I might get downvoted on principle, but I genuinely wonder and don't understand: why is it NOT OK for Google and Apple to ask for a cut? They have spent years and millions (if not billions) in developing the infrastructure, public trust and user base that allows developers to reach millions of potential customers in the first place. They provide some valuable guarantees that apps should follow that benefit and protect the consumer. I understand that bypassing fees is a way how to temporarily "have green numbers" and show savings on the quarterly report, but this is like a sugar company trying to sell sugar on the streets outside of a supermarket chain, because they don't want to pay a fee to the supermarket chain. It's their app store, their user base - why can't they make their own rules which benefit the consumer in the first place and not the greedy provider?
Again, I am genuinely curious what ethical principle am I missing here.
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.
- It seems like collusion that both of them keep the cut at 30% for more than 10 years
- It doesn't cost them that much anymore. Their cut is absurdly high. For apple it was a profit of 21.7 Billion last year from other people's apps , in exchange for whatever minor changes they made to their app store. Does it really cost even 1 Billion to keep the app store running?
- They should be more transparent about their numbers. How much does an app developer make? Their opaqueness is self-serving (attracting developers to work for them in the dark, basically). Their PR machine (like the article i 'm linking) is too loud and i believe misleads developers regarding what to expect from app revenue.
- Freedom is a benefit for the consumer, apple has way too many restrictions on the kind of apps i can have on my iphone. Whether it benefits the consumer or not is highly debateable.
- The lock-in of developers is real, it's built with dirty tricks, and i pity those devs who are bound by it.
There’s only one app store for Apple device and Apple fought tooth nails to ban jailbreking and forbidding any other app store like system.
There’s only one extensive app store for android and Google forced it down the throat of any maker that wanted Google’s service libraries which tons of apps learned to rely on.
Platform owners have been playing dirty in a lot of aspects, I think it’s game for service owners to find workarounds or get out of paying a cut to Apple or Google.
>why is it NOT OK for Google and Apple to ask for a cut?
I don't think majority of people complaining are actually about the cut, but how much of the cut. And 30% is what a lot of people disagree with.
The reality is somewhere along the line Apple got too focused on their 20% Net Margin, they put themselves into a price corner. Before the iPhone era Apple mostly do ~10% Net margin, and at best some one offs ~13% quarters. Not only has Apple earned 30x the revenue post iPhone's introduction, that have also doubled their margin.
But then Pricing is only one part of the equation, it is the value on offer that matters, which is fundamentally what people are complaining about the App Store as well as iPhone 's prices.
Well, IMHO it is a fair argument for Google. They allow third party app stores. F-Droid is a brilliant example.
For Apple, however, things aren't as nice and shiny. They force you to distribute and get apps through their store. They don't let you distribute your apps easily otherwise. You don't have a choice of sharing a piece of your app price with Apple or selling it through your website as a package, or through any other app store.
As a side note, there are tons of countries, including in Europe, which are not supported as merchant countries in Play Store - i.e. devs are only allowed to publish free apps.
It would be no problem whatsoever if playstore/appstore were just two of many market places. As it is however, they both completely dominate their respective markets. On top of that, it is costly, both in terms of money and in terms of friction, for a customer to change between the two, so they really are quite separate markets. As a customer, you pretty much choose one of the two, then stick with it (or pay a hefty price to switch). As a developer, you either also choose one of the two, or both. Choosing neither really isn't an option.
In this situation of non-competition, some very crucial assumptions about the efficiency of free markets break down entirely. I think hardly anyone is debating that apple/google make some money for the infrastructure they provide. But the amount they take would be significantly lower if there was real competition. Which there really isn't. That's what's called "rent extraction" and basically just means you're extracting more money for something than would be needed to make you do it in the first place. Would google/apple still be motivated to provide the same service if their cut was halved? Probably. It would still make a killing. But their dominant position allows them to take more, so they do.
TL;DR:
At the base, your question (for me) really boils down to "why should there be any rules for corporation at all?"
To which I would answer: because if left completely to their own devices, that would be a bad system for nearly everyone, except the very few at the very top.
Is it a revolt against the app store fee, or against new privacy and security rules, which demand that they change their target SDK level to something modern which doesn't allow as much data collection?
They haven't left the Play Store and started providing a sideloaded APK. Instead they've stopped using the Play Store API for in-app purchases and have built a custom flow.
2nd paragraph:
> The online dating site launched a new default payment process that skips Google Play and forces users to enter their credit card details straight into Tinder’s app, according to new research by Macquarie analyst Ben Schachter.
I'm not against app store operators demanding a service fee - but I've always been baffled that everyone seems to be ok with the amount of power Apple and Google have over the app economy.
If you're a tech startups engaging with end-users, right now there seems almost no way around offering an iPhone and Android app to accompany your product or service. There are whole sub economies where the app is the product.
Yet app stores are basically private property where the companies running the stores can set (and change) arbitrary rules and regulations. If a rule change means your app is no longer viable and that app was your product, sucks to be you.
Shouldn't at least the free market crowd object against a whole economy being at the mercy of two companies?
I'm not against app store operators demanding a service fee... as long as they do a good job of blocking malware/spyware apps (Google doesn't, many GooglePlay-approved apps spy on you and send your data home), don't block innocent apps for sake of their own interest, let a consciously willing user bypass the store and, at last but not at least, don't demand a ridiculously high fee. A fee of 5% is ok, 10% is tolerable, 30% is absurd.
> Shouldn't at least the free market crowd object against a whole economy
It's not the whole economy, unless google+apple conspire to regulate the market to prevent others from entering. Frankly, developers are free to leave the platform and we should be telling them to get out. We 've had enough of google+apple fanboys telling everyone that they must make an app for that. We don't have to, and it's like shooting yourself in the foot. Very few developers are successful and we 're better off working on open platforms. And also, most mobile ads traffic is fraudulent. Stop advertising your stuff on mobile.
There are several Android stores and sideloading apps is trivial. Lots of apps choose to go around the store. Fortnite doesn't use the Play Store, for example. It's possible.
I have to admit that with Android itself there's at least an option. Even though Google tries to get developers into using the Play Services instead of the built-in android api (see their location api as an example), you're still able to run your own software. You can easily get other apks or use Amazon appstore.
With Apple, you have no proper way running an app without Apple. So it'll intriguing to see such act within a platform that is truly locked.
The article says nothing about Tinder making this release on App Store, just Play Store.
If Tinder requested this update be sent to Apple users than the review process would reject the update. The Play Store doesn't put a person in the app update loop.
Fundementally this is the benefit of Linux. Google provides a nice fortune 500 solution to everything, but you could layer up and delete most of Google's packages.
A step in the right direction for software as a whole.
The AOL/compuserve internet that we all thought we won against is here again. The walled garden is our reality.
This new trend could be the start of crumbling of the second wave of walled gardens. Open platforms allow for freedom (as in speech) and innovation that isn't so easily snuffed out by incumbents - a good thing for consumers.
Tinder and others averting the rent-seeking behavior of google signals that companies have realistic options in the fight against their sharecropping lords.
This movement could also help win the fight for opening up the iOS platform in the coming legal battles - the fact you can do this on android and not iOS might be significant.
The net is consolidating and so the wheel will turn again. Long live the decentralized, open net!
How is this supporting open platform? Tinder is still closed platform and available on playstore, Can I use premium without paying Tinder tax? No. Now you need to send in your credit card info to Tinder instead of better privacy protection from Playstore.
And in the end it’s the user who will suffer the most from it. Giving my payment details to google was acceptable but if it actually continues in that direction soon you have to feed every third grade company with it.
What the hell does "third grade company" even mean? Tinder probably respects your privacy more than Google.
Unless you're referring to worries about giving out your payment information to "random sites"? If so, that's dumb because it's 2019 and there are tons of dedicated secure payment processors out there. Very few companies would even be willing to process payments themselves.
Any effort to take power away from Google's iron grip on the internet is good unless you're a Google employee or shareholder.
> soon you have to feed every third grade company with it
Many payments on the web are done by handing over payment card details and trusting the merchant to bill the correct amount.
The alternative is to use a middle-man like PayPal.
It's absurd that the banks and credit card companies haven't come up with a better solution than handing over your card details and taking it on trust, but here we are, and online sales are doing fine.
Darn, so much for getting Tinder on F-Droid :( I was hoping they were going to start distributing APKs directly but nope, just seems they're directly processing payments for in app purchases, rather than using the Play Store
On a side note, I launched Tinder recently to poke around and I see they're now offering read receipts as a feature. Purchasing "Tinder Gold" to see who has "liked" you, I can understand. Getting read receipts though? Ehh, it feels a bit far.
Don't get me wrong though, it's fully what I would expect from any VC funded entity. You've gotta keep showing growth until the end
I hope they are punished for this. Moves like this only hurt indie/smaller developers who don't have the resources to setup their own external subscriptions. If apps can make back even 25% of the cut, that gives them a significant advantage in UA that is hard to beat.
The 30% cut is fine. It's well worth it for everything App Store/Google Play gives you as a dev.
I understand where this article and app developers are coming from. There is a big difference in what Google and Apple do in this ecosystem, however.
Apple basically says that any digital goods purchased through an iOS app needs to pay Apple's 30% fee. This includes things like subscriptions and in-app purchases. I really noticed this with Audible, you can search the store but are not able to buy anything in their app on iOS.
My issue with apple is not that this fee exists, but that it is truly anti-competitive. Apple does not allow users to install apps outside of the app store. They also are holding back things like PWAs from being viable alternatives for very similar reasons (I'm looking at you Web Push notifications!).
Google's ecosystem on the other hand is more open. You can install APKs from anywhere and there are even third-party app stores like F-Droid. I honestly don't know if the play store has the same rules as Apple does, but even if they did i'd be ok with that because users and companies do have other options if they don't want to use Google Play.
The argument for me is do you want to be on the App store for the exposure/convenience of disribution or do you do it because there is no other alternative. The former is a marketplace with an audience and the ladder is a monopoly.
Side Note: Google has been the champion of PWAs which main use case is to be able to bypass an app store and install an app directly from a website. This gives Google less control over the app ecosystem but has the potential to be beneficial to users.
This is GREAT. It's been long overdue that these stores should not be monopolies imposed on device owners. Besides these things can stand perfectly fine on their own if users have choice. There are plenty of people that will still want to purchase from various app stores, but it shouldn't be required.
Simple question: Why doesn't Google prevent this? Eg. "To publish an app on the Play Store you must provide a clear way for the user to pay or subscribe in the app"
That Apple was/is even tolerated by app developers to forcefully use their payment options, is surprising. Devs should've simply refused payment via Apple channels, and forced consumers to their site, as they're doing now.
By tolerating a tyrannical middleman for short term gains, you justify their unreasonable claims of value addition
[+] [-] securityfreak|6 years ago|reply
Again, I am genuinely curious what ethical principle am I missing here.
[+] [-] danShumway|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] buboard|6 years ago|reply
- It doesn't cost them that much anymore. Their cut is absurdly high. For apple it was a profit of 21.7 Billion last year from other people's apps , in exchange for whatever minor changes they made to their app store. Does it really cost even 1 Billion to keep the app store running?
- They should be more transparent about their numbers. How much does an app developer make? Their opaqueness is self-serving (attracting developers to work for them in the dark, basically). Their PR machine (like the article i 'm linking) is too loud and i believe misleads developers regarding what to expect from app revenue.
- Freedom is a benefit for the consumer, apple has way too many restrictions on the kind of apps i can have on my iphone. Whether it benefits the consumer or not is highly debateable.
- The lock-in of developers is real, it's built with dirty tricks, and i pity those devs who are bound by it.
https://www.cultofmac.com/601492/app-store-google-play-reven...
[+] [-] hrktb|6 years ago|reply
There’s only one app store for Apple device and Apple fought tooth nails to ban jailbreking and forbidding any other app store like system.
There’s only one extensive app store for android and Google forced it down the throat of any maker that wanted Google’s service libraries which tons of apps learned to rely on.
Platform owners have been playing dirty in a lot of aspects, I think it’s game for service owners to find workarounds or get out of paying a cut to Apple or Google.
[+] [-] ksec|6 years ago|reply
I don't think majority of people complaining are actually about the cut, but how much of the cut. And 30% is what a lot of people disagree with.
The reality is somewhere along the line Apple got too focused on their 20% Net Margin, they put themselves into a price corner. Before the iPhone era Apple mostly do ~10% Net margin, and at best some one offs ~13% quarters. Not only has Apple earned 30x the revenue post iPhone's introduction, that have also doubled their margin.
But then Pricing is only one part of the equation, it is the value on offer that matters, which is fundamentally what people are complaining about the App Store as well as iPhone 's prices.
[+] [-] nobodyshere|6 years ago|reply
For Apple, however, things aren't as nice and shiny. They force you to distribute and get apps through their store. They don't let you distribute your apps easily otherwise. You don't have a choice of sharing a piece of your app price with Apple or selling it through your website as a package, or through any other app store.
[+] [-] ENGNR|6 years ago|reply
30% of a $50/month SaaS service just so a client can have a mobile front for something they mostly use on a desktop? Surely that's ridiculous
[+] [-] zerr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] black_puppydog|6 years ago|reply
In this situation of non-competition, some very crucial assumptions about the efficiency of free markets break down entirely. I think hardly anyone is debating that apple/google make some money for the infrastructure they provide. But the amount they take would be significantly lower if there was real competition. Which there really isn't. That's what's called "rent extraction" and basically just means you're extracting more money for something than would be needed to make you do it in the first place. Would google/apple still be motivated to provide the same service if their cut was halved? Probably. It would still make a killing. But their dominant position allows them to take more, so they do.
TL;DR: At the base, your question (for me) really boils down to "why should there be any rules for corporation at all?" To which I would answer: because if left completely to their own devices, that would be a bad system for nearly everyone, except the very few at the very top.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] devit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] izacus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jefftk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panpanna|6 years ago|reply
Google already has special deals for companies that lowers the 30% fee significantly.
(I think even 2-3% fee is too much for doing basically nothing, but that is another discussion).
[+] [-] Oletros|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oakesm9|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharcerer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonlotito|6 years ago|reply
2nd paragraph: > The online dating site launched a new default payment process that skips Google Play and forces users to enter their credit card details straight into Tinder’s app, according to new research by Macquarie analyst Ben Schachter.
[+] [-] jbverschoor|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xg15|6 years ago|reply
If you're a tech startups engaging with end-users, right now there seems almost no way around offering an iPhone and Android app to accompany your product or service. There are whole sub economies where the app is the product.
Yet app stores are basically private property where the companies running the stores can set (and change) arbitrary rules and regulations. If a rule change means your app is no longer viable and that app was your product, sucks to be you.
Shouldn't at least the free market crowd object against a whole economy being at the mercy of two companies?
[+] [-] qwerty456127|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buboard|6 years ago|reply
It's not the whole economy, unless google+apple conspire to regulate the market to prevent others from entering. Frankly, developers are free to leave the platform and we should be telling them to get out. We 've had enough of google+apple fanboys telling everyone that they must make an app for that. We don't have to, and it's like shooting yourself in the foot. Very few developers are successful and we 're better off working on open platforms. And also, most mobile ads traffic is fraudulent. Stop advertising your stuff on mobile.
[+] [-] jayd16|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rock_artist|6 years ago|reply
With Apple, you have no proper way running an app without Apple. So it'll intriguing to see such act within a platform that is truly locked.
[+] [-] fkdo|6 years ago|reply
If Tinder requested this update be sent to Apple users than the review process would reject the update. The Play Store doesn't put a person in the app update loop.
[+] [-] shareIdeas|6 years ago|reply
It's a distro, you can still install extra stuff
[+] [-] mrtksn|6 years ago|reply
That's how developers install their own apps in development, prior submitting the app to Apple for a review.
[+] [-] throwaway13337|6 years ago|reply
A step in the right direction for software as a whole.
The AOL/compuserve internet that we all thought we won against is here again. The walled garden is our reality.
This new trend could be the start of crumbling of the second wave of walled gardens. Open platforms allow for freedom (as in speech) and innovation that isn't so easily snuffed out by incumbents - a good thing for consumers.
Tinder and others averting the rent-seeking behavior of google signals that companies have realistic options in the fight against their sharecropping lords.
This movement could also help win the fight for opening up the iOS platform in the coming legal battles - the fact you can do this on android and not iOS might be significant.
The net is consolidating and so the wheel will turn again. Long live the decentralized, open net!
[+] [-] roneythomas6|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zahrc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bogwog|6 years ago|reply
Unless you're referring to worries about giving out your payment information to "random sites"? If so, that's dumb because it's 2019 and there are tons of dedicated secure payment processors out there. Very few companies would even be willing to process payments themselves.
Any effort to take power away from Google's iron grip on the internet is good unless you're a Google employee or shareholder.
[+] [-] MaxBarraclough|6 years ago|reply
Many payments on the web are done by handing over payment card details and trusting the merchant to bill the correct amount.
The alternative is to use a middle-man like PayPal.
It's absurd that the banks and credit card companies haven't come up with a better solution than handing over your card details and taking it on trust, but here we are, and online sales are doing fine.
[+] [-] osrec|6 years ago|reply
Does privacy not concern you?
[+] [-] pas|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spondyl|6 years ago|reply
On a side note, I launched Tinder recently to poke around and I see they're now offering read receipts as a feature. Purchasing "Tinder Gold" to see who has "liked" you, I can understand. Getting read receipts though? Ehh, it feels a bit far.
Don't get me wrong though, it's fully what I would expect from any VC funded entity. You've gotta keep showing growth until the end
[+] [-] arnaudsm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denzil_correa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rawrmaan|6 years ago|reply
The 30% cut is fine. It's well worth it for everything App Store/Google Play gives you as a dev.
[+] [-] zachruss92|6 years ago|reply
Apple basically says that any digital goods purchased through an iOS app needs to pay Apple's 30% fee. This includes things like subscriptions and in-app purchases. I really noticed this with Audible, you can search the store but are not able to buy anything in their app on iOS.
My issue with apple is not that this fee exists, but that it is truly anti-competitive. Apple does not allow users to install apps outside of the app store. They also are holding back things like PWAs from being viable alternatives for very similar reasons (I'm looking at you Web Push notifications!).
Google's ecosystem on the other hand is more open. You can install APKs from anywhere and there are even third-party app stores like F-Droid. I honestly don't know if the play store has the same rules as Apple does, but even if they did i'd be ok with that because users and companies do have other options if they don't want to use Google Play.
The argument for me is do you want to be on the App store for the exposure/convenience of disribution or do you do it because there is no other alternative. The former is a marketplace with an audience and the ladder is a monopoly.
[+] [-] zachruss92|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thstart|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] overgard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MarkMc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buboard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bogwog|6 years ago|reply
Even though the Play Store is full of malware and spyware.
[+] [-] writepub|6 years ago|reply
By tolerating a tyrannical middleman for short term gains, you justify their unreasonable claims of value addition
[+] [-] PunchTornado|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mancerayder|6 years ago|reply
You'd think the costs would trickle down to the consumer.
[+] [-] husamia|6 years ago|reply