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. 627467 · 1790447766 · focus · HN ↗

         If different words exists why insist in making "creative" use of the wrong word?

         Your local monopoly of water provider charges a fee not a tax (although many collect taxes on behalf of the state that sanctions the monopoly)

         Platform apps stores tend to be a monopoly (specially in iOS case) and that decreases incentive to provide a decent service/product to their customers who hate that fact - not because customer have no representation.

         I never submitted an app to play store but knowing how Google handles app customers (or any customer of their services/products) its believable that app devs are shafted too. I personally wonder if there's any differentiated service level between an app that results in revenue for Google vs one that is 100% free. I'd be pissed if my 15% fee is not buying me priority over the latest adware filled flashlight app

         1. echelon · 1790449969 · focus · HN ↗

            "Representation" means ability to hire an alternative should the original relationship sour.

            We don't need better support. We need a way to fire Google via a robust market full of alternatives.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.