Hacker News Reader

Comment by windows_tips | Hacker News Reader

That's a strange definition of lose. A third party doesn't contract with someone for their product launch, and that is considered a loss of money?

View on HN

"Unlike Apple, which only allows apps to be downloaded from its own storefront"

So as i read it, the argument being made is: if Google had chosen the same path as apple did in their app store, Google would not have missed this opportunity.

So you're saying this publisher would have used Google's store, even though they didn't when they had the choice, if Google had locked down its phone?

Yeah, that really got my goat too. Google getting a cut of Fortnite’s revenue would be pure rent seeking.

That is essentially what taking a large cut on your app platform is: rent seeking. It's your ecosystem, but it comes out of my pocket as the consumer (unless you're large enough to avoid, like Fortnite).

Discovery, ratings, etc., and managing payments are services with value, especially for small players with apps that don't have an established fan base before they are released for the paltform. Charging for these services is reasonable.

Allowing people to get apps that don't need these services elsewhere is also a good idea.

Charging a reasonable fee for these services would be reasonable. 30% is extortion.

Try selling a game at retail where the whole seller and the reseller get a cut.....

How do you come to that conclusion?

What percentage would not be extortion to you?

Why that percentage? What are the costs for all the services these storefronts provide?

What does Fortnite's size have to do with this? Can't anyone distribute apps that way?

"$50m that google won't earn" sounds less cool.

And yet the distinction is semantically important. I hate it when economists phrase missed opportunities as losses.

Although IMHO that particular terminology leads to poisonous thinking in Economics. People start obsessing about missed opportunities because they are a loss, like that guy stole your opportunity away because he got there first.

these are journalists, not economists

If the distributor was given an intent (open a google play account) to distribute through their platform then yea, you can say that google was expecting to rent some property but the tenants found a better place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com