Hacker News Reader

Comment by zimbatm | Hacker News Reader

The problem of donation links from Google's perspective is that they are not getting their 30% cut. You might think that this is unfair, but the app is using their distribution platform.

It's possible to make open source applications and still ask for payment on Google Play, either as the asking price, subscription or by adding in-app payments for donations. This is the right way to do it, and will probably also have a much better return since the payment workflow is much easier.

View on HN

I can even go along your last point. But it's a different argument to say "going through google is more efficient" or to say "you can't not go through google". Frankly, they're using their market dominant position to force free developers into a distribution model that serves them as the payment processor. I'd not go so far as to argue those are separate businesses, but it's really a blatant abuse of their power.

Arguing that this is somehow related to software quality, safety or whatever is pure BS> There is simply no other explanation for this than "it will make us money and we can get away with it."

Why is it an abuse of their power? Google and Apple are essentially saying that if you use their store as a sales funnel then they take a 30% cut, and they enforce that by being the sole payment processor on the store.

Basically Google and Apple both know that people will make more money by listing in their stores and taking a 30% cut than not listing at all.

For the same reason microsoft had to give you an option for the preinstalled browser.

As soon as you get a certain threeshold you become a monopoly, which essentialy means you controll who does business in that sector.

It should never be allowed to be a distributor as well as the owner of a marketplace.

It's the same problem with amazon marketplace and other similar things.

EDIT: Formatting

Not exactly. Being a monopoly is fine. Google is a monopoly in search for example. It's not fine when you use that monopoly power to either stifle competition (like what MS did), or to demonstrably harm the consumer (very hard to prove).

Just because Google Play is a monopoly, it doesn't mean that it's illegal or should be fined. Especially since there are other options, like amazon's app store, or manual installation of apps.

Especially compared to iOS, Android is a paradise of freedom.

A monopoly is not defined as a 100% market share though. I'd argue the playstore is the way to distribute apps on android, and realistically a monopoly. Wether or not the "software distribution" and "payments processing" aspects of the playstore are separate markets/products is (in my mind) up for debate. If they were then google would be using it's distribution market penetration to push its payment processing business. Then there's the argument that the way they selectively seem to cut off smalltime donation-based software does harm users overall, although it is a systemic harm, not individual, or at least that would be (as you said) very hard to prove.

1. most open source software is not even close to breaking even via donations. so "making more money" really is a misleading way to portrait the situation. 2. I hope we can agree that "if you use their store as a sales funnel then they take a 30% cut" is at least a use of their power. The fact that there's no recourse, no (practical) competition for the distribution, and that they're not acting in agreement with their "official" stance on free-as-in-beer or free-as-in-speech software makes it an abuse in my book. The thing is, they don't officially say "we only host apps that make us money, not at all. They say they're just platforms, facilitating exchange, blabla. Also, see point 1: "sales funnel" for projects that maybe (!) manage to break even on their hosting costs is not the right term to use here.

This is an old claim by now, but these platforms matter a lot today, and since we only have two of them, and they are not in direct competition (users cannot switch at will) they really should be treated as the monopoly infrastructure that they are. What that means concretely is subject to negotiation within society. In my opinion blackmailing the devs of an application that is essentially written and maintained as a service to the public, for free, by volunteers, is a shit move to say the least.

> In my opinion blackmailing the devs

I don’t know what you think the verb ‘to blackmail’ means, but nobody has been blackmailed or anything like it in this situation.

Correct, the more precise term here is extortion, and I can speak to that having had to face that exact criminal charge before. It follows pretty much every required element of the crime.

Except, in case of iOS AppStore, you don't have the choice of a third party store or even side-loading ability.

And they are in the process in doing so (partly by closing the platform through read-only system partition and expecting the app developer to sign the app through Apple means) with MacOS.

The platform is not yet closed, as the system partition can still be mounted in read-write mode and notarization can be bypassed for now. But their are clearly in the process to make these changes permanent in near future. Reason why they introduced them in Catalina.

Can I sell a product within any retail store and sell it without the retailer getting a cut?

The Girl Scouts sell cookies at the front door of grocery stores with an entire aisle dedicated to cookies. The stores give them permission to do so knowing the goodwill outweighs any loss in Oreo sales.

Google could make the same choice but doesn't for some reason.

How many shoppers know or care about Girl Scouts compared to the number of mobile phone users who know or care about open source?

Donations through the Play store's payment platform are prohibited, since all purchases need to give an additional value in return. The only reliable way to get donations in a compliant way is by linking to a website from the app and have a donation button there.

how long until that is prohibited though..

It's already forbidden for Apple /iOS...

https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/06/apple-extends-deadline-for-ne...

Going by your point, shouldn't Amazon be blocked since they are collecting the payment info and charging without any interference from Google? How are donation links being considered to be in violation? Just wondering!

Both stores require payment through their app stores for digital goods. Neither require it for physical goods (Amazon). The donation is for the software itself and so requires payment via Apple/Google.

The “30% cut” only applies to digital goods like apps, software or music. Physical goods like a book ordered from Amazon (or an Uber ride, for example) are exempt. Amazon-owned properties that sell digital goods are subject to the rule though. That’s for example why you can’t buy Audible audiobooks from within the app.

> This is the right way to do it

Might be convenient and great for Googles revenue, but it's the wrong way to do it if your priorities are to reduce the projects platform-dependence and to support the project with your full donation.

Usually, once I decide to contribute money to a project I want them to be as free as possible and I want them to get as much of that money as possible. Independent from the specific app store I pulled it from.

I think it's wrong that the Google Play Store treats donations like purchases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com