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

61–70 of 111 posts

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

#61

Post by [deleted] »

serial_dev wrote: post #56
rebelos wrote: post #9

I'm really hoping someone wakes up and realizes the problem is not the fees but that consumers don't know about them. Let the consumer be informed about Google and Apple's rake on all their in-app charges. The outrage will take care of the rest. Not sure about Google, but Apple has deliberately prohibited developers from itemizing the 30% fee for consumers. That simple rule is what keeps their money pipe flowing. Mar…

I strongly disagree, the problem is that the users and developers don't have any other (viable) option for distributing their mobile apps on these platforms (iOS and Android). I cannot practically create my "Awesome Store" where I have the best ranking system and I ask 0.1% for fees. As a consumer, I don't care if the fee is 30%. I have no idea of that's a lot or just the right amount of money for the services that t…

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by bryanrasmussen »

vorpalhex wrote: post #60
malwrar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google and etc won't even let us tell you about how insane their tax is" is a much easier fight to win than "...also please legally mandate they allow us to run whatever we want on their phones, thanks" and both fights will probably lead to the same outcome.

Our phones. We own the phones.

their phones might have been referring to the user's phones in this context.

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

#63

Post by jussij »

rebelos wrote: post #9

I'm really hoping someone wakes up and realizes the problem is not the fees but that consumers don't know about them. Let the consumer be informed about Google and Apple's rake on all their in-app charges. The outrage will take care of the rest. Not sure about Google, but Apple has deliberately prohibited developers from itemizing the 30% fee for consumers. That simple rule is what keeps their money pipe flowing. Mar…

> Market forces don't work when pricing is opaque.

Since the service is a monopoly there are no market forces at play.

That monopoly means it's a 'take it or leave it' situation.

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

#64

Post by socialist_coder »

savant_penguin wrote: post #10
rebelos wrote: post #9

I'm really hoping someone wakes up and realizes the problem is not the fees but that consumers don't know about them. Let the consumer be informed about Google and Apple's rake on all their in-app charges. The outrage will take care of the rest. Not sure about Google, but Apple has deliberately prohibited developers from itemizing the 30% fee for consumers. That simple rule is what keeps their money pipe flowing. Mar…

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?

In principle, yes, but in reality, you can't use a different app store or payment provider.

If you buy a Google Android phone, you have the Google Play Store. That's it. Maybe you can install some other store but 99% of consumers will never do that.

On Apple, you have to use the App Store. It's the only game in town.

This is why its a monopoly. They could charge 50% and devs would still be forced to do it. The developers and people who complain about this just want to be able to use other payment providers in their apps. They don't want to be forced to use Google Play or Apple. Let other payment providers in so they can compete on fees, customer satisfaction, chargebacks, security, etc.

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

#65

Post by duchenne »

jp0d wrote: post #46

An unrelated note. Please feel free to downvote. If the states decided to sue pharmaceutical companies for extravagant profits on life saving medicines, people would benefit a lot more. May be there a political motive behind Google being targeted.

Why not both?

This is a false dichotomy.

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

#66

Post by lostmsu »

asciident wrote: post #50
clucas wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The key is that Wallmart does not prohibit your product from listing its wholesale price on the label. A clause like that should be illegal.

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

#67

Post by thaumasiotes »

serial_dev wrote: post #56
rebelos wrote: post #9

I'm really hoping someone wakes up and realizes the problem is not the fees but that consumers don't know about them. Let the consumer be informed about Google and Apple's rake on all their in-app charges. The outrage will take care of the rest. Not sure about Google, but Apple has deliberately prohibited developers from itemizing the 30% fee for consumers. That simple rule is what keeps their money pipe flowing. Mar…

I strongly disagree, the problem is that the users and developers don't have any other (viable) option for distributing their mobile apps on these platforms (iOS and Android). I cannot practically create my "Awesome Store" where I have the best ranking system and I ask 0.1% for fees. As a consumer, I don't care if the fee is 30%. I have no idea of that's a lot or just the right amount of money for the services that t…

>> Not sure about Google, but Apple has deliberately prohibited developers from itemizing the 30% fee for consumers.

> As a consumer, I don't care if the fee is 30%. I have no idea if that's a lot

I think you're right about this particular example. But that's because rebelos identified the wrong problem. I would identify a different gag as the problem -- Apple prohibits you from directing your customers to other payment methods.

"Make your in-app purchase as conveniently as possible, right here and right now" vs "Pay 25% less by visiting our website" would kneecap Apple's app store revenue. Itemizing the fee is pointless.

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

#68

Post by 29083011397778 »

rtpg wrote: post #57
serial_dev wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree, the problem is that the users and developers don't have any other (viable) option for distributing their mobile apps on these platforms (iOS and Android). I cannot practically create my "Awesome Store" where I have the best ranking system and I ask 0.1% for fees. As a consumer, I don't care if the fee is 30%. I have no idea of that's a lot or just the right amount of money for the services that t…

Is this true for Android? I guess rooting is a _bit_ of a problem, but otherwise you could do run alternative stores? I mean it's hard to actually make money off of that, of course. For iOS it's essentially impossible, from my understanding. But there's stuff on android to let you install apps, after all?

Sure! But your notifications are liable to be killed off in the background, as you shouldn't be relying on Google Play Services while shipping on Super-Awesome-Store.

And if you want your users to install your app store, they'll have to know where to go and tell the OS "I want this installed, it's not malware".

And every time any single app through there requires an update, it must be manually approved and installed by the user. Google's evergreen background updates are exclusive to them.

And if Google Play Protect decides you store is malware because it distributes apps that Google thinks harms users, any user with (the heavily pushed) Google Play Protect turned on likely won't be using your store for long.

But it is technically possible.

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

#69

Post by thaumasiotes »

lostmsu wrote: post #66
asciident wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The key is that Wallmart does not prohibit your product from listing its wholesale price on the label. A clause like that should be illegal.

Listing wholesale prices on the product is vanishingly rare, possibly nonexistent. I wouldn't be surprised if it infuriated retailers to the point that they refused to stock your product.

Printing MSRP on the product happens all the time. Arizona Iced Tea is a prominent example.

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

#70

Post by Rebelgecko »

RandallBrown wrote: post #48
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.

I thought the Play Store fees work the exact same way?

(Edit- referring to app purchases, IAP and subscriptions, not the cost of having a developer account)

Post reply on HN