as well, it probably depends on the phone maker too (my Galaxy S4 had one bundled from Samsung for example).
Admittedly, the issue with large APKs is that you need double the space. First to download and then to install the files. That's why so many games are using installers (though usually done downloading private files in the main game, not as a separate app).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're saying wait until that patches are being deployed before publishing. Like what they did in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
epic is make billions off this game and they don't get any
Not true. A popular game makes the Android platform more popular, sells more handsets, and enlarge Google's walled garden of services from which it derives advertising income.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension issues? OP wrote "don't get any". Now you are arguing a fallback. Suit yourself, Google still looks like shit over this and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
if by "looks like shit" you mean looks responsible, you are correct.
Re: (Score:2)
So your new fallback argument is "shit is not shit". Nice.