14 ms·
Android introduces $2-4 install fee and 10–20% cut for US external content links
- nsagent 10mo agoHopefully this gets slapped down hard just like Apple recently did. Both Apple and Google want to continue business as usual despite the court rulings.
- dagmx 10mo agoI think you’ve misread the Apple ruling. The appeals court has said they may charge some amount, just not the higher amount that was originally set. The costs provided here may very well fall into the acceptable boundaries for the courts.
- kmeisthax 10mo agoI honestly don't understand the court rulings regarding all of this. Like, "you need to allow someone to install your software for free" is easy to understand. And "you can ban software that doesn't pay you your chosen cut" is also straightforward (even though I'm a dirty OS Commie that wants that shit for free). Both of those follow clear-cut legal principles based in antitrust and intellectual property law (respectively). But it seems to me that the court is trying to enforce some kind of middle ground, which doesn't make sense. There's no legal principle one can use to curtail the power of an IP holder aside from mandating it be given away for free. Indeed, the whole idea of IP law is that the true value of the underlying property can only be realized if the property owner has the power of the state to force others to negotiate for it. Apple was told "you can charge for your IP" and said "well all our fee is actually licensing, except for the 3% we pay per transaction". The courts rejected this, so... I mean, what does Apple do now? Keep whittling down the fee until the court finds it reasonable? That can't possibly be good faith compliance (as if Apple has ever complied in good faith lol).
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> the whole idea of IP law is that the true value of the underlying property can only be realized if the property owner has the power of the state to force others to negotiate for it You're describing property in general. Not just IP. > Apple was told "you can charge for your IP" It's a bit misleading to use quotes in this case, given you aren't quoting the court.
- malfist 10mo agoI don't see how you can argue with the courts that the bandwidth cost to serve a 100mb zip file is $4. That's beyond egregious
- hirsin 10mo agoThey're not even serving the file. That cost is born by the external provider. The four dollars is for providing the platform that the user used to navigate to the link and download the zip file. That's a fun bit of argument from the owners of Chrome.
- dagmx 10mo agoI’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Google are the file distributor for content from their store. These rules aren’t for linking out from the store to a third party site, but rather for installing an app from the store and then linking out to a third party payment.
- hirsin 10mo agoYep, I misunderstood that key point here but can't edit anymore.
- Rohansi 10mo ago> The four dollars is for providing the platform that the user used to navigate to the link and download the zip file. And does not include showing up first in search results for your app's name. That's a separate fee you'll need to pay.
- charcircuit 10mo agoChoosing a price based off the cost is just one pricing strategy. Another is to do it based off the value it offers a customer along with the price competitors are charging.
- malfist 10mo ago
- dagmx 10mo agoI’m very curious how Tim Sweeney will react to this. This is very much not the victory lap he was hoping to take (nor are the Apple rulings) 1. I think uptake of third party stores is quite low and there’s a strong incentive to stay available on the primary store 2. The App Store model has very much been that the paid apps are subsidizing the free ones. So it’s somewhat fair to charge for using the infrastructure, if you’re not contributing into the pot (and are siphoning away from it) 3. Those per install costs are brutal. I was thinking they’d do a dollar , but at almost $4, they’re outside what most people would spend. This is a strong way to keep F2P games from instituting external payment processing.
- mrcwinn 10mo agoPoor Tim! Hey anyone know if I'm allowed to put my own skin store inside the Fortnite store? It's only fair.
- hshdhdhj4444 10mo agoPeople keep making the comparison between the Apple App Store or the Google Play store and the XBox store or the Fortnite store. But these are likely irrelevant comparisons. For one thing, the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist. Gaming is a market. There are many gaming platforms that are extremely popular. Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Steam, and then just open distribution on PCs which essentially means there is no lock in in this industry. And unlike the “web app” comparison folks try to make, open distribution can easily leverage the same capabilities as the store distributed games can (and in fact, they are more capable than games from some stores, like the Windows store). But more importantly, gaming isn’t an essential part of life, which is basically what smartphones, dominated entirely by iOS/Android, have become at this point. People depend on these platforms. There are businesses you cannot interact with if not through your phone. There are public transportation systems that are almost unusable. And finally, maybe this is just me, but I think the idea that general purpose computing is the same as playing video games just strikes me as wrong. General purpose computing, which is what phones are, are basic infrastructure for modern life. They should be treated differently and we shoudoht allow 2 companies to monopolize and/or embargo them like Apple/Google are trying.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- lobito25 10mo agoThe extortionists are at it again
- charcircuit 10mo ago[flagged]
- notrealyme123 10mo agoAs an app developer you are forced to use this. "Offer" is a way to generous word
- charcircuit 10mo agoYou aren't forced to add links to external content in your app. It was already prohibited, so it's not like you have to do extra work in removing them.
- DangitBobby 10mo agoMaking the process exhorbitantly difficult and expensive is obviously intended to make sure people choose Google's preferred path. It's a bog standard monopoly play.
- schubidubiduba 10mo agoThey have a duopoly, so all app developers are extorted to use this if they want to make a living. (Or they use the duopoly-sanctioned payment methods and pay the extortion money there)
- charcircuit 10mo ago[flagged]
- 0xbadcafebee 10mo agoWhy is anyone still developing for these stagnant walled gardens?
- groundzeros2015 10mo agoCustomers are willing to pay for software
- realusername 10mo agoNot really, I'll say the secret out loud on HN, build for B2B instead and you'll be where the money is. Unless you are building a gambling game app, it's not worth it to deal with the duopoly, I've been there.
- DangitBobby 10mo agoCan't wait for the entire economy to be B2B only because "that's where the money is".
- realusername 10mo agoThat's clearly what's happening at the moment, the middle class gets squeezed more and more since covid and the B2C business became a hard game of low margins with very high numbers which you can only achieve with a very large company.
- dontdoxxme 10mo agoMost users don’t see it that way.
- umrashrf 10mo agowhy people keep buying android or google devices? Why don't they buy alternate devices without android or google?
- concinds 10mo ago"anyone" is 2 groups: - indies who mostly don't care about the 15% - the huge corpos (Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, game studios) who want the 30% to be 0%. They're the only ones who cares about these disputes. Yawn.
- cmcaleer 10mo ago> The following fees apply when a user completes [...] any app installs within 24 hours of following an external content link So does this mean a malicious competitor or motivated disgruntled user could fraudulently cause millions of app installs? With the scale smartphone activity fraud farms are at these days, paying a few thousand dollars on such a service to cause a developer to spend a few million dollars on worthless installs (or a lot of resources arguing with Google) seems like a worthwhile endeavour for the motivated.
- charcircuit 10mo agoA malicous competitor could also click on their competitors ads too. Antifraud is important.
- binaryturtle 10mo agoI got my AdSense account disabled because "fraudulent click activity" or how they worded it (someone clicked my ads frequently, I assume?). Google then kept all the my hard earned 16++ EUR or so.
- jacquesm 10mo agoI can't wait until I'm professionally done so I never ever have to use a google product again.
- AnthonyMouse 10mo agoAntifraud is "important" but when the party in charge of implementing it makes more profit when there's more fraud, what result do you expect?
- charcircuit 10mo agoIf linking to external content is not viable, developers will not continue linking to external content. If developers stop linking to external content Google stops making money. It's not an infinite money glitch if Google didn't go after fraud, it hurts the profit they can make from it.
- heavyset_go 10mo agoThis is just egregious, Google can't be split up fast enough and antitrust laws need to be enforced.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- systematizeD 10mo agoJust do progressive tax like Valve do 30/25/20 or/ 15%
- Schiendelman 10mo agoBoth Apple and Google have done that for years.
- Groxx 10mo agoFrom just this page it's rather unclear what triggers this... if an fdroid app that does not use any Play libraries has a purchaseable thing on another site, is that in scope? Do they need to add Play libraries to track it, or be smacked? If yes, it'd certainly explain their "developer verification" effort, as it's a way to enforce rent extraction.
- dagmx 10mo agoThis is only for apps distributed on the Google play store. It has no bearing on fdroid.
- m463 10mo agoI'm wondering if there was a FSF or GNU "store" (all software $0), would there be costs?
- rbits 10mo agoSo F-Droid?
- hirsin 10mo agoThe apparent information gathering and brutal review process is unbelievable here. If I'm understanding this correctly, the requirement is that eg Epic Game Store must register and upload every single APK for every app they offer, and cannot offer it in their store until Google approves it, which may take a week or more - including every time the app updates. Meanwhile they get full competitive insight into which apps are being added to Epics store, their download rates apparently, and they even get the APKs to boot, potentially making it easier for those app devs to onboard if they like, and can pressure them to do so by dragging their feet on that review process. > Provide direct, publicly accessible customer support to end users through readily accessible communication channels. This is an interesting requirement. I want to see someone provide the same level of support that Google does to see if it draws a ban.
- gessha 10mo agoGoogle and accessible customer support should not be put in the same sentence. Their history of automated neglect is beyond reproach.
- yalok 10mo agotheir Play store review practices are such a joke. Apps review is a completely obscure process, no clear way to see that the app is in review state, if they reject - amount of information why it was rejected is minimal and you have to second-guess; appealing is not trivial; most of the reviews are done by AI which gets triggered in totally random places from time to time (e.g., in my case, some pictures which looked fine for kids for years and went through many previous reviewed, suddenly seem too violent).
- gghffguhvc 10mo agoI have healthcare apps. The review process for me consists of some reviewer deciding what set of healthcare features I should have picked from their list and rejecting on that basis. But subsequent reviewers have different opinions. In one app version release I got rejected 5 times for picking the wrong set of healthcare features as either the reviewer changed their mind or I got different reviewers. The app has been on Google play for 13 years.
- ycombinatrix 10mo agoDoesn't this violate the court order?
- jacquesm 10mo agoHas that ever stopped them?
- ChrisArchitect 10mo agoMeanwhile in Japan, Google Complying with Japan's Mobile Software Competition Act for more open app stores https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-asia/complying-with-mobile-software-competition-act/ https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-asia/complying-w... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315033)
- BrenBarn 10mo agoThe fact that this is being introduced after the whole Epic/Apple thing clearly shows that the penalties in that case were not nearly severe enough and the standards set were not nearly stringent enough. The mere attempt to engage in policies like this should result in fines in the hundreds of billions.
- mdhb 10mo agoI’d also point out in the same observation that they knew better than to try this in Europe and that their strategy of trying to hold large tech companies accountable seems to be working (with the minor caveat that it’s now official US defence policy to try and break up the European Union and US trade policy is extremely focused on the idea that nobody is ever allowed to fine a US company for breaking the law)
- jacquesm 10mo agoI am morbidly curious about how far the attempt to destroy the USA will be allowed to proceed before even the Republican party has decided that it is probably enough. So far they have exceeded my wildest (and worst) expectations. Unfortunately I can't get myself and those I care about off this planet (no, thank you, Elon) and we all will most likely lose a lot, possibly life and limb on account of this.
- Bombthecat 10mo agoIsn't the plan of project 2025 to collapse the USA into smaller states?
- jacquesm 10mo agoI don't know what the 'plan' is anymore other than that it seems to entail destabilization and destruction of the most powerful nation on the earth into a bit player making this every two bit dictator's wet dream. There is no way this ends well if it is not arrested.
- modeless 10mo agoWasn't Apple just slapped down for exactly this in court, for the second time? They're really both going to fight this to the bitter end kicking and screaming like toddlers, aren't they. https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-confirms-contempt-finding-against-apple-in-epic-games-battle/ https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-confirms-contem...
- dagmx 10mo agoI would suggest reading the ruling and not the headline. The ruling specifically states that Apple can charge a fee , just not the fee they had previously chosen of standard rates minus 3%. It may very well be that googles pricing structure fits in the realm of what the courts deem as fair.
- modeless 10mo agoI would suggest that $3 and 20% is so far outside the realm of reasonable as to be absurd.
- dagmx 10mo agoBy whose definition of reasonable though? Without knowledge of costs of delivery, api development and support, anything dealing in terms of subjective reasonable values is just speculation.
- grishka 10mo agoI feel like many commenters are misunderstanding what this is about. This is about apps that are distributed via Google Play. It's an exception to the long-standing rules that a) all monetary transactions for non-physical items must use IAPs, and b) a Google Play distributed app can't install or ask the user to install something from outside of Google Play. As far as I can tell, none of this applies to apps installed from elsewhere, be that F-Droid, other stores like RuStore, or just a downloaded apk. As long as the alternative store itself wasn't installed from Google Play that is, but none of them work like that anyway. I'm not defending Google of course. Their entitlement is still insane.
- TZubiri 10mo agoA common pattern in social networks with a political identity, is that bait news stories are less scrutinized for truthfulness and more baited into raging. E.g: Political group:Right Social media: twitter Headline: "the police detained a 15 yo for posting on tiktok" Reality: "15yo called for violence on a specific event and group of people" Pol group: left Social media: bluesky Headline: "young mother of 2 gets detained by ICE for speaking in spanish" Reality: "DUI, didn't speak english, translator was used, prior records" Reminds me of how phishing attempts play to our political identities as well, recently there was a phishing attempt were the platform said that during pride month all uploaded content would have the pride flag added or something like that. The common pattern is that some things are ridiculous, but people want to believe that "the enemy" is as ridiculous, it's an opportunity to be enraged and vindicated that the injustice is too obvious to hold on its own. That it will all come crumbling down, or at least that any insecurities in our political positioning are reduced, and our position becomes clearer and our certainty increased. In our case, it seems to be something very specific about external links from the play store. I can't be sure but it seems as if this rule relates to apps distributed through the google play store that in turn can download other apps. This provides an alternative agreement to the rev share model, where app stores can pay per install rather than on all future revenue. Let's try to understand news and be on the same page before analyzing implications.
- schubidubiduba 10mo agoSince Google is making sure to use all its monopolistic power for keeping Google Play the "default" app store for 99% of users, I fail to see this distinction as particularly relevant. From an anticompetitiveness perspective, that is.
- 827a 10mo agoGoogle attempting to claim any percentage of revenue from an external transaction will never happen. I believe the current situation with the App Store is that Apple has been barred by US courts from attempting to charge a fee similar to this; though they still do in the EU. USG antitrust, especially in the current admin, hates Google, far more than Apple; this structure will never survive being challenged. Charging a reasonable fee for the installation of an app can be, IMO, a fair and reasonably cost-correlative way for app store providers to be compensated for what few services they do provide application developers. That's within an order of magnitude of how much bandwidth would cost, if they were paying market cloud rates, and certainly there are other services rendered, like search indexing. I would emphasize to the people at Google, however, that your customers bought the phone, which came with the operating system, and thus ethically the core technology your application developers depend on has already been paid for. In Google's case, this happens through Samsung/etc's Android licensing; a relationship which landed them on the wrong side of antitrust lawsuits in the US quicker than Apple's racket did. They dip further by charging developers a direct fee to publish on their stores ($100/year for Apple, $25/one time for Google). Attempting to triple-dip by "reflecting the value provided by Android and Play and support our continued investments across Android and Play" convinces exactly no one of your benign intent; not your investors, nor the US Government, nor consumers, nor developers. The only person who may be convinced that any of this makes any sense is some nameless VP somewhere in some nameless org at your mothership, who can pat themselves on the back and say "at least its legal's problem now". Its possible no one at all in this business unit remembers what the words "produce value" even mean, let alone have the remote understanding of what it takes to do so. Exactly everyone who has ever interacted with it know this; your CEO certainly knows this, given how much investment he's made into AI and not into the Play Store. Continuing to cause so many global legal problems, for such an unpromising, growth-stunted business unit, is not generally a good recipe for keeping your job or saving your people from layoffs.
- dagmx 10mo agoYour statement here is incorrect, or rather out of date. The courts have reaffirmed that they may charge a fee for external payment processors. > I believe the current situation with the App Store is that Apple has been barred by US courts from attempting to charge a fee similar to this;
- woodpanel 10mo agoWell in hindsight, that „Don’t be evil“ turned out to be such a blatant in-your-face lie shouldn’t come as a surprise when dealing with Epstein vicinity enjoyers.
- moomoo11 10mo ago99% of consumers don’t give a shit. Find something better to do with all that effort. Holy shit. Leave Google alone, unironically.
- brazukadev 10mo agoI can't believe we got to the point people are throwing random tantrums to defend Google without even using arguments.
- travisgriggs 10mo agoIs it too much to hope for some fin-syn restoration? And not just for TV, but for all digital content. Make it, or distribute it, but never both.
- rich_sasha 10mo agoTo me the only surprise is that anyone went for the whole "yeah it's open source, honest" all these years ago. You don't invest millions and billions when you're Google only to give up the control and financial interest.
- rock_artist 10mo agoGoogle’s main revenue is ads. Same goes for their other services. I’d also assume with many ad-supported apps they’re also leading source of ads (also on iOS) Another point to consider, Is they DO take fee from each device developer that includes Google App Services. So basically ALL devices with official Play Store sold by the manufacturer already pays a fee to include their store (but also that’s the only way to have official Gmail and other services users would expect when buying an android device)
- sschueller 10mo agoTell me you are a monopoly without telling me you are a monopoly. How much longer until something is finally done? Do laws no longer apply in the US? Ma Bell never got this far but I guess being a state owned entity was the actual problem not the consumers getting screwed.
- throawayonthe 10mo agoNot 'Android,' Google Play Store
- mitjam 10mo agoI don't quite understand how this would affect apps for SaaS and cloud services (if at all). Examples: I use Azure's app to launch a VM on Azure. I access content purchased as part of a SaaS subscription (eg. Sofa Tutor in Germany).
- KronisLV 10mo ago> App download event: A fixed fee (subject to periodic adjustments) per install based on the app category of the linked external app being installed. The linked app category must be declared as part of transaction reporting. > Games: $3.65 > Apps: $2.85 Isn't this dangerously similar to what Unity did with their Runtime Fee? You know, the thing that soured public opinion of them so bad that a lot of devs quit using it altogether? Or is this more of a Google holding everyone hostage situation?
- HeavyStorm 10mo agoI think this needs more attention. It's very predatory (almost $4 for linking to a game install?)
- timnetworks 10mo agoReminder: 90% of the functionality a user needs is available via the web (pwa).