4 ms·

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

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.

LordAtlas 6y ago
Google has reduced the cut to 15% for revenue below $1 million.
- coding123 6y ago
  But as long as they force you into their payment plan AND not allow competition (ie additional stores) there definitely seems to be anti-trust problems.
- cma 6y ago
  So good luck getting funding for something that you tell the funder could earn millions if it works out. That means less greenfield investment, and ultimately less investment for apps that make less than a million, since only X% will end up doing so, but investment will be impacted for all.
  - LordAtlas 6y ago
    I mentioned this in the context of this particular post where the person is soliciting donations, not the overall app ecosystem. I doubt he's making > 1 million in donations.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Solely under threat of upcoming litigation, yes, they now rip people off half as much.
joshuamorton 6y ago
Are you claiming that the 30% (or 15%) cut is to only support the payments infra, and isn't supporting the android ecosystem as a whole?
- kentonv 6y ago
  1. I think they should support the ecosystem by selling phones. That would result in far fewer perverse incentives and market distortions compared to their approach of taxing developers. 2. I don't think Google actually needs a 30%/15% cut to "support the Android ecosystem". I think they're charging way more than necessary, just because they can. (Same arguments for Apple.)
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I won't argue with 2 (I don't think either of us can really say with certainty, and then there's the second layer of arguments about what is "necessary" in a profit situation) But for 1, this has some significant downsides to consumers. As it stands assuming most of the support comes from the android platform (ads and fees), you get price discrimination. The people who just want a phone to use the internet or stay connected or whatever don't have to subsidize people who do more. I generally think having power users subsidize non power users is an ethical form of price discrimination. Thoughts?
    - kentonv 6y ago
      > I won't argue with 2 (I don't think either of us can really say with certainty, and then there's the second layer of arguments about what is "necessary" in a profit situation) Both Google and Apple have been stockpiling money for some time. Each company has over $100B of cash sitting in a bank account doing nothing, and the number increases every year. This suggests a market failure has taken place. In a competitive market, they would either be cutting prices or reinvesting profits into their product. In Google's case, Android is not their main business so it's admittedly a little harder to say whether Android specifically "needs" to take a 30% cut of app sales to sustain itself. But I don't believe for a second that Google chose that number based on any notion of "need", I believe they chose it because that's what Apple had already set as the standard. And when it comes to Apple, the iPhone is their core business, it is wildly profitable, and the evidence seems clear that they are not doing anything useful with the money (see above). So yeah, I do actually believe there's pretty clear evidence that these fees are just greed and not needed to subsidize anything about the platform. Whether or not such subsidization is ethical is a moot point.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

LordAtlas 6y ago

Google has reduced the cut to 15% for revenue below $1 million.

coding123 6y ago
But as long as they force you into their payment plan AND not allow competition (ie additional stores) there definitely seems to be anti-trust problems.
cma 6y ago
So good luck getting funding for something that you tell the funder could earn millions if it works out. That means less greenfield investment, and ultimately less investment for apps that make less than a million, since only X% will end up doing so, but investment will be impacted for all.
- LordAtlas 6y ago
  I mentioned this in the context of this particular post where the person is soliciting donations, not the overall app ecosystem. I doubt he's making > 1 million in donations.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Solely under threat of upcoming litigation, yes, they now rip people off half as much.

joshuamorton 6y ago

Are you claiming that the 30% (or 15%) cut is to only support the payments infra, and isn't supporting the android ecosystem as a whole?

kentonv 6y ago
1. I think they should support the ecosystem by selling phones. That would result in far fewer perverse incentives and market distortions compared to their approach of taxing developers. 2. I don't think Google actually needs a 30%/15% cut to "support the Android ecosystem". I think they're charging way more than necessary, just because they can. (Same arguments for Apple.)
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I won't argue with 2 (I don't think either of us can really say with certainty, and then there's the second layer of arguments about what is "necessary" in a profit situation) But for 1, this has some significant downsides to consumers. As it stands assuming most of the support comes from the android platform (ads and fees), you get price discrimination. The people who just want a phone to use the internet or stay connected or whatever don't have to subsidize people who do more. I generally think having power users subsidize non power users is an ethical form of price discrimination. Thoughts?
  - kentonv 6y ago
    > I won't argue with 2 (I don't think either of us can really say with certainty, and then there's the second layer of arguments about what is "necessary" in a profit situation) Both Google and Apple have been stockpiling money for some time. Each company has over $100B of cash sitting in a bank account doing nothing, and the number increases every year. This suggests a market failure has taken place. In a competitive market, they would either be cutting prices or reinvesting profits into their product. In Google's case, Android is not their main business so it's admittedly a little harder to say whether Android specifically "needs" to take a 30% cut of app sales to sustain itself. But I don't believe for a second that Google chose that number based on any notion of "need", I believe they chose it because that's what Apple had already set as the standard. And when it comes to Apple, the iPhone is their core business, it is wildly profitable, and the evidence seems clear that they are not doing anything useful with the money (see above). So yeah, I do actually believe there's pretty clear evidence that these fees are just greed and not needed to subsidize anything about the platform. Whether or not such subsidization is ethical is a moot point.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]