Google Rejected Play Store Fee Changes Due To Impact on Revenue, Epic Lawsuit Shows (bloomberg.com) 26
Alphabet's Google considered changing its app store pricing model to circumvent a regulatory crackdown, but abandoned a proposal to charge a set fee per app after it became clear that could cost the company billions of dollars, according to documents released late week. From a report: Google created Project Everest in 2021 to reconsider the Play Store billing model, according to the documents, which were released as part of an antitrust suit by Epic Games. Google last week lost the suit brought by the maker of Fortnite when a federal jury found the tech giant abused its monopoly power over the app store. Sparked by mounting pressure from regulators and developers over Google Play's hefty 30% commission, the presentation showed the search giant was concerned about staving off what it saw as potential regulatory overreach.
"We can defend the status quo for a few months," Google said in the presentation. "Making proposed changes sooner may help support reasonable legislation, position Google as a leader, and prevent more draconian legislation." Project Everest explored charging developers piecemeal service fees for putting their apps or games in the Play Store, with additional fees for user downloads, updates and referrals. But the company estimated that model created "potential for significant loss" from $1 billion to $2 billion for apps and $6 billion to $9 billion for games.
"We can defend the status quo for a few months," Google said in the presentation. "Making proposed changes sooner may help support reasonable legislation, position Google as a leader, and prevent more draconian legislation." Project Everest explored charging developers piecemeal service fees for putting their apps or games in the Play Store, with additional fees for user downloads, updates and referrals. But the company estimated that model created "potential for significant loss" from $1 billion to $2 billion for apps and $6 billion to $9 billion for games.
Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how cartels work. (Score:3)
When the market actually qualifies as "free," there are many competing businesses and few barriers-to-entry that would prevent new competing businesses from entering the market. That level of competition will naturally pull prices down and drive quality up.
HOWEVER, this market qualifies as a "cartel." There are only a few competitors. Setting up a game store that anyone has any reason to go to is tremendously difficult. The barriers-to-entry are enormous. It is exactly the sort of market that lends its
Re: Of course they did (Score:2)
Hefty? (Score:5, Informative)
The majority of the industry charges 30%: Apple, Google, Samsung, Amazon, XBox, Playstation, Nintendo, GOG, and Steam.
Should be 5% top (Score:4, Insightful)
that is too much.
Should be 5% top
Re:Should be 5% top (Score:4, Insightful)
sell it yourself then and see how much revenue you save! (and then don't earn).
No one is stopping you. i think you will find 30% is fair for someone helping you vet, advertise, and provide a platform with an air of prestige.
Re: (Score:3)
and provide a platform with an air of prestige.
I thought this was Google we were talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, host, secure, update, and all the other fun stuff.
You need to host your app. So you need to have a system to handle user accounts as well so they can buy your app and re-download it and handle updates. But now you need to keep that system secure because people are out there trying
Re: (Score:1)
that is too much. Should be 5% top
Please show your work.
Re:Should be 5% top (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the USA [a-z-animals.com], pigs are young and hogs have grown enough to be slaughtered -- the saying about pigs vs hogs is a distinction based on the animal's age and size, not its behavior.
App stores provide features that real estate agents don't, like detailed inspections of what they provide (the equivalent of home inspectors, who are usually paid by buyers) and hosting for updates; closing costs are usually also separate. So there's an argument that app stores could reasonably charge more than real estate ag
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know about Apple, but Google doesn't have a closed platform. You can get APKs from tons of different stores. That's not a monopoly. That's like saying Microsoft has a monopoly on Browsers because it comes with Edge, even though it only takes like 2 clicks to install something else.
Re: (Score:2)
that is too much.
Should be 5% top
Sez you.
Re: (Score:2)
"everybody does it" is a kindergarten-level excuse.
Except profit margin equilibrium in an industry is analogous to "charging what the market will bear."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Everybody does it" is cartel behavior. It is called "anticompetitive" and it's illegal. There *should* be price competition!
And yes 30% is unreasonable. The store fronts are all being goddamn greedy, and they get away with it precisely because they form a cartel, leaving vendors with no realistic alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
> The majority of the industry charges 30%
You mean, all but one do.
Which also proves there is no competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they all do it, doesn't make it reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of the industry charges 30%: Apple, Google, Samsung, Amazon, XBox, Playstation, Nintendo, GOG, and Steam.
Apple is actually 15% for the vast majority of small-timers (those with less than $1,000,000 in Gross App Sales), as well as for Subscriptions that last for more than 12 months (including any renewals), regardless of Gross App Sales totals.
That's an "opportunity loss" not a loss (Score:2, Insightful)
For crying out loud can we stop with making potential future income based on projected outcome price a loss, if the price has to drop?
A loss is when you're net negative. Not when you MAKE LESS THAN YOU WANTED.
Problem Is (Score:1)
Epic is no better than Google. Epic uses Fortnite much the same way as Apple and Google use their app stores. Biggest difference is that Tencent doesn't have a 40% ownership of Google or Apple, and anything Tencent touches should be destroyed.