4 ms·

> How about the 30% of store tax must cover the cost of developing, operating and supporting their Open Platforms Operating System? > Google doesn't charge the

> How about the 30% of store tax must cover the cost of developing, operating and supporting their Open Platforms Operating System? > Google doesn't charge them a cent for using Android. Why should Epic care about Android's development costs? They don't pay Microsoft a cent for Windows, why should they pay Google for Android? Google chose this business model, software developers certainly have no obligation to support it. > Along with payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service? Epic has all this infrastructure already, they need it for their PC customers. Why overpay for Google's?

Eridrus 8y ago
> Why should Epic care about Android's development costs? He seems to care about console makers' costs and considers their 30% there reasonable, but he does not seem to consider them reasonable here. > Why overpay for Google's? I don't think he's under any obligation too, but it's interesting to see platforms like Steam gain traction despite not handling most of the investment in the platform, and that's on Windows where you can get an installer.
- krn 8y ago
  > He seems to care about console makers' costs and considers their 30% there reasonable, but he does not seem to consider them reasonable here. Because the absolute majority of Android devices are not made by Google, just like the absolute majority of Windows devices are not made by Microsoft. What if Microsoft took away 30% of revenue from all software developers publishing on Windows Store?
  - ksec 8y ago
    >Because the absolute majority of Android devices are not made by Google, just like the absolute majority of Windows devices are not made by Microsoft. What if Microsoft took away 30% of revenue from all software developers publishing on Windows Store? And you have to paid for Windows License? Somewhere along the line someone will have to paid. Open Source isn't free. Of course it is perfectly fine for EPIC to avoid the 30% charge. But to judge Google charging 30% as unreasonable while you are getting the ecosystem for free, and than compare the cost of console maker is just being hypocrite. This is speaking as someone who doesn't like Google even before the first iPhone shipped.
    - krn 8y ago
      > And you have to paid for Windows License? Somewhere along the line someone will have to paid. Open Source isn't free. Open source is free. Android is based on Linux, just like Ubuntu, and smartphone manufacturers are major contributors to AOSP[1]. [1] https://www.androidpolice.com/2012/04/26/key-android-engineer-weighs-in-on-manufacturer-contributions-to-aosp-and-update-rollouts-you-might-be-surprised-whos-on-top/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2012/04/26/key-android-enginee...
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    > What if Microsoft took away 30% of revenue from all software developers publishing on Windows Store? This is exactly how it works. Steam also takes a 30% cut. This is literally how every app platform works now.

Eridrus 8y ago

> Why should Epic care about Android's development costs? He seems to care about console makers' costs and considers their 30% there reasonable, but he does not seem to consider them reasonable here. > Why overpay for Google's? I don't think he's under any obligation too, but it's interesting to see platforms like Steam gain traction despite not handling most of the investment in the platform, and that's on Windows where you can get an installer.

krn 8y ago
> He seems to care about console makers' costs and considers their 30% there reasonable, but he does not seem to consider them reasonable here. Because the absolute majority of Android devices are not made by Google, just like the absolute majority of Windows devices are not made by Microsoft. What if Microsoft took away 30% of revenue from all software developers publishing on Windows Store?
- ksec 8y ago
  >Because the absolute majority of Android devices are not made by Google, just like the absolute majority of Windows devices are not made by Microsoft. What if Microsoft took away 30% of revenue from all software developers publishing on Windows Store? And you have to paid for Windows License? Somewhere along the line someone will have to paid. Open Source isn't free. Of course it is perfectly fine for EPIC to avoid the 30% charge. But to judge Google charging 30% as unreasonable while you are getting the ecosystem for free, and than compare the cost of console maker is just being hypocrite. This is speaking as someone who doesn't like Google even before the first iPhone shipped.
  - krn 8y ago
    > And you have to paid for Windows License? Somewhere along the line someone will have to paid. Open Source isn't free. Open source is free. Android is based on Linux, just like Ubuntu, and smartphone manufacturers are major contributors to AOSP[1]. [1] https://www.androidpolice.com/2012/04/26/key-android-engineer-weighs-in-on-manufacturer-contributions-to-aosp-and-update-rollouts-you-might-be-surprised-whos-on-top/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2012/04/26/key-android-enginee...
- Eridrus 8y ago
  > What if Microsoft took away 30% of revenue from all software developers publishing on Windows Store? This is exactly how it works. Steam also takes a 30% cut. This is literally how every app platform works now.