[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.