I'm really hoping someone wakes up and realizes the problem is not the fees but that consumers don't know about them. Let the consumer be informed about Google and Apple's rake on all their in-app charges. The outrage will take care of the rest. Not sure about Google, but Apple has deliberately prohibited developers from itemizing the 30% fee for consumers. That simple rule is what keeps their money pipe flowing. Market forces don't work when pricing is opaque.
I strongly disagree, the problem is that the users and developers don't have any other (viable) option for distributing their mobile apps on these platforms (iOS and Android).
I cannot practically create my "Awesome Store" where I have the best ranking system and I ask 0.1% for fees.
As a consumer, I don't care if the fee is 30%. I have no idea of that's a lot or just the right amount of money for the services that the stores provide. I don't know if it makes the app devs life much harder or if it's just a slight inconvenience.
Do you know or do you care who is making the profits (and how much) when you buy a coke in your local grocery shop? I don't, and no matter of math and public information could make me care about it as a consumer.
Why would consumers care? Maybe for an indie developer they think is getting screwed, but if an app costs a dollar, the consumer's price point is a dollar. They know that if the developer makes more money they aren't going to decrease the price of the app.
Market forces produced consolidation, as they always do. Consolidation and capture of distribution, which happens in most industries, sets the pricing of products using cartel and gangster tactics. App stores aren't any different from the railroads of the 1800s or Walmart or Amazon inflicting all kinds of pricing tricks on suppliers.
The question we should be asking is: Why should the owner of a distribution network get to retain all that power to themselves? Distribution networks should be highly regulated, price controlled, or state owned. All else just yields completely unaccountable power to an unelected private entity that gets to control the material state of the world.
At risk of sounding idiot and down votes. Can you explain me when was the last time you saw the itemized breakdown of a toy, or a T-Shirt you bought in Target/Walmart? Same is true for Nintendo, Sony, and Xbox systems. Why do we think it's fair for Walmart to not show exact breakdown on how much commission they are charging for keeping something on shelf and Google is wrong about it?
This is an interesting point but it would apply to almost every line of business. Retail charges 60% markup. Imagine the outrage.
30% is a gross margin and doesn't take into consideration a lot of thigns.
It'd be nice if Americans were exposed to the margins of everything but I'm not sure how much would change.
The 'end price' for consumers is fair enough - the issue is one of competitiveness and that Android phones are oriented towards Google's stores is the root of the problem.
I agree with this a lot, even with other markets. Price transparency doesn't solve all issues, but I fail to see how it would ever hurt the consumer. That, and it feels like a much easier win to fight for than most anti-competition issues.
Absolutely. Let consumers have the choice of paying for the convenience of paying via Apple/Google or paying another way. People still buy games on steam even if it's cheaper elsewhere and they know they're paying for convenience.
The prices aren't invisible to the companies putting the app on the Google store. In principle they could try and use a different store with lower fees and reduce their prices for the same margins couldn't they?
If the states decided to sue pharmaceutical companies for extravagant profits on life saving medicines, people would benefit a lot more. May be there a political motive behind Google being targeted.
> If the states decided to sue pharmaceutical companies for extravagant profits on life saving medicines, people would benefit a lot more. May be there a political motive behind Google being targeted.
There is no clear law against "extravagant profits." There is antitrust law. The winnable case is being pursued.
This is the kind of thing that makes me confident CEOs, etc. are over paid by a ton. How good of a job are you doing if everyone hates your brand so much that a ton of governments are suing you? How valuable was all that JiT manufacturing bullshit that’s going to cost the car companies $100 billion this year. How good is the leadership that’s taken the brand image of companies that used to be respected (ex: GE appliances) and flushed a (literal) century of good will down the toilet for a few years of huge profits due to cost cutting?
The internet never forgets and people will always remember. We’re seeing a time in history where I think the leaders will be looked back on and viewed as absolute failures.
> How good of a job are you doing if everyone hates your brand
People love Google. It's only behind Apple as a brand people love.
> How valuable was all that JiT manufacturing bullshit
It's not BS. It's saying 99% uptime is good enough, and the cost of 99.8% isn't worth the added inventory. It may or may not be the right call, but for automakers who make a durable product that isn't as critical in an emergency as N95 respirators, it's a reasonable call.
> GE appliances
GE was definitely mismanaged. Management got distracted looking for growth and went into all sorts of side businesses. Appliances aren't exactly GE's core business, though. They became commoditized, and it's hard to justify premium prices or investment on a commodity. You're better off making jet engines and MRIs. GE actually sold off its appliance business because it's better at other things, and if people want to pay a premium for a microwave with a GE badge, go for it. GE isn't a consumer company anymore, so a bad experience with a microwave they didn't make isn't going to stop you from using their turbines.
JIT is really complex. I work in automotive and it’s actually really impressive on a deployment level.
However, yea, no one saw Covid coming. And, the whole 2008-Carpocalypse was extra bad because it wasn’t GM and Chrysler, it was literally everyone down the line. If GM went under, Johnson Controls goes under, and since they make every Toyota and Hyundai seat (IDK, figuratively, but probably) they struggle and go under too. It’s a fascinating deadlock / race condition of sales and profits and shipping.
I think it’s cool to see seats made two hours ago show up on the line at the exact second this body is on the line, installed, than a chassis that was made one a different line happens to line up and everything came together in seconds… but yes, there are some downsides.
Sorry, but this is totally counterfactual. Public opinion holds God, the Post Office, and Google in a three-way tie for first place in trustworthiness.
Apple recently changed their fee to 15% for the first million (with some complications for making over a million in subsequent years). This covers like 95% of developers (maybe more?).
Looks like Apple just barely squeaked by with the right moves.
Google Play is ostensibly optional on Android. App Store is not on iOS. As such, Google Play has identifiable, harmed competition. Apple does not; its harm in fact falls not on competitors or consumers, but on developers--its suppliers. That bolster's the judicial merits of the Google actions as antitrust reviewable.
For Apple, one must create a novel expansion of antitrust rules and definitions. As we saw with Facebook, where a similar group of state AGs got their case thrown out for failing at the shockingly basic question of "what's the market they're alleged to have monopolized?"
TL; DR Pursuing Apple comes closer to a political question than a judicial one. Google, and to a lesser degree Facebook, may be judicially addressable.
Seems like they are both getting legal attention, just separately. I wonder if the magnitude of these cases is better handled by 2 teams at once to speed them up?
It looks to me like there's a couple of things. Many of the claims are similar to the Epic vs Apple case. Perhaps they figure Epic already did the work there?
Second, many of these claims have nothing to do with what Apple does. They are more similar to the old Microsoft case. Trying to stop competition, forcing OEM's to not have their own App store, etc...
The obvious answer is that the this kind of lawsuit is inherently to score political points, and for whatever reason the AGs saw more upside in suing Google than Apple.
If States sue a company for ‘extravagant’ costs, should they follow-up in other industries?
One can claim that oil monopolies request extravagant fees. Health industry in the USA is riddled with extravagant fees.
I am not sure that the motivation by these States are well-intentioned.
Its a bit sad its comes to states suing because Federal governments all over the world seem to have become reluctant to address oligopolistic markets in their various forms.
The obvious answer when players dominate a market like this is government 1) force competition or 2) add regulation.
The easy solution here is to rule that 1) app stores can control how payments are made/received by apps. And then they are forced to put a offering that works vs other payment provider. 2) Possibly, though would have challenges, force Apple/Google app stores to become interoperable over some longer term period.
For the wider market I think a big part is platforms with significant market share need to be either distributors or product owners. For example Amazon should not have amazon products and they are a distributer, this stops them watching some business become profitable on their platform than just replace with their own products or changing search result to favour their own product etc. The same with a company like Netflix, otherwise we are going to see a very small group of streaming companies and it will be near impossible for anyone else to step into that space.
Something else Id also consider though is a bit mixed with pros/cons is make a rule suppliers have to offer standard prices. So I can offer Walmart my pens at $0.05 because they buy 50 million of them and charge $0.40 to the small business that buys 10,000. This would also be great for healthcare such as hospitals having the insurance price vs cash price vs negotiated price etc.
I think people often forget a core role of capitalism of government is to maintain a level playing field. This helps ongoing innovation and to put pressure on entrenched market segments for a more efficient system.
> App store commissions — typically 30% — are charged to developers, who then usually pass the cost off to consumers who are buying apps or making purchases in things like mobile games.
Both Apple and Google now take 15% commission.
I am not a fan of neither companies, plus I am an app developer for both. I don't have a problem with the 15% fee from Apple as it's quite fair for the services and human interaction they provide. Though a case can be made that the $135 CAD developer license fee per year should take care of that. Google on the other hand will ban your app for strange reasons (look at the recent DroidScript app debacle) and won't even let you talk to a human unless you are big enough to get some tech sites to write about it. On the other hand Google at least allowed side loading apps something which Apple doesn't let you do easily. But then Google doesn't allow competitive app stores on their play store which is a problem. I think overall, both companies need to be reigned in but in my opinion, going after the 15% is not the right way.
[+] [-] rebelos|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serial_dev|4 years ago|reply
I cannot practically create my "Awesome Store" where I have the best ranking system and I ask 0.1% for fees.
As a consumer, I don't care if the fee is 30%. I have no idea of that's a lot or just the right amount of money for the services that the stores provide. I don't know if it makes the app devs life much harder or if it's just a slight inconvenience.
Do you know or do you care who is making the profits (and how much) when you buy a coke in your local grocery shop? I don't, and no matter of math and public information could make me care about it as a consumer.
[+] [-] tehjoker|4 years ago|reply
Market forces produced consolidation, as they always do. Consolidation and capture of distribution, which happens in most industries, sets the pricing of products using cartel and gangster tactics. App stores aren't any different from the railroads of the 1800s or Walmart or Amazon inflicting all kinds of pricing tricks on suppliers.
The question we should be asking is: Why should the owner of a distribution network get to retain all that power to themselves? Distribution networks should be highly regulated, price controlled, or state owned. All else just yields completely unaccountable power to an unelected private entity that gets to control the material state of the world.
[+] [-] maxpert|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jollybean|4 years ago|reply
30% is a gross margin and doesn't take into consideration a lot of thigns.
It'd be nice if Americans were exposed to the margins of everything but I'm not sure how much would change.
The 'end price' for consumers is fair enough - the issue is one of competitiveness and that Android phones are oriented towards Google's stores is the root of the problem.
[+] [-] xboxnolifes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadilay|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] savant_penguin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jussij|4 years ago|reply
Since the service is a monopoly there are no market forces at play.
That monopoly means it's a 'take it or leave it' situation.
[+] [-] mclightning|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deviledeggs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jp0d|4 years ago|reply
If the states decided to sue pharmaceutical companies for extravagant profits on life saving medicines, people would benefit a lot more. May be there a political motive behind Google being targeted.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|4 years ago|reply
There is no clear law against "extravagant profits." There is antitrust law. The winnable case is being pursued.
[+] [-] duchenne|4 years ago|reply
This is a false dichotomy.
[+] [-] donmcronald|4 years ago|reply
The internet never forgets and people will always remember. We’re seeing a time in history where I think the leaders will be looked back on and viewed as absolute failures.
[+] [-] dehrmann|4 years ago|reply
People love Google. It's only behind Apple as a brand people love.
> How valuable was all that JiT manufacturing bullshit
It's not BS. It's saying 99% uptime is good enough, and the cost of 99.8% isn't worth the added inventory. It may or may not be the right call, but for automakers who make a durable product that isn't as critical in an emergency as N95 respirators, it's a reasonable call.
> GE appliances
GE was definitely mismanaged. Management got distracted looking for growth and went into all sorts of side businesses. Appliances aren't exactly GE's core business, though. They became commoditized, and it's hard to justify premium prices or investment on a commodity. You're better off making jet engines and MRIs. GE actually sold off its appliance business because it's better at other things, and if people want to pay a premium for a microwave with a GE badge, go for it. GE isn't a consumer company anymore, so a bad experience with a microwave they didn't make isn't going to stop you from using their turbines.
[+] [-] SV_BubbleTime|4 years ago|reply
However, yea, no one saw Covid coming. And, the whole 2008-Carpocalypse was extra bad because it wasn’t GM and Chrysler, it was literally everyone down the line. If GM went under, Johnson Controls goes under, and since they make every Toyota and Hyundai seat (IDK, figuratively, but probably) they struggle and go under too. It’s a fascinating deadlock / race condition of sales and profits and shipping.
I think it’s cool to see seats made two hours ago show up on the line at the exact second this body is on the line, installed, than a chassis that was made one a different line happens to line up and everything came together in seconds… but yes, there are some downsides.
[+] [-] dontblink|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffbee|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shadilay|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irrational|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RandallBrown|4 years ago|reply
Looks like Apple just barely squeaked by with the right moves.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|4 years ago|reply
Google Play is ostensibly optional on Android. App Store is not on iOS. As such, Google Play has identifiable, harmed competition. Apple does not; its harm in fact falls not on competitors or consumers, but on developers--its suppliers. That bolster's the judicial merits of the Google actions as antitrust reviewable.
For Apple, one must create a novel expansion of antitrust rules and definitions. As we saw with Facebook, where a similar group of state AGs got their case thrown out for failing at the shockingly basic question of "what's the market they're alleged to have monopolized?"
TL; DR Pursuing Apple comes closer to a political question than a judicial one. Google, and to a lesser degree Facebook, may be judicially addressable.
[+] [-] Guest42|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CubsFan1060|4 years ago|reply
Second, many of these claims have nothing to do with what Apple does. They are more similar to the old Microsoft case. Trying to stop competition, forcing OEM's to not have their own App store, etc...
[+] [-] donmcronald|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bpodgursky|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andromeduck|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greendesk|4 years ago|reply
I am not sure that the motivation by these States are well-intentioned.
[+] [-] Gustomaximus|4 years ago|reply
The obvious answer when players dominate a market like this is government 1) force competition or 2) add regulation.
The easy solution here is to rule that 1) app stores can control how payments are made/received by apps. And then they are forced to put a offering that works vs other payment provider. 2) Possibly, though would have challenges, force Apple/Google app stores to become interoperable over some longer term period.
For the wider market I think a big part is platforms with significant market share need to be either distributors or product owners. For example Amazon should not have amazon products and they are a distributer, this stops them watching some business become profitable on their platform than just replace with their own products or changing search result to favour their own product etc. The same with a company like Netflix, otherwise we are going to see a very small group of streaming companies and it will be near impossible for anyone else to step into that space.
Something else Id also consider though is a bit mixed with pros/cons is make a rule suppliers have to offer standard prices. So I can offer Walmart my pens at $0.05 because they buy 50 million of them and charge $0.40 to the small business that buys 10,000. This would also be great for healthcare such as hospitals having the insurance price vs cash price vs negotiated price etc.
I think people often forget a core role of capitalism of government is to maintain a level playing field. This helps ongoing innovation and to put pressure on entrenched market segments for a more efficient system.
[+] [-] kevin_young|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] busymom0|4 years ago|reply
Both Apple and Google now take 15% commission.
I am not a fan of neither companies, plus I am an app developer for both. I don't have a problem with the 15% fee from Apple as it's quite fair for the services and human interaction they provide. Though a case can be made that the $135 CAD developer license fee per year should take care of that. Google on the other hand will ban your app for strange reasons (look at the recent DroidScript app debacle) and won't even let you talk to a human unless you are big enough to get some tech sites to write about it. On the other hand Google at least allowed side loading apps something which Apple doesn't let you do easily. But then Google doesn't allow competitive app stores on their play store which is a problem. I think overall, both companies need to be reigned in but in my opinion, going after the 15% is not the right way.
Edit: Why the downvotes?
[+] [-] shadilay|4 years ago|reply