[securityfreak]

I might get downvoted on principle, but I genuinely wonder and don't understand: why is it NOT OK for Google and Apple to ask for a cut? They have spent years and millions (if not billions) in developing the infrastructure, public trust and user base that allows developers to reach millions of potential customers in the first place. They provide some valuable guarantees that apps should follow that benefit and protect the consumer. I understand that bypassing fees is a way how to temporarily "have green numbers" and show savings on the quarterly report, but this is like a sugar company trying to sell sugar on the streets outside of a supermarket chain, because they don't want to pay a fee to the supermarket chain. It's their app store, their user base - why can't they make their own rules which benefit the consumer in the first place and not the greedy provider?

Again, I am genuinely curious what ethical principle am I missing here.

[danShumway]

Developers of apps like Fortnite and Tinder believe the fee is too high for the services it provides, and they're literally putting their money where their mouth is by bypassing the fees and forgoing the benefits of the store.

We'll be able to tell if they're right by looking at whether the 30% savings offset the increased costs and lower install rates. The fact that developers are able to realistically try this out is a sign that the market is working as intended.

This is why Google's model of allowing 3rd-party stores is (imo) a pretty direct improvement over Apple's -- it allows us to run these kinds of experiments. Why waste time having a philosophical argument about whether or not Google's cut is fair when we can just test the hypothesis directly?

The other idea I want to push against is that because Google built a platform, they're entitled to continue to make money on it. That's just not how capitalism works -- "value" here is what the market will pay you, it has nothing to do with whether you did something good in the past. Google may have put a lot of resources into creating an amazing platform, but if being listed on the store is not currently increasing profits for large apps like Tinder after fees, then the cut isn't fair.

Their past contributions to the app ecosystem don't matter.

[loceng]

Well, they already used the stores to gain critical mass - and once they've reached it, now taking advantage of that. Not saying that is good or bad, just pointing it out.

[danShumway]

Sure -- while they were gaining critical mass they were happy to pay Google's fees. Now they're big enough that they feel they don't need to anymore.

This goes back to what I was saying about whether or not a business should be owed some kind of 'gratitude' over past actions. There's no rule in a capitalist system that says you owe someone continued patronage just because they used to provide you with a good service.

It's all about what value Google is providing right now -- the past benefits are irrelevant.

[buboard]

- It seems like collusion that both of them keep the cut at 30% for more than 10 years

- It doesn't cost them that much anymore. Their cut is absurdly high. For apple it was a profit of 21.7 Billion last year from other people's apps , in exchange for whatever minor changes they made to their app store. Does it really cost even 1 Billion to keep the app store running?

- They should be more transparent about their numbers. How much does an app developer make? Their opaqueness is self-serving (attracting developers to work for them in the dark, basically). Their PR machine (like the article i 'm linking) is too loud and i believe misleads developers regarding what to expect from app revenue.

- Freedom is a benefit for the consumer, apple has way too many restrictions on the kind of apps i can have on my iphone. Whether it benefits the consumer or not is highly debateable.

- The lock-in of developers is real, it's built with dirty tricks, and i pity those devs who are bound by it.

https://www.cultofmac.com/601492/app-store-google-play-reven...

[hrktb]

> It's their app store, their user base

There’s only one app store for Apple device and Apple fought tooth nails to ban jailbreking and forbidding any other app store like system.

There’s only one extensive app store for android and Google forced it down the throat of any maker that wanted Google’s service libraries which tons of apps learned to rely on.

Platform owners have been playing dirty in a lot of aspects, I think it’s game for service owners to find workarounds or get out of paying a cut to Apple or Google.

[scarface74]

How is this different from the console manufacturers? Yes even when you buy a physical disk the console maker get a cut.

[hrktb]

In principle consoles are not different, and lawyers looking at Apple/Google stores are also wondering what impact would a ruling in this field have on consoles as well.

I think nobody goes after consoles for now because there is no big enough business case getting hurt, and they’re kind of grandfathered in people’s perception.

[zamazingo]

> There’s only one extensive app store for android

This is incorrect. F-droid is quite extensive.

[arantius]

According to WikiPedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_app_distributio... ):

Google Play: 3.5 million apps App Store: 2.2 million apps F-Droid: 1,878

Several orders of magnitude off.

[ksec]

>why is it NOT OK for Google and Apple to ask for a cut?

I don't think majority of people complaining are actually about the cut, but how much of the cut. And 30% is what a lot of people disagree with.

The reality is somewhere along the line Apple got too focused on their 20% Net Margin, they put themselves into a price corner. Before the iPhone era Apple mostly do ~10% Net margin, and at best some one offs ~13% quarters. Not only has Apple earned 30x the revenue post iPhone's introduction, that have also doubled their margin.

But then Pricing is only one part of the equation, it is the value on offer that matters, which is fundamentally what people are complaining about the App Store as well as iPhone 's prices.

[scarface74]

As opposed to both retail and the pre-iPhone carrier stores where the retailer got a 60-70% cut.

[ksec]

Um. No, Retail and Pre iPhone Carrier don't get 60% of the cut. And their operational expenses are completely different.

[scarface74]

Okay 45% goes to the retailer and another 11% goes to the console maker. At least for games.

https://gamerant.com/video-game-prices-breakdown-514/

[nobodyshere]

Well, IMHO it is a fair argument for Google. They allow third party app stores. F-Droid is a brilliant example.

For Apple, however, things aren't as nice and shiny. They force you to distribute and get apps through their store. They don't let you distribute your apps easily otherwise. You don't have a choice of sharing a piece of your app price with Apple or selling it through your website as a package, or through any other app store.

[ENGNR]

30% of a $5 app that they found through the app store? Yeah maybe

30% of a $50/month SaaS service just so a client can have a mobile front for something they mostly use on a desktop? Surely that's ridiculous

[metafunctor]

SaaS companion apps are typically free in the App Store.

[zerr]

As a side note, there are tons of countries, including in Europe, which are not supported as merchant countries in Play Store - i.e. devs are only allowed to publish free apps.

[Jabbles]

Which countries do you mean?

According to this: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

These countries do not support merchant accounts: Antigua and Barbuda Angola Aruba Barbados Benin Bermuda Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Burkina Faso Cameroon Cape Verde Cote d'Ivoire El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Gabon Georgia Gibraltar Greenland Liechtenstein Mali Monaco Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Nepal Netherlands Antilles Rwanda San Marino Senegal Serbia Seychelles Tajikistan Togo Turkmenistan Vatican City

Some of those are in Europe, but which in particular were you concerned about?

[zerr]

> but which in particular were you concerned about?

How does it matter? Are you or do you know someone at Alphabet who is able to help? :)

[Jabbles]

No, I just want you to justify "tons of countries", by pointing out some that are important to you that Google doesn't serve.

[zamazingo]

You just listed 30+ countries and regions yourself and proved parent's point.

I'm sure they weight a ton or more when combined.

[jmccaf]

_Alot_ of those in the list are known for "offshore" financial shenanigans where a company might be domiciled there, only for legal/tax purposes.

[black_puppydog]

It would be no problem whatsoever if playstore/appstore were just two of many market places. As it is however, they both completely dominate their respective markets. On top of that, it is costly, both in terms of money and in terms of friction, for a customer to change between the two, so they really are quite separate markets. As a customer, you pretty much choose one of the two, then stick with it (or pay a hefty price to switch). As a developer, you either also choose one of the two, or both. Choosing neither really isn't an option.

In this situation of non-competition, some very crucial assumptions about the efficiency of free markets break down entirely. I think hardly anyone is debating that apple/google make some money for the infrastructure they provide. But the amount they take would be significantly lower if there was real competition. Which there really isn't. That's what's called "rent extraction" and basically just means you're extracting more money for something than would be needed to make you do it in the first place. Would google/apple still be motivated to provide the same service if their cut was halved? Probably. It would still make a killing. But their dominant position allows them to take more, so they do.

TL;DR: At the base, your question (for me) really boils down to "why should there be any rules for corporation at all?" To which I would answer: because if left completely to their own devices, that would be a bad system for nearly everyone, except the very few at the very top.

[devit]

Because there is only widely used one app store per platform and thus no competition.