Hacker News Reader

Comment by karmakaze | Hacker News Reader

> "Google gets money from their app store!" So does every app maker. Next

Not the same thing. By owning the Play Store Google gets a cut of every app, not just the ones they make.

> In 2021, the Play Store generated $38.8 billion in revenue, and by 2025, experts predict Google Play Store will make $64 billion annually.

This is why Meta was so big into VR/AR, they wanted to own a (hardware) platform since they don't but rather make apps on others' (Google, Apple, MS).

View on HN

I don't know how this argument can hold? Malls charge their tenant stores a fee to lease space. Why shouldn't app stores?

I use an application that supports plugins from 3P developers. The number of times some script is broken because a certain developer fat fingered their own config drives me mad. Whereas the experience of downloading apps from the Play Store is seamless.

You can easily avoid malls. Try to avoid default app stores.

You don't expect to be locked in a mall when buying a computer device.

The problem is with "rent seeking" where the amount taken is not related to service provided but rather ownership of the platform. If Google only collected for the Play Service usage that would be one thing, but they can also take a cut of ongoing subscriptions. You could also argue that updates are also provided as a service, but the amounts collected aren't in line with the service that's provided.

One way to ensure equity of service/fee is to have competition. There is no reasonable Play Store competitor for Android.

I understand why you are using the words "rent seeking", but that's a defined term with a meaning which differs from what you're trying to describe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

>"Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth.[1] Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society. They result in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[2][3] risk of growing political bribery, and potential national decline. "

But Google actually is rent seeking by the economic description. The poster is just accusing google of a 'lesser charge' by misunderstanding the concept, they should fix their accusation of what Google is doing not change the term.

Charging for access to your products, or taking a cut for sales which take place in your 'virtual store' does not involve any social or political manipulation.

Yes right, I was primarily referring to the economic part of the term.

There is also ongoing effort of platform owners to maintain their position which does fulfill the other part of the definition.

> I don't know how this argument can hold? Malls charge their tenant stores a fee to lease space. Why shouldn't app stores?

Most of us don't object to Google charging a fee for each app sale (although I still think 30% is exorbitant). But they charge a fee for every transaction the app charges and I think that's absolutely obscene. The mall doesn't charge the shoe shop 30% of every pair of shoes they sell.

If they didn't charge for IAP, then every dev would go "free"+IAP, and Google/Apple would get nothing.

Which is precisely what they deserve

So they’re supposed to run all the infra and services for apps as a charity?

if they're putting up barriers to let other people do it as an alternative then yes

It has to be the same rate across app purchase and in-app transactions.

Otherwise every app will be free but charge a transaction to unlock its functionality.

And what's the excuse for Google getting a cut of every book an e-book reader sells? Or every monthly charge from a subscription based video service like Nebula?

They already charge less for those -- 10–15% rather than 30%:

https://play.google.com/console/about/programs/mediaprogram/

But the excuse is that it's their platform and they set the rules. If you don't like it, you don't have to build a business selling there.

15% for the first million of dollars annually though. That’s majority of the devs.

Is all fine and dandy the Mall analogy except that the are only 2 'Malls' in the world. Apple Store and Google Play Store. That kind of leverage has never existed before in the history of this world economy.

Is this from the parent not true?

"Other vendors such as Amazon, Samsung and Microsoft happily ship their own app stores and competing app sets"

East India Company ? Also had some rather negative effects.

Charging rent based on square footage or location and charging a 30% tax on all the transactions that happen in your mall are pretty different.

Unlike google play, malls don't prevent their visitors to buy the same goods from stores outside the malls. Google play protect is known to remove apps installed from another source (e.g. fdroid) if the app is also available from google play: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37879935

>> "Google gets money from their app store!" So does every app maker. Next

>Not the same thing. By owning the Play Store Google gets a cut of every app, not just the ones they make.

It's not the same as Apple, which is famous for gouging developers taking huge cuts of their revenue from apps, and even taking huge cuts of in-app purchases.

The cut and policies are almost exactly the same though?

Isn't that the same as every other marketplace though? The mall, Amazon, Steam, you name it.

The comment I was replying to said "So does every app maker" rather than "platform owner".

[I also added "(hardware)" to my original comment.]

Yeah that was my bad. I meant platform owners

Don't write an angry reply before your morning coffee everyone!

Steam takes a cut of the sales price and a cut of microtransactions done through the Steam wallet. But they don't force developers to use the Steam wallet. I wouldn't be surprised if that last point is what will ultimately matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com