Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store

#41

Post by donmcronald »

ojbyrne wrote: post #12
donmcronald wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could be wrong, but it sure seems like there are a couple of upcoming generations that can’t afford houses that will “cancel” some of these companies at the drop of a hat. I think we’ll eventually hit a tipping point where the economic realities of what’s been going on for the last 3-4 decades will suddenly become the focus of the majority and big companies will have no good will to defend themselves.

Your anger reminds me of how many people (including me) felt about m$ft in the nineties. I predict similar results.

In the 90s they price gouged us. This time they're price gouging us AND trying to eliminate our ability to own anything.

30 years ago you could keep your head down, go to work, and today you own a house. It's not the same this time. In 20 more years there'll be 2+ generations of people that have worked for over 20 years and don't own any assets.

Re: More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store

#42

Post by ralph84 »

donmcronald wrote: post #14
savant_penguin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prices aren't invisible to the companies putting the app on the Google store. In principle they could try and use a different store with lower fees and reduce their prices for the same margins couldn't they?

They mean for the average app purchaser: $0.70 - App $0.30 - Apple Fee $1.00 - Total And I agree. The reason it’s obfuscated is because people would instantly realize it’s bad value.

Meh. For a consumer with historical context it seems like an incredible value. Apps used to cost $49.95 at Egghead, and Egghead was certainly taking a bigger cut than 30 cents. Apple fucked ISVs by dramatically driving down the cost of apps, not by taking a cut for distribution.

Re: More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store

#43

Post by extra88 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #21
irrational wrote: post #4

Isn't the obvious question, why Google and not Apple? Or maybe, why not Google AND Apple?

The obvious answer is that the this kind of lawsuit is inherently to score political points, and for whatever reason the AGs saw more upside in suing Google than Apple.

Yes, Apple is much more "clean." Apple and Google are both potentially abusing is market dominance in areas but Google is also in the slimy business of selling ads (and the tracking that goes with it). Google also catches anti-social media heat because they own YouTube which is criticized for not taking down bad stuff fast enough, taking down OK stuff in error, and radicalizing impressionable people through their algorithmic recommendations.

Re: More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store

#44

Post by jollybean »

pcurve wrote: post #37
jollybean wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting point but it would apply to almost every line of business. Retail charges 60% markup. Imagine the outrage. 30% is a gross margin and doesn't take into consideration a lot of thigns. It'd be nice if Americans were exposed to the margins of everything but I'm not sure how much would change. The 'end price' for consumers is fair enough - the issue is one of competitiveness and that Android phones…

I tend to agree that most people wouldn't care about Google's cut. The only way to bring the fee down is to create more 'stores' where developers can sell their apps. Then the margin will completely collapse from 30% to near 0.

All in the credit processing and transactional costs and overhead (i.e. charge-backs) will be pushing 5%. If there is remotely any manual intervention for support, or even validating apps, that's going to be real money for any entity, then there's cost there. Then business overhead, marketing support, campaigns etc.. And then profit margins. I suggest a normal markup is going to look something like 8-12% for digital distribution. That's where I think the fee would sit if there were no Google Play and maybe 4 or 5 major competitors all specializing a little bit differently.

Re: More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store

#45

Post by rebelos »

Talanes wrote: post #39
rebelos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly believe that Nintendo, Sony, & Xbox should also disclose their rake. However, it's also well understood that they take heavy losses on consoles that are made up on game margins. The same cannot be said for Google and Apple. Retailers have substantial costs associated with distributing products and physical shelf space is a scarce resource. There are, by comparison, no limits to the number of apps on Apple…

Exactly how profitable does a market need to be to require showing margins to the customer? Where are you drawing the threshold?

Who said anything about a requirement? It suffices to make it illegal to prohibit disclosing the fee. Businesses can decide if they want to do so. The point is that this 'invisible rake' model is being exploited to nullify free market forces in service of obscene profit. Many businesses (not just Apple and Google) have realized they can leverage this to make considerably more money than they otherwise might.

Re: More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store

#48

Post by RandallBrown »

irrational wrote: post #4

Isn't the obvious question, why Google and not Apple? Or maybe, why not Google AND Apple?

Apple recently changed their fee to 15% for the first million (with some complications for making over a million in subsequent years). This covers like 95% of developers (maybe more?).

Looks like Apple just barely squeaked by with the right moves.

Re: More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store

#49

Post by extra88 »

shadilay wrote: post #20
busymom0 wrote: post #11

> App store commissions — typically 30% — are charged to developers, who then usually pass the cost off to consumers who are buying apps or making purchases in things like mobile games. Both Apple and Google now take 15% commission. I am not a fan of neither companies, plus I am an app developer for both. I don't have a problem with the 15% fee from Apple as it's quite fair for the services and human interaction they…

Really? What's their average commission? Pareto distribution says it's going to be a lot closer to 30% than 15%.

Depends on what you're counting. Very few apps in the Apple store are charged 30% but they're the ones that bring in most of the revenue. Therefore, the average app is charged 15% but the average app transaction is charged 30%.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/21572302/apple-app-store...

Re: More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store

#50

Post by asciident »

clucas wrote: post #40
maxpert wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At risk of sounding idiot and down votes. Can you explain me when was the last time you saw the itemized breakdown of a toy, or a T-Shirt you bought in Target/Walmart? Same is true for Nintendo, Sony, and Xbox systems. Why do we think it's fair for Walmart to not show exact breakdown on how much commission they are charging for keeping something on shelf and Google is wrong about it?

The analogy doesn't work. A more apt analogy would be to compare Google and Apple to car manufacturers who charge you a 30% markup on anything you buy from a store you drive to... But the stores have to charge you that automatically, and they're not allowed to tell you that they charged it.

Why do you think your analogy is better than the parent post? The parent post makes more sense to me. People to go stores, and the stores charge a markup. In your analogy, the mode of transportation charges the markup, which in the app store case would be the ISP charging a markup.
Post reply on HN