12 ms·

> Yes. I confess it. I added a link to my donation page within the game, depriving Google of some precious money it totally cannot survive without! How dare I?!

• coding123 6y ago
  This is a bullshit comparison and you know it.
• TheRealPomax 6y ago
  first paragraph is accurate. second paragraph is absolute nonsense.
• ohgodplsno 6y ago
  > By the same logic, I should be able to walk into a store and just take anything I want because I'm using it to make items I sell "for donations". Obviously, that's ridiculous. HN's favorite pastime, using terribly inappropriate analogies for things they don't understand. Because taking actual, physical items (also known as theft) is the same thing as not using Google's paid for service to receive tips. 1/ Developers already pay for access to the Play Store. A minimal fee, sure, but if Google wants to make more money, then they are fully free to raise that. 2/ You are not using their service to process the payment. Google forces themselves into the process simply to extract 30% while doing absolutely nothing.
  • BurningFrog 6y ago
    Theft and breach of contract are different crimes, sure. But I don't think that distinction makes much difference.
    • ohgodplsno 6y ago
      Theft is a crime. Breach of contract is not one. It's not even a tort. An EULA has no legal value, despite what Google would love you to believe.
  • xboxnolifes 6y ago
    > 1/ Developers already pay for access to the Play Store. A minimal fee, sure, but if Google wants to make more money, then they are fully free to raise that. HN's second favorite pastime: stating that since a company has 1 avenue for revenue, that it should be the only avenue for revenue and all changes to income should be a increase to it.
    • ohgodplsno 6y ago
      HN's third favorite pastime: extrapolating comments and putting words in other poster's mouths.
      • dang 6y ago
        Please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN. It's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • dang 6y ago
      "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • valuearb 6y ago
    Google is actually reviewing. hosting, promoting and distributing your app, I wouldn’t say that’s nothing. The distribution costs may be minute in the case of this developers app if it’s only downloaded a few thousand times a month, but they exist. And in the case of something like Spotify it’s likely Petabytes a month of bandwidth.
    • Jochim 6y ago
      Google isn't doing that out of the goodness of their heart though, having a robust app ecosystem is essential and they're doing it for their own benefit. I think there's a strong case that it's a big part of the reason iOS and Android ended up winning against the fairly large number of competing phone operating systems. So while it's true that there is a financial cost to Google for hosting your app, there's also a financial gain in the sense that the presence of your app contributes to the popularity/viability of their platform.
      • dfee 6y ago
        I don’t know how the “goodness of their heart” is relevant, but I think you’ve just arrived at the concept of a business: revenue, expenses and profit.
        • Jochim 6y ago
          The point is that the issue is often framed as "ungrateful developers" taking advantage of the infrastructure Google provides when in reality developers making use of Google's infrastructure provides value to Google in itself.
    • croes 6y ago
      Aren't apps like Spotify and Netflix the ones where you don't pay through the app but bypass the store? That is, the ones that cost the most don't pay much to Google and Apple but the small developers who can't fight back and rely on the money have no choice.
      • 6y ago
  • simonklitj 6y ago
    1) How come you get to decide how Google chooses to make money? 2) Shouldn’t matter. Their platform, their choice (and if you disagree because they’re a monopoly, you can’t just not pay them without consequences, the court has to handle those things). You could also say that all the money they’ve spent to make Android a de facto world standard that can benefit you as a developer is what you’re paying for.
    • croes 6y ago
      Without apps android wouldn't have become a standard. Look what happened to Windows Mobile. So Google owes the developers the current status of Androids.
      • NicoJuicy 6y ago
        Android is there because they were quick to move ( first movers advantage). Windows phone tried plenty to sway developers, so it's that would have worked. It would have been the money incentives Microsoft did, since it was part of it's marketing. Not because they actually swayed developers.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • xg15 6y ago
      > 1) How come you get to decide how Google chooses to make money? Because app developers have no choice but to accept Google's rules if they want anyone using their app. Do you really want to give Google unlimited, unilateral power over a whole business sector here?
      • simonklitj 6y ago
        Not at all! But I don’t think I should get to decide it for them, except through the regular democratic process and then being dragged to court.
        • 6y ago
  • dang 6y ago
    "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If other comments are mistaken, the thing to do is respectfully provide correct information, so we all learn. Putting others down, posing superciliously, and so on only adds noise and evokes worse from others. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=share%20know%20learn%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
• harles 6y ago
  I confess I often shoplift on GitHub too. I grew up a hardened criminal, stealing server resources from SourceForge and it could only end one way. On a more serious note, this is why Google and Apple need regulation. The fact that they can dictate business modes to others - whether or not they’re within their legal rights - should worry everyone. Edit: Not the author in case there was any confusion.
  • geswit2x 6y ago
    > this is why Google and Apple need regulation - publish for free, and doesn’t allow you put donations links - pay monthly cost for publishing, and be able to put link for donations Choose one
    • solosoyokaze 6y ago
      I choose: - Advocate for developer friendly policies and work with the dev community to weaken Google and Apple's stronghold over distribution. It's funny to see people defending Google here, unless you work for Google it's not in your interest (as a consumer or developer) to do so.
      • jpttsn 6y ago
        Maybe people think it’s “the right thing” even if it’s not in their own interest. Or is that inconceivable?
        • solosoyokaze 6y ago
          How is it the "right thing" if it helps Google but hurts developers and consumers? It seems quite the opposite.
    • coding123 6y ago
      Option 3 - Monopolistic injunction sees that this is an illegal set up and forces both Apple and Google to allow donation links and other options.
    • 6y ago
• croes 6y ago
  Wrong analogy. You can walk into a store where usually you can take items he made for free, not the store owner. After one month, he puts a sign on the shelf "If you like what you see, you can send me money to my bank account". So where is the difference for the store owner between before and after the sign? Before he didn't get any money, after he don't get any money.
  • fastball 6y ago
    Right, but with that analogy, you have his store predicated on a cheaper lease from the landlord because he said he wouldn't be making any money off his items. But now he is accepting donations for the items people are taking "for free", and is therefore in breach of the lease agreement he signed with his landlord.
  • minitoar 6y ago
    Because the store owner & seller agreed to the former and not the latter. It’s the agreement they already made. If they want to change the agreement, probably both parties have to agree to the changes.
  • Sebb767 6y ago
    If you give me your old TV for free and I use it, we both are happy. If you give me your old TV and I turn arround and sell it for 400$, you're probably not happy, despite you not getting any money in either case. Or, in case of your store example: The store owner does not have a store "for free". He still needs to pay the bills and be there. By suddenly earning money with his goodwill you're basically monetizing the space he is gifting to you.
  • RHSeeger 6y ago
    Because, if the store owner's business model is > People are welcome to offer items for free on my shelf space, but if they make money based off the items people got from those shelves, then I get a cut Then, if you accept a donation because of such items, then you pay. Because it was stated up front and it's part of the owner's business model. As to how it effects the store owner. Let's say the store owner does not allow free items on their shelves at the moment. And they make enough money to pay their bills, plus a little extra. The owner decides to allow free items on their shelves, with the above caveat. They figure they will make less money overall (free items now take the place of items non-free item), but still make enough to live on. Only now, just enough, no extra. If all the people that give their items for free + donations decide not to pay a share of their donations, then the business owner does _not_ make enough to pay their bills... because the assumption of people paying that money was built into the decision to allow free items in the first place. So there _is_ a different to the store owner. Obviously, Google doesn't make "just enough to pay their bills", so the analogy is loose... but the concept of people following the rules that were set out at the beginning being built into the business model, and the decision to support that model at all, doesn't change because of that.
• joshgoldman 6y ago
  No, you are rediculous and cringy
• sixothree 6y ago
  My problem here is is when the donations aren't for the game hosted by google, but for the author in general. Imagine the game being only one small portion of their business that might include videos and merchandise. Should google be allowed a cut of all that revenue as well.
  • hokumguru 6y ago
    I believe their TOS doesn’t include physical goods, just like Apple.
  • fastball 6y ago
    It's a tough problem. Google/Apple aren't taking cuts of genuinely free apps, even though they are part of the overall cost and can sometimes (for big apps) actually have pretty high variable costs. So you might say that Google/Apple should just start charging directly for the app store spots, with some markup. e.g. $30/m for up to 10k downloads, $50/m for 30k, etc. But arguably app stores wouldn't be the juggernauts they are without the loads and loads of free apps people can download for no upfront cost, and it seems unlikely that this would've happened if the app store business model had been the one above from the outset. In other words, the author is complaining about the existing model, but it is unclear if putting his stuff on the app store would've been such an appealing thing to do without said model. Bit of a catch-22.
• madsbuch 6y ago
  The problem is the defacto platform monopolies. We should not tell ourselves that there are reasonable alternatives to distribution channels setup by Google and Apple. Whether there is a problem (and a solution if so) I will not judge. But the society are already on it, and we probably will see some legislation rendering the "free market" arguments futile.
• AbrahamParangi 6y ago
  The whole world is becoming a store, and our presence in it is only at the discretion of the owners. This is why tech needs interoperability requirements.
• lelanthran 6y ago
  Okay, I'm genuinely curious here - what if your app is free but your service is not? Lets say I run a backup service; companies and people pay me to run my backup agent on their desktops, and the backup agent backs up all their important files to my server. I provide the desktop agents for free. Does it mean that I cannot write an android agent and make it available for free on the Play store? What about iOS? Can I make an iPhone agent that my (already signed up and paying customers) download from the Apple store? If my main business is providing a service and using a client program that my customers install to make use of that service, am I simply now allowed to tell my customers "You can use our free app on the Play store"? How do Banks do this? My bank has an app on the play store, but it's free. I'm definitely paying for the service my bank offers through that app, but Google doesn't seem to mind.
  • sosuke 6y ago
    You can make a service then provide the android agent for free. But you can't use that app to then drive signups for your service without paying Google's fee.
  • wcarss 6y ago
    My knowledge may be out of date, but as of ~2012-2015, Apple generally made free-app-with-paid-subscription services choose between one of the following two options: 1. No sign-up/subscribe/payment buttons in-app, and no links in-app to external payment forms for those purposes, (effectively the app is a convenience for the users you already have) or, 2. Integrate your sign-up/subscription/upgrades available in-app to Apple's systems, and give up a cut for any subscriptions/upgrades that originated via the Apple app. (On this side, you're effectively paying Apple commission for converted leads generated through their app as an advertising channel.) They included this in part of their review process, and they did not give much leeway. Even linking to your service's website from in-app was risky, if your website was plastered with sign-up/subscribe/upgrade buttons.
• AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  This logic would make sense in a competitive market. However, Google Play leans on monopolistic control of the platform. Not only that, but Google does use its monopoly to strong-arm manufacturers not to bundle competing services to the Play store. Its essentially a tax on anyone doing commerce on the most installed computing platform on the planet, used by two billion people (not including China).
• sneak 6y ago
  I feel like if people agreed with you, this wouldn't be news. The link was added on the support webpage, which is viewed in the browser in the app. Google's rules are shitty.
• worble 6y ago
  Except that you are forced to use Google's services if you want to reach any audience on android (and Apple for iOS). I would be sympathetic to Google if the Play Store was just one realistic choice of many, or if like FDroid it allowed you to create and use other sources of packages, but at the moment it's like saying "You can't use Chrome to visit a donation page without also giving Google a cut, you're using THEIR service after all to do so."
  • adkadskhj 6y ago
    I think it would be more like "You can't use Free App Engine and infra without giving Google a cut". Now if you can't access the app at all, such as by browser or etc, then i think there's a better parallel to Chrome. But when you're using someone elses infra entirely it feels odd to say you have the right to use it for free. The donations aren't the problem in my mind. Installing applications outside of the app store is the problem. Because locking app installs down and not supporting alternatives like PWAs is the real devil. I still partially think we should just avoid Google phones period, but other comments suggest Microsoft already was forced to allow alternate browser installs, so there in i think that sets a precedent to require Google/etc to better support 3rd party app installs (out of store).
• twirlock 6y ago
  How is that the same logic? Are you on bath salts or something?
• 015a 6y ago
  Yeah; I'm definitely on the "Apple is overdoing it" train, in that their similar policy is unreasonable given there are no alternative options for developers on that platform. But, Google/Play is different; developers who decide to distribute outside of Play don't receive any significant negative impact to their application outside of the marketing and operations that Play gives you, basically for free. There are other options, including no option ("go to my website and download the APK"). The pre-installation of Play on millions of Android devices is a weird sticky point. But, the most popular android devices on the planet (Samsung, Huawei) also ship with secondary (or, in some markets, primary) storefronts, and devs can distribute on those. Google set a norm with most customers, that all apps are on Play, but I also don't really see much tactile anticompetitive behavior from them in making it that way; its just the cultural norm, primarily due to convenience. I'd support government intervention to force device manufacturers to prompt users to install alternate storefronts on device setup, but its not the biggest of deals on Android. Also; developers can monetize their "donations" via in-app purchases. I've seen tons of devs do this; either one-time or subscription, sometimes for little dumb non-functional stuff like extra theme colors, sometimes for nothing. I've paid for a few. Google will take their 15%. So, you're paying maybe an extra 10% on-top-of whatever you'd already have to be paying Stripe or whoever. Is the marketing, distribution, metrics, bandwidth, customer base, and even tangentially, developer tooling (Android Studio), worth that? The answer to that is different for every developer, but I think you'd have to be turning some huge revenue (some may say, some "Epic" revenue) for the absolute number underneath that percentage to start drawing scrutiny.
• kentonv 6y ago
  Google provides a service, but they also require everyone to use their service. There is no realistic alternative if you want to reach the 70% of the market Google controls. Sure, F-Droid and sideloading and whatever exist, but realistically they are so crippled by unnecessary restrictions imposed on them by Google that they aren't serious options. So now Google is in a position where they can place unreasonable rules on their service and no one can do anything about it. So, naturally, that's what they are doing. You can argue it's their right to put whatever restrictions they want on "their" service. But we can still argue that their restrictions are unfair. This rule in this case seems unfair. The cost to Google to distribute this app is vanishingly small, probably on the order of cents. The benefit Google gains from exerting total control over the availability of apps on Android is quite large. It seems like Google is already getting the better end of the deal, and saying "you are not permitted to ask for donations to support your free art project unless you give us a 30% cut" just seems petty. Can Google do it? Sure, they have the right. Is it fair? In my opinion, no. Being legal doesn't make it fair.
  • jmull 6y ago
    > they are so crippled by unnecessary restrictions imposed on them by Google that they aren't serious options What are these restrictions? I've heard this mentioned before, but I'm not finding information on what the restrictions are.
    • gsich 6y ago
      No auto-updates. Having multiple settings to even enable custom APKs. Having no interface to allow alternative appstores.
    • ggggtez 6y ago
      I believe that the "unreasonable restrictions" are that the user needs to click "I accept" when they enable sideloading and see a scary warning.
      • cma 6y ago
        No warning just pops up, usually they have to redirect the user to manually open settings, or at least open settings for them. It's not a simple dialog, they have to remember instructions and then apply them within the separate settings application. And then no auto updates on top of that.
• sarsway 6y ago
  I think another problem is, with the advent of Twitch.tv and Patreon, "Donations" as a business model have become somewhat normalized. But it's anything but normal outside of a few fields like OSS, where it's the only viable option to generate revenue. Businesses don't ever ask for donations. Individuals don't think of themselves as businesses, but they really should. If you're making a game, and distribute it via the App/Play Store, you should think hard about providing something of value to the player, and how much you can charge it. Even if it's just a one time in-app-purchase. It's a much better experience for the users to let them buy something they want, and the success is directly tied to how much value the game provides. Rather then just putting it out there for free, and hope someone will support it. That's how I see it, for Google it's probably more about revenue sharing and also tax issues, but I do believe not relying on donations leads to better products, that make more sense, as they need to be able to stand for themselves.
• grawprog 6y ago
  >By the same logic, I should be able to walk into a store and just take anything I want because I'm using it to make items I sell "for donations". Obviously, that's ridiculous. No, it'd be more like if you paid for a stall in a flea market or something and the owners of the market not only took a cut of your profits off sales but bans you from telling customers to come to your store down the street.
  • jpttsn 6y ago
    To which you agreed without reading the fine print like an adult would, and then you started crying when the agreement was enforced.
    • grawprog 6y ago
      Yes, to further my example. So you get kicked out because you didn't read the fine print, turns out, the flea market owner now also has the right to go over to your store, rip your signs down, turn off your lights and lock your door until you agree to stop telling customers your store exists. Oh and by not having a stall in the flea market to begin with, your store just couldn't exist. Shoulda read that fine print though.
      • jpttsn 6y ago
        Lest society devolve into chaos, pacts sunt servanda.
• walrus01 6y ago
  > By the same logic, I should be able to walk into a store and just take anything I want because I'm using it to make items I sell "for donations" This is the worst sort of "you wouldn't download a car, would you?" analogy. Stealing a physical product from a retail store is nothing at all like publishing a piece of software that people choose to install on the devices that they own. This comment really illustrates how far we have diverged from people actually owning and controlling their own handheld computers, in the google or apple "walled garden" ecosystem.
• 987yghj 6y ago
  Just like I can switch browser and download programs from lots of sources, I should be able to switch Play Store. Google is a monopoly that must be broken up.
• alert0 6y ago
  Google also makes an OS which he provides content for, so Google should make sure that relationship is sustainable for him. >By the same logic, I should be able to walk into a store and just take anything I want because I'm using it to make items I sell "for donations". Obviously, that's ridiculous. No, this is nothing like literal theft.
• fay59 6y ago
  I completely disagree. The developer offers the same version of their game for free to everyone. Donations are solicited, but people who donate don't receive anything in return. In-app purchases have value to developers to verify payment validity and function as DRM to prove the user did purchase a thing, and they have value to the user to provide legitimacy to the transaction and assure that if they don't get what they paid for, there's reliable customer service to help them. None of these things are relevant when users donate. So what's Google's role in this? If they're OK not getting a cut of subscription services paid for outside the app, what's the problem with not getting a cut of transactions users get nothing out of?
• SuperSandro2000 6y ago
  The user already paid for the app download with his/her personal data more than it costs google to provide the download and development.
• tpoacher 6y ago
  your analogy is way off. a better analogy would be walmart refusing to sell your candybars which promote a charity, insisting this can only be done via walmart credits which earns walmart a 30% commission and vendor-lock-in.
  • jpttsn 6y ago
    And the charity is producing the candybars?
    • rpdillon 6y ago
      Yes, and they continue producing them regardless of whether or not they get paid.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• jayd16 6y ago
  The tone of the link is a bit juvenile but I'm not sure its a simple case of payment due for services rendered. It seems like this is about a donation link on an external developer page. Can they not provide a donation link for other games not on the Play store? Surely you're allowed to have a donation link on your developer page somewhere. How buried does google need the link to be? Is the policy clear?
  • benatkin 6y ago
    I have an issue with the tone of the comment you're replying to. Shameless bootlicking has a tone when I read it, that seems to be just as strong as a tone expressed through swear words.
• TeeMassive 6y ago
  Microsoft lost its anti-trust case for simply putting IE as the default browser.
• jonnycomputer 6y ago
  The problem here is monopoly. Your argument totally makes sense ... in a context where there are reasonable alternatives. But there are not. And the fault for that, I'm afraid, is the government's.