4 ms·

Probably. But just because you think they are expensive it's not okay to exploit their infrastructure "back", especially when you are, in fact, not paying anyth

Probably. But just because you think they are expensive it's not okay to exploit their infrastructure "back", especially when you are, in fact, not paying anything. I'm fully on your side with them being near monopolies and them being overly expensive. But there's no arguing that they have expenses and they need to make money.

pydry 6y ago
Google is the one being exploitative. The 30% is almost pure profit. How did you think F droid managed to run for free if it cost that much to host apps? Somehow you said you were fully on his side about monopolies but claimed Google the was the one being exploited. This doesn't make much sense.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  Of course it does. Phone manufacturers exploit child labor in third world countries to make their phones (and that's not okay, for the record). But if I rob their shipments and steal their phones, I'm wronging them anyway. Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim. And, as said in a sister comment, I'm fully on your side of 30% being to much. But that does not mean that I think they should get nothing.
  - pydry 6y ago
    >if I rob their shipments and steal their phones This is supposed to be analogous to publishing an app and asking for donations? >Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim. This is not a criminal dispute nor analagous to a criminal dispute in any way, shape or form.
    - Sebb767 6y ago
      You said it's a contradiction that I say that a) Google exploits developers (in a way) and b) developers [can try to] to exploit Google. I made an over-the-top example to show that these two are not mutually exclusive.
      - pydry 6y ago
        I think by using an irrelevant example you inadvertently demonstrated the exact opposite - that they are. If two parties "economically exploit each other equivalently", there is no exploitation.
        Sebb767 6y ago
        These are not the same people, however. There are the developers which give in to the rules and process their payment via the app store. These are somewhat exploited by having 30% of their profits taken. Then there are those which circumvent the store payments by using external integrations and therefore exploit Google by denying them their fair share[0]. These groups are distinct. [0] Whereas the "fair share" is not necessarily 30%, but >0%.
pyrale 6y ago
Are you making the case that Google risks to go bankrupt because some small open-source maintainer adds a donation link to their app?

pydry 6y ago

Google is the one being exploitative. The 30% is almost pure profit. How did you think F droid managed to run for free if it cost that much to host apps? Somehow you said you were fully on his side about monopolies but claimed Google the was the one being exploited. This doesn't make much sense.

Sebb767 6y ago
Of course it does. Phone manufacturers exploit child labor in third world countries to make their phones (and that's not okay, for the record). But if I rob their shipments and steal their phones, I'm wronging them anyway. Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim. And, as said in a sister comment, I'm fully on your side of 30% being to much. But that does not mean that I think they should get nothing.
- pydry 6y ago
  >if I rob their shipments and steal their phones This is supposed to be analogous to publishing an app and asking for donations? >Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim. This is not a criminal dispute nor analagous to a criminal dispute in any way, shape or form.
  - Sebb767 6y ago
    You said it's a contradiction that I say that a) Google exploits developers (in a way) and b) developers [can try to] to exploit Google. I made an over-the-top example to show that these two are not mutually exclusive.
    - pydry 6y ago
      I think by using an irrelevant example you inadvertently demonstrated the exact opposite - that they are. If two parties "economically exploit each other equivalently", there is no exploitation.
      - Sebb767 6y ago
        These are not the same people, however. There are the developers which give in to the rules and process their payment via the app store. These are somewhat exploited by having 30% of their profits taken. Then there are those which circumvent the store payments by using external integrations and therefore exploit Google by denying them their fair share[0]. These groups are distinct. [0] Whereas the "fair share" is not necessarily 30%, but >0%.

pyrale 6y ago

Are you making the case that Google risks to go bankrupt because some small open-source maintainer adds a donation link to their app?