7 ms·

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 Goo

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.
- kentonv 6y ago
  The user has to enable a setting buried deep in the menus -- easy for someone tech savvy, but not for the typical user. They need to do that before they can even install the alternative app store, since you cannot distribute an alternative app store via the play store. Even once you've done all that, every app install through the alt app store must be confirmed by the user through an interstitial dialog, which also means the alt app store cannot auto-update apps. It all makes for an awful experience that even those who know how to do it don't want to deal with.
- zo1 6y ago
  By crippling non-root features on the phone would be my main "restriction". I should be able to do anything with my own hardware.
akiselev 6y ago
> Can Google do it? Sure, they have the right. Is it fair? In my opinion, no. Being legal doesn't make it fair. The whole concept of some action being "legal" is nebulous at best in the US. At the cutting edge of technology where there isn't any directly analogous precedent, it just means that someone with deep enough pockets or enforcement authority hasn't challenged the status quo. There is so much going on with Google, Facebook, Apple, the telecom/media mergers, and so on that clearly is worth investigating and litigating in courts but we're doing the bare minimum. Once they're a certain size, companies just do whatever they want, pay their fines, pull out their token gestures on Twitter, and keep steam rolling ahead as if nothing had happened. At this point, the whole system of conglomeration, regulatory capture, "cost of doing business" penalties, and arbitrary enforcement looks like a total farce as do the rights it gives its "constituents". /rant
ZoF 6y ago
I think you're spot on and that's precisely why the discussion on legality will be being had. Yes google is providing meaningful app infrastructure, what level of control we as citizens give them over this 'monopoly' is yet to be decided.
bluetwo 6y ago
But doesn't Google provide a simple way to both support the developer AND stay within the rules? Make it a pay app.
- vhanda 6y ago
  It's really not the same thing. With Donations you want a subset of users to pay for the app, who really want to. With a paid app, every one needs to pay. Also, a donation is very different than selling something from a legal point of view. When selling, you need to pay VAT. One could keep two apps, one paid and one free, but then on the paid one you're essentially paying 30% to Google and about 20% more to VAT. So you're effectively losing half the money and having to do lots more work to maintain two apps, and their subsequent ASO.
  - ec109685 6y ago
    Why can't you do an in-app purchase that is the donation and doesn't unlock anything? Yeah, you're still paying the various taxes, but you don't need two apps.
    - vhanda 6y ago
      Yup. You're right. You can do that. You then have the problem of writing and maintaining the code for the IAP, which isn't always trivial. But yes, absolutely do-able. At this point it's the same thing as selling an invisible skin for your app. The fundamental issue is that of selling vs donating.
    - bluetwo 6y ago
      Yep. And if you are in-tune with your users, create something the power-users will appreciate.
- kentonv 6y ago
  Yes, and they take a 30% cut, with is insane. Like, completely nutso absurd. 30% is a reasonable tax rate for a government that provides roads, schools, defense, social security, etc., not a reasonable fee for a company to process electronic payments. But Google (like Apple) has no incentive whatsoever to reduce the price, because they have a captive audience. If Google took a more reasonable cut, like 5%, maybe even 10%, then sure, I wouldn't be so bothered by them insisting that this app use in-app purchases for donations.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Taken to it's conclusion, the world becomes a pretty scary place when things are determined by just what is "fair". At the end of the day the author's argument boils down to "Google is very rich, I'm not, I should be able to sidestep their demands for payment on their service." Given an exactly equivalent analogy, if you put your house up on AirBnB would anyone be surprised if AirBnB cracks down on people paying outside their platform and instead guiding renters to a separate "donation page"?
- coding123 6y ago
  Let's make the world more fair first before locking everyone into the play store or the apple store. With the airbnb analogy, people are also free to list their vacation house on reddit, craigslist or just tell people about it and as long as they have a method to take payment - that just works. Let's simplify. Let's say I sell lemonade. It's 100% legit with USDA approval or whatever BUT I'm having trouble selling it. Grocery stores are happy with their own brand but maybe I'm lucky enough to get 1 Wholefoods to set up a counter. I can see the analogy of whole foods requiring me to not sell while in their store. However whole foods does NOT require me to white label. And they would not require me to change my website to not have alternative buying choices. In fact I do this all the time with foods I find in Wholefoods - I go to the website of foods I love and see if I can buy directly in bulk. This is the CORRECT analogy. It's not correct to say that everyone is going into Safeway and stealing shit off the shelves. The OP should know that, and you should know that.
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    Trader Joe’s, on the other hand, does require almost everyone to white label.
    - coding123 6y ago
      Trader Joes has what, 1% of the market share of shoppers? Android and iPhone have what, 99%?
      - 6y ago
ggggtez 6y ago
> There is no realistic alternative if you want to reach the 70% of the market Not to point out the obvious, but doesn't that mean that Google is providing a service that is providing you with value? I can't imagine someone saying that TV ads should be free because that's the only way to reach 70% of the market...
- tshaddox 6y ago
  In fact, people often do say that telecoms are monopolistic or oligopolistic, that they engage in anti-competitive behavior that is terrible for consumers, and that they should be broken up and/or strictly regulated. That has been a very prominent argument for many decades.
- paulluuk 6y ago
  Well, let's say that I could hypothetically buy both the Google store and the Apple store, and I raised the percentage cut from 30% to 95% on all sales. I'll even make it so that all apps are automatically available in both stores! And I'll use the revenue to buy out any competitors, or sue those who I can not buy. would that still be fair? After all, I am providing a service, am I not? I think the debate here is not about whether or not there is a service being provided -- but rather what kind of service fee would be "fair" in exchange for the service they provided, while acknowledging their (near) monopoly on android users.
kenniskrag 6y ago
> Google provides a service, but they also require everyone to use their service. Not really if you consider huawei without a play store. Also consider the IE case where microsoft only was forced to allow a browser chooser window. I think if the same would happen on android all would be fine. > There is no realistic alternative if you want to reach the 70% of the market Google controls. I think just because they are big they shouldn't be forced to allow everyone to use their platform.
tshaddox 6y ago
Funny how the exact same arguments get applied to Apple in the exact same markets. Weird how “no one has a choice but to use Google product” and at the same time “no one has a choice but to use Apple products.”
- Osiris 6y ago
  Vendor lock-in.
- 8note 6y ago
  How legal are cartels?
- sqreept 6y ago
  A duopoly is just a monopoly with two CEOs
- kentonv 6y ago
  To reach iPhone users, you must go through the Apple store. To reach Android users, you must go through the Play Store. Realistically, these stores are not in competition. They have monopolies over their respective markets. If one store offers a better deal to developers, that doesn't meant the developers can all flock to that store and abandon the other one. Developers still must deal with both. As a result, the regular forces of competition aren't doing their job here. Neither store has any incentive to make their terms better because they won't gain any developers by doing so.
CydeWeys 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. Epic/Fortnite beg to differ. Unlike with Apple, no one is forced to use the Play Store to get apps for your phone.
- kentonv 6y ago
  Epic is literally suing Google over exactly this problem. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fort...
  - freyir 6y ago
    What prevents the Epic store (or any alternative store) from gaining more traction? Is it just that users prefer the default store that ships with the phone? Or are there other barriers?
    - kentonv 6y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26762660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26762660
      - freyir 6y ago
        Yikes, that sucks. I’m fine with the walled garden of my iPhone and Apple’s App Store. But I had hoped there was an alternative for those so inclined.
passivate 6y ago
>Can Google do it? Sure, they have the right. I think maybe its time to discuss what 'rights' mean in a purely digital economy.
freyir 6y ago
It’s a simple policy: a percentage of revenue from games hosted on the platform goes to the host. When that revenue is labeled “donations”, it doesn’t make it not revenue. > “you are not permitted to ask for donations to support your free art project” The host is not in the business of differentiating art projects from non-art projects or donation-based payments from non-donation-based payments, which could easily be abused by developers offering in-app rewards for “donations.” That is a slippery slope that would be ripe for abuse and satisfy no one. When we have a complicated system, like the US tax laws, people abuse it and everyone complains. When we have a simple system applied fairly across the board, people think exceptions should be made for them and complain. The lesson seems to be that someone will always be complaining.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I would strongly contend it is not legal under existing laws and they don't have the right. Hopefully some legal cases will bear that out shortly.
- kentonv 6y ago
  I do hope that that is the outcome of the court cases, but I'm not an expert in antitrust law.
themacguffinman 6y ago
Well people can do something about it. They can invent their own app store and operating system and negotiate with hardware vendors to deliver it. Does that seem difficult to do? Yet that's what Google did in the face of iOS. And it's what Apple did in the face of Blackberry/Nokia. It's what Purism is trying to do now. Google's actual infrastructure costs are not low, they're actually so high that many people don't think it's feasible to do it. It's so high that they're reduced to complaining about how difficult it is to do anything other than use Google's existing infrastructure. Maybe that still feels unfair. I'm not totally unsympathetic to that perspective. But it's wrong to characterize Google's costs as trivial and claim that there are no options. Both you and the author imply that Google's 70% marketshare platform is a triviality worth far less than they charge, and that doesn't strike me as entirely fair either.

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.
kentonv 6y ago
The user has to enable a setting buried deep in the menus -- easy for someone tech savvy, but not for the typical user. They need to do that before they can even install the alternative app store, since you cannot distribute an alternative app store via the play store. Even once you've done all that, every app install through the alt app store must be confirmed by the user through an interstitial dialog, which also means the alt app store cannot auto-update apps. It all makes for an awful experience that even those who know how to do it don't want to deal with.
zo1 6y ago
By crippling non-root features on the phone would be my main "restriction". I should be able to do anything with my own hardware.

akiselev 6y ago

> Can Google do it? Sure, they have the right. Is it fair? In my opinion, no. Being legal doesn't make it fair. The whole concept of some action being "legal" is nebulous at best in the US. At the cutting edge of technology where there isn't any directly analogous precedent, it just means that someone with deep enough pockets or enforcement authority hasn't challenged the status quo. There is so much going on with Google, Facebook, Apple, the telecom/media mergers, and so on that clearly is worth investigating and litigating in courts but we're doing the bare minimum. Once they're a certain size, companies just do whatever they want, pay their fines, pull out their token gestures on Twitter, and keep steam rolling ahead as if nothing had happened. At this point, the whole system of conglomeration, regulatory capture, "cost of doing business" penalties, and arbitrary enforcement looks like a total farce as do the rights it gives its "constituents". /rant

ZoF 6y ago

I think you're spot on and that's precisely why the discussion on legality will be being had. Yes google is providing meaningful app infrastructure, what level of control we as citizens give them over this 'monopoly' is yet to be decided.

bluetwo 6y ago

But doesn't Google provide a simple way to both support the developer AND stay within the rules? Make it a pay app.

vhanda 6y ago
It's really not the same thing. With Donations you want a subset of users to pay for the app, who really want to. With a paid app, every one needs to pay. Also, a donation is very different than selling something from a legal point of view. When selling, you need to pay VAT. One could keep two apps, one paid and one free, but then on the paid one you're essentially paying 30% to Google and about 20% more to VAT. So you're effectively losing half the money and having to do lots more work to maintain two apps, and their subsequent ASO.
- ec109685 6y ago
  Why can't you do an in-app purchase that is the donation and doesn't unlock anything? Yeah, you're still paying the various taxes, but you don't need two apps.
  - vhanda 6y ago
    Yup. You're right. You can do that. You then have the problem of writing and maintaining the code for the IAP, which isn't always trivial. But yes, absolutely do-able. At this point it's the same thing as selling an invisible skin for your app. The fundamental issue is that of selling vs donating.
  - bluetwo 6y ago
    Yep. And if you are in-tune with your users, create something the power-users will appreciate.
kentonv 6y ago
Yes, and they take a 30% cut, with is insane. Like, completely nutso absurd. 30% is a reasonable tax rate for a government that provides roads, schools, defense, social security, etc., not a reasonable fee for a company to process electronic payments. But Google (like Apple) has no incentive whatsoever to reduce the price, because they have a captive audience. If Google took a more reasonable cut, like 5%, maybe even 10%, then sure, I wouldn't be so bothered by them insisting that this app use in-app purchases for donations.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

Taken to it's conclusion, the world becomes a pretty scary place when things are determined by just what is "fair". At the end of the day the author's argument boils down to "Google is very rich, I'm not, I should be able to sidestep their demands for payment on their service." Given an exactly equivalent analogy, if you put your house up on AirBnB would anyone be surprised if AirBnB cracks down on people paying outside their platform and instead guiding renters to a separate "donation page"?

coding123 6y ago
Let's make the world more fair first before locking everyone into the play store or the apple store. With the airbnb analogy, people are also free to list their vacation house on reddit, craigslist or just tell people about it and as long as they have a method to take payment - that just works. Let's simplify. Let's say I sell lemonade. It's 100% legit with USDA approval or whatever BUT I'm having trouble selling it. Grocery stores are happy with their own brand but maybe I'm lucky enough to get 1 Wholefoods to set up a counter. I can see the analogy of whole foods requiring me to not sell while in their store. However whole foods does NOT require me to white label. And they would not require me to change my website to not have alternative buying choices. In fact I do this all the time with foods I find in Wholefoods - I go to the website of foods I love and see if I can buy directly in bulk. This is the CORRECT analogy. It's not correct to say that everyone is going into Safeway and stealing shit off the shelves. The OP should know that, and you should know that.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  Trader Joe’s, on the other hand, does require almost everyone to white label.
  - coding123 6y ago
    Trader Joes has what, 1% of the market share of shoppers? Android and iPhone have what, 99%?
    - 6y ago

ggggtez 6y ago

> There is no realistic alternative if you want to reach the 70% of the market Not to point out the obvious, but doesn't that mean that Google is providing a service that is providing you with value? I can't imagine someone saying that TV ads should be free because that's the only way to reach 70% of the market...

tshaddox 6y ago
In fact, people often do say that telecoms are monopolistic or oligopolistic, that they engage in anti-competitive behavior that is terrible for consumers, and that they should be broken up and/or strictly regulated. That has been a very prominent argument for many decades.
paulluuk 6y ago
Well, let's say that I could hypothetically buy both the Google store and the Apple store, and I raised the percentage cut from 30% to 95% on all sales. I'll even make it so that all apps are automatically available in both stores! And I'll use the revenue to buy out any competitors, or sue those who I can not buy. would that still be fair? After all, I am providing a service, am I not? I think the debate here is not about whether or not there is a service being provided -- but rather what kind of service fee would be "fair" in exchange for the service they provided, while acknowledging their (near) monopoly on android users.

kenniskrag 6y ago

> Google provides a service, but they also require everyone to use their service. Not really if you consider huawei without a play store. Also consider the IE case where microsoft only was forced to allow a browser chooser window. I think if the same would happen on android all would be fine. > There is no realistic alternative if you want to reach the 70% of the market Google controls. I think just because they are big they shouldn't be forced to allow everyone to use their platform.

tshaddox 6y ago

Funny how the exact same arguments get applied to Apple in the exact same markets. Weird how “no one has a choice but to use Google product” and at the same time “no one has a choice but to use Apple products.”

Osiris 6y ago
Vendor lock-in.
8note 6y ago
How legal are cartels?
sqreept 6y ago
A duopoly is just a monopoly with two CEOs
kentonv 6y ago
To reach iPhone users, you must go through the Apple store. To reach Android users, you must go through the Play Store. Realistically, these stores are not in competition. They have monopolies over their respective markets. If one store offers a better deal to developers, that doesn't meant the developers can all flock to that store and abandon the other one. Developers still must deal with both. As a result, the regular forces of competition aren't doing their job here. Neither store has any incentive to make their terms better because they won't gain any developers by doing so.

CydeWeys 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. Epic/Fortnite beg to differ. Unlike with Apple, no one is forced to use the Play Store to get apps for your phone.

kentonv 6y ago
Epic is literally suing Google over exactly this problem. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fort...
- freyir 6y ago
  What prevents the Epic store (or any alternative store) from gaining more traction? Is it just that users prefer the default store that ships with the phone? Or are there other barriers?
  - kentonv 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26762660 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26762660
    - freyir 6y ago
      Yikes, that sucks. I’m fine with the walled garden of my iPhone and Apple’s App Store. But I had hoped there was an alternative for those so inclined.

passivate 6y ago

>Can Google do it? Sure, they have the right. I think maybe its time to discuss what 'rights' mean in a purely digital economy.

freyir 6y ago

It’s a simple policy: a percentage of revenue from games hosted on the platform goes to the host. When that revenue is labeled “donations”, it doesn’t make it not revenue. > “you are not permitted to ask for donations to support your free art project” The host is not in the business of differentiating art projects from non-art projects or donation-based payments from non-donation-based payments, which could easily be abused by developers offering in-app rewards for “donations.” That is a slippery slope that would be ripe for abuse and satisfy no one. When we have a complicated system, like the US tax laws, people abuse it and everyone complains. When we have a simple system applied fairly across the board, people think exceptions should be made for them and complain. The lesson seems to be that someone will always be complaining.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

I would strongly contend it is not legal under existing laws and they don't have the right. Hopefully some legal cases will bear that out shortly.

kentonv 6y ago
I do hope that that is the outcome of the court cases, but I'm not an expert in antitrust law.

themacguffinman 6y ago

Well people can do something about it. They can invent their own app store and operating system and negotiate with hardware vendors to deliver it. Does that seem difficult to do? Yet that's what Google did in the face of iOS. And it's what Apple did in the face of Blackberry/Nokia. It's what Purism is trying to do now. Google's actual infrastructure costs are not low, they're actually so high that many people don't think it's feasible to do it. It's so high that they're reduced to complaining about how difficult it is to do anything other than use Google's existing infrastructure. Maybe that still feels unfair. I'm not totally unsympathetic to that perspective. But it's wrong to characterize Google's costs as trivial and claim that there are no options. Both you and the author imply that Google's 70% marketshare platform is a triviality worth far less than they charge, and that doesn't strike me as entirely fair either.