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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.