4 ms·

Everyone keeps repeating this assumed idea that it's "just" a payment processing fee which is simply not true and never has been. The fee is for: - access to i

Everyone keeps repeating this assumed idea that it's "just" a payment processing fee which is simply not true and never has been. The fee is for: - access to install base and customer relationship - funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools - funds development of the store - funds operation of the store - profit for the company - last and least: payment processing Could those things be funded differently? Yes... but it would require a radical restructuring of the way mobile platforms work that would not be favorable to startups or independents. It would also lead to massive fracturing of the customer relationship, lower trust, and ultimately shrink the total dollars spent on software (though the big players would make more money). People trust Apple or Google with their credit card. They know the platform requires all subscriptions show up in one place and they don't need to call and argue with a sales rep to cancel. Be prepared for all of that to disappear when it becomes a free-for-all. Stop pretending this kind of "freedom" is completely free of consequences even for those who don't take advantage of that "freedom".

varenc 5y ago
The article actually enumerates what else the fee is used for. In Google’s words its: """ Android & the Google Play Store: The free Android operating system enables hardware manufacturers to build a wide range of devices at different price points that gives users unprecedented choice. And the Google Play Store delivers the world's largest selection of apps and games, available in over 190 countries with personalized recommendations and easy discovery of high-quality apps. New Android platforms: We build platforms for new form factors such as Auto and TV to help developers increase their reach in new ways. Security: Consumers trust Android and Google Play because of its security, the reviews of apps to ensure they comply with policies around safety and privacy, and with automated security of Google Play Protect that scans over 100 billion apps per day. App distribution: Developers can instantly reach over three billion Android users with the ability to optimize delivery by device and functionality and provide ongoing updates. Developer tools: Developers can run experiments, beta test, optimize store listings, analyze performance, and more. """
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> access to install base and customer relationship This is the rent seeking that everybody is objecting to. > funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools The platform is open source. So if you want to use someone else's tools then you shouldn't have to pay this part, right? > funds development of the store - funds operation of the store The cost of providing this is negligible. Many alternative stores and repositories do it for free. It accounts for zero percent of the cost of anything. > profit for the company Profit isn't a separate thing. The cost of payment processing already includes the profit of the payment processor etc. > last and least: payment processing Which is the only thing left, so if you're using someone else as payment processor... It's the "access to install base and customer relationship" that they're really sticking it to you for, and that's the illegitimate one.
- diesal11 5y ago
  > The platform is open source. Android is Open Source, Google Play & Google Play Services are not. Developers are free to build Android apps that don't use anything related to Google Play.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    And, as far as I can tell, Google is the one making most features and patches to AOSP. Just because it's OSS doesn't mean it is operating independently, running only on donations.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  (I work at Google, but not at all on Android) > The platform is open source. So if you want to use someone else's tools then you shouldn't have to pay this part, right? The platform here includes "android", so yes if you aren't using Android you probably don't need to pay to support Android development. It's not clear here, but do you think "open source" somehow means "doesn't require funding to develop"? > The cost of providing this is negligible. Many alternative stores and repositories do it for free. Few/none of those provide app review and various anti-malware stuff. You can argue that these have negative value, but they absolutely have non-negligible costs. Also I don't think any alternative stores support canarying/progressive rollouts of new versions, which is useful for developers and a nontrivial to support for other stores.
asgadfgheyhe 5y ago
Why is it that the Debian repos are so well-maintained and the Play Store is full of so much trash? I have never had a worse experience than on these "curated" services.
greatgib 5y ago
Each time someone use the straw man argument that they have costs to cover and that they still need to do a profit, just go back looking at facts: <<Google Play Had a Profit of $8.5 Billion in 2019 With Margins of 62 Percent. According to court filings unsealed>> https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/android/254978/google-play-had-a-profit-of-8-5-billion-in-2019-with-margins-of-62-percent https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/android/254978/google-play-h... So, no, with indecent margins like that, you can't justify them using their monopoly to racket app developers with fees that are unrelated to the usage of the service. Imagine if everyone was doing the same in real life, that would look absurd: - your power utility provider requiring that you pay to them 10% of your business income because you use electricity somehow and they have costs and need to do profit - the postal service requiring you to pay 15% of the bills you send by email through their online service or 10% of the bills you send by any other provider just because you benefit from receiving standard letters in your home mailbox. Just because they have costs and they need to do fat profits. - Ikea forcing you to give them 11% on your business incomes because you use a desk and a chair that you bought there in your office. For the same reasons...
- oblio 5y ago
  No, no, you're wrong! The free market will solve this! You know that high margins are someone else's opportunity? Surely someone else will build an alternative that undercuts Android. Ah, you say there's a huge moat? Worth billions if not trillions of dollars? Huge market recognition? Agreements with huge companies? Regulations and government approvals all over the world? Years and years of development by thousands of developers? On top of that there's an oligopoly in place by companies already convicted of such agreements for other issues (see the anti-poaching agreement from a decade back)? What? Like a cartel that probably fixes prices?
- judge2020 5y ago
  > - Ikea forcing you to give them 11% on your business incomes because you use a desk and a chair that you bought there in your office. For the same reasons... They very well can make these stipulations and expect you to pay them. They have every right to go "uh we need 100% of your business profit if you want to buy IKEA furniture". You have every right not to do that due to the unreasonable payment terms. You'll need to ask your lawmakers to fix this if you think it's unjust and you're being forced against your will to oblige.
ComodoHacker 5y ago
Still, Google's costs of running Play Store are proportional to number of installs and maybe number of updates, not to amount of money users spend. Google could charge accordingly without any "radical restructuring".
- judge2020 5y ago
  I don't see anyone sticking with android if they had to pay $1/mo, though.
Bobylonian 5y ago
>>> Everyone keeps repeating this assumed idea that it's "just" a payment processing fee which is simply not true and never has been. When you are buying a phone, you also pay price that includes price for OS of the phone, that includes development costs of SDK and development tools. Some of the phones nowadays has a choice to BUY and install different OS, that comes with different stores. Unlike your assumption, payment processing is completelly different ecosystem and Apple is simply using monopoly on iPhones and not letting other stores on their hardware and software. Alphabet does not produce phones... so IMO it is acting worse, that it makes up these stupid tales. This is one of the reasons why I am switching my phone from Android, because that is MY phone, that I paid for! Besides, Android still snoops your data without your consent and I'm not even paid for that data! Besides, the only concern about payment processing that YOU should have is not development costs(they can't be that HUGE...), but if your payment processing is safe and protected!!! That is the only costs, that stores should have - to ensure protection of those many many transactions, where maintenance and development costs are miniscule and to be even considered is laughable topic.
- judge2020 5y ago
  When you are buying a phone, you also pay price that includes price for OS of the phone, that includes development costs of SDK and development tools. With the race to the bottom on cheap Android phones, it's obvious that "profit from the device only" is insanely low. > Some of the phones nowadays has a choice to BUY and install different OS, that comes with different stores. Just pointing out that this seemingly directly contradicts your line before it. If some phones can install a different OS and come with a different store, why should the phone profit margin go towards developing the SDK and development tools?

varenc 5y ago

The article actually enumerates what else the fee is used for. In Google’s words its: """ Android & the Google Play Store: The free Android operating system enables hardware manufacturers to build a wide range of devices at different price points that gives users unprecedented choice. And the Google Play Store delivers the world's largest selection of apps and games, available in over 190 countries with personalized recommendations and easy discovery of high-quality apps. New Android platforms: We build platforms for new form factors such as Auto and TV to help developers increase their reach in new ways. Security: Consumers trust Android and Google Play because of its security, the reviews of apps to ensure they comply with policies around safety and privacy, and with automated security of Google Play Protect that scans over 100 billion apps per day. App distribution: Developers can instantly reach over three billion Android users with the ability to optimize delivery by device and functionality and provide ongoing updates. Developer tools: Developers can run experiments, beta test, optimize store listings, analyze performance, and more. """

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> access to install base and customer relationship This is the rent seeking that everybody is objecting to. > funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools The platform is open source. So if you want to use someone else's tools then you shouldn't have to pay this part, right? > funds development of the store - funds operation of the store The cost of providing this is negligible. Many alternative stores and repositories do it for free. It accounts for zero percent of the cost of anything. > profit for the company Profit isn't a separate thing. The cost of payment processing already includes the profit of the payment processor etc. > last and least: payment processing Which is the only thing left, so if you're using someone else as payment processor... It's the "access to install base and customer relationship" that they're really sticking it to you for, and that's the illegitimate one.

diesal11 5y ago
> The platform is open source. Android is Open Source, Google Play & Google Play Services are not. Developers are free to build Android apps that don't use anything related to Google Play.
- judge2020 5y ago
  And, as far as I can tell, Google is the one making most features and patches to AOSP. Just because it's OSS doesn't mean it is operating independently, running only on donations.
joshuamorton 5y ago
(I work at Google, but not at all on Android) > The platform is open source. So if you want to use someone else's tools then you shouldn't have to pay this part, right? The platform here includes "android", so yes if you aren't using Android you probably don't need to pay to support Android development. It's not clear here, but do you think "open source" somehow means "doesn't require funding to develop"? > The cost of providing this is negligible. Many alternative stores and repositories do it for free. Few/none of those provide app review and various anti-malware stuff. You can argue that these have negative value, but they absolutely have non-negligible costs. Also I don't think any alternative stores support canarying/progressive rollouts of new versions, which is useful for developers and a nontrivial to support for other stores.

asgadfgheyhe 5y ago

Why is it that the Debian repos are so well-maintained and the Play Store is full of so much trash? I have never had a worse experience than on these "curated" services.

greatgib 5y ago

Each time someone use the straw man argument that they have costs to cover and that they still need to do a profit, just go back looking at facts: <<Google Play Had a Profit of $8.5 Billion in 2019 With Margins of 62 Percent. According to court filings unsealed>> https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/android/254978/google-play-had-a-profit-of-8-5-billion-in-2019-with-margins-of-62-percent https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/android/254978/google-play-h... So, no, with indecent margins like that, you can't justify them using their monopoly to racket app developers with fees that are unrelated to the usage of the service. Imagine if everyone was doing the same in real life, that would look absurd: - your power utility provider requiring that you pay to them 10% of your business income because you use electricity somehow and they have costs and need to do profit - the postal service requiring you to pay 15% of the bills you send by email through their online service or 10% of the bills you send by any other provider just because you benefit from receiving standard letters in your home mailbox. Just because they have costs and they need to do fat profits. - Ikea forcing you to give them 11% on your business incomes because you use a desk and a chair that you bought there in your office. For the same reasons...

oblio 5y ago
No, no, you're wrong! The free market will solve this! You know that high margins are someone else's opportunity? Surely someone else will build an alternative that undercuts Android. Ah, you say there's a huge moat? Worth billions if not trillions of dollars? Huge market recognition? Agreements with huge companies? Regulations and government approvals all over the world? Years and years of development by thousands of developers? On top of that there's an oligopoly in place by companies already convicted of such agreements for other issues (see the anti-poaching agreement from a decade back)? What? Like a cartel that probably fixes prices?
judge2020 5y ago
> - Ikea forcing you to give them 11% on your business incomes because you use a desk and a chair that you bought there in your office. For the same reasons... They very well can make these stipulations and expect you to pay them. They have every right to go "uh we need 100% of your business profit if you want to buy IKEA furniture". You have every right not to do that due to the unreasonable payment terms. You'll need to ask your lawmakers to fix this if you think it's unjust and you're being forced against your will to oblige.

ComodoHacker 5y ago

Still, Google's costs of running Play Store are proportional to number of installs and maybe number of updates, not to amount of money users spend. Google could charge accordingly without any "radical restructuring".

judge2020 5y ago
I don't see anyone sticking with android if they had to pay $1/mo, though.

Bobylonian 5y ago

>>> Everyone keeps repeating this assumed idea that it's "just" a payment processing fee which is simply not true and never has been. When you are buying a phone, you also pay price that includes price for OS of the phone, that includes development costs of SDK and development tools. Some of the phones nowadays has a choice to BUY and install different OS, that comes with different stores. Unlike your assumption, payment processing is completelly different ecosystem and Apple is simply using monopoly on iPhones and not letting other stores on their hardware and software. Alphabet does not produce phones... so IMO it is acting worse, that it makes up these stupid tales. This is one of the reasons why I am switching my phone from Android, because that is MY phone, that I paid for! Besides, Android still snoops your data without your consent and I'm not even paid for that data! Besides, the only concern about payment processing that YOU should have is not development costs(they can't be that HUGE...), but if your payment processing is safe and protected!!! That is the only costs, that stores should have - to ensure protection of those many many transactions, where maintenance and development costs are miniscule and to be even considered is laughable topic.

judge2020 5y ago
When you are buying a phone, you also pay price that includes price for OS of the phone, that includes development costs of SDK and development tools. With the race to the bottom on cheap Android phones, it's obvious that "profit from the device only" is insanely low. > Some of the phones nowadays has a choice to BUY and install different OS, that comes with different stores. Just pointing out that this seemingly directly contradicts your line before it. If some phones can install a different OS and come with a different store, why should the phone profit margin go towards developing the SDK and development tools?