Again, I am genuinely curious what ethical principle am I missing here.
Again, I am genuinely curious what ethical principle am I missing here.
We'll be able to tell if they're right by looking at whether the 30% savings offset the increased costs and lower install rates. The fact that developers are able to realistically try this out is a sign that the market is working as intended.
This is why Google's model of allowing 3rd-party stores is (imo) a pretty direct improvement over Apple's -- it allows us to run these kinds of experiments. Why waste time having a philosophical argument about whether or not Google's cut is fair when we can just test the hypothesis directly?
The other idea I want to push against is that because Google built a platform, they're entitled to continue to make money on it. That's just not how capitalism works -- "value" here is what the market will pay you, it has nothing to do with whether you did something good in the past. Google may have put a lot of resources into creating an amazing platform, but if being listed on the store is not currently increasing profits for large apps like Tinder after fees, then the cut isn't fair.
Their past contributions to the app ecosystem don't matter.
This goes back to what I was saying about whether or not a business should be owed some kind of 'gratitude' over past actions. There's no rule in a capitalist system that says you owe someone continued patronage just because they used to provide you with a good service.
It's all about what value Google is providing right now -- the past benefits are irrelevant.
- It doesn't cost them that much anymore. Their cut is absurdly high. For apple it was a profit of 21.7 Billion last year from other people's apps , in exchange for whatever minor changes they made to their app store. Does it really cost even 1 Billion to keep the app store running?
- They should be more transparent about their numbers. How much does an app developer make? Their opaqueness is self-serving (attracting developers to work for them in the dark, basically). Their PR machine (like the article i 'm linking) is too loud and i believe misleads developers regarding what to expect from app revenue.
- Freedom is a benefit for the consumer, apple has way too many restrictions on the kind of apps i can have on my iphone. Whether it benefits the consumer or not is highly debateable.
- The lock-in of developers is real, it's built with dirty tricks, and i pity those devs who are bound by it.
https://www.cultofmac.com/601492/app-store-google-play-reven...
There’s only one app store for Apple device and Apple fought tooth nails to ban jailbreking and forbidding any other app store like system.
There’s only one extensive app store for android and Google forced it down the throat of any maker that wanted Google’s service libraries which tons of apps learned to rely on.
Platform owners have been playing dirty in a lot of aspects, I think it’s game for service owners to find workarounds or get out of paying a cut to Apple or Google.
I think nobody goes after consoles for now because there is no big enough business case getting hurt, and they’re kind of grandfathered in people’s perception.
This is incorrect. F-droid is quite extensive.
Google Play: 3.5 million apps App Store: 2.2 million apps F-Droid: 1,878
Several orders of magnitude off.
I don't think majority of people complaining are actually about the cut, but how much of the cut. And 30% is what a lot of people disagree with.
The reality is somewhere along the line Apple got too focused on their 20% Net Margin, they put themselves into a price corner. Before the iPhone era Apple mostly do ~10% Net margin, and at best some one offs ~13% quarters. Not only has Apple earned 30x the revenue post iPhone's introduction, that have also doubled their margin.
But then Pricing is only one part of the equation, it is the value on offer that matters, which is fundamentally what people are complaining about the App Store as well as iPhone 's prices.
For Apple, however, things aren't as nice and shiny. They force you to distribute and get apps through their store. They don't let you distribute your apps easily otherwise. You don't have a choice of sharing a piece of your app price with Apple or selling it through your website as a package, or through any other app store.
30% of a $50/month SaaS service just so a client can have a mobile front for something they mostly use on a desktop? Surely that's ridiculous
According to this: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
These countries do not support merchant accounts: Antigua and Barbuda Angola Aruba Barbados Benin Bermuda Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Burkina Faso Cameroon Cape Verde Cote d'Ivoire El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Gabon Georgia Gibraltar Greenland Liechtenstein Mali Monaco Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Nepal Netherlands Antilles Rwanda San Marino Senegal Serbia Seychelles Tajikistan Togo Turkmenistan Vatican City
Some of those are in Europe, but which in particular were you concerned about?
How does it matter? Are you or do you know someone at Alphabet who is able to help? :)
I'm sure they weight a ton or more when combined.
In this situation of non-competition, some very crucial assumptions about the efficiency of free markets break down entirely. I think hardly anyone is debating that apple/google make some money for the infrastructure they provide. But the amount they take would be significantly lower if there was real competition. Which there really isn't. That's what's called "rent extraction" and basically just means you're extracting more money for something than would be needed to make you do it in the first place. Would google/apple still be motivated to provide the same service if their cut was halved? Probably. It would still make a killing. But their dominant position allows them to take more, so they do.
TL;DR: At the base, your question (for me) really boils down to "why should there be any rules for corporation at all?" To which I would answer: because if left completely to their own devices, that would be a bad system for nearly everyone, except the very few at the very top.