Thread

1. wccrawford · 1790423567 · focus · HN ↗

   15% is a lot. I'm not trying to say it isn't.

   And they're annoying and often screw up the review process.

   Google is always going to make money off any work they do. That's just business. They're not going to put more money towards better reviews without taking more money. And without the reviews, even as crappy as they are, a lot of really crappy software would be on the store. And a lot more would be actively malicious

   And you were making like 7x as much as they were taking. Without them, you would even get noticed and you'd have made nothing.

   We know this because almost nobody installs FDroid, and the other stores like Samsung make basically nothing for developers, even though they're preinstalled on so many devices.

   1. Netcob · 1790424468 · focus · HN ↗

      It's not just business - it's basically a monopoly. Enough to extract rent while providing a minimal service.

      Imagine if all streets were owned by two large companies who charged you enough to use them that you'd be paying as much in fees as you are in paying for gas. People would still use cars. The streets could be in horrible condition, the two companies would be making an insane amount of profit, but there would still be people out there saying that if it wasn't for those companies we wouldn't be getting anywhere and it's just business.

      1. kriops · 1790424746 · focus · HN ↗

         It's literally not. And your analogy is bad, because it describes inelastic demand, and not the platform effect.

         1. Topfi · 1790425191 · focus · HN ↗

            How is the Play Store not a monopoly? It has been found such by multiple judges in multiple jurisdictions for a reason.

            1. WarmWash · 1790435531 · focus · HN ↗

               Ironically, the Apple App store was found to not be a monopoly. Or the playstation store, or xbox store for that matter.

               In fact the legal system punishes you for having an open platform. The very reason the author can leave the play store is the same reason why the play store is a "monopoly". So sure, maybe the play store is a monopoly with some rigid definitions that lack nuance, but lets not throw away logic here.

               1. [deleted] · 1790448263 · focus · HN ↗

                  [deleted]

               2. Topfi · 1790448532 · focus · HN ↗

                  If Apple/Google v Epic is what's on your mind, it was not having an open platform that resulted in the judgement. More what they did beyond just operating the platform. Being a monopoly in the US is legal, abusing market position less so. Maybe that lacks nuance and is a bit rigid, but it's the law in the States and what courts are bound by.

                  Something like the DMA and gatekeepers exist in part exactly because of the status quo and entities like Apple. I personally see the gatekeeper approach as a solid base, but know that it can be quite unpopular within the industry.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.