Google To Increase Push for Apps To Give Cut of In-App Purchases (bloomberg.com) 37
Google plans to push harder for developers to give the company a cut of in-app purchases through its Play app store, according to people with knowledge of the move. From a report: The Alphabet unit plans to issue updated guidelines as early as next week that clarify a requirement for most apps to use Google's billing service for in-app content downloads, game upgrades and subscriptions. This system gives the company a 30% cut of purchases inside of apps on Android. While this requirement has existed for years, some major developers including Netflix, Spotify, Match Group and Epic Games, have circumvented the rule. Netflix and Spotify apps prompt consumers to pay using a credit card, rather than their Play app store account, bypassing Google's fee. Last year, Match Group's Tinder dating app launched a similar payment process. More recently, Epic Games started letting players buy in-game upgrades for its Fortnite video game via a method that paid Epic directly. In response, Google and Apple pulled Fortnite from their app stores and Epic sued both tech giants.
This seems like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To me it seems like Google saw that Apple could well win, regardless of the merits of the legal arguments involved, and decided they wanted to be just as abusive as Apple. And by taking this action they actually make it more likely for apple to win, because it eliminates the argument that Google takes less than Apple.
How things can backfire (Score:3)
That has to change obviously. If Apple enforces it, then Google will enforce it, too. All Android developers now hat Epic.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a funny way of saying "all Android developers now support Epic".
Re: (Score:2)
They still have Epic.
But if Google begins enforcing this, then Epic doesn't have the Play Store.
Google should have waited a few months (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's decision may also backfire. Depending on their market, some companies might have said "okay, fuck iphone we'll focus on all of the other phones - the ones using Android." At least, it could give the app companies reason to focus more resources on Android and less on iPhone, even if they didn't abandon iPhone.
Apple being tough about this *could* have turned out to be to Google's advantage. It might have been good for them to just watch for a couple months to see how it plays it.
Time to openly back AppGallery... (Score:2)
Match Group and Epic Games, have circumvented the rule. Netflix and Spotify apps prompt consumers to pay using a credit card, rather than their Play app store account, bypassing Google's fee.
[O]penly Backing AppGallery would send the right message to Google and Apple. These entities think they are indispensable...Skirting taxes in various jurisdictions and now this.
I have already jumped ship. Time for those that haven't to do likewise.
It's a better, more free, interesting and wide world out there!
Re: (Score:3)
Huawei ? Nope. Just nope. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Huawei ? Nope. Just nope. . .
Reason?
The reason better be able to meet Slashdot's metric for substantiveness and quality.
Why no community pushback against this? (Score:3)
Once an app has been purchased, the store where you purchased it provides zero additional value with respect to in-app purchases. In that respect, it should be entitled to zero percent of the in-app purchase revenue. What's next? Toyota takes a percentage every time you fill your Toyota with gas?
Re:Why no community pushback against this? (Score:5, Insightful)
"What's next? Toyota takes a percentage every time you fill your Toyota with gas?"
Don't give them any ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Because assholes exploit loopholes (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't particularly care for the current situation. There has to be a better model.
On the other hand, when the stores only got a cut of the initial purchase price of the app, what all the app companies did was make the app "free" to download, but then you have to do in-app purchases to actually use the app in a useful way. They used it as a loophole to bypass the store getting any revenue at all.
You wouldn't expect to be able to set up a table inside of Target selling vacuum cleaners, taking the cash directly and bypassing Target's cash registers. If you want to sell direct to consumer, you don't get to do that inside of the Home Depot store. There is nothing fundamentally different about Google's store. You can sell your app outside of Google's store if you want to and Google has nothing to do with that. If you want to sell it in Google's store, they get their cut. Same as if you're selling a product in a Home Depot store.
If you had a store, with expenses to pay, would you let HP come in and set up a display of printers for free, with you making no money? (Ink cartridges are sold directly by HP for $75).
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps instead of charging based on a percentage of what the company charges consumers, charge the company a rate per download including updates, and you can even make it by the byte, so 500MB downloads cost more than 10MB ones. This more reflects Google/Apples actual cost for hosting rather than a money grab through rent seeking. Hopefully it also reduces the frequency that apps release needless updates to their software and has them produce less bug ridden software that requires minor point updates to fi
Re: (Score:2)
If my product fills one of a thousand shelfs in a store and there is physical logistics involved, a 30% cut seems well deserved. Now if the online store says my software will be one of a thousand or so, maybe 15%-20% cut seems fair (no significant logistics and floorsspace cost). But if it is one in a million or more... How can anybody justify more than 5% if everything is very easy to scale, maybe there is some review cost and payment processing. They can offer to promote it for some additional percents, b
Re: (Score:2)
I hear ya.
Also, their costs aren't properly reflected by *any* percentage. A $20 app doesn't cost them 20X as much as a $1 app. A better match to their costs would be something like 50 cents plus 10%.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because somehow the USA has arrived at the situation where retirement planning is based on corporate performance -- pension funds that are invested in the stock market, and 401Ks.
People will rant about excessive corporate greed and excessive corporate profits, then turn right around and check the stock market to see how their 401Ks are doing and complain bitterly when the value drops. Whoever managed to trick people into the idea that 401Ks were a good idea was an evil genius -- people will clamor for Wall
Re:So much greed (Score:4, Insightful)
I think greed was the reason for the move away from traditional pension funds over to 401k. It was just another means by which the people in positions of power took even more for themselves.
As I recall, it wasn't a trick that was played on the American public. It was, in fact, a decision that was pushed, along with widespread downsizing then re-hiring under different terms to ruin the pensions of existing employees. Somehow this was legal, but it certainly wasn't popular.
All wealth is generated by the working class, and the lion's share of it trickles up to the controlling class. Since wealth IS power, the more of it they manage to keep for themselves, the more ability they have to take even more for themselves.
Apparently, the majority of the working class are "ok" with this, as evidenced by their refusal to stand up and fight for the ability to keep more of what they produce.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a result of economic natural selection. The companies run by people who aren't very greedy are never very successful, so you don't hear about them in the news.
It's a no brainer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, having an alternative is great, but given Epic's own offering in competition to Steam I'd say they're not the right group for the job. There would also need to be an "unbundling" of google play or apple itunes for an alternative to have any real chance at success, similar to IE taking out netscape in the 90s simply by abusing their position with windows 98 and later.
Re: (Score:2)
Then THEY can be the ones charging 30%! :D
There are lots of app stores, most suck (Score:2)
There are plenty of app stores, of course. The thing is, they are mostly all full of really crappy apps. The Google and Apple stores are the *good* ones.
A consortium of companies like Epic (and Microsoft?) might find a market if they make an app store that doesn't suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And then Google will prevent sideloading apps, locking people into the play store. Don't think that will happen? You under estimate corporate greed.. on BOTH sides.
Google does not enjoy the same leverage and total control as Apple. Android is open source... people can and will fork it. Mobile phone vendors can and will undo limitations affecting their bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
All those companies should get together (with others) to start their own app store, an independent app store -IAS.
With Blackjack. And Hookers!
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. Just realised too late that you beat me to it :)
Kudos to you sir!
Re: (Score:2)
With blackjack. And hookers.
Go Go Google Go Go (Score:2)
Thanks Google! What an amazing time to turn the screws on software/service vendors providing even more market incentives for alternatives to monopoly controlled software distribution.
The nice thing about Android is there is actually some limited but meaningful competition. Amazon operates a competing store with relatively simple three step installation instructions from their website.
While personally I don't purchase software not available directly from the vendor or a no strings (e.g. DRM) attached store
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing about Android is there is actually some limited but meaningful competition. Amazon operates a competing store with relatively simple three step installation instructions from their website.
And if there's one thing Amazon's known for, it's treating third-party sellers really well!
Game of chicken (Score:2)
App makers are joining forces, and now the app stores are presenting a unified front too. Of course either Google or Apple could just offer lower prices, be the preferred platform, but that would just start a race to the bottom on prices, so they prefer not to fight each other on this. App stores need apps, and apps need app stores, the question is, who will swerve first in this game of chicken? Of course app stores are in a better position, as they still have plenty of apps to sell today, while the banned
It's google's walled garden (Score:2)