Thread

1. pi-victor · 1790425525 · focus · HN ↗

   I think it bothers OP less that they take a 15% tax than the fact that google provides terrible support for their own play store. If they would take that tax and provide good feedback and speedy version reviews, nobody would ever complain - it is expected to pay something since the play store doesn't run on good thoughts and prayers. But because they're a monopoly (or a duopoly if you count apple, which is a different platform altogether) they can afford to act this way.

   1. chii · 1790425734 · focus · HN ↗

      people hate taxation without representation. That's why this model has to be unsustainable, but the legislation has not caught up at all.

      1. philipallstar · 1790427322 · focus · HN ↗

         This isn't taxation. It's just a silly name for a fee. Fees are what make things sustainable.

         1. applfanboysbgon · 1790427768 · focus · HN ↗

            At the level of customer service they provide (ie ~none), Google Play would be "sustainable" at a 1% cut. Everything above that is pure profit. Which is exactly why they're doing everything they can to lock people into Google Play and lock people out of distributing/accessing apps outside of it. This isn't some kind service Google is providing at cost out of the goodness of their hearts, it's their attempt to corner the market and extract a massive amount of economic value without doing any meaningful work.

            1. charcircuit · 1790428704 · focus · HN ↗

               The revenue funds more than just support, it funds the development of an entire OS and various SDKs to support the apps that it distributes from the store.

               1. pydry · 1790432031 · focus · HN ↗

                  mostly it funds google shareholders and their wildly overcompensated workforce.
               2. famouswaffles · 1790432449 · focus · HN ↗

                  The 100s of billions they get from being installed in so many devices and advertising doesn't fund that? Could have fooled me. The result is the same. Play Store doesn't do anywhere enough to justify a 15% cut.

                  1. charcircuit · 1790452741 · focus · HN ↗

                     Android doesn't show advertising. Ads in YouTube get classified under YouTube's revenue and not Android.

                     1. famouswaffles · 1790457125 · focus · HN ↗

                        1. Google uses Android user data to build ad profiles for Google search

                        2. Android comes bundled with chrome (and thus google search) as default. Google pays Apple $20B+ a year to keep Google search the default on Safari. That should tell you how valuable controlling Android is for Google's margins.

                        Like no-one at google seriously thinks they need to take a 15% play store cut to justify funding Android.

               3. cwillu · 1790442120 · focus · HN ↗

                  Nothing added to android in the last 10-15 years has been of any benefit to me, mostly just pointless interface churn, the addition of nag screens, and removal/deprecation/awkwardification of features I actually use.

                  Given that, I think the world would be improved by reduction of such “development”.

                  1. charcircuit · 1790452687 · focus · HN ↗

                     If you are unable to recognize the improvements Android has made from 15 years ago with Android 3.2 Honeycomb I think your use of devices is incredibly niche.
               4. happymellon · 1790500483 · focus · HN ↗

                  They have many revenue streams from Android. The play store revenue is only a small part.

                  And we know they are not spending $30 billion on their SDKs.

            2. [deleted] · 1790428748 · focus · HN ↗

               [deleted]

         2. bambax · 1790427776 · focus · HN ↗

            It's taxation when it's imposed by a monopoly over users who have no choice except walking away.

            1. mitxela · 1790428174 · focus · HN ↗

               This definition doesn't work, because my only choice when buying a burger at Dairy Queen is to pay the burger's price or walk away too, but it's not taxation.

               1. chii · 1790428284 · focus · HN ↗

                  you have the choice not to purchase burgers from dairy queens, but from macdonalds, or five guys, or wataburger.

                  You don't have a real choice in an app store on android (except recently, and even then, the alternative stores don't behave well for google-based apps).

                  That's why it's not a tax when you choose to buy DQ burgers, but a tax when you choose to deploy an app to google app store.

                  1. mitxela · 1790428846 · focus · HN ↗

                     If there's no other burger joint in the small town it's the only place I can get burgers.

                     I agree Google is using a tax here but the rule you suggested doesn't work

                     1. Nevermark · 1790430815 · focus · HN ↗

                        Your town prohibits you from making your own burger?

                        Because burger meat is commonly sold in the smallest of grocery stores, and is not technically dependent on what buns, sauces, tomatoes, lettuce … or other ingredients you pair them.

                        And you can grow your own veggies, and bake your own bread.

                        It is an entirely componentized market. No gatekeepers.

                        Even single groceries in tiny towns continue having to compete with larger stores in bigger towns. Because they carry small selections most people make the drive to load up their larder regularly.”

                        You need to find an example that matches the point you are trying to make.

                        TLDR: Analysis reveals burger markets are nearly perfect economic opposites of centralized app store markets.

                        1. mitxela · 1790432495 · focus · HN ↗

                           Who is stopping me from strapping a Raspberry Pi to a battery pack? Nobody, that's a componentized market too.

                           1. chii · 1790433356 · focus · HN ↗

                              but that raspberry pi won't be able to run google apps (or other apps like your bank's) that require play store certification.

                              1. mitxela · 1790445227 · focus · HN ↗

                                 I can't make a DQ burger at home either.
                           2. Nevermark · 1790436842 · focus · HN ↗

                              Yes. But what is your point?

                              This is getting confused. Just find an example that does make your point.

                  2. philipallstar · 1790429188 · focus · HN ↗

                     > You don't have a real choice in an app store on android

                     You do, and you also can pick iPhone. Or not a smartphone. Or not use apps.

                     > (except recently, and even then, the alternative stores don't behave well for google-based apps).

                     Google provides planetscale services like Google Maps for free and you want to build apps that use their services but not pay them 15% for their store, and still complain they don't work perfectly? You seem to be outsourcing a lot to Google but expect to give them nothing in return.

                     1. mitxela · 1790429727 · focus · HN ↗

                        Google Maps has its own billing model.
                     2. applfanboysbgon · 1790430386 · focus · HN ↗

                        > and you also can pick iPhone.

                        "Reee!! It's not a monopoly!!! It's a duopoly!!!!" screeched the pedant.

                        > Or not a smartphone. Or not use apps.

                        "Submit to the duopoly or else you're not allowed to develop for the most common consumer computing device on the planet"

                     3. stephenhuey · 1790430809 · focus · HN ↗

                        Bringing up Google Maps here does nothing for your point because on web or native mobile you pay money to use the API for Google Maps (outside of the store fee). Offering a free version to end users does financially benefit Google.

                        There are numerous examples of people needing a smartphone to do things in their daily lives. I’ve read compelling stories of people who ran into trouble after ditching their smartphone.

                        There are lots of parallels to the railroad monopolies. Choice is not as available as you say it is.

                        1. philipallstar · 1790431317 · focus · HN ↗

                           > Offering a free version to end users does financially benefit Google.

                           How so?

                           > I’ve read compelling stories of people who ran into trouble after ditching their smartphone.

                           It'd be helpful if you mentioned them instead of just saying everyone should trust that you were compelled by stories.

                           1. [deleted] · 1790435705 · focus · HN ↗

                              [deleted]

                           2. close04 · 1790438696 · focus · HN ↗

                              You don’t get Maps “for free”, you pay with your data (your searches, your preferences, etc.). For Google maps is the bait to reel you in, you are the product they sell to their real customers: businesses. Google can shape your preferences by showing you what their paying customers want you to see.

                              I thought it’s self evident that products like Gmail, Search, Maps and others aren’t free because Google is aiming to do charity but because your personal data allows them to build a digital model of you and charge other businesses for access to that knowledge.

                              Around me I can’t think of a bank that allows any remote operation without a TAN only available on iOS or Android. That’s the root of a lot of future problems, not the least of which being that the bank charges you more for in person operations.

                              1. philipallstar · 1790439624 · focus · HN ↗

                                 I understand that, but how does that factor into the larger conversation? Are you saying that Google should want to make sure these services should work flawlessly on other stores so we can be tracked by them even if we don't use the Play Store?

                                 1. close04 · 1790517061 · focus · HN ↗

                                    Other stores are a different topic or concern for Google. They want to retain control over anything that runs on the Android platform. Google thus ensures everyone must comply with rules that benefit Google. Anything that Google doesn’t like for whatever reason gets booted or screwed with.

                                    Having the “valuable” apps like Maps only in their store is just another way to cement that authority.

                     4. saintfire · 1790431086 · focus · HN ↗

                        Google maps makes money through its API as well as accepting sponsored results to appear before correct results.

                        I'd agree you have a choice with 3rd party stores but they're working on limiting/killing those tiny markets, already.

               2. pydry · 1790431576 · focus · HN ↗

                  if the only way to use government services was to purchase either a dairy queen or McDonalds burger first that is a duopoly and they would be way more expensive and shittier quality than regular burgers as a result.

                  some smart alec would then point out that because even the cheapest, shittiest beef isnt free that this price is justified.

                  1. bigstrat2003 · 1790449970 · focus · HN ↗

                     Nobody has said what Google is doing is justified. People are (correctly) saying that "taxation" is not the correct term for what they are doing. Google is in the wrong, but that doesn't make bad arguments correct just because they are aimed at Google.
               3. kmeisthax · 1790438419 · focus · HN ↗

                  No, this analogy doesn't work because of switching costs. If I want a different burger, I drive across the street. If I want a different app store, I have to buy a new phone.
         3. mitxela · 1790428133 · focus · HN ↗

            How do you define taxation?

            1. philipallstar · 1790431363 · focus · HN ↗

               Something you pay or you're thrown in jail.

               1. tenuousemphasis · 1790433084 · focus · HN ↗

                  A court ordered judgement isn't taxation, try again.

                  1. mitxela · 1790433278 · focus · HN ↗

                     It kind of is.
               2. mitxela · 1790433303 · focus · HN ↗

                  If your landlord requires you to pay rent with a phone app the phone is taxation?

                  1. anticensor · 1790690978 · focus · HN ↗

                     More like the phone is your mandatory tender.
               3. jeltz · 1790437009 · focus · HN ↗

                  In my country if I do not pay my taxes I do not get thrown in jail. Tax fraud gets you thrown in jail, but correctly declaring income but just not paying does not get you thrown in jail since we abolished debtors prison. And when we had debtors prison any debt could throw you in prison so that was a terrible definition since it means Sweden has no tax right now and in the past any debt would have been tax.
            2. sdenton4 · 1790435412 · focus · HN ↗

               It's when the guys who print the money pull some of the money back in from the market.

               #mmt bay-beeee!

               1. jeltz · 1790436479 · focus · HN ↗

                  So countries without their own currency don't have taxation? Not all countries can print money.
         4. catlifeonmars · 1790439943 · focus · HN ↗

            It’s not a fee, thats just a silly name for a tax. Taxes are what make things sustainable.

            See what I did there?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.