5 ms·

I don't understand the framing of this conversation. Does other companies owe Google money by merely existing?

• kodablah 8y ago
  Depending on who you ask and how they feel about their platform, the answer is "yes, on that platform".
  • Drakim 8y ago
    Android is based on Linux, Google doesn't get to make that sort of ownership claim.
    • kodablah 8y ago
      Those people I was talking about that think that some money should be paid for existing on their platform, their reasoning is unrelated to what the OS is based on.
• TremendousJudge 8y ago
  No, it's the same writing that frames piracy as "costing" money to the developers. If something costs you some money there's the implication that you had the money, and then you didn't have it after that something happening. As much as they'd like to believe it, projected earnings aren't money you actually have
  • bena 8y ago
    I'd say that the piracy does cost developers something. Not every pirated copy is a lost sale, but there are some number of people who are capable of buying software that instead choose to pirate it for any number of reasons and would buy it if piracy was not an option. I wouldn't say it's a high percentage, but it's not insignificant. I'd count that as a lost sale. But I do agree that this is a different situation. This is just a high profile application that has decided to forgo something completely optional.
    • mcphage 8y ago
      > I'd count that as a lost sale. It's a lost sale, but that's still not a cost. It's just money they never got. If it had actually cost them, then I'd expect it would take away money they previously had, like I say lunch costs me $15 because after the transaction I'm down $15 (but up a lunch). At best, it's akin to opportunity cost.
  • asdkhadsj 8y ago
    > No, it's the same writing that frames piracy as "costing" money to the developers. I hope you're not referring to me. I never once said anything about Google losing money. I merely asked the question, would they gain or lose given a scenario. I didn't state anything.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• asdkhadsj 8y ago
  I think you misunderstand me. In other words, the claim is that Google is "losing" money by their choices which cause Fortnite to choose to not use them. But it's those same choices which make Google money. So if Google were to, for example, take less of a cut - they might get Fortnite onto their system. But how much would they loose from all the other companies currently using Google at the current rate?
  • Someguywhatever 8y ago
    What Google really should have done was allowed FortNite onto the play store at a reduced cut, as a one-off discount that only applies to this title and nobody else. Some percentage of 50M is better than 0%.
    • TremendousJudge 8y ago
      Should they? Everybody would have complained that Google was giving them preferential treatment just because they're big and important. Is there a precedent for this?
      • Someguywhatever 8y ago
        I think that everybody does this in almost every industry, huge players get different rules than everybody else. You might not like this but I can almost guarantee that if you were running a successful app store the amount of money involved would make you behave in the same manner and bend the rules for the big guys to get a piece of that big money.