Google plans to start taking it's 30% cut from all in-app purchases

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, lazypc said:

So they could run Ads or push sponsored Apps to the top of the list for money. Sell your data to marketing. Offer built in payment processing to app developers for the low low price of a 29.99% cut giving the developer a extra penny for every hundred dollars of in app purchases vs Google/Apple.

 

There are opportunities for someone willing to develop an alternative app store, and it has been tried before by even big names like Samsung, but most don't gain much traction.

Doesnt more or less every big phone manufacturer or cell network company have their own App Store? Generally they kind of suck so they don’t get used much but they keep em around.  I remember t-mobile and Samsung both having one.

[lazypc]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Doesnt more or less every big phone manufacturer or cell network company have their own App Store? Generally they kind of suck so they don’t get used much but they keep em around.  I remember t-mobile and Samsung both having one.

I forgot about the service provider app stores... (AT&T, T-Mobile ect)

It really must not take a whole lot of development to get alternative app stores working, or there are just a lot of phone manufacturers and service providers under the same delusion that it might work.

[Lord Vile]

31 minutes ago, lazypc said:

Sorry if I misled, I really wasn't pushing toward phone manufacturers building a new OS. I don't see that being a profitable venture either, at least in Western markets. Especially considering the success of Windows Phones or Linux on phones. I really just meant alternative app stores on Android, or even on iOS which would seem to be something Epic Games may be trying for.

 

Sidenote I did own a Windows Phone 8, that migrated to the "10" version. I actually did like it a lot, stability was great but without developers willing to bring their apps into that ecosystem there was never going to be a chance for it to succeed.

People have tried, doesn't work due to lack of support and running one is expensive until you get a userbase. Epic tried to make one on android but noone cared which is why they're trying to sue because they don't want to do the legwork essentially. 

[Video Beagle]

15 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I just want to point out that epic actually reduced v-bucks prices by 20% (iirc) on all platforms permanently when they started this whole thing, so I don't think they are only doing this for the money.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Oh, you're serious?

10 hours ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

Also, why isn't Epic going on Google as hard as they are Apple? I think they have a much easier case against Google.

Because they really don't have a case in court, but they can score points in the PR battle to try and get a settlement.  And stuff against google doesn't get anywhere near the level of press and buzz that stuff about Apple does.

[RedRound2]

16 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I just want to point out that epic actually reduced v-bucks prices by 20% (iirc) on all platforms permanently when they started this whole thing, so I don't think they are only doing this for the money.

I believe that move was to only prove a point. It was never going to be permanant as they knew Apple would come flying in and kick them out

[flashiling]

float plane could still work if they just didn't allow you to buy a subscription from the app?

or is that some kind of loophole attempt they probably have a response for

[lazypc]

3 minutes ago, flashiling said:

float plane could still work if they just didn't allow you to buy a subscription from the app?

or is that some kind of loophole attempt they probably have a response for

They already use that loophole for the Apple iOS app, but it was hell getting it approved, even a slight mention of going outside the app to subscribe to a creator and make a direct payment to floatplane in the app meant it was denied by Apple.

So they can go the same route on Android if necessary, it just is a little sad it's coming to this. Hopefully Google is a little more lenient about mentioning going to the website to subscribe to creators and payments inside the app... but I won't be too surprised if they don't.

[flashiling]

1 minute ago, lazypc said:

They already use that loophole for the Apple iOS app, but it was hell getting it approved, even a slight mention of going outside the app to subscribe to a creator and make a direct payment to floatplane in the app meant it was denied by Apple.

So they can go the same route on Android if necessary, it just is a little sad it's coming to this. Hopefully Google is a little more lenient about mentioning going to the website to subscribe to creators and payments inside the app... but I won't be too surprised if they don't.

yea i agree,

though most people that know of floatplane would easily know the this "trick"

and setting up a FAQ in the app that has an Indepth FAQ tab that opens your browser should work? or would that just make it too complicated and timeconsuming

[Video Beagle]

2 minutes ago, lazypc said:

They already use that loophole for the Apple iOS app, but it was hell getting it approved,

I suspect that it was less an issue of what they were doing and more who was doing it..

[PCGuy_5960]

3 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

I believe that move was to only prove a point. It was never going to be permanant as they knew Apple would come flying in and kick them out

I think you missed the all platforms part, PC, playstation, xbox, whatever other platform Fortnite is available on are included. 

4 hours ago, Video Beagle said:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Oh, you're serious?

I said "only doing this for the money", money is obviously a part but they do appear to care about smaller devs, at least a little bit. 

[Commodus]

10 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

well yeah google is certainly anti competitive in many things, just like any other global multi billion dollar enterprise, however, android is really more open, you can sideload no issues, and "jailbreaking" is often really easy too, you don't even need a google account to use an android phone as far I'm aware. 

 

And you can get fortnite on many stores so I don't think that Iast point is true...

 

Honestly I do think there's good reasons to have an iphone not everyone uses modern devices the same way but I also believe apple overdoes it quite a bit with their rules regarding the app store  Sure their product, their rules... as long it isn't actually against any laws, which is up to debate, and not just by Timmy Sweeney apparently.

It's more open, but not really the champion of openness. Remember, it lets OEMs lock down devices to prevent rooting, and lets carriers prevent you from uninstalling apps. As I like to put it: Android is open for vendors, open for carriers, but mostly closed to you.

 

And yes, Epic has claimed that Google stifled deals with LG and OnePlus. If accurate, it was simply because they would have offered portals beyond the Play Store. Google apparently even had a contract with LG that forbade sideloading. Yeah, not very open.

 

This is why it's amusing when some Android fans try to cast themselves as rebels fighting against the "evil" Apple. Sorry folks, you're still pretty conformist for choosing Android... maybe even more so, since you chose the majority platform that has monopolies in some countries. It's like claiming that real indie music fans only listen to Top 40 pop.

[Mark Kaine]

9 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's more open, but not really the champion of openness. Remember, it lets OEMs lock down devices to prevent rooting, and lets carriers prevent you from uninstalling apps. As I like to put it: Android is open for vendors, open for carriers, but mostly closed to you.

yeah, my point was basically it's more easy to root android phones if you want to circumvent all this stuff... I don't even know if that's true actually, is iphone really harder to crack (generally)?

 

plus you still have the sideloading option, I don't think Apple has anything like that at all?

 

I mean I'm not trying to fanboy google over apple too much, just that it's generally more open, gives you more easily accessible options, hence it's the lesser evil of the two (from my point of view)

[lazypc]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Sorry folks, you're still pretty conformist for choosing Android... maybe even more so, since you chose the majority platform that has monopolies in some countries.

Your not wrong, but there really isn't a whole lot of options out there. Unless you want to become a crackberry and hope that 3g doesn't die soon in your area.

Maybe a windows phone, but Microsoft is no better than Google or Apple when it comes to privacy and customization, so now it's basically Android or iOS without the apps.

 

I don't feel like there is a real winner either way between iOS or Android, you just pick what you prefer and am willing to pay for.

[Blademaster91]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

yeah, my point was basically it's more easy to root android phones if you want to circumvent all this stuff... I don't even know if that's true actually, is iphone really harder to crack (generally)?

 

plus you still have the sideloading option, I don't think Apple has anything like that at all?

 

I mean I'm not trying to fanboy google over apple too much, just that it's generally more open, gives you more easily accessible options, hence it's the lesser evil of the two (from my point of view)

Its a lot more difficult on apple, theres really no point in jailbreaking the device, and iirc you can get around app restrictions in some way, but no one is going to avoid the app store. And i think people are being a lot more conforming by going to apple as you're accepting being limited to the app store.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Blademaster91
typo correction

[Commodus]

19 minutes ago, lazypc said:

Your not wrong, but there really isn't a whole lot of options out there. Unless you want to become a crackberry and hope that 3g doesn't die soon in your area.

Maybe a windows phone, but Microsoft is no better than Google or Apple when it comes to privacy and customization, so now it's basically Android or iOS without the apps.

 

I don't feel like there is a real winner either way between iOS or Android, you just pick what you prefer and am willing to pay for.

Oh, I'm not faulting people for choosing Android. We just shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we're sticking it to the status quo by... embracing the status quo. Even in 2020, there's a tendency for some Android fans to treat Google like a friend that does things out of pure kindness. Sorry, folks, it's just a company.

[JoeCoke]

Fuck Google. At least we can go around the play store, but that's not a true solution as that will really hurt an apps chance at success.

[Sauron]

On 9/29/2020 at 8:14 AM, That Franc said:

At least you can still sideload apps on Android, but it's an unwelcome development regardless of anything. If things keep going in that direction, buying a Linux phone might become a much better option than it is right now.

Hang on, how does this change anything in that regard? I doubt we'll see fortnite or netflix offering native support for Ubuntu on ARM any time soon...

On 9/29/2020 at 5:44 PM, Heliian said:

Well this should work well for the consumer.   

 

Just pass that 30% on down the line.

Not really, "the consumer" will just buy 30% fewer microtransactions if they're 30% more expensive. The prices are already designed to be as high as possible while ensuring that people can actually afford to pay them regularly so any cut taken by Google or Apple is taken directly from the developer. It's a bunch of pigs eating each other's your meal and the largest pig gets the largest helping. Regardless of who wins here, we lose - we're constantly inundated with subscription fees or microtransactions and it's not going to get any better.

[Bombastinator]

20 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Hang on, how does this change anything in that regard? I doubt we'll see fortnite or netflix offering native support for Ubuntu on ARM any time soon...

Not really, "the consumer" will just buy 30% fewer microtransactions if they're 30% more expensive. The prices are already designed to be as high as possible while ensuring that people can actually afford to pay them regularly so any cut taken by Google or Apple is taken directly from the developer. It's a bunch of pigs eating each other's your meal and the largest pig gets the largest helping. Regardless of who wins here, we lose - we're constantly inundated with subscription fees or microtransactions and it's not going to get any better.

If this 30% reduction was true a locked App Store with a high fee wouldn’t make any more money.  It seems this is not the case.  I don’t mind a high fee if the App Store in question actually does work maintaining the store to justify that fee.  The problem I see is a lot of the stores simply don’t. 

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

If this 30% reduction was true a locked App Store with a high fee wouldn’t make any more money.  It seems this is not the case.  I don’t mind a high fee if the App Store in question actually does work maintaining the store to justify that fee.  The problem I see is a lot of the stores simply don’t. 

This isn't about fees on things purchased on their stores, it's about things purchased on other stores that are installed through their store. On Android that's a slightly smaller issue since you can sideload apps and there are some third party app stores if you don't want to go through Google Play but on iOS you don't have a choice.

[Orangeator]

At least you can still sideload apps, something that is not available on IOS... 

[Bombastinator]

34 minutes ago, Sauron said:

This isn't about fees on things purchased on their stores, it's about things purchased on other stores that are installed through their store. On Android that's a slightly smaller issue since you can sideload apps and there are some third party app stores if you don't want to go through Google Play but on iOS you don't have a choice.

I think the issue with the only way to get apps on the iPhone being to go through their store is an issue.  The problem is side load has its own problems.  It would be much easier if there was a solution that was en total better than the current one.  The problem is I’m not sure I’ve seen one yet.   Programs need to be vetted. Things are just too insecure and systems are just too vulnerable. The current system of captive consumer stores does solve that (if the store owner even chooses to do so) but even if they do there are still problems.  I look forward to a better solution that solves at least some of the problems created by captive app stores. I’m not sure I’ve seen one yet though.

[Bombastinator]

20 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

At least you can still sideload apps, something that is not available on IOS... 

There’s a decent rationalization/reason why Apple doesn’t allow that though: it breaks the vetting process. 
 

Side load has serious potential issues.  Google has fewer problems with that because they apparently abrogate their responsibility to do vetting.  It’s a major reason I think why many businesses won’t use android phones.  They can be dangerous to the company.

 

A random and possibly dumb thought occurs to me:

Thinking about this for a moment competition from multiple stores could be argued for if there was a way to arrange a requirement for good vetting within a store.  If that was done the argument Apple makes for good vetting would crumble.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Bombastinator

[Jet_ski]

11 hours ago, lazypc said:

So they could run Ads or push sponsored Apps to the top of the list for money. Sell your data to marketing. Offer built in payment processing to app developers for the low low price of a 29.99% cut giving the developer a extra penny for every hundred dollars of in app purchases vs Google/Apple.

 

There are opportunities for someone willing to develop an alternative app store, and it has been tried before by even big names like Samsung, but most don't gain much traction.

Samsung was never known for the quality of their software!

 

The point I was making is that before there weren’t that many developers interested in circumventing the official app stores. But if multiple large developers decide to put their weight behind an alternative Android store, it’ll have a better chance of success.

 

I’m basically saying, Epic and their squad need to put up or shut up. If they can’t make a decent alternative to the Play Store, if what Google and Apple provide is so difficult to recreate, then maybe the 30% fee is justified.

 

Epic wants to have their cake and eat it too. These companies are all the same. For them it’s about increasing their margins now that growth has stalled.

 

I do however have sympathy for smaller developers who in their earlier stages can’t make the 30% work. But for the likes of Epic, I don’t care.

[Vishera]

I don't use the play store anyway (Deleted from my phone )

[Orangeator]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

There’s a decent rationalization/reason why Apple doesn’t allow that though: it breaks the vetting process. 
 

Side load has serious potential issues.  Google has fewer problems with that because they apparently abrogate their responsibility to do vetting.  It’s a major reason I think why many businesses won’t use android phones.  They can be dangerous to the company.

 

A random and possibly dumb thought occurs to me:

Thinking about this for a moment competition from multiple stores could be argued for if there was a way to arrange a requirement for good vetting within a store.  If that was done the argument Apple makes for good vetting would crumble.

I don't see any legal basis or requirement for there to be appropriate vetting if another app store were to be allowed on the IOS platform. Even if such a policy my be wise and a good policy for the Apple Store, it does not justify the absence of competition. In a hypothetical where a court does rule so, it does not justify the absence of side loading individual apps directly, without the use of a store.

 

Ultimately, Apples biggest problem is that the ONLY means for acquiring an app on their devices, is if it goes through the Apple Store. From my interpretation of antitrust laws, there is no justification for such a market to exist without government ownership or regulation.