14 ms·

30% of every sale is extortion, but even worse, and further proving the point, is that they prohibit taking payments through any other channel. How is it not il

30% of every sale is extortion, but even worse, and further proving the point, is that they prohibit taking payments through any other channel. How is it not illegal for the platform to force the use of their own payment service? Isn't this classic misuse of a monopoly?

pjmlp 5y ago
It is not a monopoly a per law definition across most jurisdictions. Additionally playing sales commissions is a traditional practice in most markets. Finally, maybe devs would appreciate to pay the 80 to 90% that used to be common on the Symbian, J2ME, BREW and Blackberry shops from mobile operators, about 15 years ago.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Armchair lawyers striking again... I was there during the Symbian era, the commissions at the time were outrageous, but closer to 40-50% than 80-90%.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Monopolistic behavior in markets where you have limited market power is just shooting yourself in the foot. I didnt even realize symbian HAD an app store.
    - stephc_int13 5y ago
      They didn't, it was managed by carriers, mostly. And Handango on some devices like running Windows Mobile or PalmOS.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        They eventually did, it was called Ovi Store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovi_(Nokia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovi_(Nokia)
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Former Finland mobile phone company employee over here, the actual percentages depended pretty much on the territory.
- nix23 5y ago
  While i agree with you that playstore is not a 100% monopoly, if anything it is a duopoly (Apple/google). But on the Marketing/AD's side it is definitely a monopoly, that should be addressed first i believe.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    I'm not quite finding the angle here to state my thoughts clearly, but there seems to be a definition of monopoly at play in some of these threads that means something close to "I would make more money if Apple/Google made less, plus they already make lots of money so it isn't fair!". Google/Apple having gained the trust of the market and acting as middlemen to sell access simply isn't monopoly activity. In the same way that renting out space in a commercial complex isn't. There is no question they are running these stores to make an outrageous profit. But the monopoly would be expressed by how the gates are closed to alternate App Stores, or in Google is unfairly pushing competitors to their own Apps off the store to make a profit - which given that they generally provide their Apps for free is a hard argument to make. Nobody seems to be making either of those arguments. Particularly the first one would involve more references to Samsung being made.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      Suppose google's chrome started charging websites 30% of their revenue to be accessible in their browser. Is this an abuse of monopoly? Yes. The issue is HNer's are still living in the "website era" of the internet -- that's ending. We're now in the app era. And devices are the browsers. Their app stores are monopolies on their devices; in that the person who controls the road is a monopolist, despite the existence of air travel. That android devices compete with ios devices is irrelevant, in as much as comcast/et al. can say, "go to a different state". The app store is an iOS monopoly -- the hardware apple provides is a road/telephone/browser device for access apps -- the new predominant mode of social/economic communication & infrastructure.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        > Is this an abuse of monopoly? Yes. It isn't though. That is my point, monopoly doesn't just mean big market share + you don't like it. Half the web would go dark to Chrome and everyone would dump the browser in a couple of months if they pulled a stunt like that. Because they don't have monopoly. They only have a very high market share because Chrome is the best browser. If the best-browser part stops being true there is not reason for the highest market share part to stay true.
- tomohawk 5y ago
  70% market share is considered a monopoly "on the face of it" https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-... Google holds many monopolies. Is the play store not a monopoly?
- yyyk 5y ago
  >>How is it not illegal for the platform to force the use of their own payment service? Isn't this classic misuse of a monopoly? >It is not a monopoly a per law definition across most jurisdictions. It's not so relevant whether the stores are a monopoly or not. They're doing anticompetitive behaviour and misuse of market power, that's illegal regardless.
- croes 5y ago
  Doesn't need to be a monopoly, could simply be case of illegal price fixing because all big players took 30%
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    Is it really price fixing or just copying strategies? There comes a point where the optimal strategy for a firm is to simply do what every one else is doing. Price fixing requires an element of collusion.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "the optimal strategy for a firm is to simply do what every one else is doing" Such a convenient worldview, conpwtition doesn't exist, banks did nothing wrong prior to 2008, etc.
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        Competition requires players to remain in the game. No one is required to make a profit-losing decision realized or unrealized. If they do make such a decision, they're one step closer to going out of business. Survival is an incentive to taking the correct actions. In an iterative prisoner's dilemma, the optimal solution is most often tit-for-tat or some variation of it. It's logical for one firm to do the same as another until it can obtain a strong hold on a profit-making activity that gives it more degrees of freedom with regards to its strategies. At that point a firm can move from merely surviving to experimentation or it can continue to milk the opportunity for all its worth. Your cartel argument requires more than sameness of strategy. It requires motive and direct action towards achieving a forced equilibrium (e.g. willfully punishing other market players in concert to dissuade the use of alternative profit-making strategies). I never brought up banks. What do they and the 2008 recession have to do with online stores and 30% cuts in 2021?
        ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        "direct action towards achieving a forced equilibrium" Do you expect the head of Apple and Google to sign a public document "hereby we form an illegal cartel"? At a minimum the competition and market authority should take an interest as to why there is no competition. If they botheresld to investigate, maybe we would actually find out if there is any wrongdoing.
TekMol 5y ago
Your question implies that Google has a monopoly. As far as I know this has not been agreed up on by a court so far. Or has it?
- nix23 5y ago
  Well it's a duopoly Apple/Google you need one of the platforms to be remotely functional in today's world, online banking, buying tickets, corona certificates etc...
  - zepto 5y ago
    You can do all that with a $50 android phone. Nothing about this so called duopoly prevents you from spending money on a gaming device if you like games.
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  How is that relevant? If a court does find that, did they not have the monopoly before the court made their ruling?
tomjen3 5y ago
You could argue that it is the way they pay for the distribution channels. I can't exactly go in and take a product in Wallmart and then pay target for it. The way I see it, Apple and Google made the platforms worth something, made the stores, made the development tools, run the stores (which can't be cheap). They could charge you a flat fee of several thousand dollars per app, but that would stifle competition too much. Instead they charge a percentage of what the app developer makes and ensures that as a user I can always trust the payment option to be save and, if I buy a subscription, to be easy to cancel. They could allow you to pick your own payment provider, but then companies would still have to pay the 30% tax to Apple/Google, so what would be the point?
- simion314 5y ago
  >they charge a percentage of what the app developer makes What seems perverse to me is they don't tax you on your profits, I am sure Google and Apple won't like the governments do the same to them. Btw I understand it is super hard to implement a tax on profits only so it would make more sense IMo to give the developers a choice, pay on what you use (pay for bandwidth, for reviews, for dev tools licenses, for advertising) OR pay the tax. The small devs could chose the tax , the big developers would chose the first one , Apple will have less money from this giant devs but they could keep their high walls for a few more years(I prefer if Apple and Epic don't get a secret deal and this fight continues so judges and us uncover more data about this topic)
  - sitkack 5y ago
    The work done by the app stores isn't linear wrt to the purchase price. Clearly they shouldn't be taking a percentage cut. Together, GA has a duopoly on app stores and they have set their fees to be the same. That one of them would consider buying the trouble maker on the other platform is just ... telling.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    I considered the option of pay for what you use, but those prices would have to be massive (tens of thousands of dollars per dev) to even start to make up for it. It would essentially be a monopoly gift for the biggest developers.
capableweb 5y ago
> How is it not illegal for the platform to force the use of their own payment service? A) Legislators haven't caught up with how the (digital) world works, so they don't even understand what is happening B) These "stores" are run by two of the biggest companies on the planet (Apple and Google), so big that they can afford to spend countless amount of money to lobby and influence the legislators so the discussions never even hit the table C) Both of the above > Isn't this classic misuse of a monopoly? Not really. While the App Store has monopoly on distributing apps on iOS, Apple and iPhone are far off from being a monopoly as more people have Android phones. Android phones allow side-loading so can't really claim Android has any misuse of a (potential) monopoly.
- stephc_int13 5y ago
  Sideloading on Android is not viable. And Google is working hard to enforce this situation. This might be a monopoly. Or at least, I think the current scrutiny from legislators is fully warranted and we should not jump to conclusions because AFAIK the jury will be out for a while.
  - distances 5y ago
    Alternative app stores can finally do automatic updates with Android 12: https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-stores-update-apps-background/ https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st... I don't know the details, but I imagine this is pre-emptive move from Google to avoid monopoly judgements.
dvh 5y ago
Some time ago there was comment on /r/gamedev from someone who implemented their own payment system and visa has like $20 payment cancellation fee, imagine someone buying a game skin for $1, then cancelling and you loose $19, suddenly 30% doesn't look like bad deal at all.
- commoner 5y ago
  There are payment processors that offer chargeback protection for much less than Google's and Apple's 30% fee. For example, both Stripe and PayPal only charge 0.4%. Stripe Chargeback Protection: https://stripe.com/radar/chargeback-protection https://stripe.com/radar/chargeback-protection PayPal Chargeback Protection: https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-chargeback-protection-faq4565 https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-chargeba...
- akudha 5y ago
  Woah. Now, how is this ($20 fee) not extortion?
  - travoc 5y ago
    How much do you think it costs a bank to collect and review evidence from the consumer and seller in a charge dispute?
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> 30% of every sale is extortion This is either ignorance or delusion. Brick and mortar stores take a lot more of a cut than that, and it isn't like Google's distribution infrastructure is free or something. It's a bit like saying developers demanding 6-figure salaries is extortion. How the hell did we get to this point? Where ostensibly reasonable people feel entitled to shove their crapware on any storefront they want without paying for it? > but even worse, and further proving the point, is that they prohibit taking payments through any other channel. How so? Unlike with Apple, You can deploy Android applications without the store, or distribute on a different storefront for Android. > How is it not illegal for the platform to force the use of their own payment service? Companies choose what methods of payment they'll accept all the time. I can't buy a pizza with XBox Bux[0] or whatever the fuck either. > Isn't this classic misuse of a monopoly? No. For one, Android and the Google Play Store are not a monopoly. Android doesn't even have a majority market share in the US. I generally agree that giant corporate conglomerates like Google are a bad thing for basically everyone, but I don't think that diluting the meaning of "monopoly" helps anyone, and neither do silly entitled arguments against paying a commission for distribution. [0] As an aside, it is especially silly to me that people claim Google Play Store and Apple Store are bad but seem completely fine with the exact same practices on their game consoles.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
  Some of your points are very valid. I do think there is a big difference between Apple and Google. I also think there is a difference between consoles and general purpose devices that have not being properly explored by anyone and at some point should be identified by the law. That being said, digital rights are a disaster right now, it will take ages before it's fixed. Consoles might need to be fixed too: for some reason, digital items cost the same or more than the physical counterpart, but provide you with less (can't re-sell, can't lend). And this doesn't take into account yet the fact that digital libraries will disappear when people die (can't leave to family your account, in theory). So consoles are not a good example, they are the most abusive ones.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
shrikant 5y ago
This may sound like I'm nitpicking, but if anyone reading this wants to save some money and pay devs more: Google/Apple absolutely do NOT prohibit taking payments through any other channel. I know plenty of apps where one can buy the subscription at a significant discount directly on the service's website instead of through the stores and it works perfectly fine. I think the restriction is on obviously advertising that fact in your app. So I'd recommend checking if the subscription you're about to buy through the app can be bought on the website instead.

pjmlp 5y ago

It is not a monopoly a per law definition across most jurisdictions. Additionally playing sales commissions is a traditional practice in most markets. Finally, maybe devs would appreciate to pay the 80 to 90% that used to be common on the Symbian, J2ME, BREW and Blackberry shops from mobile operators, about 15 years ago.

stephc_int13 5y ago
Armchair lawyers striking again... I was there during the Symbian era, the commissions at the time were outrageous, but closer to 40-50% than 80-90%.
- pydry 5y ago
  Monopolistic behavior in markets where you have limited market power is just shooting yourself in the foot. I didnt even realize symbian HAD an app store.
  - stephc_int13 5y ago
    They didn't, it was managed by carriers, mostly. And Handango on some devices like running Windows Mobile or PalmOS.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      They eventually did, it was called Ovi Store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovi_(Nokia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovi_(Nokia)
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Former Finland mobile phone company employee over here, the actual percentages depended pretty much on the territory.
nix23 5y ago
While i agree with you that playstore is not a 100% monopoly, if anything it is a duopoly (Apple/google). But on the Marketing/AD's side it is definitely a monopoly, that should be addressed first i believe.
- roenxi 5y ago
  I'm not quite finding the angle here to state my thoughts clearly, but there seems to be a definition of monopoly at play in some of these threads that means something close to "I would make more money if Apple/Google made less, plus they already make lots of money so it isn't fair!". Google/Apple having gained the trust of the market and acting as middlemen to sell access simply isn't monopoly activity. In the same way that renting out space in a commercial complex isn't. There is no question they are running these stores to make an outrageous profit. But the monopoly would be expressed by how the gates are closed to alternate App Stores, or in Google is unfairly pushing competitors to their own Apps off the store to make a profit - which given that they generally provide their Apps for free is a hard argument to make. Nobody seems to be making either of those arguments. Particularly the first one would involve more references to Samsung being made.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    Suppose google's chrome started charging websites 30% of their revenue to be accessible in their browser. Is this an abuse of monopoly? Yes. The issue is HNer's are still living in the "website era" of the internet -- that's ending. We're now in the app era. And devices are the browsers. Their app stores are monopolies on their devices; in that the person who controls the road is a monopolist, despite the existence of air travel. That android devices compete with ios devices is irrelevant, in as much as comcast/et al. can say, "go to a different state". The app store is an iOS monopoly -- the hardware apple provides is a road/telephone/browser device for access apps -- the new predominant mode of social/economic communication & infrastructure.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      > Is this an abuse of monopoly? Yes. It isn't though. That is my point, monopoly doesn't just mean big market share + you don't like it. Half the web would go dark to Chrome and everyone would dump the browser in a couple of months if they pulled a stunt like that. Because they don't have monopoly. They only have a very high market share because Chrome is the best browser. If the best-browser part stops being true there is not reason for the highest market share part to stay true.
tomohawk 5y ago
70% market share is considered a monopoly "on the face of it" https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2 https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-... Google holds many monopolies. Is the play store not a monopoly?
yyyk 5y ago
>>How is it not illegal for the platform to force the use of their own payment service? Isn't this classic misuse of a monopoly? >It is not a monopoly a per law definition across most jurisdictions. It's not so relevant whether the stores are a monopoly or not. They're doing anticompetitive behaviour and misuse of market power, that's illegal regardless.
croes 5y ago
Doesn't need to be a monopoly, could simply be case of illegal price fixing because all big players took 30%
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Is it really price fixing or just copying strategies? There comes a point where the optimal strategy for a firm is to simply do what every one else is doing. Price fixing requires an element of collusion.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "the optimal strategy for a firm is to simply do what every one else is doing" Such a convenient worldview, conpwtition doesn't exist, banks did nothing wrong prior to 2008, etc.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      Competition requires players to remain in the game. No one is required to make a profit-losing decision realized or unrealized. If they do make such a decision, they're one step closer to going out of business. Survival is an incentive to taking the correct actions. In an iterative prisoner's dilemma, the optimal solution is most often tit-for-tat or some variation of it. It's logical for one firm to do the same as another until it can obtain a strong hold on a profit-making activity that gives it more degrees of freedom with regards to its strategies. At that point a firm can move from merely surviving to experimentation or it can continue to milk the opportunity for all its worth. Your cartel argument requires more than sameness of strategy. It requires motive and direct action towards achieving a forced equilibrium (e.g. willfully punishing other market players in concert to dissuade the use of alternative profit-making strategies). I never brought up banks. What do they and the 2008 recession have to do with online stores and 30% cuts in 2021?
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        "direct action towards achieving a forced equilibrium" Do you expect the head of Apple and Google to sign a public document "hereby we form an illegal cartel"? At a minimum the competition and market authority should take an interest as to why there is no competition. If they botheresld to investigate, maybe we would actually find out if there is any wrongdoing.

TekMol 5y ago

Your question implies that Google has a monopoly. As far as I know this has not been agreed up on by a court so far. Or has it?

nix23 5y ago
Well it's a duopoly Apple/Google you need one of the platforms to be remotely functional in today's world, online banking, buying tickets, corona certificates etc...
- zepto 5y ago
  You can do all that with a $50 android phone. Nothing about this so called duopoly prevents you from spending money on a gaming device if you like games.
MrStonedOne 5y ago
How is that relevant? If a court does find that, did they not have the monopoly before the court made their ruling?

tomjen3 5y ago

You could argue that it is the way they pay for the distribution channels. I can't exactly go in and take a product in Wallmart and then pay target for it. The way I see it, Apple and Google made the platforms worth something, made the stores, made the development tools, run the stores (which can't be cheap). They could charge you a flat fee of several thousand dollars per app, but that would stifle competition too much. Instead they charge a percentage of what the app developer makes and ensures that as a user I can always trust the payment option to be save and, if I buy a subscription, to be easy to cancel. They could allow you to pick your own payment provider, but then companies would still have to pay the 30% tax to Apple/Google, so what would be the point?

simion314 5y ago
>they charge a percentage of what the app developer makes What seems perverse to me is they don't tax you on your profits, I am sure Google and Apple won't like the governments do the same to them. Btw I understand it is super hard to implement a tax on profits only so it would make more sense IMo to give the developers a choice, pay on what you use (pay for bandwidth, for reviews, for dev tools licenses, for advertising) OR pay the tax. The small devs could chose the tax , the big developers would chose the first one , Apple will have less money from this giant devs but they could keep their high walls for a few more years(I prefer if Apple and Epic don't get a secret deal and this fight continues so judges and us uncover more data about this topic)
- sitkack 5y ago
  The work done by the app stores isn't linear wrt to the purchase price. Clearly they shouldn't be taking a percentage cut. Together, GA has a duopoly on app stores and they have set their fees to be the same. That one of them would consider buying the trouble maker on the other platform is just ... telling.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  I considered the option of pay for what you use, but those prices would have to be massive (tens of thousands of dollars per dev) to even start to make up for it. It would essentially be a monopoly gift for the biggest developers.

capableweb 5y ago

> How is it not illegal for the platform to force the use of their own payment service? A) Legislators haven't caught up with how the (digital) world works, so they don't even understand what is happening B) These "stores" are run by two of the biggest companies on the planet (Apple and Google), so big that they can afford to spend countless amount of money to lobby and influence the legislators so the discussions never even hit the table C) Both of the above > Isn't this classic misuse of a monopoly? Not really. While the App Store has monopoly on distributing apps on iOS, Apple and iPhone are far off from being a monopoly as more people have Android phones. Android phones allow side-loading so can't really claim Android has any misuse of a (potential) monopoly.

stephc_int13 5y ago
Sideloading on Android is not viable. And Google is working hard to enforce this situation. This might be a monopoly. Or at least, I think the current scrutiny from legislators is fully warranted and we should not jump to conclusions because AFAIK the jury will be out for a while.
- distances 5y ago
  Alternative app stores can finally do automatic updates with Android 12: https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-stores-update-apps-background/ https://www.xda-developers.com/android-12-alternative-app-st... I don't know the details, but I imagine this is pre-emptive move from Google to avoid monopoly judgements.

dvh 5y ago

Some time ago there was comment on /r/gamedev from someone who implemented their own payment system and visa has like $20 payment cancellation fee, imagine someone buying a game skin for $1, then cancelling and you loose $19, suddenly 30% doesn't look like bad deal at all.

commoner 5y ago
There are payment processors that offer chargeback protection for much less than Google's and Apple's 30% fee. For example, both Stripe and PayPal only charge 0.4%. Stripe Chargeback Protection: https://stripe.com/radar/chargeback-protection https://stripe.com/radar/chargeback-protection PayPal Chargeback Protection: https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-chargeback-protection-faq4565 https://www.paypal.com/us/smarthelp/article/what-is-chargeba...
akudha 5y ago
Woah. Now, how is this ($20 fee) not extortion?
- travoc 5y ago
  How much do you think it costs a bank to collect and review evidence from the consumer and seller in a charge dispute?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> 30% of every sale is extortion This is either ignorance or delusion. Brick and mortar stores take a lot more of a cut than that, and it isn't like Google's distribution infrastructure is free or something. It's a bit like saying developers demanding 6-figure salaries is extortion. How the hell did we get to this point? Where ostensibly reasonable people feel entitled to shove their crapware on any storefront they want without paying for it? > but even worse, and further proving the point, is that they prohibit taking payments through any other channel. How so? Unlike with Apple, You can deploy Android applications without the store, or distribute on a different storefront for Android. > How is it not illegal for the platform to force the use of their own payment service? Companies choose what methods of payment they'll accept all the time. I can't buy a pizza with XBox Bux[0] or whatever the fuck either. > Isn't this classic misuse of a monopoly? No. For one, Android and the Google Play Store are not a monopoly. Android doesn't even have a majority market share in the US. I generally agree that giant corporate conglomerates like Google are a bad thing for basically everyone, but I don't think that diluting the meaning of "monopoly" helps anyone, and neither do silly entitled arguments against paying a commission for distribution. [0] As an aside, it is especially silly to me that people claim Google Play Store and Apple Store are bad but seem completely fine with the exact same practices on their game consoles.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 5y ago
Some of your points are very valid. I do think there is a big difference between Apple and Google. I also think there is a difference between consoles and general purpose devices that have not being properly explored by anyone and at some point should be identified by the law. That being said, digital rights are a disaster right now, it will take ages before it's fixed. Consoles might need to be fixed too: for some reason, digital items cost the same or more than the physical counterpart, but provide you with less (can't re-sell, can't lend). And this doesn't take into account yet the fact that digital libraries will disappear when people die (can't leave to family your account, in theory). So consoles are not a good example, they are the most abusive ones.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

shrikant 5y ago

This may sound like I'm nitpicking, but if anyone reading this wants to save some money and pay devs more: Google/Apple absolutely do NOT prohibit taking payments through any other channel. I know plenty of apps where one can buy the subscription at a significant discount directly on the service's website instead of through the stores and it works perfectly fine. I think the restriction is on obviously advertising that fact in your app. So I'd recommend checking if the subscription you're about to buy through the app can be bought on the website instead.