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. indymike · 1790433318 · focus · HN ↗

      > it bothers OP less that they take a 15% tax than the fact that google provides terrible support for their own play store.

      The terrible support is really deeper than support. You literally stopped doing business here, because the lack of a feedback channel that allows Google to improve their business (i.e. realize they need a way to quickly correct stupid automated decisions) been Google's worst enemy and best friend. By ignoring support & feedback, the friction for internal decision making is low (no pesky customer demands, the product manager is king, management gets their way), but it leads to I think a lot of Google's products failing because they do not really understand their users, and the why behind the what they use.

      I'm not sure being a monopoly alone explains Google's behavior here, but it could be as simple as that: who cares about one small customer... it's not like they have a viable alternative.

      1. arrosenberg · 1790440343 · focus · HN ↗

         > I'm not sure being a monopoly alone explains Google's behavior here, but it could be as simple as that: who cares about one small customer... it's not like they have a viable alternative.

         The last line contradicts the first line. Being a monopoly means they don’t have to care. If Apple and Google were required to allow competing app stores as first-class citizens then they would have to provide better service or no one would use their stores and they’d lose out on all of the rents they’re collecting from app developers.

         1. ToucanLoucan · 1790455632 · focus · HN ↗

            The problem goes deeper than this though.

            Say we do what you're suggesting. There's now three stores on Android devices when you take them out of the box: Google Play, Crumbt, and Dipple. Crumbt quickly gains a reputation for hosting sketchy software, with some diamonds in the rough, but users also regularly report getting malware on their phones. That said everything is free, which makes it the #1 stop for people who have to buy the down-market phones anyway because they can't afford apps either. Dipple, meanwhile, promises no AI features or content, and immediately gets a following with the more monied crowd that not only will pay for apps, but prefers to to avoid ads and spammy generative content.

            The problem, as I see it, is we still have the old, bad experience from google, and we now have one other experience that lets anything in, so people are still getting malware, and we have still a third that's offering premium features to users with cash to spend and leaves everyone else out in the cold.

            I know I'm being negative with my examples, but at the same time, the PROBLEM, as I see it, is power asymmetry: lack of oversight on the part of the platforms means nasty shit gets through, and lack of actionable routes to be remediated means the risk lands squarely on the user, who is disempowered already. Additional app markets solve none of that.

            Like, sure, an app market could come along promising to be on the user's side: it will immediately not attract developers, because developers will (correctly) see that it's riskier there than elsewhere. And there's not really a monetary reason to make an ethical app store, whatever that happens to mean, because far more money is made being an unethical one that hangs it's users out to dry.

            I just don't think these are problems yet more markets can solve, because fundamentally, what's broken about them is what makes them so wildly profitable. And I can't fathom another store not coming along and, even if not at first, doing the exact same thing again anyways that Play has already done, because it works. Because Play itself was immitating/innovating on the same axis as Apple's App Store.

            1. andrekandre · 1790473975 · focus · HN ↗

                 > and we have still a third that's offering premium features to users with cash to spend and leaves everyone else out in the cold
               

               but at least we would know where to go for trust and safety? isn't that better than now where its just a crapshoot with no alternative?

               (this is putting aside wetter we should even need 'appstores')

               1. ToucanLoucan · 1790521860 · focus · HN ↗

                  I don't think paywalling a non-fucked experience is a good solution for... anything, really. Like why do we have to charge people to get out of the fuck barrel? How about we just not have it?

                  1. cindyllm · 1790531842 · focus · HN ↗

                     [dead]

                  2. andrekandre · 1790571838 · focus · HN ↗

                       > fuck barrel? How about we just not have it?
                     

                     yes, i agree with this. the context of my answer was n the even we have to have an appstore at all; personally i'd rather download an app from a website (and signed with their certificate, for example) than slog through a 'store'

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.