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

71–80 of 111 posts

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

#71

Post by galaxyLogic »

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…

In America many stores advertise their prices without tax. Then they add "+ Tax". If that tax would be 30% there would probably be a revolt.

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

#72

Post by simondotau »

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.

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, which allows products to be sold at a dramatically lower price. Potentially far less than if shoplifting were as commonplace as it is among drivers of Windows cars.

Of course the producer of the product always decides how much the customer pays. It's up to them to decide whether to reduce prices in response to the elimination of shoplifting.

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

#73

Post by rebelos »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #67
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…

>> 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 paym…

> 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 company maintains a stranglehold on software distribution for what might reasonably be considered a general purpose computer.

However, 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. Sure it's a duopoly at present, but I suspect that might be enough to get competitive forces working properly.

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

#74

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> 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.

There is no clear law against "extravagant profits." There is antitrust law. The winnable case is being pursued.

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

#75

Post by JumpCrisscross »

irrational wrote: post #4

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

> why Google and not Apple?

Google Play is ostensibly optional on Android. App Store is not on iOS. As such, Google Play has identifiable, harmed competition. Apple does not; its harm in fact falls not on competitors or consumers, but on developers--its suppliers. That bolster's the judicial merits of the Google actions as antitrust reviewable.

For Apple, one must create a novel expansion of antitrust rules and definitions. As we saw with Facebook, where a similar group of state AGs got their case thrown out for failing at the shockingly basic question of "what's the market they're alleged to have monopolized?"

TL; DR Pursuing Apple comes closer to a political question than a judicial one. Google, and to a lesser degree Facebook, may be judicially addressable.

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

#76

Post by dehrmann »

donmcronald wrote: post #2

This is the kind of thing that makes me confident CEOs, etc. are over paid by a ton. How good of a job are you doing if everyone hates your brand so much that a ton of governments are suing you? How valuable was all that JiT manufacturing bullshit that’s going to cost the car companies $100 billion this year. How good is the leadership that’s taken the brand image of companies that used to be respected (ex: GE applia…

> How good of a job are you doing if everyone hates your brand

People love Google. It's only behind Apple as a brand people love.

> How valuable was all that JiT manufacturing bullshit

It's not BS. It's saying 99% uptime is good enough, and the cost of 99.8% isn't worth the added inventory. It may or may not be the right call, but for automakers who make a durable product that isn't as critical in an emergency as N95 respirators, it's a reasonable call.

> GE appliances

GE was definitely mismanaged. Management got distracted looking for growth and went into all sorts of side businesses. Appliances aren't exactly GE's core business, though. They became commoditized, and it's hard to justify premium prices or investment on a commodity. You're better off making jet engines and MRIs. GE actually sold off its appliance business because it's better at other things, and if people want to pay a premium for a microwave with a GE badge, go for it. GE isn't a consumer company anymore, so a bad experience with a microwave they didn't make isn't going to stop you from using their turbines.

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

#77

Post by simondotau »

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.

> 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.

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

#78

Post by dehrmann »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #24
donmcronald wrote: post #2

This is the kind of thing that makes me confident CEOs, etc. are over paid by a ton. How good of a job are you doing if everyone hates your brand so much that a ton of governments are suing you? How valuable was all that JiT manufacturing bullshit that’s going to cost the car companies $100 billion this year. How good is the leadership that’s taken the brand image of companies that used to be respected (ex: GE applia…

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 department store just to keep up rents (and hopefully foot traffic) for smaller tenants.

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

#79

Post by thaumasiotes »

rebelos wrote: post #73
thaumasiotes wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 paym…

> 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.

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

#80

Post by Arnt »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #71
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…

In America many stores advertise their prices without tax. Then they add "+ Tax". If that tax would be 30% there would probably be a revolt.

But few advertise "wholsesale price" and then they add "+ Our profit".
Post reply on HN