More than 30 states sue Google over 'extravagant' fees in Play store • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by Talanes » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:51 AM UTC

rebelos wrote: post #45

Talanes wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>I strongly believe that Nintendo, Sony, & Xbox should also disclose their rake.

Sorry, between this line and not realizing you were also the GP commenter, I assumed you were suggesting the markets be forced to disclose the rake pro-actively themselves.

Making it illegal to prohibit disclosing the fee is great, and at that point I don't even think you need to make the case that the industry is different than others. It's not the same as the cost, but plenty of items have an msrp listed on their packaging. You know if your Arizona Iced Tea is being sold at a higher than usual mark-up because it's not $1.

(Disclosure: I live in San Francisco and have no idea whether Arizona is actually still a dollar in other places.)

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

#92

Post by jpambrun » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:56 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #79

rebelos wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You're absolutely right that this is another angle that could be looked at. A third argument, particular to Apple, is simply that there is substantial harm to the consumer when a com…

> I vehemently disagree with the insinuation that disclosing the fee wouldn't provoke market forces to lower it to some more reasonable percent above cost. 100% is a fairly normal markup "above cost" for each step in a supply chain; it also makes Apple's 43% markup look modest. And then you get into unresolvable arguments about what is and what isn't a cost.

Normally that supply chain involves many physical steps, manipulation, storage, inventory, loss prevention, etc.. here the supply chain is trivial and cheap. Comparing those as equivalent is not exactly honest.

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

#93

Post by jpambrun » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:00 PM UTC

CubsFan1060 wrote: post #88

donmcronald wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reality -- nobody cares. The consumer is paying $1 in that scenario no matter what. If the Apple fee goes away, then the developer is going to keep the price at $1.

I care. For the same price I buy CD Projekt red games on gog, and I buy games on epic store rather than steam because I know more money goes to those who did the real work.

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

#94

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 12:00 PM UTC

jpambrun wrote: post #92

thaumasiotes wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I vehemently disagree with the insinuation that disclosing the fee wouldn't provoke market forces to lower it to some more reasonable percent above cost. 100% is a fairly normal markup "above cost" for each step in a supply chain; it also makes Apple's 43% markup look modest. And then you get into unresolvable arguments about what is and what isn't a cost.

Normally that supply chain involves many physical steps, manipulation, storage, inventory, loss prevention, etc.. here the supply chain is trivial and cheap. Comparing those as equivalent is not exactly honest.

So Apple's doing much less work and taking a much smaller markup.

You're absolutely correct that Apple is adding no value, which is a bigger reduction in value added than the reduction in their markup. But the problem isn't that they're applying an objectively high markup. They aren't. The problem is that there's no reason for them to be involved at all.

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

#95

Post by clucas » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:04 PM UTC

simondotau wrote: post #72

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.

For your analogy to make sense, when you drive to that store, every product you buy must interoperate with your car. Every product on the shelf was built using tools and systems developed by your car's manufacturer; every product contains a decent number of parts and ingredients supplied by your car's manufacturer. Oh, and the Apple car has an extra trick up its sleeve: it makes it nearly impossible to shoplift, whic…

Yeah, you're right that it's not a perfect analogy, but I think mine is closer to reality than OP's... There are plenty of apps (stores, in the analogy) out there that are actually designed to work on many platforms (with many cars, in the analogy), but still have to pay the store %.

The broader point is that just saying "oh, it's like X, therefore we should treat it like X!" just isn't enough for app stores. There is no perfect analogue. Apple and Google call them "stores" because they really want them to be thought of that way, but there are important features of phyiscal stores that the app stores lack, and important features of app stores that physical stores lack.

How we, as a nation and a society, decide to treat app stores for purposes of consumer protection laws is up to us... so let's be careful just blindly trusting the way these companies want us to think about them.

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

#96

Post by CubsFan1060 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:31 PM UTC

jpambrun wrote: post #93

CubsFan1060 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality -- nobody cares. The consumer is paying $1 in that scenario no matter what. If the Apple fee goes away, then the developer is going to keep the price at $1.

I care. For the same price I buy CD Projekt red games on gog, and I buy games on epic store rather than steam because I know more money goes to those who did the real work.

Ok, that's a fair point. I'll say "very few people care".

Epic store is an interesting example. They are losing massive amounts of money. We will see if that is sustainable or not.

At least from a consumer point of view, this doesn't seem to change the price much: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fe...

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

#97

Post by simondotau » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

CubsFan1060 wrote: post #89

simondotau wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming that if Apple and Google forcibly lost the ability to profit off app sales through the stores, they would continue to offer access to their commercially licensed software development platforms for free. If Google and Apple are forced to give away what they used to sell, they will simply change the mechanism by which they extract payment and developers will need to prepare for e.g. licence fees to acce…

My prediction is that Apple will lower their fee to 5% at some point. However, using ANY of their IP will cost 25% of your revenue. Want to access Healthkit? ARKit? Etc.. 25% of revenue from both the app and in-app purchases.

Apple won't do that unless they're forced to by regulators. But if the regulators force it, that's certainly an option available to them.

(Though there's no way Apple would ever go below 10%. I would eat my hat if Apple could even cover hard costs of running the store at 10%. Even at 15% they'd already be subsidising purchases made using gift cards purchased at retail.)

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

#98

Post by simondotau » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

clucas wrote: post #95

simondotau wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For your analogy to make sense, when you drive to that store, every product you buy must interoperate with your car. Every product on the shelf was built using tools and systems developed by your car's manufacturer; every product contains a decent number of parts and ingredients supplied by your car's manufacturer. Oh, and the Apple car has an extra trick up its sleeve: it makes it nearly impossible to shoplift, whic…

Yeah, you're right that it's not a perfect analogy, but I think mine is closer to reality than OP's... There are plenty of apps (stores, in the analogy) out there that are actually designed to work on many platforms (with many cars, in the analogy), but still have to pay the store %. The broader point is that just saying "oh, it's like X, therefore we should treat it like X!" just isn't enough for app stores. There i…

You say "we, as a nation and a society" except that we're most likely not a member of the same nation and I really don't have much enthusiasm for other nations deciding they know better than Apple how my iPhone should work.

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

#99

Post by simondotau » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #87

simondotau wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wallmart does not prohibit your product from listing its wholesale price on the label. Are you sure that they don't? I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Walmart does have clear policies around prices of any kind being printed on packaging. And it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that if they have a policy, it would disallow printing of any price which is less than the highest price Walmart intend to charge at retail…

Unless you can show such a policy, it is reasonable to assume it does not exist. I surely have no way to prove otherwise short of finding complete list of all policies. A good indication is that neither of us heard about it so far.

If we have no evidence, it is not "reasonable to assume" anything.

Meanwhile, I'm merely saying that it wouldn't surprise me if such a policy exists, whether formally or informally. The distinct lack of any product on Walmart shelves which has a below-RRP price printed on its packaging is strong circumstantial evidence at the very least.

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

#100

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #78

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JIT is really complex. I work in automotive and it’s actually really impressive on a deployment level. However, yea, no one saw Covid coming. And, the whole 2008-Carpocalypse was extra bad because it wasn’t GM and Chrysler, it was literally everyone down the line. If GM went under, Johnson Controls goes under, and since they make every Toyota and Hyundai seat (IDK, figuratively, but probably) they struggle and go und…

> If GM went under, Johnson Controls goes under, and since they make every Toyota and Hyundai seat... Toyota et al. would bail out Johnson Controls. JC Penney was as good as dead. It got bought by two major mall operators because mall tenants have clauses in their leases that would lower their rent if an anchor tenant leaves. It was cheaper for Brookfield and Simon to pickup JCP for scrap and run a minimally viable d…

Cool thought. Completely skips over the reality of 2008, and the auto industry though.

Johnson was one example. I highly doubt Toyota or anyone could carry them at the time alone.

What about ContinentalTevis? What about Bosch Automotive? Delphi? Packard? Amphenol? Yazaki? New Venture? Dana? Allison? Vector? ETAS? How about the literally thousands of suppliers that all make one or two things or exist only to certify this or that? This wasn’t just these companies but a large portion of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois.

You missed the entire point of the interconnectedness of the automotive industry.