[malfist]

I 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]

They'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]

I’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]

Yep, I misunderstood that key point here but can't edit anymore.

[Rohansi]

> 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]

Choosing 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]

Sure, and that's fine for most businesses. But not for a monopoly/duopoly