You're using their service. You are absolutely free to provide your app on F-Droid or your own store and ask for donations all day long. But you're still hosting your app on their service and use their infrastructure for publishing.

I agree that some regulation is necessary, especially since these are near monopolies, but at least on Android you're still using expensive infrastructure Google provides to you and your users for free. I don't think its unfair for them to demand to not make money using what they provide for free.

I’m getting really tired of this simplistic “analysis”. At what point does a monopoly on the distribution infrastructure start harming consumers? Would you accept that your ISP tell you that you need to use their DNS instead of any other? Or their search engine instead of any other?

Why do we give Google/Apple the right to decide on donations? They developed the infrastructure? They have benefited from this. Why isn’t this being looked at similar to the patent system where innovators receive the benefits for early days work instead of a long-forever-their-right to dictate how the rest of us work?

You can’t even deploy native apps in any official capacity on iOS without Apple taking their cut. Did you know that the IAP for a youtube premium subscription is more expensive than if purchased directly from Google? So, not only is everyone forced to pay more because Apple wants their cut, but they aren’t even allowed to give information as to why this is the case.

_Really_ competitive and we’re all benefiting from this type of behaviour, I’m sure. /s

I just don’t see “they built the infrastructure so they should benefit” as being the end-all justification for why we should accept this.

I guess in support of it:

1. Why build it if they don’t stand to benefit. 2. Building it and having it be the only source of applications (case of Apple) centralizes application source. Better than needing to jump through 3 stores for your apps.

But.. against it..

1. I just want someone to be able to buy me a coffee. Why does Apple need any part of this and why do I need to jump through discretion hoops in the black of night to make it happen?

My 2c.

You're misunderstanding my point. I've already said so in a sister comment, but we're fully on the same side about them being near-monopolies and them being very expensive on what they offer. No discussion there.

But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, they take advantage of their position in pricing and yes, they have benefited a lot from offering their infrastructure for free. But that does not make it okay to use the infrastructure they provide for your personal gain just because they are "bad".

We also need to differentiate between Google and Apple here, as the case is totally different. Google simply has a large market share on Android; iOS, on the other hand, has (nearly) no option of alternate stores and the App Store is not free. That's why I mostly talk about Google here; with Apple, it's an entirely different story.

>But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, they take advantage of their position in pricing and yes, they have benefited a lot from offering their infrastructure for free. But that does not make it okay to use the infrastructure they provide for your personal gain just because they are "bad".

The app store is also using him to enrich their ecosystem. They allow free apps for a reason even if it does cost them a miniscule amount of money to host them. It draws people to the platform.

The only reason they're willing to sacrifice kicking him off is because they think that they can wring a small amount of extra cash out of him which they can feed to their shareholders.

> The app store is also using him to enrich their ecosystem. They allow free apps for a reason even if it does cost them a miniscule amount of money to host them. It draws people to the platform.

And he is using the stores to deliver his app, which he is payed for by his donators and Patreon supporters, to them. And I'd argue that his benefit from having the reach of the store is far greater than the stores benefit of having another game there. So it's not like he's not profiting from that relationship as well.

You've essentially just rephrased "might makes right", no?

If I wield a vast amount of economic power and you do not, you are therefore obligated to bow to my whims...?

It's not like he's profiting a lot, anyway. This is more akin to a beggar having to fork over 30% of their earnings to a Walmart coz theyre standing outside it. After all, technically the beggar "profits" from doing that.

Well, he does profit from the app store. I don't think it's inherently unfair from Google to ask for a share of the money he makes due to their arguably mutually beneficial relationship.

If he'd complained that 30% is too large of a share, I would be fully on his side. This is unreasonable and I've made that point in the past. But the general principle of getting a share is very reasonable and, just because Google could afford to give him money, they have no moral obligations to do so and change the rules for him because they're so "rich".

No, he doesn't. He gets donated cups of coffee for an app he developed and gave out for free and which makes the app store a more valuable platform.

It's only profit if you discount the value of his labor to zero.

Google is demanding that every time somebody wants to gift him a cup of coffee to say thank you for giving away something of value for free that they get a cash payment.

This isn't about Google just being rich, it's about Google using their power to extract profit from charity simply because they are economically more powerful.

> But two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, they take advantage of their position in pricing and yes, they have benefited a lot from offering their infrastructure for free. But that does not make it okay to use the infrastructure they provide for your personal gain just because they are "bad".

Theoretically, no. Pragmatically, yes.

Pretending Google is just like everybody else is like pretending racism doesn't exist. It's not helpful. Google doesn't play by the same rules as others and we shouldn't pretend that they do. At this point, anything that harms Google is probably good for the consumer.

If they gave you an option to pick app stores on first boot, I would agree with you.

The choice between the Google store and F-Droid are presented very differently, and I doubt most users are even aware of there being a choice.

While I don't agree with the author's point, I do agree very much that it should totally be fine to force Google and Apple to allow multiple stores that are selected by the user.

Furthermore, there is plenty of precedence for this solution, as this is pretty much exactly the approach government took when Microsoft demanded IE be the primary/main browser on Windows.

I hate Google, but.. you bought the phone, did you not?

Like, i get that the market sucks for people who care about this stuff, but i avoid Google because their practices bother me. Are their store practices any different then? Should i not simply avoid purchasing their phones (and phones based on their OS) if i dislike it?

I think there's a huge difference between, say, residential ISPs where you can not realistically find a better ISP - vs phones. There are _lots_ of phones, many of them without any storefronts at all, problem solved. You're not forced to buy Google phones, so what is the regulation needed here?

I'm generally very pro-regulation/government, but this feels so optional that i don't get what the expected outcome is. No more closed ecosystems? Playstation has to allow arbitrary storefronts in their system?

edit: Another way to look at this is that the storefront isn't the problem. You're using their infra, they have a right to make you pay. However when they don't allow you to install your own apps outside of their storefront, that is the real problem. Of course you need to pay for hosting, why do you expect it free? But your phone is your own, so you should be able to avoid their hosting entirely, should you choose.

Realistically when you buy a phone you have a choice between two storefronts-- what are these other phones with no storefront you're referring to? Surely you can't be presenting conventional flip phones as an alternative here.

Blackberry now produces Android phones and the Windows phone is defunct. That just leaves the myriad of fly-by-night Kickstarter phones that wouldn't be able to run these apps in the first place.

So i'm lost though, is the implication that, because it's difficult to buy comparable phones that Google should offer their infra for free? At what point does Google have a right to make decisions on their own infra? If they're hosting your app they don't get a say in what they host?

And again, i already said i think you should have a right to run what you want on your phone. But most of the comments here seem to want to dictate what Google does with its own infra. That they don't get a choice in this.

There are lots of phones, but realistically you're picking between two ecosystems, Android / iOS. My grandmother isn't going to buy a Fairphone.

I think Playstations are different from smartphones / ISPs. You can live a normal life without a console, but you really can't without a smartphone or internet access. This technology is no longer optional.

I can agree with that, but i don't see why that has _anything_ to do with Google hosting your code for free.

The argument of Google not having the right to dictate terms of their infra seems completely unfounded to me. Why aren't we arguing for a more open Phone? Google demanding money for their own infra is not the issue.

False dilemma.

Google does not restrict one from sideloading another app store of choice. One can install FDroid, Humble Bundle, Epic Store, etc... So whether or not one is aware of a choice doesn't mean you can use the hypothetical of "no option to choose on first boot" as a loophole for violating the TOS of a different service.

One can if one knows alternative stores exist.

What I'd like to see is the solution Microsoft was forced to implement w/r to giving users a choice about browsers.

That would actually be a really good solution

And that wasnt a good enough argument for microsoft bundling internet explorer and they got the anti-trust hammer on their asses.

You need root to get the same background update functionality in FDroid though. Otherwise you have to click install for each update.

If you're able to sideload Fdroid, I think clicking to update ranks among the least difficult things you can do.

Difficulty isn't the issue - for every app that has an update you have to click it, then approve the install. On my phone there's a significant wait inbetween each step. It's a hassle.

I wouldn't turn on automatic updates anyway but I'd love to be able to select multiple items and give a single confirmation to update.

I have found that f-droid click updates are very finicky and unreliable. They eventually work, but failed updates and repeat and phantom update notifications are the norm.

It's fine for me but I don't think the average consumer would ever tolerate it.

Don't think their infrastructure would cost 30% without their duopoly, e.g. ten non-colluding platforms of equal market share and abiding by interoperability regulations. 5% and no draconian content policy enforcement?

Probably. But just because you think they are expensive it's not okay to exploit their infrastructure "back", especially when you are, in fact, not paying anything.

I'm fully on your side with them being near monopolies and them being overly expensive. But there's no arguing that they have expenses and they need to make money.

Google is the one being exploitative. The 30% is almost pure profit.

How did you think F droid managed to run for free if it cost that much to host apps?

Somehow you said you were fully on his side about monopolies but claimed Google the was the one being exploited. This doesn't make much sense.

Of course it does. Phone manufacturers exploit child labor in third world countries to make their phones (and that's not okay, for the record). But if I rob their shipments and steal their phones, I'm wronging them anyway. Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim.

And, as said in a sister comment, I'm fully on your side of 30% being to much. But that does not mean that I think they should get nothing.

>if I rob their shipments and steal their phones

This is supposed to be analogous to publishing an app and asking for donations?

>Being a criminal does not exclude you from being a victim.

This is not a criminal dispute nor analagous to a criminal dispute in any way, shape or form.

You said it's a contradiction that I say that a) Google exploits developers (in a way) and b) developers [can try to] to exploit Google. I made an over-the-top example to show that these two are not mutually exclusive.

I think by using an irrelevant example you inadvertently demonstrated the exact opposite - that they are.

If two parties "economically exploit each other equivalently", there is no exploitation.

These are not the same people, however. There are the developers which give in to the rules and process their payment via the app store. These are somewhat exploited by having 30% of their profits taken. Then there are those which circumvent the store payments by using external integrations and therefore exploit Google by denying them their fair share[0]. These groups are distinct.

[0] Whereas the "fair share" is not necessarily 30%, but >0%.

Are you making the case that Google risks to go bankrupt because some small open-source maintainer adds a donation link to their app?

Those ten non-colluding platforms would quickly dwindle back down to the two we have now, for many reasons, network effects being the primary. Look at any other space with similar platforms, you have 1 or 2 at most.

Hell, look at PC gaming where there are no restrictions. You have Steam (same 30% cut) and... Epic?

Agreed. I have bought way more apps than I would have otherwise because Apple already had my CC and I have some trust in their curation (I know it’s not perfect). If we went to a free for all model we’d end up right back here with maybe another store?

Given the scams out there users are already reluctant to enter their CC details, so a natural trust network effect would weed out everyone else except the biggest players.

And GOG and quite a few publisher-specific launchers (i.e. Blizzard Launcher, U-Play, Wargaming Launcher ...). I'd love to have all my games simply integrated into steam, but I like that people can simply go with their own launcher if they dislike the politics or conditions of one.

It is a near monopoly. The infrastructure costs are small relative to market power they possess.

They can decide to force you to sell at a price an app but it is an abuse of power to have a look inside to be the almighty judge. To the point that here they are even leaving the app space to look at the content of the website.

Imagine if you go to IKEA store and they look into your bag to refuse everyone that has an android to accept only iphone users? Just because they can!

Or if walmart will check your sms or your facebook profile when you enter to refuse persons that support Trump. And Costco, the same with persons supporting Biden.

They're not dictating your business model. They're dictating the rules of distributing on their platform, which they built.

This is exactly why anti-trust legislation needs to be extended to cover network effect platforms. A permanent ban from GitHub or LinkedIn has a non-negligible effect on career progression.

That actually seems like something that can hypothetically still be solved by the free market.

If there are competent employees that are not finding good jobs because they are not on GH/LI, then that is a market opportunity for people to start hiring people who explicitly don't have those things.

This is the same argument that was used to try and clamp down on anti discrimination legislation.

The idea being that since it was "economically irrational" to discriminate on the basis of skin color, the "free market" could therefore take care of it, therefore legislation was unnecessary.

The free market can remain irrational longer than a person can survive without an economic safety net.

Right, but that is what the safety nets are for.

> They're not dictating your business model.

Actually yes they are because they control approximately 100% of distribution.

> this is why Google and Apple need regulation

- publish for free, and doesn’t allow you put donations links

- pay monthly cost for publishing, and be able to put link for donations

Choose one

I choose:

- Advocate for developer friendly policies and work with the dev community to weaken Google and Apple's stronghold over distribution.

It's funny to see people defending Google here, unless you work for Google it's not in your interest (as a consumer or developer) to do so.

Maybe people think it’s “the right thing” even if it’s not in their own interest. Or is that inconceivable?

How is it the "right thing" if it helps Google but hurts developers and consumers? It seems quite the opposite.

Option 3 - Monopolistic injunction sees that this is an illegal set up and forces both Apple and Google to allow donation links and other options.

Option 3: Force third party stores with selection of various options at start up. Mirror internet explorer requirements.

Google has a monopoly and as such has all the power. How can there be consent when one party can dictate whatever they want.

> this is why Google and Apple need regulation

No, this is why devs need to read the TOS, realize Google/Apple are not platforms they want to support, and work to create/support platforms that are developer-friendly (e.g. F-Droid/itch.io, as highlighted here).

Or they are the platforms they want to support (because, for instance, they're where the people are), in which case they're just trying to both have and eat their cake, like Epic on the Apple store.

Do people simply not understand anti-trust anymore?

cough Parlor

No. First, it's not fair to them. Second, if you create such regulations, do you really know who would benefit from them?

It wouldn't be the consumers, but these companies. There's a thing called regulatory capture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture).

Try to introduce such regulation, and what would happen is that the regulations themselves would be even manipulated or even drafted by the big players in the market.

Why is that so bad? Because it means the regulations will be harsh to everyone else who tries to join that given market.

This happens all the time in other industries. We don't need this in computing, please.

Regulatory capture can happen, but it is by no means so inevitable or incorrigible that regulation should not be attempted.

Except we do need it. And without regulation we have network effects and bundling feeding into ever more centralization. Until these companies have resources equivalent to mid sized countries.

Regulations can also have thresholds so they don't crush small upstarts, yet do provide necessary controls for larger companies.

I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference here between them and say, Walmart? The latter is well known for dictating exactly what products and even at which price point is allowed inside their stores. Companies often have to create entirely new versions of their product in order to be sold there.

> I’m sorry, I don’t see the difference here between them and say, Walmart?

The number of customers who patronize only Walmart for any given class of goods, and never use Amazon, Target, Costco, Dollar Tree, etc. is negligible. If Walmart won't carry your stuff, you can sell to the same customers through many other stores.

The number of customers who patronize only Google Play for mobile apps is a pretty good approximation for the number of Android users. There is no plausible alternative to sell to those customers. Amazon is a serious alternative to Walmart; Aptoide is not a serious alternative to Google Play.