Android introduces $2-4 install fee and 10–20% cut for US external content links

Posted by radley 6 hours ago

Counter180Comment140OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by hirsin 4 hours ago

The apparent information gathering and brutal review process is unbelievable here. If I'm understanding this correctly, the requirement is that eg Epic Game Store must register and upload every single APK for every app they offer, and cannot offer it in their store until Google approves it, which may take a week or more - including every time the app updates.

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

Google and accessible customer support should not be put in the same sentence. Their history of automated neglect is beyond reproach.

Comment by yalok 4 hours ago

their Play store review practices are such a joke. Apps review is a completely obscure process, no clear way to see that the app is in review state, if they reject - amount of information why it was rejected is minimal and you have to second-guess; appealing is not trivial; most of the reviews are done by AI which gets triggered in totally random places from time to time (e.g., in my case, some pictures which looked fine for kids for years and went through many previous reviewed, suddenly seem too violent).

Comment by gghffguhvc 3 hours ago

I have healthcare apps. The review process for me consists of some reviewer deciding what set of healthcare features I should have picked from their list and rejecting on that basis. But subsequent reviewers have different opinions. In one app version release I got rejected 5 times for picking the wrong set of healthcare features as either the reviewer changed their mind or I got different reviewers. The app has been on Google play for 13 years.

Comment by prox 2 hours ago

I wish there were laws against their practice.

Comment by modeless 4 hours ago

This page only applies to apps distributed by Google Play. Not apps installed by third party stores. It's still outrageous, of course.

Comment by hirsin 2 hours ago

Ahh that's a really good call out, thank you. Basically negates most of what I wrote.

Comment by boneitis 2 hours ago

Hmm, does this mean that large swaths of people publishing apps are going to flock to distribution platforms like f-droid?

(Yikes)

Comment by metiscus 1 hour ago

This is probably why they killed installs that dont have attribution, specifically to undercut f-droid.

Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago

F-Droid only accepts open source apps.

Comment by boneitis 1 hour ago

absolutely, i get this. i assume it's going to be a relatively small subset that go open in order to jump to an open platform. i'm not super familiar with the f-droid publishing ecosystem (or mobile publishing at all, admittedly).

i do wonder if there's regardless going to be some kind of (perhaps overwhelming) inundation.

Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago

I want to see what the EU anti-trust organization will make of this.

Comment by klez 3 hours ago

Isn't this limited to the US?

Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago

Yes, but you can bet that if they succeed with this in the US they will try something similar in the EU. They're constantly testing the waters.

Comment by thesumofall 3 hours ago

Probably for the same reasons

Comment by BrenBarn 4 hours ago

The fact that this is being introduced after the whole Epic/Apple thing clearly shows that the penalties in that case were not nearly severe enough and the standards set were not nearly stringent enough. The mere attempt to engage in policies like this should result in fines in the hundreds of billions.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago

> fact that this is being introduced after the whole Epic/Apple thing clearly shows that the penalties in that case were not nearly severe enough

This looks tailor made to navigate the Epic v. Apple ruling's contours.

Comment by penguin_booze 29 minutes ago

This is why, when fines are imposed on corporations, they should be an integer percentage of their global turn over.

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

I’d also point out in the same observation that they knew better than to try this in Europe and that their strategy of trying to hold large tech companies accountable seems to be working (with the minor caveat that it’s now official US defence policy to try and break up the European Union and US trade policy is extremely focused on the idea that nobody is ever allowed to fine a US company for breaking the law)

Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago

I am morbidly curious about how far the attempt to destroy the USA will be allowed to proceed before even the Republican party has decided that it is probably enough. So far they have exceeded my wildest (and worst) expectations.

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

Isn't the plan of project 2025 to collapse the USA into smaller states?

Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago

I don't know what the 'plan' is anymore other than that it seems to entail destabilization and destruction of the most powerful nation on the earth into a bit player making this every two bit dictator's wet dream.

There is no way this ends well if it is not arrested.

Comment by niels8472 1 hour ago

If you assume the primary goal is self enrichment and the rest is just side effects and distractions, things immediately start making more sense.

Comment by dragonwriter 2 hours ago

No, project 2025 is very much about centralizing federal power, securing and further entrenching Republican partisan power, and dismantling and/or restructuring federal institutions that are perceived as being particularly useful in implementing priorities the Right does not share so thar even should the attempt to enteench Republican institutional advantage not secure a permanent majority, the federal government will have been selectively institutionally crippled so that gearing up to do things Republicans would prefer not be done will take longer than it takes to bring Republicans back into power to stop it.

Its very much about centralizing power while very carefully restructuring capacities, not decentralizing power.

Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago

Maybe the other party should do the other thing then? Actually decentralize things and reduce federal power in ways that stick between administrations. Then the next Trump wouldn't have the power to do things like this, and meanwhile California and other states could be setting their own emissions standards or imposing network neutrality or antitrust rules etc. without federal interference.

Comment by BrenBarn 1 hour ago

No, I think the better idea is, if the Democrats get power, pack the union, remove the pardon power, and basically send everyone associated with either Trump administration to jail for life (including all House/Senate members who voted against impeachment). It might be necessary to execute some for treason. I don't see any way back to sanity without a Nuremberg-style process in which "conservatism" as we know it is gouged out of the political arena.

Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago

This is the exact attitude that got Trump back in office. Keep everything hyper-partisan and every election is flipping a coin to see who got 1% more votes this time, with everyone feeling like if they lose the other side is going to damage them on purpose because that's literally what they're saying they want to do.

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

What is the benefit? Separate from the "Democrat states"? But aren't they the richest?

Comment by jacquesm 2 hours ago

I think the theory is something like 'ok, the bucket will be smaller but we're the same so effectively we will grow' where 'we' is the wealthy assholes that power this movement.

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

A disregard for other people seems to be a prerequisite to becoming that wealthy for me. Hope i'm wrong, guess the good ones don't make the news. Surely they must exist

Comment by saubeidl 2 hours ago

I think if you cared even a little bit about other people, you'd realize that after say, ten million, your life is gonna be pretty damn sweet already and you'd try to help other people with your money instead of buying yachts.

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

> you'd realize that after say, ten million

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

With single family homes in some part of the world costing two by themselves, I think we can give it a little bit more leeway, especially if you're planning to retire and support your kids through college.

But the point stands.

Comment by jacquesm 1 hour ago

Sure, but you could still realize it, even if you are still amassing more money. Nothing stops people from doing so at lower points than 10 million and my point was that if you don't realize it by the time 2 million rolls around you probably never will.

Comment by saubeidl 19 minutes ago

Yes, I agree.

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

> I think if you cared even a little bit about other people, you'd realize that after say, ten million, your life is gonna be pretty damn sweet already and you'd try to help other people with your money instead of buying yachts.

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

The plan of project 2025 is now apparently whatever you dream it to be whenever you want to rant wildly about it on the internet

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

Remember how the collapse of the soviet union created the oligarch class of incredibly rich untouchables?

American billionaires sure do.

Comment by jacquesm 2 hours ago

Precisely. These cats fancy themselves the kings of the new world order, and if nobody stops them they'll pull it off too.

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

Another reason they could be attacking NATO allies on this front is that the UK has been acting against Bully XL dogs. They’re scared that these dog regulations will spread and so Trump must be surely considering exiting NATO over this.

Couldn’t be anything else to be honest.

Comment by dangus 3 hours ago

The US’ current desire to break up the EU is not because of EU regulations, it’s because the US president is a convicted felon who has been a Russian mob asset promoting Putin’s talking points for decades.

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

> The following fees apply when a user completes [...] any app installs within 24 hours of following an external content link

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

A malicous competitor could also click on their competitors ads too. Antifraud is important.

Comment by AnthonyMouse 1 hour ago

Antifraud is "important" but when the party in charge of implementing it makes more profit when there's more fraud, what result do you expect?

Comment by binaryturtle 3 hours ago

I got my AdSense account disabled because "fraudulent click activity" or how they worded it (someone clicked my ads frequently, I assume?). Google then kept all the my hard earned 16++ EUR or so.

Comment by jacquesm 2 hours ago

I can't wait until I'm professionally done so I never ever have to use a google product again.

Comment by dagmx 6 hours ago

I’m very curious how Tim Sweeney will react to this. This is very much not the victory lap he was hoping to take (nor are the Apple rulings)

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

Developers pay Google to access its services. Infrastructure costs account for less than 1% of the profit margin and are practically negligible. Google acts like a pimp, obsessed with squeezing profit above all else.

Comment by 4 hours ago

Comment by musicale 5 hours ago

If Google allowed other App stores on Android then maybe Amazon could make one. Or maybe they could add a setting to allow users to install their own APKs somehow.

Comment by bloppe 4 hours ago

You can install your own APK already. It's only slightly inconvenient. But apparently that's inconvenient enough to get zero business.

Comment by shakna 3 hours ago

It also involves around three or four "I know this could be dangerous" click-throughs. That is harder to get an audience of everyday, than settling for paying someone you are probably already paying.

Comment by metiscus 1 hour ago

They're also killing this off next year and you'll have to install via adb, unless something changed and I didn't hear about it.

Comment by bsimpson 3 hours ago

Amazon is the most famous example of making an alternative app store for Android.

Guess what? Nobody cared.

Comment by petre 2 hours ago

Is the Samsung app store still a thing. I imagine it's riddled with junk apps.

Comment by radley 4 hours ago

> I’m very curious how Tim Sweeney will react to this.

“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

I’m sure they’ll oppose it but I’m not sure what footing they’d have if this doesn’t fall under googles collusion case, seeing as it’s for everyone in the same boat.

Comment by kotaKat 7 minutes ago

He'll be mad, because he can't sell more nearly-nude Kim Kardashian skins to 12 year olds and make his extra ten cents per sale.

Comment by charcircuit 3 hours ago

>they’re outside what most people would spend

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

The key part is “free to play”

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

It could still be free to play. Free users would be subsidized by paying users and / or by watching ads.

Comment by jacquesm 3 hours ago

Even a dollar would be too much.

Comment by mrcwinn 5 hours ago

Poor Tim! Hey anyone know if I'm allowed to put my own skin store inside the Fortnite store? It's only fair.

Comment by hshdhdhj4444 5 hours ago

People keep making the comparison between the Apple App Store or the Google Play store and the XBox store or the Fortnite store.

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

It's really too bad that essential public services can't be hosted on the web so that you could use them on any platform - smartphone, laptop, tablet, whatever - and would have an alternative to Apple and Google's game stores. Basic apps don't need fancy 3D graphics (and even if they did we have webGL etc.)

Comment by mdhb 4 hours ago

Apple’s 20 year campaign to intentionally undermine and artificially cripple the web platform has a lot to answer for here.

Comment by JimDabell 3 hours ago

There is no single organisation that has done more to push the mobile web forward than Apple. Seriously, name one.

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

[flagged]

Comment by JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago

> Jim you are one of the strangest people on this entire forum...wild rants...deeply weird behavior

Jumping into this thread midstream, you seem to be ceding the argument.

Comment by JimDabell 2 hours ago

You’ve got to learn how to disagree with people without insulting them.

Comment by hnlmorg 3 hours ago

> 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

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

It seems like the better way to dispose of these comparisons is to just to treat them the same and require Xbox etc. to allow alternative stores too. Would thousands be killed if that were required? Simply don't allow devices to exclude competing distribution systems, whatsoever.

Comment by raw_anon_1111 4 hours ago

And the business you need to interact with through your phone and government services are not going through in app payments and giving Apple a cut. At most they are accepting Apple Pay and being charged standard credit card fees

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

[flagged]

Comment by 8note 5 hours ago

in terms of relevance, i think its anticompetitive that i cant use my skins and cosmetics from one game in a different game.

if everything is running on the same couple engines, the cosmetics are all compatible with each other

Comment by deaux 5 hours ago

This comparison doesn't work at all. An APK for app A is compatible with Android devices of version X, regardless of the store it is sold on. A cosmetic for game B is not compatible with all games running on the same engine Y, for obvious reasons.

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

They can come to Portugal, we don't do Chromebooks, or to most European countries for that matter.

Unless all around the world is the usual "world === USA".

Comment by ncruces 1 hour ago

Considering Google Classrooms is used by a significant percentage of public schools, I have no idea why you think Portugal is special here.

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

I am Portuguese, have family ties with teachers still into the active, I guess.

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

> Unless all around the world is the usual "world === USA".

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

Most students in Portugal still deliver their work assigments in paper, and if they want a computer, parents buy one to have at home, usually shared by all that are going to school.

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

You also don't have stupid website age verification laws, at least not yet. Dunno what bs the EU Comission is going to come up with in the future.

Comment by motoxpro 5 hours ago

I've been saying the same thing about my netflix movies on spotify. The both have video and are both in the app store running on the same OS!

Comment by bigyabai 5 hours ago

ESRB would like a word with you.

Comment by charcircuit 4 hours ago

>the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist

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

Those are my _only_ options?

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

Steam is not a competitor to Fortnite. Fortnite gives you a lot for free as a platform compared to what you get from Steam.

Comment by Rohansi 2 hours ago

Steam must just be a front because none of those games are available on it.

Comment by Rohansi 2 hours ago

> Your only options are like Fornite, Roblox, or Minecraft.

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

Nothing locks you into a specific phone. I have both a primary Android and iOS phone that I use.

>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

And so many exceptions to that.

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

The upper bound of building a business on top of Stardew Valley appears to be https://www.patreon.com/pathoschild which makes under $400 per month after Patreon's cut. That's not enough to work as a single person full time let alone hiring a team.

Comment by grishka 4 hours ago

I feel like many commenters are misunderstanding what this is about. This is about apps that are distributed via Google Play. It's an exception to the long-standing rules that a) all monetary transactions for non-physical items must use IAPs, and b) a Google Play distributed app can't install or ask the user to install something from outside of Google Play.

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

Since Google is making sure to use all its monopolistic power for keeping Google Play the "default" app store for 99% of users, I fail to see this distinction as particularly relevant. From an anticompetitiveness perspective, that is.

Comment by TZubiri 3 hours ago

A common pattern in social networks with a political identity, is that bait news stories are less scrutinized for truthfulness and more baited into raging. E.g:

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

Hopefully this gets slapped down hard just like Apple recently did. Both Apple and Google want to continue business as usual despite the court rulings.

Comment by dagmx 6 hours ago

I think you’ve misread the Apple ruling. The appeals court has said they may charge some amount, just not the higher amount that was originally set.

The costs provided here may very well fall into the acceptable boundaries for the courts.

Comment by malfist 5 hours ago

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

Comment by hirsin 4 hours ago

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.

Comment by Rohansi 2 hours ago

> 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.

Comment by dagmx 3 hours ago

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.

Comment by hirsin 2 hours ago

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

Comment by charcircuit 2 hours ago

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.

Comment by kmeisthax 5 hours ago

I honestly don't understand the court rulings regarding all of this. Like, "you need to allow someone to install your software for free" is easy to understand. And "you can ban software that doesn't pay you your chosen cut" is also straightforward (even though I'm a dirty OS Commie that wants that shit for free). Both of those follow clear-cut legal principles based in antitrust and intellectual property law (respectively).

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

> 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

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

From just this page it's rather unclear what triggers this... if an fdroid app that does not use any Play libraries has a purchaseable thing on another site, is that in scope? Do they need to add Play libraries to track it, or be smacked? If yes, it'd certainly explain their "developer verification" effort, as it's a way to enforce rent extraction.

Comment by dagmx 3 hours ago

This is only for apps distributed on the Google play store. It has no bearing on fdroid.

Comment by KronisLV 1 hour ago

> App download event: A fixed fee (subject to periodic adjustments) per install based on the app category of the linked external app being installed. The linked app category must be declared as part of transaction reporting.

> 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

To me the only surprise is that anyone went for the whole "yeah it's open source, honest" all these years 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

Google’s main revenue is ads.

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

I think this needs more attention. It's very predatory (almost $4 for linking to a game install?)

Comment by lobito25 5 hours ago

The extortionists are at it again

Comment by charcircuit 3 hours ago

Feel free to not take up their offer. You aren't being extorted to use this.

Comment by schubidubiduba 1 hour ago

They have a duopoly, so all app developers are extorted to use this if they want to make a living. (Or they use the duopoly-sanctioned payment methods and pay the extortion money there)

Comment by charcircuit 1 hour ago

It's a partnership and there are more ways to make a living in this world than making apps for the Play Store and App Store. Extortion would be if people were forced to make Play Store apps. But if you don't like the terms you can find some other platform to work with or build your own to fill a gap in the market.

Comment by notrealyme123 3 hours ago

As an app developer you are forced to use this. "Offer" is a way to generous word

Comment by charcircuit 3 hours ago

You aren't forced to add links to external content in your app. It was already prohibited, so it's not like you have to do extra work in removing them.

Comment by mitjam 2 hours ago

I don't quite understand how this would affect apps for SaaS and cloud services (if at all). Examples:

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

Wasn't Apple just slapped down for exactly this in court, for the second time? They're really both going to fight this to the bitter end kicking and screaming like toddlers, aren't they.

https://www.courthousenews.com/ninth-circuit-confirms-contem...

Comment by dagmx 3 hours ago

I would suggest reading the ruling and not the headline.

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

Is it too much to hope for some fin-syn restoration? And not just for TV, but for all digital content. Make it, or distribute it, but never both.

Comment by sschueller 3 hours ago

Tell me you are a monopoly without telling me you are a monopoly.

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

Just do progressive tax like Valve do 30/25/20 or/ 15%

Comment by 0xbadcafebee 5 hours ago

Why is anyone still developing for these stagnant walled gardens?

Comment by concinds 4 hours ago

"anyone" is 2 groups:

- 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

Spotify hasn’t allowed in ap purchases since 2013, Netflix hasn’t either for years. Amazon cut some type of deal with Apple where Amazon Prime Movies can be purchased in app via your Amazon account.

Comment by concinds 1 hour ago

Correct, but that means higher friction to pay/subscribe, which means lost conversions (customers) and higher cost of acquisition (of new customers). So they care intensely about bringing it down to 0% or allowing free linking out to the web.

Comment by dontdoxxme 5 hours ago

Most users don’t see it that way.

Comment by groundzeros2015 5 hours ago

Customers are willing to pay for software

Comment by realusername 4 hours ago

Not really, I'll say the secret out loud on HN, build for B2B instead and you'll be where the money is.

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 people keep buying android or google devices?

Why don't they buy alternate devices without android or google?

Comment by throawayonthe 2 hours ago

Not 'Android,' Google Play Store

Comment by m463 4 hours ago

I'm wondering if there was a FSF or GNU "store" (all software $0), would there be costs?

Comment by rbits 4 hours ago

So F-Droid?

Comment by heavyset_go 5 hours ago

This is just egregious, Google can't be split up fast enough and antitrust laws need to be enforced.

Comment by ChrisArchitect 4 hours ago

Meanwhile in Japan, Google Complying with Japan's Mobile Software Competition Act for more open app stores

https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-asia/complying-w...

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46315033)

Comment by ycombinatrix 4 hours ago

Doesn't this violate the court order?

Comment by jacquesm 2 hours ago

Has that ever stopped them?

Comment by 827a 4 hours ago

Google attempting to claim any percentage of revenue from an external transaction will never happen. 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; though they still do in the EU. USG antitrust, especially in the current admin, hates Google, far more than Apple; this structure will never survive being challenged.

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

Your statement here is incorrect, or rather out of date. The courts have reaffirmed that they may charge a fee for external payment processors.

> 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 5 hours ago

Comment by woodpanel 3 hours ago

Well in hindsight, that „Don’t be evil“ turned out to be such a blatant in-your-face lie shouldn’t come as a surprise when dealing with Epstein vicinity enjoyers.

Comment by 6 hours ago

Comment by moomoo11 3 hours ago

99% of consumers don’t give a shit.

Find something better to do with all that effort. Holy shit. Leave Google alone, unironically.

Comment by brazukadev 3 hours ago

I can't believe we got to the point people are throwing random tantrums to defend Google without even using arguments.