Android introduces $2-4 install fee and 10–20% cut for US external content links
Posted by radley 6 hours ago
Comments
Comment by hirsin 4 hours ago
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.
Comment by gessha 4 hours ago
Comment by yalok 4 hours ago
Comment by gghffguhvc 3 hours ago
Comment by prox 2 hours ago
Comment by modeless 4 hours ago
Comment by hirsin 2 hours ago
Comment by boneitis 2 hours ago
(Yikes)
Comment by metiscus 1 hour ago
Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago
Comment by boneitis 1 hour ago
i do wonder if there's regardless going to be some kind of (perhaps overwhelming) inundation.
Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago
Comment by klez 3 hours ago
Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago
Comment by thesumofall 3 hours ago
Comment by BrenBarn 4 hours ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago
This looks tailor made to navigate the Epic v. Apple ruling's contours.
Comment by penguin_booze 29 minutes ago
Repeat offenders should be given fines at an exponentially increasing percentage. The more and frequent you offend, the more fines you pay.
Comment by mdhb 4 hours ago
Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago
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.
Comment by Bombthecat 3 hours ago
Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago
There is no way this ends well if it is not arrested.
Comment by niels8472 1 hour ago
Comment by dragonwriter 2 hours ago
Its very much about centralizing power while very carefully restructuring capacities, not decentralizing power.
Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago
Comment by BrenBarn 1 hour ago
Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago
Instead you need to get some adults back in the room and start doing things like prosecuting government officials for corruption regardless of which party they're in, passing the laws that lower the cost of living even over the opposition of the people getting paid the higher costs, and actually enforcing antitrust laws instead of both parties using them as a cudgel to get tech and media corporations to bend the knee politically in exchange for not enforcing them.
Comment by conradfr 3 hours ago
Comment by jacquesm 2 hours ago
The fact that a couple of million (billion?) people could die as a result of their landgrab is none of their concern. The billionaire class appears to be divorced from reality to a very dangerous degree, and there are enough useful idiots willing to hand them their support to make this a very dangerous time. I don't think we've ever been closer to potentially losing it all than we are right now.
You're looking at 'divide and conquer' on a scale that we have never seen before and there are enough dominoes falling already that I don't even know if it still can be arrested.
Comment by scns 2 hours ago
Comment by saubeidl 2 hours ago
To become a billionaire requires sociopathic disregard for the suffering of others and a pathological need for more.
There's no such thing as a good billionaire.
Comment by jacquesm 1 hour ago
If you don't realize it by two you never will. Really, this is completely out of proportion by now, Marie Antoinette was a pauper by the standards these people live by.
Comment by saubeidl 1 hour ago
But the point stands.
Comment by jacquesm 1 hour ago
Comment by saubeidl 19 minutes ago
I'm not saying you shouldn't realize it before 10M, I'm saying you should probably stop hoarding resources after 10M at most.
I can see how my phrasing was a bit ambiguous there.
Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago
In general their money isn't money, it's stock. The thing it buys them is being the CEO of their company instead of letting Wall St pick someone even worse.
The real problem is that companies are now so large that you'd have to be a multi-billionaire to have a controlling interest.
Comment by drstewart 1 hour ago
Don't bother looking it up on the wildly published document though. Just "ask questions"
Isn't the EU's plan to make everyone pod people and use them for energy, like the Matrix? Potentially.
Comment by saubeidl 2 hours ago
American billionaires sure do.
Comment by jacquesm 2 hours ago
But their plan appears to be quite messy and harder to execute on than they thought so all we have so far is a lot of destruction with not much to show for it. Even the White House looks like a demolition site and not a peep about it.
I believe that if any past president had so much as suggested this rather than executed on it they'd have been impeached instantly.
Comment by renewiltord 2 hours ago
Couldn’t be anything else to be honest.
Comment by dangus 3 hours ago
He's also a by-the-dictionary-definition fascist authoritarian including the part where corporations are untouchable and above the law, so long as they pay to play with his new mafia government modeled directly on Russia.
Comment by cmcaleer 5 hours ago
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.
Comment by charcircuit 4 hours ago
Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago
Comment by binaryturtle 3 hours ago
Comment by jacquesm 2 hours ago
Comment by dagmx 6 hours ago
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.
Comment by lobito25 5 hours ago
Comment by musicale 5 hours ago
Comment by bloppe 4 hours ago
Comment by shakna 3 hours ago
Comment by metiscus 1 hour ago
Comment by radley 4 hours ago
“Epic has indicated that it opposes the service fees that Google announced it may implement in the future and that Epic will challenge these fees if they come into effect.”
https://www.theverge.com/news/848540/google-app-fees-externa...
Comment by dagmx 3 hours ago
Comment by kotaKat 7 minutes ago
Comment by charcircuit 3 hours ago
Free mobile games work via whales subsidizing free users. It may be more than the median user, but it's less than the average spend per user.
Comment by dagmx 3 hours ago
These would not be free to play. They would have an up front cost beyond what the free users would be paying otherwise.
Comment by charcircuit 1 hour ago
Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago
Comment by mrcwinn 5 hours ago
Comment by hshdhdhj4444 5 hours ago
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.
Comment by musicale 5 hours ago
Comment by mdhb 4 hours ago
Comment by JimDabell 3 hours ago
Nobody gave a shit about the mobile web until Apple launched the iPhone, where one of its main selling points was a “desktop-class web browser”, where Steve Jobs told announced that if they wanted to run apps on the iPhone, they should be web apps.
Then suddenly everybody started demanding “iPhone-compatible websites” overnight. Nobody was asking for “mobile websites”, which until that point were shitty WAP/WML things, or – in the best case – cut back m.example.com microsites. People wanted “iPhone-compatible websites”.
And then all the other phone vendors used Apple’s open-source WebKit code (open-source thanks to KDE, useful on mobile thanks to Apple) to release their own browsers, and the mobile web took off like a rocket because suddenly it was useful because people could use real websites.
And let’s not forget Steve Jobs telling people to avoid Flash and use open web standards instead.
There is a very clear before/after with the mobile web, and it’s the launch of the iPhone and all the work Apple put into making WebKit work well on mobile that provided that watershed moment.
Apple were championing the web in the time period you claim they were “intentionally undermining and artificially crippling it”.
Now, you may be underwhelmed by their performance in more recent years, but it’s simply factually untrue that they have had a 20 year campaign to undermine the web.
Comment by mdhb 3 hours ago
Comment by JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago
Jumping into this thread midstream, you seem to be ceding the argument.
Comment by JimDabell 2 hours ago
Comment by hnlmorg 3 hours ago
Except there isn’t multiple stores on Xbox or PlayStation or Switch. Which is directly comparable to the iOS lock ins that Epic was fighting against.
> 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.
True but also irrelevant. Monopoly laws don’t make those distinctions.
> 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.
Again, monopoly laws don’t make any distinction here. However to answer your direct point, some consoles are marketed as more general purpose devices for taxation reasons. All consoles support YouTube, most have other streaming services from Netflix to Spotify. They all come with a fully capable web browser. Even their hardware has been generic for the last few generations of consoles. So they are general purpose devices in all metrics aside from the variety of apps available. And you could argue the reason for this is literally because of their “App Store” lock ins. So your argument here is evidence against the point you’re trying to make.
> General purpose computing, which is what phones are, are basic infrastructure for modern life.
That’s not the definition of a “general purpose computing device” and I reject the idea that iOS and Android are equivalent to water, roads and electricity.
I do agree that smartphones are a MASSIVELY useful asset, but you don’t actually need a smartphone for modern life. Plenty of older people still manage just fine without iOS nor Android. They’ll use a laptop or PC to access the same services via a web browser.
Furthermore, the companies who are fighting iOS lock ins are not critical services. Epic, for example, is a gaming company. They don’t provide health or banking services. You can’t do your taxes in Fortnight. You don’t book your car in for a service via an app built in Unreal Engine. Epic build games not essential infrastructure.
Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago
Comment by raw_anon_1111 4 hours ago
Cry me a river for the Epics of the world selling loot boxes and other pay to win crap. It came out in the trial that 90% of App Store revenue is coming from games.
Neither Epic, Google or Apple are on the side of the angels
Comment by Razengan 4 hours ago
Comment by 8note 5 hours ago
if everything is running on the same couple engines, the cosmetics are all compatible with each other
Comment by deaux 5 hours ago
Asking Fortnite to accept other stores selling Fortnite-compatible cosmetics doesn't work either because Fortnite has not monopolized a trillion-dollar industry, meanwhile spending billions on lobbying to make daily life for the average citizen impossible without them, which the Google-Apple cartel has. Fortnite has also never gained market share by pursuing claims about being an open source platform or not being evil, again unlike Google. These differences.. make all the difference. Call me when my kids are forced to agree to Fortnite EULAs to participate in schooling all around the world.
Comment by pjmlp 5 hours ago
Unless all around the world is the usual "world === USA".
Comment by ncruces 1 hour ago
Also, given the frequency of families having issues with the Cuco MDM used to lock out the Windows computers they handed to kids during COVID, and what kids do which such computers, I'm doubly unsure it was a smart idea to offer shitty Windows laptops vs. shitty Chromebooks.
Schools around the world give kids Chromebooks (or iPads) because they're harder to fuck and easier to unfuck. Windows still sucks at this, and no one came up with a coherent — locked down — Linux platform to achieve the same.
Comment by pjmlp 1 hour ago
That kind of stuff is mostly US school system, schools in countries that go with USA into G7 meetings, or wealthy enough for that kind of stuff maybe.
Not every country has the pleasure to enjoy a school system swimming in money to offer computers to kids, in every single school.
Not even during COVID was every Portuguese family granted the pleasure to have a device offered to them, some lucky ones did, a large majority only saw them on the news, and as usual the burden was on the family to come up with a solution to all their kids attending the various school levels.
And lets not even go to such great stuff like Magalhães, e-escola, and who got to profit from it.
Comment by deaux 4 hours ago
Not at all. US isn't even the leader on this. For example in many countries it's already much harder to do any kind of digital banking without a Google/Apple-approved phone than in the US.
In Europe as well, more and more places where it's completely the norm for schools and teachers to do all their communication through Facebook or Whatsapp. Sure those have web, but are arguably the worst of the three. Portugal nor most European countries are above this at all. If only they were. Look at all the national IDs rolled out, those too more and more mandatory Apple/Android 2FA.
Will Portuguese teachers never downgrade any students who do all their homework on e.g. OpenOffice and it doesn't look nice on the teacher's MS Office? Doubt it.
Comment by pjmlp 3 hours ago
We have had national IDs since forever, with fingerprints, we don't go crazy about it like in some other countries, even though we suffered a dictorship with lots of human losses, colonial wars, and even though PIDE/DGS wasn't KGB or Stasi level, it also managed to impact our society.
I should know, I am part of the first generation to grow up in freedom, while hearing the grown up stories of how everything came to be.
Comment by petre 1 hour ago
Comment by motoxpro 5 hours ago
Comment by bigyabai 5 hours ago
Comment by charcircuit 4 hours ago
Yes, it does. Your only options are like Fornite, Roblox, or Minecraft.
Saying make your own game, is like saying make your own phone. There is tremendous value in the gigantic userbases these platforms have. This value is why platform holders can charge for access to them.
Comment by shakna 3 hours ago
Wow. I guess Steam must be bankrupt and surviving off just four games. And I guess Epic and Steam just don't compete. And itch and GoG are just irrelevant with no market impact.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but gaming is not "choose between these two" level of monopilisation. And indies just won game of the year awards! Things are just not monopolised.
Comment by charcircuit 3 hours ago
Comment by Rohansi 2 hours ago
Comment by Rohansi 2 hours ago
What?? Unlike phones nothing locks people into only playing a specific game. And there are so many other games out there to choose from.
Comment by charcircuit 2 hours ago
>are so many other games out there to choose from.
But how many can you make a business on top of that can pay competitively? It's like how there are a ton of operating systems to choose from, yet only a few that are viable to build upon.
Comment by shakna 1 hour ago
One example?
Stardew Valley. Runs on everything, not just "viable" OSs, made by a single person, and easily competes with an entire genre of gaming to pay the author.
Comment by charcircuit 1 hour ago
Comment by grishka 4 hours ago
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.
Comment by schubidubiduba 2 hours ago
Comment by TZubiri 3 hours ago
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.
Comment by nsagent 6 hours ago
Comment by dagmx 6 hours ago
The costs provided here may very well fall into the acceptable boundaries for the courts.
Comment by malfist 5 hours ago
Comment by hirsin 4 hours ago
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.
Comment by Rohansi 2 hours ago
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.
Comment by dagmx 3 hours ago
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.
Comment by hirsin 2 hours ago
Comment by charcircuit 2 hours ago
Comment by kmeisthax 5 hours ago
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).
Comment by JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago
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.
Comment by Groxx 5 hours ago
Comment by dagmx 3 hours ago
Comment by KronisLV 1 hour ago
> 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?
Comment by rich_sasha 3 hours ago
You don't invest millions and billions when you're Google only to give up the control and financial interest.
Comment by rock_artist 3 hours ago
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)
Comment by HeavyStorm 1 hour ago
Comment by lobito25 5 hours ago
Comment by charcircuit 3 hours ago
Comment by schubidubiduba 1 hour ago
Comment by charcircuit 1 hour ago
Comment by notrealyme123 3 hours ago
Comment by charcircuit 3 hours ago
Comment by mitjam 2 hours ago
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).
Comment by modeless 4 hours ago
https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-confirms-contem...
Comment by dagmx 3 hours ago
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.
Comment by travisgriggs 3 hours ago
Comment by sschueller 3 hours ago
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.
Comment by systematizeD 5 hours ago
Comment by 0xbadcafebee 5 hours ago
Comment by concinds 4 hours ago
- 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.
Comment by raw_anon_1111 4 hours ago
Comment by concinds 1 hour ago
Comment by dontdoxxme 5 hours ago
Comment by groundzeros2015 5 hours ago
Comment by realusername 4 hours ago
Unless you are building a gambling game app, it's not worth it to deal with the duopoly, I've been there.
Comment by umrashrf 5 hours ago
Why don't they buy alternate devices without android or google?
Comment by throawayonthe 2 hours ago
Comment by m463 4 hours ago
Comment by rbits 4 hours ago
Comment by heavyset_go 5 hours ago
Comment by ChrisArchitect 4 hours ago
https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-asia/complying-w...
Comment by ycombinatrix 4 hours ago
Comment by jacquesm 2 hours ago
Comment by 827a 4 hours ago
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.
Comment by dagmx 3 hours ago
> 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;
Comment by woodpanel 3 hours ago
Comment by moomoo11 3 hours ago
Find something better to do with all that effort. Holy shit. Leave Google alone, unironically.
Comment by brazukadev 3 hours ago