19 ms·
Tinder Bypasses Google Play, Joining Revolt Against App Store Fee
- izacus 7y agoIs it a revolt against the app store fee, or against new privacy and security rules, which demand that they change their target SDK level to something modern which doesn't allow as much data collection?
- panpanna 7y agoYeah, that is the real question. Google already has special deals for companies that lowers the 30% fee significantly. (I think even 2-3% fee is too much for doing basically nothing, but that is another discussion).
- bscphil 7y ago> (I think even 2-3% fee is too much for doing basically nothing, but that is another discussion). My guess is that the play store fee works more like a tax on a closed ecosystem than a price for a service. For example, when the government needs to pay for a more expansive healthcare bill, they may decide it makes more economic sense (or is more politically viable) to raise the additional funding through a tax that doesn't go back to most of the people who receive the benefits. So maybe they raise capital gains taxes, etc. Likewise, while Google is an ads company, and running Android does benefit them some in that regard (e.g. ecosystem lockin), they're not running it as a charity. Android being given away for free, and many phones being subsidized, both benefit a lot of people, and because Google has more or less complete control of the market, they've decided the best way to pay for it is to tax the Play store, instead of charging those people for the benefit. They important thing I'm trying to point out here is that they could do it differently - they could charge for Android, or require subscriptions to use more of their services, but they've decided the best way to monetize is through the store. In this case, the question of whether the fee is "reasonable" for what Google provides to app developers isn't quite as significant as it would be were Google simply providing a product on the free market. But in this case I suspect you're both right, anyway, and this likely has more to do with data collection.
- microcolonel 7y ago> a tax on a closed ecosystem It's not a closed ecosystem anyway, I think. As far as I can tell, all the devices that officially have Google Play, also allow other applications to install APKs; now in a very fine-grained and straightforward way (as of Android 9).
- maccard 7y agoGoogle certainly aren't doing nothing - 30% includes hosting, bandwidth, patching, some amount of marketing, payments, fraud. Whether it's worth 30% is a different discussion, but to say they provide no value is just sily.
- kzrdude 7y agoAnd app review and oversight
- shiftpgdn 7y agoDon't kid yourself. The Google play store is absolutely jammed full of malware and scam apps.
- andybak 7y agoHowever they spend a considerable amount of money trying to stop those. It's fairly irrelevant to the preceding poster's point whether they succeed or not.
- pmart123 7y agoIt seems like an incumbent app should would likely want app stores to suffer from a lack of policing and degradation, whether they are paying 3%, 5%, or 30%. The less app stores are trusted for safety, the lower the friction there is to just use the established Netflix, Tinder, or Spotify app.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoHow much? What percentage of their 30% take do you think they're spending? <1% ?
- danShumway 7y agoNo, how much money or effort Google spends is irrelevant to the value they provide. If Google came up with a magical technique to get rid of all malware on their app store that didn't cost them a dime, you could still argue that they're adding value to justify the 30% cut. If Google spends a billion dollars to get rid of all the malware on their app store, and it doesn't work, and using the app store is not significantly less dangerous than sideloading apps, then they're not adding any value to justify the 30% cut. Note that I don't think Google's efforts are completely fruitless. At the very least, they seem to help with taking down duplicate apps, and that's something. But whether or not moderation is valuable only depends on whether they succeed or not -- their effort is irrelevant.
- Retric 7y ago2% would likely not cover credit card transaction fees let alone their other costs. Even low transaction fees generally look like 2% + 10c. Making the situation even worse for 1$ apps. On top of that they need to pay for development, hosting, fraud detection etc. The ecosystem may be better off with something like 20c + 20% transaction fees. But, a flat percentage needs to be surprisingly high just to breakeven.
- panpanna 7y agoI highly doubt Google is paying 2% per transaction to Visa.
- pcr0 7y agoThere are a lot of credit cards that offer cashback rates between 1-2%. I'm certain Visa is not eating that so Google (and other merchants) must be paying.
- snuxoll 7y agoMost credit card companies also get paid a lot of money in interest, it’s not like they rely solely on interchange fees for rewards programs. Yes, you shouldn’t float a balance on your card - but the average person often does.
- sidlls 7y agoDon't know why you're being downvoted: Google had immense bargaining power with Visa (and the others). It might be a stretch to say they aren't paying 2%, but it's unlikely they're paying 3-5% + $0.30 flat per transaction (typical fees for small merchants going through a merchant bank payment processor, PayPal, etc.)
- leesalminen 7y agoThey certainly won’t be paying less than interchange though which in my world averages 2.35%
- onetimemanytime 7y agoMy guess: probably 5% is cost, staff to review, maintain ecosystem, credit card fees, customer support etc etc.
- tomcam 7y agoHow do you handle support and fraud issues for less than 2%?
- makkesk8 7y ago> (I think even 2-3% fee is too much for doing basically nothing, but that is another discussion). Yea 2% fee is too much because bandwidth is free.
- on_and_off 7y ago>doing basically nothing Handling publication, payments, giving exposure and direct access via the play store, approving the apps, rejecting impersonations, the play store platform actually does a lot of stuff. I agree that a 30% fee is a lot and probably way too much, but claiming that they do nothing is just ridiculous.
- jayd16 7y agoIf it's that easy, Amazon's store would be doing very well but it's simply not that easy.
- julian_digital 7y ago"Google already has special deals for companies that lowers the 30% fee significantly." Source?
- Oletros 7y agoThey are not leaving the Play Store, are they?
- oakesm9 7y agoIf that’s the case, then Google’s next move should be to get rid of the “compatibility modes” in the next version of the OS.
- artificial 7y agoThis made me laugh. The steady March of progress.
- sharcerer 7y agoCan you provide more info on these new privacy,security rules? Also, have these rules been made by both Apple and Google?
- on_and_off 7y agoOne example that is easy to explain is the runtime permission system. IIRC this change was introduced in API 23 (marshmallow), now a while ago. Before that Android version, permissions (such as accessing your contacts or your calendar, using the camera sensor, etc) where requested and given at installation time. 23 introduced runtime permission : now you don't get the permissions at install time but at runtime : while the app run it incrementally asks to access your contacts, camera, or whatever else it needs. But there is an issue : how to handle all the existing apps ? What happens is that apps declare which sdk version they are targetting when they are compiled. If that version is 23 or higher, they get the new behavior. For apps targeting 22 or less though, the system fallbacks to the previous behavior. This way apps don't suddenly break when you update your phone and apps already published on the play store don't have to handle this change right away. Most apps, especially popular ones have been pretty quick to follow these new targets. However, some apps (cough like snapchat cough) have seen a loophole there and have been keeping their target sdk very low so they don't have to follow new behaviors. So a couple of years ago Google decided to address that : now if you want to publish a new app, you have to target an android version that is at most one year old. App updates have the same rule, although IIRC the period is a little bit longer. So it is no longer possible to game a system that is only there to gracefully handle old apps. I have mentioned runtime permission because it is one change that is easy to explain, but each Android version has several behavior/security changes like this one, so enforcing this rule is definitely for the best.
- sharcerer 7y agoThanks.
- jefftk 7y agoThey haven't left the Play Store and started providing a sideloaded APK. Instead they've stopped using the Play Store API for in-app purchases and have built a custom flow.
- otterley 7y agoI wonder how long it will be before Google cracks down on that and requires payment through Google, much like Apple has always done.
- GeekyBear 7y agoApple does not require that subscription fees be paid through in app purchases. You have always been able to collect subscription fees on your own website and distribute your app for free. >TechCrunch learned this week that Netflix is testing a payment method that bypasses iTunes in 33 countries. Until Sept. 30, new or lapsed users in select European, Latin American and Asian markets will be unable to pay using iTunes. Instead -- like with Spotify -- they will be redirected to Netflix's website to enter payment details directly with the video streaming service. In May, Netflix made a similar move prohibiting new subscribers from paying via Google Play. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-netflix-bypassing-apple-app-store-billing-charges https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-...
- dogma1138 7y agoWith a small caveat that you can’t have any in-app purchases if you do so. Which is why Prime Video on the App Store doesn’t allow any rentals for example.
- dannyw 7y agoThis is not true; at least, you cannot redirect within the app. Spotify had its updates rejected when it had a flow that ended all IAPs, and redirected people to a web browser. The kindle app offers no way to purchase for this reason.
- jbverschoor 7y agoBingo
- jasonlotito 7y agoThe store fee. They are still in the app store. 2nd paragraph: > The online dating site launched a new default payment process that skips Google Play and forces users to enter their credit card details straight into Tinder’s app, according to new research by Macquarie analyst Ben Schachter.
- PunchTornado 7y agobut they are still paying the Apple store fee, aren't they?
- sturgill 7y agoIt’s much harder to side load apps on an iPhone.
- NullPrefix 7y agoWe will not be pushed around! We will revolt, but only if it's easy!
- lighthazard 7y agoWell.. that and average iOS users can't easily side load either. They need to jailbreak and that, itself, is a difficult task.
- roblabla 7y agoYou don't have to - you can sign IPAs with a developer certificate, but the app will only work for 7 days on a free account (1 year for a 'real' developper account). Having to resign every week is obviously a dealbreaker.
- wruza 7y agoThis sounds like one of the Viva la Robolution slogans.
- bscphil 7y agoThey aren't sideloading on Android either, so I don't see the relevance.
- kevingadd 7y agoThey don't have a choice, generally speaking. Apple makes it harder to get around the fee. If they're successful on Android, it's possible they'd try to swing their weight around on iOS... but I suspect Apple doesn't care how big you are.
- some_random 7y agoGreat, another shitbag company normalizing the side-loading of apps because they want more money.
- kylegordon 7y agoI would suggest reading as far as the second sentence.
- jedimastert 7y agoRead the article, friend. Tinder is still on the play store, but removed it's Google Play payment features so you have you now enter your credit card number to pay. Admittedly it's poorly titled, but come on. Read the article.
- tacomonstrous 7y agoThey didn't even remove it fully; they just made it harder to find. Only if you ever enter your credit card number do they remove the Play option.
- denzil_correa 7y agoWould the app stores also "revolt" by removing these apps from their store? They don't have much to keep these apps on their app stores.
- smt88 7y agoNetflix, Tinder, and other huge apps are safe from being removed. Neither Apple nor Google wants to be missing massive "features" that the other ecosystem has.
- caymanjim 7y agoNetflix and the other monster apps might have a lot of influence and bargaining power with Apple and Google, but at the end of the day, Netflix needs Apple far more than Apple needs Netflix.
- lal 7y agoBut Apple needs Netflix far more than Apple needs whatever you think it would gain by losing Netflix.
- zahrc 7y agoAnd in the end it’s the user who will suffer the most from it. Giving my payment details to google was acceptable but if it actually continues in that direction soon you have to feed every third grade company with it.
- osrec 7y agoGenuine question: you prefer Google gatekeeping your payments with every app, rather than you gatekeeping your payments with each app? Does privacy not concern you?
- luckylion 7y agoThere's also a potential upside of dealing with individual apps if they run up fraudulent charges: you're not putting your Google account in jeopardy because of a charge back. Granted, Google probably is quite supportive of users vs app vendors, but the risk of losing their Google account is gigantic for many users, and there's no useful way to appeal (unless you happen to be in luck, your complaint goes viral and somebody from Google manually intervenes).
- kasey_junk 7y agoPrivacy concerns me but security & convenience concern me more, especially for credit card data which I’m already giving to a giant entity that resells it.
- pas 7y agoYou already have MC/Visa as gatekeepers.
- bogwog 7y agoWhat the hell does "third grade company" even mean? Tinder probably respects your privacy more than Google. Unless you're referring to worries about giving out your payment information to "random sites"? If so, that's dumb because it's 2019 and there are tons of dedicated secure payment processors out there. Very few companies would even be willing to process payments themselves. Any effort to take power away from Google's iron grip on the internet is good unless you're a Google employee or shareholder.
- spondyl 7y agoDarn, so much for getting Tinder on F-Droid :( I was hoping they were going to start distributing APKs directly but nope, just seems they're directly processing payments for in app purchases, rather than using the Play Store On a side note, I launched Tinder recently to poke around and I see they're now offering read receipts as a feature. Purchasing "Tinder Gold" to see who has "liked" you, I can understand. Getting read receipts though? Ehh, it feels a bit far. Don't get me wrong though, it's fully what I would expect from any VC funded entity. You've gotta keep showing growth until the end
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoDoesn’t all software on F-droid have to be open source?
- catdog 7y agoSoftware inside the official F-Droid repository has to be open source. You can however simply add additional repositories to the F-Droid client which everyone can host following its own rules.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoI like read receipts because they help me not feel like I'm talking into the abyss. It moves the needle a tiny, tiny bit closer to more face-to-face characteristics. People seem to prefer it at large. If you turn off read receipts on WhatsApp, then it disables them for you too. Yet I'm not sure I've seen anyone disable it.
- munmaek 7y agoI absolutely hate them. I hate not being able to read a text and respond to it on my own time. It doesn't do anything for face-to-face characteristics whatsoever but it does put pressure on me to respond. If it's that urgent, call me, or just make plans with me to get coffee or something. KakaoTalk [0] does this and I end up just having way more notifications because I don't want to leave someone "on read" until I get around to responding. Actually, many, if not most people "read" incoming texts via the preview from notification centers so they can read it without feeling like they have to respond right then. I hate how it conditioned me over time to check repeatedly to see if someone had read my text or not. You could argue that they might've just wanted to respond later, but that's not the "culture" of how kakaotalk is used generally. I have some friends that take anywhere from ~3 days to 2 weeks to respond but they don't open the text until then. I vastly prefer imessage or other apps now simply because I can toggle off read receipts. [0]: kakaotalk is the messaging app of Korea. I don't think I've ever had someone send me an actual text or phone call outside of KakaoTalk. Line (Japan) is similar and also has read receipts unfortunately.
- arnaudsm 7y agoUsers don't like to type their credit card number again. I wonder if the payment friction counterbalances the lower fees.
- notyourday 7y agoOh it is more than that. Users do not trust individual app companies to manage subscriptions. Match is in for a real surprise.
- sct202 7y agoIt is nice how easy it is with Apple to cancel subscriptions. None of this NYT style, you need to call this number and go thru a couple hoops to do something that should be easy as a button click.
- jasonlotito 7y agoWhich is silly because it's better for the consumer to deal with individual companies rather than go through one provider for everything. Amex already protects me from fraudulent online purchases. If I get ripped off Apple by buying one of the apps they sell, charging back risks putting my entire account with them at risk.
- notyourday 7y agoThe last thing that I want to do is to deal with Amex to cancel a service under the "fraud" pretense. For once, it would require me to get a new card with a new number. It will also require me to talk to Amex. And it may also require me to fill out paperwork and fax said paperwork ( granted, it was CapitalOne and not amex but it is still the same point). Here's what I want to do to cancel something: Click on play store. Click on subscriptions. Find the one I don't want. Click on "Cancel", click on "yes, cancel" I'm going to bet you aren't tinder demographics ( which is basically 18-30). These people grew up on the internet and they grew up on easy payments. It is paypal/venmo/applepay/google pay. Credit cards ( not revolvers, but credit cards as a method of accessing a revolver ) is a relic of previous century.
- throwaway13337 7y agoAwesome! A step in the right direction for software as a whole. The AOL/compuserve internet that we all thought we won against is here again. The walled garden is our reality. This new trend could be the start of crumbling of the second wave of walled gardens. Open platforms allow for freedom (as in speech) and innovation that isn't so easily snuffed out by incumbents - a good thing for consumers. Tinder and others averting the rent-seeking behavior of google signals that companies have realistic options in the fight against their sharecropping lords. This movement could also help win the fight for opening up the iOS platform in the coming legal battles - the fact you can do this on android and not iOS might be significant. The net is consolidating and so the wheel will turn again. Long live the decentralized, open net!
- depr 7y agoI don't see how this supports any decentralization or openness for actual users.
- KUcxrAVrtI 7y agoLike the old discussion about freedom of speech. That the robber baron who owns the papers can say what he wants doesn't mean much to the man who is a black list for the rest of his life. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences indeed.
- roneythomas6 7y agoHow is this supporting open platform? Tinder is still closed platform and available on playstore, Can I use premium without paying Tinder tax? No. Now you need to send in your credit card info to Tinder instead of better privacy protection from Playstore.
- rfrey 7y ago“Tinder tax?” If I buy a TV, am I paying a Sony tax?
- 7y ago
- geofft 7y agoA tangent, but, > “At Match Group, we constantly test new updates and features to offer convenience, control and choice to our users," Justine Sacco, a spokeswoman for Match, wrote in an email. If that name sounds familiar, it's because she was the IAC PR person who was fired in 2013 after an ill-advised tweet she sent just before getting on a plane. Looks like she rebuilt her life and found a new calling as... PR at IAC. I'm increasingly convinced that "Internet mobs ruin people's careers" isn't held up by the evidence.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 7y agoExcept here we are, Internet stalking a person about a Tweet they sent 6 years ago?
- kevingadd 7y agoI don't think it should count as internet stalking to google search the PR rep for a big company or organization. It's another matter to go around following her on every social media platform or publish her address on the internet, which isn't happening here. For example if we were discussing a seed round or venture funding round for a startup and someone brought up that the founder of the startup was that one guy who got away with beating his girlfriend (twice) due to a mixture of lawyer trickery, evidence concealment and police errors, would that be internet stalking?
- throwaway49602 7y agoIt would be exploiting mob mentality to damage someone who wasn't proven guilty of doing anything wrong, so yes, I would consider it internet stalking. Innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason, otherwise the behavior of a single crazy person could ruin your life forever.
- jakobegger 7y ago
- rawrmaan 7y agoI hope they are punished for this. Moves like this only hurt indie/smaller developers who don't have the resources to setup their own external subscriptions. If apps can make back even 25% of the cut, that gives them a significant advantage in UA that is hard to beat. The 30% cut is fine. It's well worth it for everything App Store/Google Play gives you as a dev.
- luxuryballs 7y agoWhat does that mean, setting up external subscriptions? You mean like monthly transactions? Don’t most CC processors these days offer pretty much free starting plans since they’re making money from the transaction fees? The competition is too fierce, someone is making a low financial barrier of entry.
- kevingadd 7y agoBig players with power need to revolt against this stuff otherwise little players will never get the freedom to do it. Google happily will punish little players for doing it.
- phantom784 7y agoI've found the Apple/Google in-app subscription APIs way more annoying to work with than Stripe/Braintree. Plus, if you sell on web and mobile, you now have to deal with three different systems instead of just one.
- rock_artist 7y agoI have to admit that with Android itself there's at least an option. Even though Google tries to get developers into using the Play Services instead of the built-in android api (see their location api as an example), you're still able to run your own software. You can easily get other apks or use Amazon appstore. With Apple, you have no proper way running an app without Apple. So it'll intriguing to see such act within a platform that is truly locked.
- fkdo 7y agoThe article says nothing about Tinder making this release on App Store, just Play Store. If Tinder requested this update be sent to Apple users than the review process would reject the update. The Play Store doesn't put a person in the app update loop.
- shareIdeas 7y agoFundementally this is the benefit of Linux. Google provides a nice fortune 500 solution to everything, but you could layer up and delete most of Google's packages. It's a distro, you can still install extra stuff
- themacguffinman 7y agoIt has nothing to do with Linux. Google voluntarily provides a simple UI toggle to disable Play Store restrictions on any Android device when they could easily not have one. Tinder wouldn't even try this if the only way to sideload their app was to "layer up" and deal with rooting or flashing or anything that requires technical knowledge of Linux.
- xg15 7y agoIndeed. And I seriously hope that Google's response, should this move become popular, will not be to remove that toggle.
- mrtksn 7y agoThat's not true, you can install whatever you want on your iOS device, it's just not possible to distribute it through the AppStore. That's how developers install their own apps in development, prior submitting the app to Apple for a review.
- MarkMc 7y agoSimple question: Why doesn't Google prevent this? Eg. "To publish an app on the Play Store you must provide a clear way for the user to pay or subscribe in the app"
- kevingadd 7y agoMy understanding is that if you're small enough they won't let you do it. That's what makes it significant for big companies to sideload their own store or refuse to follow the policy.
- MarkMc 7y agoDoes Tinder really have that kind of leverage? Google could kick them out of the Play Store, and requiring users to side-load their app would cause them to lose far more than 30% of their user base...
- buboard 7y agoDevelopers should have never left the web for some company’s garden. I wonder how the ~100B of the app economy compare to the web app economy
- pjmlp 7y agoThe Web is full of closed gardens as well, we call them SaaS.
- buboard 7y agoThat is nowhere near the level of gatekeeping that the duopoly of Google&Apple have. The web is full of opportunity, that we owe to TBL's decision to make it free. The dangerous gatekeepers of the web are Google and FB , but there is still plenty of opportunity left.
- bogwog 7y agoGet ready for the security and privacy warnings from Google about the dangers of sideloading apps. Even though the Play Store is full of malware and spyware.
- overgard 7y agoThis is GREAT. It's been long overdue that these stores should not be monopolies imposed on device owners. Besides these things can stand perfectly fine on their own if users have choice. There are plenty of people that will still want to purchase from various app stores, but it shouldn't be required.
- writepub 7y agoThat Apple was/is even tolerated by app developers to forcefully use their payment options, is surprising. Devs should've simply refused payment via Apple channels, and forced consumers to their site, as they're doing now. By tolerating a tyrannical middleman for short term gains, you justify their unreasonable claims of value addition
- zachruss92 7y agoI understand where this article and app developers are coming from. There is a big difference in what Google and Apple do in this ecosystem, however. Apple basically says that any digital goods purchased through an iOS app needs to pay Apple's 30% fee. This includes things like subscriptions and in-app purchases. I really noticed this with Audible, you can search the store but are not able to buy anything in their app on iOS. My issue with apple is not that this fee exists, but that it is truly anti-competitive. Apple does not allow users to install apps outside of the app store. They also are holding back things like PWAs from being viable alternatives for very similar reasons (I'm looking at you Web Push notifications!). Google's ecosystem on the other hand is more open. You can install APKs from anywhere and there are even third-party app stores like F-Droid. I honestly don't know if the play store has the same rules as Apple does, but even if they did i'd be ok with that because users and companies do have other options if they don't want to use Google Play. The argument for me is do you want to be on the App store for the exposure/convenience of disribution or do you do it because there is no other alternative. The former is a marketplace with an audience and the ladder is a monopoly.
- zachruss92 7y agoSide Note: Google has been the champion of PWAs which main use case is to be able to bypass an app store and install an app directly from a website. This gives Google less control over the app ecosystem but has the potential to be beneficial to users.
- t0astbread 7y agoIf I'm not mistaken, Google still has power over the PWA spec, so they can just add something to give themselves total control again. (Just like they've done with AOSP and the Play Store + GSF)
- thstart 7y agoApple subscriptions 15% after 1 year continuous accumulated usage of particular user . Just try to do your own subscription system. Checking 10 days in advance for possible payment issues, notifying users. Keeping track of receipts, handling actual payment, taxes , direct phone support for payment issues by the App users. And so on. People complaining actually do not know about these details .
- xg15 7y agoI'm not against app store operators demanding a service fee - but I've always been baffled that everyone seems to be ok with the amount of power Apple and Google have over the app economy. If you're a tech startups engaging with end-users, right now there seems almost no way around offering an iPhone and Android app to accompany your product or service. There are whole sub economies where the app is the product. Yet app stores are basically private property where the companies running the stores can set (and change) arbitrary rules and regulations. If a rule change means your app is no longer viable and that app was your product, sucks to be you. Shouldn't at least the free market crowd object against a whole economy being at the mercy of two companies?
- buboard 7y ago> Shouldn't at least the free market crowd object against a whole economy It's not the whole economy, unless google+apple conspire to regulate the market to prevent others from entering. Frankly, developers are free to leave the platform and we should be telling them to get out. We 've had enough of google+apple fanboys telling everyone that they must make an app for that. We don't have to, and it's like shooting yourself in the foot. Very few developers are successful and we 're better off working on open platforms. And also, most mobile ads traffic is fraudulent. Stop advertising your stuff on mobile.
- liara_k 7y ago> unless google+apple conspire to regulate the market to prevent others from entering Not to pick on you specifically, but this view is way too wrong to be so common. The information economy is fundamentally different from the industrial economy for (at least) two reasons: - Extremely high capital intensity - Positive reinforcement through network effects (same and cross-side) As a result, market concentration in information and technology markets is extremely high compared with other industries. It's not a conspiracy, and it's not something anyone can change. It's just the nature of the product itself. There are a few strategies to combat it (open source, adversarial interop, etc...) but "just build your own" isn't one of them. Because it's almost always impossible in practice.
- mancerayder 7y agoFunny that, and it's just as expensive, as well. You'd think the costs would trickle down to the consumer.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- securityfreak 7y agoI might get downvoted on principle, but I genuinely wonder and don't understand: why is it NOT OK for Google and Apple to ask for a cut? They have spent years and millions (if not billions) in developing the infrastructure, public trust and user base that allows developers to reach millions of potential customers in the first place. They provide some valuable guarantees that apps should follow that benefit and protect the consumer. I understand that bypassing fees is a way how to temporarily "have green numbers" and show savings on the quarterly report, but this is like a sugar company trying to sell sugar on the streets outside of a supermarket chain, because they don't want to pay a fee to the supermarket chain. It's their app store, their user base - why can't they make their own rules which benefit the consumer in the first place and not the greedy provider? Again, I am genuinely curious what ethical principle am I missing here.
- nobodyshere 7y agoWell, IMHO it is a fair argument for Google. They allow third party app stores. F-Droid is a brilliant example. For Apple, however, things aren't as nice and shiny. They force you to distribute and get apps through their store. They don't let you distribute your apps easily otherwise. You don't have a choice of sharing a piece of your app price with Apple or selling it through your website as a package, or through any other app store.
- ksec 7y ago>why is it NOT OK for Google and Apple to ask for a cut? I don't think majority of people complaining are actually about the cut, but how much of the cut. And 30% is what a lot of people disagree with. The reality is somewhere along the line Apple got too focused on their 20% Net Margin, they put themselves into a price corner. Before the iPhone era Apple mostly do ~10% Net margin, and at best some one offs ~13% quarters. Not only has Apple earned 30x the revenue post iPhone's introduction, that have also doubled their margin. But then Pricing is only one part of the equation, it is the value on offer that matters, which is fundamentally what people are complaining about the App Store as well as iPhone 's prices.
- scarface74 7y ago
- h3ckr 7y agoApp Store & Google Play charging this fee is like Google charging your website in order to show up in Google results. The app stores are not great due to their investments, they are great due to the awesome apps developers have built
- thstart 7y agoJust try to develop subscription payment system by your own if you are developer - comes with AppStore. Or for example the practically free CloudKit. Or handling all payment issues. Or doing the App analytics in iTunes Connect. And much more. Whoever complains is having simple Apps and don’t realize the benefits from AppStore at all.
- husamia 7y agofirst thought came into my mind is decentralization (dApp). What is the best platform? EOS.io?