Tim Sweeney Signed Away His Right To Criticize Google Until 2032 (theverge.com)
- Reference: 0180912510
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/05/1753259/tim-sweeney-signed-away-his-right-to-criticize-google-until-2032
- Source link: https://www.theverge.com/news/889595/tim-sweeney-signed-away-his-right-to-criticize-google-until-2032
> On March 3rd, he not only signed away Epic's rights to sue and disparage the company, he signed away his right to advocate for any further changes to Google's app store polices. He can't criticize Google's app store practices. In fact, he has to praise them. The contract states that "Epic believes that the Google and Android platform, with the changes in this term sheet, are procompetitive and a model for app store / platform operations, and will make good faith efforts to advocate for the same."
>
> He may even have to appear in other courts around the world to defend this deal with Google, and Google gets to make sure his public statements are supportive of the deal from here on out. And while Epic can still be part of the "Coalition for App Fairness," the organization that Epic [3]quietly and solely funded to be its attack dog against Google and Apple, he can only point that organization at Apple now.
"Google is opening up Android all the way with robust support for competing stores, competing payments, and a better deal for all developers. So, we've settled all of our disputes worldwide. THANKS GOOGLE!," Sweeney [4]wrote in a post on X on Wednesday.
[1] https://developers.slashdot.org/story/26/03/04/2218226/google-ends-its-30-app-store-fee-welcomes-third-party-app-stores
[2] https://www.theverge.com/news/889595/tim-sweeney-signed-away-his-right-to-criticize-google-until-2032
[3] https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/30/23962920/epic-just-admitted-the-coalition-for-app-fairness-was-created-solely-by-epic
[4] https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/2029250311198523522
Man gets what he wants, news still not happy (Score:3)
I mean... Sweeney won. He got what he wanted. This is like the music rags manufacturing drama between musicians when in reality they're hanging out at each others barbecues when they're not on the road.
Re:Man gets what he wants, news still not happy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more about actual compelled speech by contract. It sets a ... highly uncomfortable precedent. It goes way beyond "I'm not allowed to discuss that subject" into actual lies in support of something.
Celebrity endorsements (Score:2)
"Nike shoes help me fun faster and jump higher." -- paid shill fulfilling contractual terms
"Google's app store provides users security, safety and fun." -- paid shill fulfilling contractual terms
What exactly is new here?
Re: (Score:2)
> He may even have to appear in other courts around the world to defend this deal with Google, and Google gets to make sure his public statements are supportive of the deal from here on out.
No contract to star in an ad campaign goes that far, as far as I am aware.
Re: (Score:2)
No court allows people to contract to provide false testimony. If the non-disparagement language doesn't have explicit carve-outs for that, at least those aspects of the contract will be unenforceable.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's more about actual compelled speech by contract. It sets a ... highly uncomfortable precedent. It goes way beyond "I'm not allowed to discuss that subject" into actual lies in support of something
What's uncomfortable about it? Epic agreed to the contract. There wasn't even any duress - both negotiated the contract and terms and agreed to it.
Compare this to other agreements where they use an NDA to hide sordid details - many sexual assault settlements, for example. You want compensation for your hurt, yo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how to even begin to explain to you how incredibly wrong you are. Being correct and winning means very little if you sign away your right to free speech. And that's what he's done. If google's app store were to suddenly delist everything except their own apps, he'd have to praise them for doing so and call it being pro-competitive.
You hand-waving this away is shameful.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't know how to even begin to explain to you how incredibly wrong you are. Being correct and winning means very little if you sign away your right to free speech. And that's what he's done. If google's app store were to suddenly delist everything except their own apps, he'd have to praise them for doing so and call it being pro-competitive. You hand-waving this away is shameful.
Last I checked, Tim Sweeney is worth several billion dollars.
In other words, Fuck You money.
The kind of money that doesn't really need to give a shit about much of anything. Including public scrutiny of his choice to limit his free speech by a tiny fraction.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't sign away his free speech rights. He knowingly agreed to deploy his free speech in certain ways, which is itself an exercise of free speech . He was not forced to do this. He took Apple to court for similar and won. This saved him some trial money and he decided this type of endorsement was worth that savings.
Re: (Score:2)
Which groups had beef but were friends? A lot that I see is actual real beef, like they aren't friends at all. Unless you follow some niche genre I am not aware of much fake beef.
Re: (Score:2)
What is there remotely to have beef about? They produce music. Anything else is just nonsense to get attention. OH, they be thugs? Sure... Right. Whatever. Hows jail going for Diddy again? Screw these people that think they are gangsta when all their money comes from Corporate America. Yeah, really gangsta there.
Heck, I guess if we ignore rap, there is no controversy at all. Think the pop stars are enemies? Please. It's all just a bunch of fakery to sell more music.
Slashdot (Score:3)
I would stop criticizing Slashdot until 2032 for a mere $50k.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I'd do it for $500. It doesn't really matter at this point, anyway. Here in 2026, you have to assume that everything is either AI generated slop, or bullshit generated to create engagement bait.
Re: (Score:1)
They'll make you sign twice.
Yeah, this is not good (Score:2)
> Google is opening up Android all the way with robust support for competing stores, competing payments, and a better deal for all developers.
This isn't even true. Google is opening up the store system, but is closing the operating system in general to only devs it gives explicit permission to write software (and forcing them to identify themselves as the author of an app in future.)
Sideloading is only going to be possible if the person who compiled the .apk file is a registered developer.
So, thanks Tim!
Ask Tim Cook what a Sweeney promise is worth (Score:2)
Not much, after Sweeney tried to slip a version of Fortnite that deliberately broke the contract Fortnight signed with Apple. (Independent of the merits of the Apple/Epic case, that was definitely a dick move by Sweeney.)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should not be able to dictate what software can run on an iphone, period. The contract itself is fundamentally flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's OK to sign a contract, then decide the contract is 'morally unacceptable" and break it? Sweeney can decide it's "morally unacceptable" to not criticize Google next year. And then if Google goes to enforce that contract, Sweeney will sue Google...
Tell us how you really feel. (Score:2)
Interviewer: What do you think of Google's latest Android changes?
Sweeney: Google is doing great things!
Interviewer: Are you saying that because Google requires you to support them?
Sweeney: Google is doing great things!
Penalties for violating the agreement? (Score:2)
For anyone who read the full contract, are there any penalties in stipulated it that contract, i.e. what happens should Epic disparage Google or violate any of the other contractual obligations? Without specific penalties, the agreement has no teeth, so no motivation to stick to it.
As we suspected, Tim Sweeney can be bought (Score:2)
It was about the principle of the thing when it was Apple and Google.
Except it wasn't when it was about Xbox and PlayStation.
This is just an extension of the $ituational ethics here.
Re: (Score:2)
Principles? LOL funny. Principles are for poors because otherwise they'd have money and have no need for principles. Basically, if you aren't a billionaire, you are a poor.
WOW. This seems... (Score:2)
... very Trumpian, frankly.
On 12/31/2031 (Score:1)
...Google is going to be sweating bullets.
Is he allowed to mention the agreement? (Score:2)
Can Sweeney qualify all his public statements praising the arrangement by saying that he is contractually obligated to praise the arrangement? If he's allowed to do so, that's the equivalent of commercials with annotations saying that the actors were compensated for their portrayals.
Don't be evil! (Score:3)
That's the spirit, right?
Re: Don't be evil! (Score:2)
And it was as changed years ago to 'Do the right thing', which leaves it open to 'for who?'.
Google is, for sure, nowhere near as bad as Microsoft or Oracle, but they are still a business which primary goal is to make money.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess that's relative. It's harder to get away from Google then anyone else. Other then a laptop I bought specifically to have a win11 install around in the rare instances I need one, I have zero microsoft products in my home. Zero apple products as well. Google, on the other hand, I have to actively block to stay away from.
It's really hard to say which tech company is worse. They all have their problems, like any other organizations.