Hacker News Reader

Comment by RHSeeger | Hacker News Reader

> Yes. I confess it. I added a link to my donation page within the game, depriving Google of some precious money it totally cannot survive without! How dare I?!? I am such a bad person.

He seems squarely in the wrong here. Google provides a service, and they have rules that are intended to make sure they get paid for providing that service; while, at the same time, still allowing people to offer things without paying (ie, free apps). Using the service but deciding you don't want to pay because "Google has lots of money" doesn't make Google the unreasonable party.

By the same logic, I should be able to walk into a store and just take anything I want because I'm using it to make items I sell "for donations". Obviously, that's ridiculous.

View on HN

Google provides a service, but they also require everyone to use their service. There is no realistic alternative if you want to reach the 70% of the market Google controls. Sure, F-Droid and sideloading and whatever exist, but realistically they are so crippled by unnecessary restrictions imposed on them by Google that they aren't serious options.

So now Google is in a position where they can place unreasonable rules on their service and no one can do anything about it. So, naturally, that's what they are doing. You can argue it's their right to put whatever restrictions they want on "their" service. But we can still argue that their restrictions are unfair.

This rule in this case seems unfair. The cost to Google to distribute this app is vanishingly small, probably on the order of cents. The benefit Google gains from exerting total control over the availability of apps on Android is quite large. It seems like Google is already getting the better end of the deal, and saying "you are not permitted to ask for donations to support your free art project unless you give us a 30% cut" just seems petty.

Can Google do it? Sure, they have the right. Is it fair? In my opinion, no. Being legal doesn't make it fair.

But doesn't Google provide a simple way to both support the developer AND stay within the rules? Make it a pay app.

It's really not the same thing. With Donations you want a subset of users to pay for the app, who really want to. With a paid app, every one needs to pay.

Also, a donation is very different than selling something from a legal point of view. When selling, you need to pay VAT.

One could keep two apps, one paid and one free, but then on the paid one you're essentially paying 30% to Google and about 20% more to VAT. So you're effectively losing half the money and having to do lots more work to maintain two apps, and their subsequent ASO.

Why can't you do an in-app purchase that is the donation and doesn't unlock anything? Yeah, you're still paying the various taxes, but you don't need two apps.

Yup. You're right. You can do that.

You then have the problem of writing and maintaining the code for the IAP, which isn't always trivial. But yes, absolutely do-able.

At this point it's the same thing as selling an invisible skin for your app. The fundamental issue is that of selling vs donating.

Yep. And if you are in-tune with your users, create something the power-users will appreciate.

Yes, and they take a 30% cut, with is insane. Like, completely nutso absurd. 30% is a reasonable tax rate for a government that provides roads, schools, defense, social security, etc., not a reasonable fee for a company to process electronic payments. But Google (like Apple) has no incentive whatsoever to reduce the price, because they have a captive audience.

If Google took a more reasonable cut, like 5%, maybe even 10%, then sure, I wouldn't be so bothered by them insisting that this app use in-app purchases for donations.

Google has reduced the cut to 15% for revenue below $1 million.

But as long as they force you into their payment plan AND not allow competition (ie additional stores) there definitely seems to be anti-trust problems.

So good luck getting funding for something that you tell the funder could earn millions if it works out. That means less greenfield investment, and ultimately less investment for apps that make less than a million, since only X% will end up doing so, but investment will be impacted for all.

I mentioned this in the context of this particular post where the person is soliciting donations, not the overall app ecosystem. I doubt he's making > 1 million in donations.

Solely under threat of upcoming litigation, yes, they now rip people off half as much.

Are you claiming that the 30% (or 15%) cut is to only support the payments infra, and isn't supporting the android ecosystem as a whole?

1. I think they should support the ecosystem by selling phones. That would result in far fewer perverse incentives and market distortions compared to their approach of taxing developers.

2. I don't think Google actually needs a 30%/15% cut to "support the Android ecosystem". I think they're charging way more than necessary, just because they can.

(Same arguments for Apple.)

I won't argue with 2 (I don't think either of us can really say with certainty, and then there's the second layer of arguments about what is "necessary" in a profit situation)

But for 1, this has some significant downsides to consumers. As it stands assuming most of the support comes from the android platform (ads and fees), you get price discrimination. The people who just want a phone to use the internet or stay connected or whatever don't have to subsidize people who do more.

I generally think having power users subsidize non power users is an ethical form of price discrimination. Thoughts?

> I won't argue with 2 (I don't think either of us can really say with certainty, and then there's the second layer of arguments about what is "necessary" in a profit situation)

Both Google and Apple have been stockpiling money for some time. Each company has over $100B of cash sitting in a bank account doing nothing, and the number increases every year. This suggests a market failure has taken place. In a competitive market, they would either be cutting prices or reinvesting profits into their product.

In Google's case, Android is not their main business so it's admittedly a little harder to say whether Android specifically "needs" to take a 30% cut of app sales to sustain itself. But I don't believe for a second that Google chose that number based on any notion of "need", I believe they chose it because that's what Apple had already set as the standard. And when it comes to Apple, the iPhone is their core business, it is wildly profitable, and the evidence seems clear that they are not doing anything useful with the money (see above).

So yeah, I do actually believe there's pretty clear evidence that these fees are just greed and not needed to subsidize anything about the platform. Whether or not such subsidization is ethical is a moot point.

Taken to it's conclusion, the world becomes a pretty scary place when things are determined by just what is "fair". At the end of the day the author's argument boils down to "Google is very rich, I'm not, I should be able to sidestep their demands for payment on their service." Given an exactly equivalent analogy, if you put your house up on AirBnB would anyone be surprised if AirBnB cracks down on people paying outside their platform and instead guiding renters to a separate "donation page"?

Let's make the world more fair first before locking everyone into the play store or the apple store. With the airbnb analogy, people are also free to list their vacation house on reddit, craigslist or just tell people about it and as long as they have a method to take payment - that just works.

Let's simplify. Let's say I sell lemonade. It's 100% legit with USDA approval or whatever BUT I'm having trouble selling it. Grocery stores are happy with their own brand but maybe I'm lucky enough to get 1 Wholefoods to set up a counter. I can see the analogy of whole foods requiring me to not sell while in their store. However whole foods does NOT require me to white label. And they would not require me to change my website to not have alternative buying choices. In fact I do this all the time with foods I find in Wholefoods - I go to the website of foods I love and see if I can buy directly in bulk.

This is the CORRECT analogy. It's not correct to say that everyone is going into Safeway and stealing shit off the shelves. The OP should know that, and you should know that.

Trader Joe’s, on the other hand, does require almost everyone to white label.

Trader Joes has what, 1% of the market share of shoppers? Android and iPhone have what, 99%?

Android and iPhone definitely cannot each have 99% of the market.

Combined, not each.

Going back to the grocery store analogy... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supermarket_chains_in_...

While at least 50% of the random grocery stores you would see are under one of the big 5 (or so) many of these stores are generally able to carry additional products not even necessarily approved by the top. Part of that is simply competition with local chains. And that doesn't even cover the fact that you have gobs of local and regional chains to contact and sell goods to.

But basically as a seller of lemonade you are highly likely to be able to sell your product without insane restrictions - as well have the ability to choose a chain or store that has competitive markup or a markup that you agree with.

If you sell phone applications you are dealing with exactly 2 entities that you HAVE to go through.

Android apps and iPhone apps are different markets.

If you can just define a market to whatever you want, then everyone has a 100% market share. By your definition, Samsung has a 100% market share on Samsung TVs.

No, because you can substitute a different manufacturer's TV for a Samsung one and vice versa.

How is 1% market share relevant? If that policy is justified, then market share is irrelevant.

... because a seller literally has 99% of the market to go after instead because they don't have a policy like that?

Trader Joe's customers can and do shop at other stores as well. Whereas people don't realistically carry more than one phone or switch phone types frequently.

> With the airbnb analogy, people are also free to list their vacation house on reddit, craigslist or just tell people about it and as long as they have a method to take payment - that just works.

And on Android, developers are free to list their apps on F-Droid, Amazon Appstore or just let people download & install it from their own website. Unlike iOS, the Play Store is not mandatory.

> However whole foods does NOT require me to white label. (...) And they would not require me to change my website to not have alternative buying choices.

Grocery stores can and do ask anything they want of suppliers. Trader Joe's buys many products from suppliers like PepsiCo under a white labelling agreement. Walmart will fully dictate the packaging and pricing of your product (eg. demanding that Vlasic sell a Walmart-exclusive $2.97 gallon jar of pickles). Don't like their terms? Tough luck, it's their store.

I'm not saying that the grocery store analogy is a good one but it clearly works against your point. Actually I've only seen it mentioned to support dictatorial app stores.

> And on Android, developers are free to list their apps on F-Droid, Amazon Appstore or just let people download & install it from their own website. Unlike iOS, the Play Store is not mandatory.

In practice, it is. Only the Play Store can update apps in the background.

I can't downvote you because you're a direct response, but please don't do this:

> Downvotes are not replying so I'm assuming they are just pissed that my logic checks out.

It breaks the site guidelines [1].

[1] Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Thank you, noted and removed.

As a consumer or developer, your interests are aligned with the author's. Unless you work for Google, you'd be better off fighting policies like this.

No one is arguing we should abandon rule of law for some abstract notion of "fairness". We're having a public debate about whether this behavior is fair. If we decide it isn't, then the next step is legislation to correct the problem (or Google doing so voluntarily). No one is going to directly enforce an ambiguous notion of fairness on Google.

It surprises me when anyone defends these companies. I mean, come on, they really don't need your help. It's like cheering for the Empire in Star Wars, because they are "well within their rights to build a planet size spaceship with capabilities of destroying planets"

This is a really tortured analogy. Google isn't building a doomsday weapon, it's a mobile app distribution platform for what is almost entirely composed of trivial time-wasters. Believe it or not, some people base their reasoning on principles rather than the topic of discussion's perceived reputation.

> they are so crippled by unnecessary restrictions imposed on them by Google that they aren't serious options

What are these restrictions? I've heard this mentioned before, but I'm not finding information on what the restrictions are.

No auto-updates. Having multiple settings to even enable custom APKs. Having no interface to allow alternative appstores.

I believe that the "unreasonable restrictions" are that the user needs to click "I accept" when they enable sideloading and see a scary warning.

No warning just pops up, usually they have to redirect the user to manually open settings, or at least open settings for them. It's not a simple dialog, they have to remember instructions and then apply them within the separate settings application. And then no auto updates on top of that.

The user has to enable a setting buried deep in the menus -- easy for someone tech savvy, but not for the typical user. They need to do that before they can even install the alternative app store, since you cannot distribute an alternative app store via the play store. Even once you've done all that, every app install through the alt app store must be confirmed by the user through an interstitial dialog, which also means the alt app store cannot auto-update apps. It all makes for an awful experience that even those who know how to do it don't want to deal with.

By crippling non-root features on the phone would be my main "restriction". I should be able to do anything with my own hardware.

> Can Google do it? Sure, they have the right. Is it fair? In my opinion, no. Being legal doesn't make it fair.

The whole concept of some action being "legal" is nebulous at best in the US. At the cutting edge of technology where there isn't any directly analogous precedent, it just means that someone with deep enough pockets or enforcement authority hasn't challenged the status quo. There is so much going on with Google, Facebook, Apple, the telecom/media mergers, and so on that clearly is worth investigating and litigating in courts but we're doing the bare minimum. Once they're a certain size, companies just do whatever they want, pay their fines, pull out their token gestures on Twitter, and keep steam rolling ahead as if nothing had happened.

At this point, the whole system of conglomeration, regulatory capture, "cost of doing business" penalties, and arbitrary enforcement looks like a total farce as do the rights it gives its "constituents".

/rant

> There is no realistic alternative if you want to reach the 70% of the market

Not to point out the obvious, but doesn't that mean that Google is providing a service that is providing you with value? I can't imagine someone saying that TV ads should be free because that's the only way to reach 70% of the market...

In fact, people often do say that telecoms are monopolistic or oligopolistic, that they engage in anti-competitive behavior that is terrible for consumers, and that they should be broken up and/or strictly regulated. That has been a very prominent argument for many decades.

Well, let's say that I could hypothetically buy both the Google store and the Apple store, and I raised the percentage cut from 30% to 95% on all sales.

I'll even make it so that all apps are automatically available in both stores! And I'll use the revenue to buy out any competitors, or sue those who I can not buy.

would that still be fair? After all, I am providing a service, am I not?

I think the debate here is not about whether or not there is a service being provided -- but rather what kind of service fee would be "fair" in exchange for the service they provided, while acknowledging their (near) monopoly on android users.

> Google provides a service, but they also require everyone to use their service.

Not really if you consider huawei without a play store. Also consider the IE case where microsoft only was forced to allow a browser chooser window. I think if the same would happen on android all would be fine.

> There is no realistic alternative if you want to reach the 70% of the market Google controls.

I think just because they are big they shouldn't be forced to allow everyone to use their platform.

Funny how the exact same arguments get applied to Apple in the exact same markets. Weird how “no one has a choice but to use Google product” and at the same time “no one has a choice but to use Apple products.”

Vendor lock-in.

How legal are cartels?

A duopoly is just a monopoly with two CEOs

To reach iPhone users, you must go through the Apple store.

To reach Android users, you must go through the Play Store.

Realistically, these stores are not in competition. They have monopolies over their respective markets. If one store offers a better deal to developers, that doesn't meant the developers can all flock to that store and abandon the other one. Developers still must deal with both. As a result, the regular forces of competition aren't doing their job here. Neither store has any incentive to make their terms better because they won't gain any developers by doing so.

> Google provides a service, but they also require everyone to use their service. There is no realistic alternative if you want to reach the 70% of the market Google controls.

Epic/Fortnite beg to differ. Unlike with Apple, no one is forced to use the Play Store to get apps for your phone.

Epic is literally suing Google over exactly this problem. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fort...

What prevents the Epic store (or any alternative store) from gaining more traction? Is it just that users prefer the default store that ships with the phone? Or are there other barriers?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26762660

Yikes, that sucks.

I’m fine with the walled garden of my iPhone and Apple’s App Store. But I had hoped there was an alternative for those so inclined.

>Can Google do it? Sure, they have the right.

I think maybe its time to discuss what 'rights' mean in a purely digital economy.

It’s a simple policy: a percentage of revenue from games hosted on the platform goes to the host.

When that revenue is labeled “donations”, it doesn’t make it not revenue.

> “you are not permitted to ask for donations to support your free art project”

The host is not in the business of differentiating art projects from non-art projects or donation-based payments from non-donation-based payments, which could easily be abused by developers offering in-app rewards for “donations.” That is a slippery slope that would be ripe for abuse and satisfy no one.

When we have a complicated system, like the US tax laws, people abuse it and everyone complains. When we have a simple system applied fairly across the board, people think exceptions should be made for them and complain. The lesson seems to be that someone will always be complaining.

I would strongly contend it is not legal under existing laws and they don't have the right. Hopefully some legal cases will bear that out shortly.

I do hope that that is the outcome of the court cases, but I'm not an expert in antitrust law.

Well people can do something about it. They can invent their own app store and operating system and negotiate with hardware vendors to deliver it. Does that seem difficult to do? Yet that's what Google did in the face of iOS. And it's what Apple did in the face of Blackberry/Nokia. It's what Purism is trying to do now.

Google's actual infrastructure costs are not low, they're actually so high that many people don't think it's feasible to do it. It's so high that they're reduced to complaining about how difficult it is to do anything other than use Google's existing infrastructure.

Maybe that still feels unfair. I'm not totally unsympathetic to that perspective. But it's wrong to characterize Google's costs as trivial and claim that there are no options. Both you and the author imply that Google's 70% marketshare platform is a triviality worth far less than they charge, and that doesn't strike me as entirely fair either.

I confess I often shoplift on GitHub too. I grew up a hardened criminal, stealing server resources from SourceForge and it could only end one way.

On a more serious note, this is why Google and Apple need regulation. The fact that they can dictate business modes to others - whether or not they’re within their legal rights - should worry everyone.

Edit: Not the author in case there was any confusion.

They're not dictating your business model. They're dictating the rules of distributing on their platform, which they built.

This is exactly why anti-trust legislation needs to be extended to cover network effect platforms. A permanent ban from GitHub or LinkedIn has a non-negligible effect on career progression.

That actually seems like something that can hypothetically still be solved by the free market.

If there are competent employees that are not finding good jobs because they are not on GH/LI, then that is a market opportunity for people to start hiring people who explicitly don't have those things.

This is the same argument that was used to try and clamp down on anti discrimination legislation.

The idea being that since it was "economically irrational" to discriminate on the basis of skin color, the "free market" could therefore take care of it, therefore legislation was unnecessary.

The free market can remain irrational longer than a person can survive without an economic safety net.

Right, but that is what the safety nets are for.

> They're not dictating your business model.

Actually yes they are because they control approximately 100% of distribution.

You're using their service. You are absolutely free to provide your app on F-Droid or your own store and ask for donations all day long. But you're still hosting your app on their service and use their infrastructure for publishing.

I agree that some regulation is necessary, especially since these are near monopolies, but at least on Android you're still using expensive infrastructure Google provides to you and your users for free. I don't think its unfair for them to demand to not make money using what they provide for free.

If they gave you an option to pick app stores on first boot, I would agree with you.

The choice between the Google store and F-Droid are presented very differently, and I doubt most users are even aware of there being a choice.

False dilemma.

Google does not restrict one from sideloading another app store of choice. One can install FDroid, Humble Bundle, Epic Store, etc... So whether or not one is aware of a choice doesn't mean you can use the hypothetical of "no option to choose on first boot" as a loophole for violating the TOS of a different service.

One can if one knows alternative stores exist.

What I'd like to see is the solution Microsoft was forced to implement w/r to giving users a choice about browsers.

That would actually be a really good solution

You need root to get the same background update functionality in FDroid though. Otherwise you have to click install for each update.

If you're able to sideload Fdroid, I think clicking to update ranks among the least difficult things you can do.

I have found that f-droid click updates are very finicky and unreliable. They eventually work, but failed updates and repeat and phantom update notifications are the norm.

It's fine for me but I don't think the average consumer would ever tolerate it.

Difficulty isn't the issue - for every app that has an update you have to click it, then approve the install. On my phone there's a significant wait inbetween each step. It's a hassle.

I wouldn't turn on automatic updates anyway but I'd love to be able to select multiple items and give a single confirmation to update.

And that wasnt a good enough argument for microsoft bundling internet explorer and they got the anti-trust hammer on their asses.

I hate Google, but.. you bought the phone, did you not?

Like, i get that the market sucks for people who care about this stuff, but i avoid Google because their practices bother me. Are their store practices any different then? Should i not simply avoid purchasing their phones (and phones based on their OS) if i dislike it?

I think there's a huge difference between, say, residential ISPs where you can not realistically find a better ISP - vs phones. There are _lots_ of phones, many of them without any storefronts at all, problem solved. You're not forced to buy Google phones, so what is the regulation needed here?

I'm generally very pro-regulation/government, but this feels so optional that i don't get what the expected outcome is. No more closed ecosystems? Playstation has to allow arbitrary storefronts in their system?

edit: Another way to look at this is that the storefront isn't the problem. You're using their infra, they have a right to make you pay. However when they don't allow you to install your own apps outside of their storefront, that is the real problem. Of course you need to pay for hosting, why do you expect it free? But your phone is your own, so you should be able to avoid their hosting entirely, should you choose.

There are lots of phones, but realistically you're picking between two ecosystems, Android / iOS. My grandmother isn't going to buy a Fairphone.

I think Playstations are different from smartphones / ISPs. You can live a normal life without a console, but you really can't without a smartphone or internet access. This technology is no longer optional.

I can agree with that, but i don't see why that has _anything_ to do with Google hosting your code for free.

The argument of Google not having the right to dictate terms of their infra seems completely unfounded to me. Why aren't we arguing for a more open Phone? Google demanding money for their own infra is not the issue.

Realistically when you buy a phone you have a choice between two storefronts-- what are these other phones with no storefront you're referring to? Surely you can't be presenting conventional flip phones as an alternative here.

Blackberry now produces Android phones and the Windows phone is defunct. That just leaves the myriad of fly-by-night Kickstarter phones that wouldn't be able to run these apps in the first place.

So i'm lost though, is the implication that, because it's difficult to buy comparable phones that Google should offer their infra for free? At what point does Google have a right to make decisions on their own infra? If they're hosting your app they don't get a say in what they host?

And again, i already said i think you should have a right to run what you want on your phone. But most of the comments here seem to want to dictate what Google does with its own infra. That they don't get a choice in this.

While I don't agree with the author's point, I do agree very much that it should totally be fine to force Google and Apple to allow multiple stores that are selected by the user.

Furthermore, there is plenty of precedence for this solution, as this is pretty much exactly the approach government took when Microsoft demanded IE be the primary/main browser on Windows.

Don't think their infrastructure would cost 30% without their duopoly, e.g. ten non-colluding platforms of equal market share and abiding by interoperability regulations. 5% and no draconian content policy enforcement?

Probably. But just because you think they are expensive it's not okay to exploit their infrastructure "back", especially when you are, in fact, not paying anything.

I'm fully on your side with them being near monopolies and them being overly expensive. But there's no arguing that they have expenses and they need to make money.

Google is the one being exploitative. The 30% is almost pure profit.

How did you think F droid managed to run for free if it cost that much to host apps?

Somehow you said you were fully on his side about monopolies but claimed Google the was the one being exploited. This doesn't make much sense.

Of course it does. Phone manufacturers exploit child labor in third world countries to make their phones (and that's not okay, for the record). But if I rob their shipments and steal their phones, I'm wronging them anyway. Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim.

And, as said in a sister comment, I'm fully on your side of 30% being to much. But that does not mean that I think they should get nothing.

>if I rob their shipments and steal their phones

This is supposed to be analogous to publishing an app and asking for donations?

>Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim.

This is not a criminal dispute nor analagous to a criminal dispute in any way, shape or form.

You said it's a contradiction that I say that a) Google exploits developers (in a way) and b) developers [can try to] to exploit Google. I made an over-the-top example to show that these two are not mutually exclusive.

I think by using an irrelevant example you inadvertently demonstrated the exact opposite - that they are.

If two parties "economically exploit each other equivalently", there is no exploitation.

These are not the same people, however. There are the developers which give in to the rules and process their payment via the app store. These are somewhat exploited by having 30% of their profits taken. Then there are those which circumvent the store payments by using external integrations and therefore exploit Google by denying them their fair share[0]. These groups are distinct.

[0] Whereas the "fair share" is not necessarily 30%, but >0%.

Are you making the case that Google risks to go bankrupt because some small open-source maintainer adds a donation link to their app?

Those ten non-colluding platforms would quickly dwindle back down to the two we have now, for many reasons, network effects being the primary. Look at any other space with similar platforms, you have 1 or 2 at most.

Hell, look at PC gaming where there are no restrictions. You have Steam (same 30% cut) and... Epic?

Agreed. I have bought way more apps than I would have otherwise because Apple already had my CC and I have some trust in their curation (I know it’s not perfect). If we went to a free for all model we’d end up right back here with maybe another store?

Given the scams out there users are already reluctant to enter their CC details, so a natural trust network effect would weed out everyone else except the biggest players.

And GOG and quite a few publisher-specific launchers (i.e. Blizzard Launcher, U-Play, Wargaming Launcher ...). I'd love to have all my games simply integrated into steam, but I like that people can simply go with their own launcher if they dislike the politics or conditions of one.

I’m getting really tired of this simplistic “analysis”. At what point does a monopoly on the distribution infrastructure start harming consumers? Would you accept that your ISP tell you that you need to use their DNS instead of any other? Or their search engine instead of any other?

Why do we give Google/Apple the right to decide on donations? They developed the infrastructure? They have benefited from this. Why isn’t this being looked at similar to the patent system where innovators receive the benefits for early days work instead of a long-forever-their-right to dictate how the rest of us work?

You can’t even deploy native apps in any official capacity on iOS without Apple taking their cut. Did you know that the IAP for a youtube premium subscription is more expensive than if purchased directly from Google? So, not only is everyone forced to pay more because Apple wants their cut, but they aren’t even allowed to give information as to why this is the case.

_Really_ competitive and we’re all benefiting from this type of behaviour, I’m sure. /s

I just don’t see “they built the infrastructure so they should benefit” as being the end-all justification for why we should accept this.

I guess in support of it:

1. Why build it if they don’t stand to benefit. 2. Building it and having it be the only source of applications (case of Apple) centralizes application source. Better than needing to jump through 3 stores for your apps.

But.. against it..

1. I just want someone to be able to buy me a coffee. Why does Apple need any part of this and why do I need to jump through discretion hoops in the black of night to make it happen?

My 2c.

You're misunderstanding my point. I've already said so in a sister comment, but we're fully on the same side about them being near-monopolies and them being very expensive on what they offer. No discussion there.

But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, they take advantage of their position in pricing and yes, they have benefited a lot from offering their infrastructure for free. But that does not make it okay to use the infrastructure they provide for your personal gain just because they are "bad".

We also need to differentiate between Google and Apple here, as the case is totally different. Google simply has a large market share on Android; iOS, on the other hand, has (nearly) no option of alternate stores and the App Store is not free. That's why I mostly talk about Google here; with Apple, it's an entirely different story.

> But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, they take advantage of their position in pricing and yes, they have benefited a lot from offering their infrastructure for free. But that does not make it okay to use the infrastructure they provide for your personal gain just because they are "bad".

Theoretically, no. Pragmatically, yes.

Pretending Google is just like everybody else is like pretending racism doesn't exist. It's not helpful. Google doesn't play by the same rules as others and we shouldn't pretend that they do. At this point, anything that harms Google is probably good for the consumer.

>But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, they take advantage of their position in pricing and yes, they have benefited a lot from offering their infrastructure for free. But that does not make it okay to use the infrastructure they provide for your personal gain just because they are "bad".

The app store is also using him to enrich their ecosystem. They allow free apps for a reason even if it does cost them a miniscule amount of money to host them. It draws people to the platform.

The only reason they're willing to sacrifice kicking him off is because they think that they can wring a small amount of extra cash out of him which they can feed to their shareholders.

> The app store is also using him to enrich their ecosystem. They allow free apps for a reason even if it does cost them a miniscule amount of money to host them. It draws people to the platform.

And he is using the stores to deliver his app, which he is payed for by his donators and Patreon supporters, to them. And I'd argue that his benefit from having the reach of the store is far greater than the stores benefit of having another game there. So it's not like he's not profiting from that relationship as well.

You've essentially just rephrased "might makes right", no?

If I wield a vast amount of economic power and you do not, you are therefore obligated to bow to my whims...?

It's not like he's profiting a lot, anyway. This is more akin to a beggar having to fork over 30% of their earnings to a Walmart coz theyre standing outside it. After all, technically the beggar "profits" from doing that.

Well, he does profit from the app store. I don't think it's inherently unfair from Google to ask for a share of the money he makes due to their arguably mutually beneficial relationship.

If he'd complained that 30% is too large of a share, I would be fully on his side. This is unreasonable and I've made that point in the past. But the general principle of getting a share is very reasonable and, just because Google could afford to give him money, they have no moral obligations to do so and change the rules for him because they're so "rich".

No, he doesn't. He gets donated cups of coffee for an app he developed and gave out for free and which makes the app store a more valuable platform.

It's only profit if you discount the value of his labor to zero.

Google is demanding that every time somebody wants to gift him a cup of coffee to say thank you for giving away something of value for free that they get a cash payment.

This isn't about Google just being rich, it's about Google using their power to extract profit from charity simply because they are economically more powerful.

They can decide to force you to sell at a price an app but it is an abuse of power to have a look inside to be the almighty judge. To the point that here they are even leaving the app space to look at the content of the website.

Imagine if you go to IKEA store and they look into your bag to refuse everyone that has an android to accept only iphone users? Just because they can!

Or if walmart will check your sms or your facebook profile when you enter to refuse persons that support Trump. And Costco, the same with persons supporting Biden.

It is a near monopoly. The infrastructure costs are small relative to market power they possess.

I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference here between them and say, Walmart? The latter is well known for dictating exactly what products and even at which price point is allowed inside their stores. Companies often have to create entirely new versions of their product in order to be sold there.

> I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference here between them and say, Walmart?

The number of customers who patronize only Walmart for any given class of goods, and never use Amazon, Target, Costco, Dollar Tree, etc. is negligible. If Walmart won't carry your stuff, you can sell to the same customers through many other stores.

The number of customers who patronize only Google Play for mobile apps is a pretty good approximation for the number of Android users. There is no plausible alternative to sell to those customers. Amazon is a serious alternative to Walmart; Aptoide is not a serious alternative to Google Play.

No. First, it's not fair to them. Second, if you create such regulations, do you really know who would benefit from them?

It wouldn't be the consumers, but these companies. There's a thing called regulatory capture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture).

Try to introduce such regulation, and what would happen is that the regulations themselves would be even manipulated or even drafted by the big players in the market.

Why is that so bad? Because it means the regulations will be harsh to everyone else who tries to join that given market.

This happens all the time in other industries. We don't need this in computing, please.

Except we do need it. And without regulation we have network effects and bundling feeding into ever more centralization. Until these companies have resources equivalent to mid sized countries.

Regulations can also have thresholds so they don't crush small upstarts, yet do provide necessary controls for larger companies.

Regulatory capture can happen, but it is by no means so inevitable or incorrigible that regulation should not be attempted.

> this is why Google and Apple need regulation

No, this is why devs need to read the TOS, realize Google/Apple are not platforms they want to support, and work to create/support platforms that are developer-friendly (e.g. F-Droid/itch.io, as highlighted here).

Or they are the platforms they want to support (because, for instance, they're where the people are), in which case they're just trying to both have and eat their cake, like Epic on the Apple store.

cough Parlor

Do people simply not understand anti-trust anymore?

> this is why Google and Apple need regulation

- publish for free, and doesn’t allow you put donations links

- pay monthly cost for publishing, and be able to put link for donations

Choose one

I choose:

- Advocate for developer friendly policies and work with the dev community to weaken Google and Apple's stronghold over distribution.

It's funny to see people defending Google here, unless you work for Google it's not in your interest (as a consumer or developer) to do so.

Maybe people think it’s “the right thing” even if it’s not in their own interest. Or is that inconceivable?

How is it the "right thing" if it helps Google but hurts developers and consumers? It seems quite the opposite.

Option 3 - Monopolistic injunction sees that this is an illegal set up and forces both Apple and Google to allow donation links and other options.

Option 3: Force third party stores with selection of various options at start up. Mirror internet explorer requirements.

Google has a monopoly and as such has all the power. How can there be consent when one party can dictate whatever they want.

Yeah; I'm definitely on the "Apple is overdoing it" train, in that their similar policy is unreasonable given there are no alternative options for developers on that platform.

But, Google/Play is different; developers who decide to distribute outside of Play don't receive any significant negative impact to their application outside of the marketing and operations that Play gives you, basically for free. There are other options, including no option ("go to my website and download the APK").

The pre-installation of Play on millions of Android devices is a weird sticky point. But, the most popular android devices on the planet (Samsung, Huawei) also ship with secondary (or, in some markets, primary) storefronts, and devs can distribute on those. Google set a norm with most customers, that all apps are on Play, but I also don't really see much tactile anticompetitive behavior from them in making it that way; its just the cultural norm, primarily due to convenience. I'd support government intervention to force device manufacturers to prompt users to install alternate storefronts on device setup, but its not the biggest of deals on Android.

Also; developers can monetize their "donations" via in-app purchases. I've seen tons of devs do this; either one-time or subscription, sometimes for little dumb non-functional stuff like extra theme colors, sometimes for nothing. I've paid for a few. Google will take their 15%. So, you're paying maybe an extra 10% on-top-of whatever you'd already have to be paying Stripe or whoever. Is the marketing, distribution, metrics, bandwidth, customer base, and even tangentially, developer tooling (Android Studio), worth that? The answer to that is different for every developer, but I think you'd have to be turning some huge revenue (some may say, some "Epic" revenue) for the absolute number underneath that percentage to start drawing scrutiny.

Wrong analogy. You can walk into a store where usually you can take items he made for free, not the store owner. After one month, he puts a sign on the shelf "If you like what you see, you can send me money to my bank account". So where is the difference for the store owner between before and after the sign? Before he didn't get any money, after he don't get any money.

Right, but with that analogy, you have his store predicated on a cheaper lease from the landlord because he said he wouldn't be making any money off his items.

But now he is accepting donations for the items people are taking "for free", and is therefore in breach of the lease agreement he signed with his landlord.

Because the store owner & seller agreed to the former and not the latter. It’s the agreement they already made. If they want to change the agreement, probably both parties have to agree to the changes.

If you give me your old TV for free and I use it, we both are happy. If you give me your old TV and I turn arround and sell it for 400$, you're probably not happy, despite you not getting any money in either case.

Or, in case of your store example: The store owner does not have a store "for free". He still needs to pay the bills and be there. By suddenly earning money with his goodwill you're basically monetizing the space he is gifting to you.

Because, if the store owner's business model is

> People are welcome to offer items for free on my shelf space, but if they make money based off the items people got from those shelves, then I get a cut

Then, if you accept a donation because of such items, then you pay. Because it was stated up front and it's part of the owner's business model.

As to how it effects the store owner. Let's say the store owner does not allow free items on their shelves at the moment. And they make enough money to pay their bills, plus a little extra. The owner decides to allow free items on their shelves, with the above caveat. They figure they will make less money overall (free items now take the place of items non-free item), but still make enough to live on. Only now, just enough, no extra.

If all the people that give their items for free + donations decide not to pay a share of their donations, then the business owner does _not_ make enough to pay their bills... because the assumption of people paying that money was built into the decision to allow free items in the first place.

So there _is_ a different to the store owner.

Obviously, Google doesn't make "just enough to pay their bills", so the analogy is loose... but the concept of people following the rules that were set out at the beginning being built into the business model, and the decision to support that model at all, doesn't change because of that.

If you don’t like the store policies, you may be able to find an accommodating store.

Can’t do that with the app stores, hence your analogy falls apart due to the lack of available competition.

Except that you are forced to use Google's services if you want to reach any audience on android (and Apple for iOS).

I would be sympathetic to Google if the Play Store was just one realistic choice of many, or if like FDroid it allowed you to create and use other sources of packages, but at the moment it's like saying "You can't use Chrome to visit a donation page without also giving Google a cut, you're using THEIR service after all to do so."

I think it would be more like "You can't use Free App Engine and infra without giving Google a cut".

Now if you can't access the app at all, such as by browser or etc, then i think there's a better parallel to Chrome. But when you're using someone elses infra entirely it feels odd to say you have the right to use it for free.

The donations aren't the problem in my mind. Installing applications outside of the app store is the problem. Because locking app installs down and not supporting alternatives like PWAs is the real devil.

I still partially think we should just avoid Google phones period, but other comments suggest Microsoft already was forced to allow alternate browser installs, so there in i think that sets a precedent to require Google/etc to better support 3rd party app installs (out of store).

Okay, I'm genuinely curious here - what if your app is free but your service is not?

Lets say I run a backup service; companies and people pay me to run my backup agent on their desktops, and the backup agent backs up all their important files to my server.

I provide the desktop agents for free. Does it mean that I cannot write an android agent and make it available for free on the Play store?

What about iOS? Can I make an iPhone agent that my (already signed up and paying customers) download from the Apple store?

If my main business is providing a service and using a client program that my customers install to make use of that service, am I simply now allowed to tell my customers "You can use our free app on the Play store"?

How do Banks do this? My bank has an app on the play store, but it's free. I'm definitely paying for the service my bank offers through that app, but Google doesn't seem to mind.

You can make a service then provide the android agent for free. But you can't use that app to then drive signups for your service without paying Google's fee.

My knowledge may be out of date, but as of ~2012-2015, Apple generally made free-app-with-paid-subscription services choose between one of the following two options:

1. No sign-up/subscribe/payment buttons in-app, and no links in-app to external payment forms for those purposes, (effectively the app is a convenience for the users you already have) or,

2. Integrate your sign-up/subscription/upgrades available in-app to Apple's systems, and give up a cut for any subscriptions/upgrades that originated via the Apple app. (On this side, you're effectively paying Apple commission for converted leads generated through their app as an advertising channel.)

They included this in part of their review process, and they did not give much leeway. Even linking to your service's website from in-app was risky, if your website was plastered with sign-up/subscribe/upgrade buttons.

The problem is the defacto platform monopolies. We should not tell ourselves that there are reasonable alternatives to distribution channels setup by Google and Apple.

Whether there is a problem (and a solution if so) I will not judge. But the society are already on it, and we probably will see some legislation rendering the "free market" arguments futile.

>By the same logic, I should be able to walk into a store and just take anything I want because I'm using it to make items I sell "for donations". Obviously, that's ridiculous.

No, it'd be more like if you paid for a stall in a flea market or something and the owners of the market not only took a cut of your profits off sales but bans you from telling customers to come to your store down the street.

To which you agreed without reading the fine print like an adult would, and then you started crying when the agreement was enforced.

Yes, to further my example. So you get kicked out because you didn't read the fine print, turns out, the flea market owner now also has the right to go over to your store, rip your signs down, turn off your lights and lock your door until you agree to stop telling customers your store exists.

Oh and by not having a stall in the flea market to begin with, your store just couldn't exist.

Shoulda read that fine print though.

Lest society devolve into chaos, pacts sunt servanda.

> By the same logic, I should be able to walk into a store and just take anything I want because I'm using it to make items I sell "for donations"

This is the worst sort of "you wouldn't download a car, would you?" analogy. Stealing a physical product from a retail store is nothing at all like publishing a piece of software that people choose to install on the devices that they own. This comment really illustrates how far we have diverged from people actually owning and controlling their own handheld computers, in the google or apple "walled garden" ecosystem.

I think another problem is, with the advent of Twitch.tv and Patreon, "Donations" as a business model have become somewhat normalized. But it's anything but normal outside of a few fields like OSS, where it's the only viable option to generate revenue. Businesses don't ever ask for donations.

Individuals don't think of themselves as businesses, but they really should. If you're making a game, and distribute it via the App/Play Store, you should think hard about providing something of value to the player, and how much you can charge it. Even if it's just a one time in-app-purchase. It's a much better experience for the users to let them buy something they want, and the success is directly tied to how much value the game provides. Rather then just putting it out there for free, and hope someone will support it.

That's how I see it, for Google it's probably more about revenue sharing and also tax issues, but I do believe not relying on donations leads to better products, that make more sense, as they need to be able to stand for themselves.

The tone of the link is a bit juvenile but I'm not sure its a simple case of payment due for services rendered.

It seems like this is about a donation link on an external developer page. Can they not provide a donation link for other games not on the Play store? Surely you're allowed to have a donation link on your developer page somewhere. How buried does google need the link to be? Is the policy clear?

This logic would make sense in a competitive market. However, Google Play leans on monopolistic control of the platform. Not only that, but Google does use its monopoly to strong-arm manufacturers not to bundle competing services to the Play store.

Its essentially a tax on anyone doing commerce on the most installed computing platform on the planet, used by two billion people (not including China).

The whole world is becoming a store, and our presence in it is only at the discretion of the owners.

This is why tech needs interoperability requirements.

Google also makes an OS which he provides content for, so Google should make sure that relationship is sustainable for him.

>By the same logic, I should be able to walk into a store and just take anything I want because I'm using it to make items I sell "for donations". Obviously, that's ridiculous.

No, this is nothing like literal theft.

Microsoft lost its anti-trust case for simply putting IE as the default browser.

The problem here is monopoly. Your argument totally makes sense ... in a context where there are reasonable alternatives. But there are not. And the fault for that, I'm afraid, is the government's.

I completely disagree. The developer offers the same version of their game for free to everyone. Donations are solicited, but people who donate don't receive anything in return.

In-app purchases have value to developers to verify payment validity and function as DRM to prove the user did purchase a thing, and they have value to the user to provide legitimacy to the transaction and assure that if they don't get what they paid for, there's reliable customer service to help them. None of these things are relevant when users donate.

So what's Google's role in this? If they're OK not getting a cut of subscription services paid for outside the app, what's the problem with not getting a cut of transactions users get nothing out of?

I feel like if people agreed with you, this wouldn't be news.

The link was added on the support webpage, which is viewed in the browser in the app.

Google's rules are shitty.

The user already paid for the app download with his/her personal data more than it costs google to provide the download and development.

Just like I can switch browser and download programs from lots of sources, I should be able to switch Play Store.

Google is a monopoly that must be broken up.

your analogy is way off. a better analogy would be walmart refusing to sell your candybars which promote a charity, insisting this can only be done via walmart credits which earns walmart a 30% commission and vendor-lock-in.

And the charity is producing the candybars?

Yes, and they continue producing them regardless of whether or not they get paid.

My problem here is is when the donations aren't for the game hosted by google, but for the author in general. Imagine the game being only one small portion of their business that might include videos and merchandise. Should google be allowed a cut of all that revenue as well.

I believe their TOS doesn’t include physical goods, just like Apple.

It's a tough problem. Google/Apple aren't taking cuts of genuinely free apps, even though they are part of the overall cost and can sometimes (for big apps) actually have pretty high variable costs.

So you might say that Google/Apple should just start charging directly for the app store spots, with some markup. e.g. $30/m for up to 10k downloads, $50/m for 30k, etc.

But arguably app stores wouldn't be the juggernauts they are without the loads and loads of free apps people can download for no upfront cost, and it seems unlikely that this would've happened if the app store business model had been the one above from the outset.

In other words, the author is complaining about the existing model, but it is unclear if putting his stuff on the app store would've been such an appealing thing to do without said model. Bit of a catch-22.

This is a bullshit comparison and you know it.

first paragraph is accurate. second paragraph is absolute nonsense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com