4 ms·

This is the real problem with the Apple/Google 30% tax: it's not that the App/Play Store costs 30% to run. It's that they want to give sweetheart deals like thi

by jmyeet 3y ago

This is the real problem with the Apple/Google 30% tax: it's not that the App/Play Store costs 30% to run. It's that they want to give sweetheart deals like this to very large customers. You're paying for that slush fund.

bad_user 3y ago
The real problem with the 30% is that it's far too high. It could have been 0%. Why do you care about what deals with Spotify they have? Is this resentment? > You're paying for that slush fund. Google is probably getting the difference from Spotify in some other way. Google/Apple also have a lot of profit with their app stores because 30% is too damn much. If Google wouldn't have a deal with Spotify, you'd still be paying 30%.
- hackernewds 3y ago
  creating winners and losers while owning a majority chunk of any consumer market segment is considered a monopoly
  - bad_user 3y ago
    Monopolies aren't illegal.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Is this resentment? No, it's unfair market conditions which are illegal in most developed countries. How can small companies expect to compete with the big established ones if those players enjoy deals way way better than what the new players have? It's basically hardcoded inequality creating winners and losers from the start and goes against the free market principles.
  - bad_user 3y ago
    That's not true. Most contracts are negotiable, and this is legal. Of course, this may change in the EU due to the “Digital Markets Act”, but this is new. Bigger companies getting better deals has always been the reality, due to volume discounts. We have a different idea about what the free market is.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >Of course, this may change in the EU due to the “Digital Markets Act”, but this is new. That's exactly why it should change and why Apple(and Google) knows the winds are changing sooner or later. >Bigger companies getting better deals has always been the reality, due to volume discounts. That works in retail where I can get a volume discount for buying 2 million tonnes of bannanas, but this logic doesn't apply to digital markets which scale much more effortlessly and cheaply regardless of scale meaning steep discounts for big players are somewhat counter intuitive. >We have a different idea about what the free market is. The free market means that if I want x tonnes of bannanas to buy or sell, I can choose which supplier or to whom, and at what price to buy/sell them. In the mobile digital markets you have no such freedom of choice. It's either Apple on the iOS market or Google (minus sideloading) on the Playstore, that's it. They're two monopolies with no competition, not a free market.
- gregoriol 3y ago
  This kind of deal is just unfair to any other business: if they are a marketplace, they have to have the same rules for everyone. It shouldn't matter how big you are, how you went to college with their CEO, or if your wife drinks tee with their wife: as soon as you provide a service that anyone can get, rules should be the same for everyone.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    A marketplace has never in history given everyone the same deal.
    - gregoriol 3y ago
      History is full of mistakes. It's good to learn from mistakes and history. Now is a good time to make it right.
zooq_ai 3y ago
Every single firm will give sweetheart deals to large customers. The marginal unit cost of serving a large customer is always lower than serving a smaller one. Why shouldn't I pass the savings to that large customer? The risk premium for serving a large established firm is lower than serving a smaller one (including payment failure risk). Why shouldn't I pass the savings to that large customers? Large customers also give you predictive revenue and gives sufficient room in purchasing decisions. Why shouldn't I pass the savings to the large customers? Large customers may also bring in other customers and open up new revenue channels for me. Why shouldn't I pass the benefit to them? Economies of scale is a thing and that's how consumers get to enjoy low prices and high quality. It's incredibly sub-optimal to punish economies of scale
astrange 3y ago
Apple doesn't give deals to any App Store developer, as we learned from the Epic trial. And you're not paying 30% either place, you're paying 15%.

by jmyeet 3y ago

bad_user 3y ago

The real problem with the 30% is that it's far too high. It could have been 0%. Why do you care about what deals with Spotify they have? Is this resentment? > You're paying for that slush fund. Google is probably getting the difference from Spotify in some other way. Google/Apple also have a lot of profit with their app stores because 30% is too damn much. If Google wouldn't have a deal with Spotify, you'd still be paying 30%.

hackernewds 3y ago
creating winners and losers while owning a majority chunk of any consumer market segment is considered a monopoly
- bad_user 3y ago
  Monopolies aren't illegal.
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Is this resentment? No, it's unfair market conditions which are illegal in most developed countries. How can small companies expect to compete with the big established ones if those players enjoy deals way way better than what the new players have? It's basically hardcoded inequality creating winners and losers from the start and goes against the free market principles.
- bad_user 3y ago
  That's not true. Most contracts are negotiable, and this is legal. Of course, this may change in the EU due to the “Digital Markets Act”, but this is new. Bigger companies getting better deals has always been the reality, due to volume discounts. We have a different idea about what the free market is.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Of course, this may change in the EU due to the “Digital Markets Act”, but this is new. That's exactly why it should change and why Apple(and Google) knows the winds are changing sooner or later. >Bigger companies getting better deals has always been the reality, due to volume discounts. That works in retail where I can get a volume discount for buying 2 million tonnes of bannanas, but this logic doesn't apply to digital markets which scale much more effortlessly and cheaply regardless of scale meaning steep discounts for big players are somewhat counter intuitive. >We have a different idea about what the free market is. The free market means that if I want x tonnes of bannanas to buy or sell, I can choose which supplier or to whom, and at what price to buy/sell them. In the mobile digital markets you have no such freedom of choice. It's either Apple on the iOS market or Google (minus sideloading) on the Playstore, that's it. They're two monopolies with no competition, not a free market.
gregoriol 3y ago
This kind of deal is just unfair to any other business: if they are a marketplace, they have to have the same rules for everyone. It shouldn't matter how big you are, how you went to college with their CEO, or if your wife drinks tee with their wife: as soon as you provide a service that anyone can get, rules should be the same for everyone.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  A marketplace has never in history given everyone the same deal.
  - gregoriol 3y ago
    History is full of mistakes. It's good to learn from mistakes and history. Now is a good time to make it right.

zooq_ai 3y ago

Every single firm will give sweetheart deals to large customers. The marginal unit cost of serving a large customer is always lower than serving a smaller one. Why shouldn't I pass the savings to that large customer? The risk premium for serving a large established firm is lower than serving a smaller one (including payment failure risk). Why shouldn't I pass the savings to that large customers? Large customers also give you predictive revenue and gives sufficient room in purchasing decisions. Why shouldn't I pass the savings to the large customers? Large customers may also bring in other customers and open up new revenue channels for me. Why shouldn't I pass the benefit to them? Economies of scale is a thing and that's how consumers get to enjoy low prices and high quality. It's incredibly sub-optimal to punish economies of scale

astrange 3y ago

Apple doesn't give deals to any App Store developer, as we learned from the Epic trial. And you're not paying 30% either place, you're paying 15%.