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. 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. 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. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.