[k-mcgrady]

>> "Official app stores are quasi-monopolies and need government control."

They aren't and they don't. They are a store like any other and the store owner can decide not to sell your products without a good reason if they want to. On Android there are several alternative stores (most notably Amazon) not to mention apps can be installed directly by downloading the APK without any device modification.

>> "Think about all the time and work the developer has invested."

The developer made this business decision knowing fully the risks involved.

>> "And can't be possible for google to effectively keep him from selling the app just because they feel like it. If they have an app distribution monopoly, developers have a right to publish their app there. It is not a favor google grants."

See my first point. Google is a store and can reject you for no reason. There are several alternatives to selling through their store. It is a favour Google grants and you have no right to be there.

>> "This is something laws have to enforce as companies like google demonstrably harm this right on their own. It's either this or opening up the app store concept."

Again it is not a right and the app store 'concept' is open as anyone can create their own store and several have. You can also distribute without a store through your own website. Or you can create a web app. There are plenty of ways for consumers to get your product that do not require Google.

[st0neage]

>> They aren't and they don't. They are a store like any other and the store owner can decide not to sell your products without a good reason if they want to. On Android there are several alternative stores (most notably Amazon) not to mention apps can be installed directly by downloading the APK without any device modification.

It's the same as with internet explorer on windows back in the day. google play is preinstalled so that is what the majority of users use. it IS a quasi-monopoly. and with this, googles freedom to choose not to sell a particular app is gone.

[icebraining]

The Internet Explorer bundling was only illegal because Microsoft was abusing one monopoly (Windows) to kill the competition in another market (Browsers).

Android doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market, so they are far from having a monopoly on App Stores. A developer has alternatives to publish his or her apps.

[alextingle]

You are right, but whatever the details, Google behaviour is unfair both to its customers and to its suppliers. They (together with Apple) are using their dominant position to control this marketplace, to the detriment of everyone but themselves.

Full credit to them for creating these markets in the first place. They deserve to be rewarded. However, there is a line (however fuzzy) that they should not cross. If they start abusing their position, then regulation is needed to ensure a level playing field.

[icebraining]

"Regulation" is a general term, and meaningless in this case. What rules exactly would you like to see imposed? Should Google have to allow every payment processor? What if some are scammers? Is Google responsible to blocking them? What oversight should exist to ensure they don't "unfairly" block some?

I'm not fundamentally opposed to regulations, but I really dislike it when people throw around the term as if it was pixie dust that solves anything. Creating good and fair regulations is not simple nor easy, and bad ones do more damage than the lack of thereof.

And in the end, they're freakin' apps, not medical devices. Just let people make their own damn decisions.

[alextingle]

I'm not really prescribing a solution, just identifying a class of problem. However, that said, here's an idea:

I'd like to see Google forced to provide a minimum level of support to their customers and suppliers. For example, if they decide to cut someone off (as in this case) then they must explain their decision with a certain minimum level of detail. I'd also like to see a formal appeals system, possibly with an independent ombudsman as a court of final appeal.

This kind of enforced service level is common in the UK. Banks, utilities, insurance companies, etc. all have similar conflict resolution regimes. Usually paid for by the industry itself, via (mandatory) fees.

Obviously in Google's case, their profit per customer can be very low, so I think if would be reasonable to expect complainants pay for the cost of failed appeals. That would keep a tight lid on frivolous complaints, but provide a fair avenue for more serious grievances to be resolved.

Far more importantly, it would encourage Google to pay closer attention to their day-to-day automated communications, which currently feel like half-finished student projects. I'm pretty sure that with the right incentives, Google could resolve 99% of the ill-feeling against them by simply putting more effort into this part of their business.

[icebraining]

I'm not really prescribing a solution, just identifying a class of problem.

When you say that regulation is needed, you are prescribing a solution.

WRT to your proposal, how would that help in this case? The developer would just pay the fee, and Google would tell them "you broke the 'Google Play Developer Program Policies' agreement, which says you can't use third-party payment providers".

In fact, the developer says Google gave the official reason, so what would be the purpose of paying to get the same answer?

[st0neage]

Nitpicking about details is not an argument.

[icebraining]

The idea that the actual rules are just an implementation detail is why you end up with legislation written by lobbyists and designed to further entrench the incumbents against competition. Say that one of the rules is that you create a list of mandatory payment providers that the"monopolists" must accept; such list shall be regularly updated, and so a board must be created, possibly composed of the industry players. How likely would it then be that a new startup could enter the market?

This is what's happening everywhere, and it's the result of the irrational reaction that we must have some regulation, without really thinking about what and how.

[st0neage]

>>far from having a monopoly on App Stores Google has a (quasi-) monopoly on android app stores. Overall marketshare of android is irrelevant.

[icebraining]

No, it's not irrelevant. It's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's only illegal to try to kill the competition in another market by abusing that monopoly, which is what Microsoft did, and Google is not doing.

[st0neage]

>>No, it's not irrelevant. Yes it is. >> It's only illegal [...] It is illegal to abuse the monopoly position. Which IS what google is doing. Googles app store is NOT just another store. Monoplies need special regulation and special oversight.

[icebraining]

Did you know that only Walmart is allowed to build stores on Walmart-owned land? And that they pick and choose what products are sold on that land? That's clearly an abuse of their monopoly on stores built on their land!

[k-mcgrady]

>> "google play is preinstalled"

Device manufactures can choose to install or not install it. e.g. Kindle Fire comes with the Amazon App Store, not the Play Store. Therefore consumers can choose a device with or without the Google Play Store.

[st0neage]

>> "google play is preinstalled" on the majority of devices. my point still stands.

[forgottenpass]

They are a store like any other and the store owner can decide not to sell your products without a good reason if they want to.

Regardless of if you're OK with this practice or not, it's quite dishonest not to acknowledge their strong vertical integration makes them not at all "a store like any other."