Google now as greedy as Apple?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

That's about it, as far as it goes. Still amounts to pure greed, in my opinion. It seems to me that Google was "making hay" a few years back on how they weren't greedy, like Apple (who was charging an "outrageous" 30%).

Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct

Really I wouldn't care much, except I do remember them making that hay.

It's too bad Windows Phone failed. Though is there any doubt that if the big two were the big three, Microsoft would behave better?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Though is there any doubt that if the big two were the big three, Microsoft would behave better?

Absolutely no doubt at all. If they're big enough to be useful on a large scale, then they're going to be hated (and anthropomorphized as evil) by some.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Absolutely no doubt at all. If they're big enough to be useful on a large scale, then they're going to be hated (and anthropomorphized as evil) by some.

I don't think they're evil. They're a business doing business. But Google is giving itself a black eye by removing the 'don't be evil' quote that they themselves put there. It just opens the door for any further actions of theirs to be classified that way, at least in fun.

They are also now duplicating behavior that they themselves ridiculed in the past.

In the end, Google is a juggernaut and this too shall pass. But it is pretty easy to make jibes at them for being hypocritical.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

In the end, Google is a juggernaut and this too shall pass.

The End.
(at least for me)

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

There's always antitrust mutterings. So I don't know that there's really anything to "keep doing". It's not like Google requires users to only install/buy apps from the Play Store. And vendors can charge for (and provide downloads for) their apps any way they see fit. That vendors want their apps to be available via the Google Play Store is hardly evidence that they've got no choice but to do so. *shrug*

You do have to admit that this gives Google and Apple a huge advantage when selling eBooks at their app stores. And since B&N (to name one) competes directly with Google and Apple it seems like a pretty good case could be made that this an anti-trust issue.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct

Really I wouldn't care much, except I do remember them making that hay.

It's too bad Windows Phone failed. Though is there any doubt that if the big two were the big three, Microsoft would behave better?

More competition (especially when you have an "outsider" that's big enough to get some traction) often brings prices down. It looks to me like Apple and Google are fat and happy and have no desire to derail the gravy train. It appears that they've made a tacit agreement to stay at 30% (despite Google's earlier "virtue signaling" on this subject).

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't think they're evil. They're a business doing business. But Google is giving itself a black eye by removing the 'don't be evil' quote that they themselves put there. It just opens the door for any further actions of theirs to be classified that way, at least in fun.

They are also now duplicating behavior that they themselves ridiculed in the past.

In the end, Google is a juggernaut and this too shall pass. But it is pretty easy to make jibes at them for being hypocritical.

Google does more than business. They attempt to shape public opinion with skewed search results and censorship. They probably removed their "Don't be evil" clause because they were tired of hearing people laugh out loud when they read it.

But that's beside the point when talking about their 30% in-app greed and how it gives them a huge advantage when competing against Barnes & Noble (for one).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by rcentros

And since B&N (to name one) competes directly with Google and Apple it seems like a pretty good case could be made that this an anti-trust issue.

Sorry. I'm not seeing the antitrust issue. Which of the App stores (Google, Apple, Amazon) is the one with the stranglehold on business activity? "All three" is not one of the choices.

[billsfan2]

I for one am not updating my Nook app until I have to, because most of my Nook Books are purchased with gift cards and it's convenient to just use the app. Once I do update, then I'll just have to use their web site. It's still stupid, Google! ☹️

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sorry. I'm not seeing the antitrust issue. Which of the App stores (Google, Apple, Amazon) is the one with the stranglehold on business activity? "All three" is not one of the choices.

The only realistic way to sell software to Apple iPhone users is through the App Store. Android is slightly more open but also throws up scary warnings before you try to install software from outside the play store. Amazon is a rounding error and only relevant in the niche market of Android tablets on the low end.

It's a duopoly. If you want to sell any kind of software, provide any kind of service or device that requires an app for smartphone users in the US and basically every country except China you have to get your app in the App Store and the Play Store and that means playing by their sometimes ridiculous rules and forking over 30% of your revenue with no real alternative. Even if you ignore Apple in many countries like the US that's automatically throwing away 50% or more of your potential customer base. They have far too much control over far too important devices these days.

In the case of BN, Kobo, Amazon, etc. both Google and Apple sell ebooks and let you buy straight through their apps on their platforms because they don't have to pay a 30% cut of the sale price. This obviously isn't fair and forces all 3rd party ebook apps to have the clunky workaround of having you buy on a web page.

[DiapDealer]

I'm not arguing that it doesn't suck. I'm asking for specific examples of how it's violating American anti-trust laws. No one is being forced to used apps, no one is being forced to choose Apple over Google (or vice-versa). Apps CAN be installed on Android from outside the Google Play Store (in fact the Amazon Appstore can be installed on vanilla Android via the Google Play store) regardless if some might find it "scary' to do so. So I repeat: what antitrust laws are Google and or Apple currently at risk of violating?

They're not working together (at least not so far), so the notion of a "duopoly" is irrelevant RE antitrust. And "clunky" isn't relevant either. There ARE choices. The fact that we don't like any of those choices (for both users and vendors) is neither here nor there.

[tomsem]

I’ve always preferred purchasing with a browser to the in-app experience. There’s more information, you can have multiple tabs to review more than one book, etc.

I wish there a way to turn off Store and recommendations in app altogether. There are enough distractions without these.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

It's a duopoly. If you want to sell any kind of software, provide any kind of service or device that requires an app for smartphone users in the US and basically every country except China you have to get your app in the App Store and the Play Store and that means playing by their sometimes ridiculous rules and forking over 30% of your revenue with no real alternative. Even if you ignore Apple in many countries like the US that's automatically throwing away 50% or more of your potential customer base. They have far too much control over far too important devices these days.

AFAIK neither Google nor Apple denies the ability of the app developer to sell outside of the app. They also don't demand any % of sales not done within their app. If an app dev wants to get around the 30% Google and Apple are demanding, let them set up the infastructure to supply an always online server to register accounts, process payments, distribute tokens to the apps to grant the features purchased out of app, etc.

Why should Apple or Google not get a slice of the sales when they're the ones providing those services, along with the install bases they both offer. They provide a service to the app devs, and ask to be paid for it. Imagine asking to be paid for a service you provide. As stated, the devs have the options. So to do consumers though it's based on what the devs do.

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

AFAIK neither Google nor Apple denies the ability of the app developer to sell outside of the app. They also don't demand any % of sales not done within their app. If an app dev wants to get around the 30% Google and Apple are demanding, let them set up the infastructure to supply an always online server to register accounts, process payments, distribute tokens to the apps to grant the features purchased out of app, etc.

Why should Apple or Google not get a slice of the sales when they're the ones providing those services, along with the install bases they both offer. They provide a service to the app devs, and ask to be paid for it. Imagine asking to be paid for a service you provide. As stated, the devs have the options. So to do consumers though it's based on what the devs do.

Do you honestly think Amazon, Kobo, etc. don't already have their own online infrastructure and ways to process payments? Literally all Apple/Google Play offers is some app downloads they could do. Does it make sense to take 30% for that? Especially when it's not even necessarily wanted but forced?

Apple doesn't even allow most to get away with the "reader" exemption as it was basically made to keep Amazon, Spotify and Netflix on the platform and many services are forced to either have free services, IAPs through Apple or subs through Apple and now Google is doing the same.

As for what anti-trust laws, this is likely an essential facilities thing but IANAL. It's pretty clearly anticompetitive rent seeking anyways and I don't think platform holders should be allowed to cripple competitors on price and functionality because of their made up rules.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

Do you honestly think Amazon, Kobo, etc. don't already have their own online infrastructure and ways to process payments? Literally all Apple/Google Play offers is some app downloads they could do. Does it make sense to take 30% for that? Especially when it's not even necessarily wanted but forced?

Apple and Google handle the in app purchases. So they get paid for it. Very obviously I know Kobo, BN, and Amazon can do this because they all literally do it and survive just fine. Well ok BN is struggling but not because of this. As to forced, again it’s not. All of your own examples sell outside the app just fine and pay nothing. All of your own examples also sell their own devices which don’t natively support buying from third parties within the device (specifically any eink Kindle and literally any Kobo available for purchase right now). You want Amazon books on a Kobo? Or Kobo books on a Kindle? Get ready for a lot more hoops to jump through than opening a browser and buying the book.

Apple doesn't even allow most to get away with the "reader" exemption as it was basically made to keep Amazon, Spotify and Netflix on the platform and many services are forced to either have free services, IAPs through Apple or subs through Apple and now Google is doing the same.

And without Apple or Google providing the store front and devices how many of these app developers are going to reach even a fraction of the ones they can with those storefronts and devices? Again they provide a service and get paid for it.

As for what anti-trust laws, this is likely an essential facilities thing but IANAL. It's pretty clearly anticompetitive rent seeking anyways and I don't think platform holders should be allowed to cripple competitors on price and functionality because of their made up rules.

They aren’t crippling anyone on price. Any competition that’s been mentioned here (Amazon, Kobo, BN, Netflix, Spotify, etc) all can and do provide payments outside of the apps. And they aren’t crippling functionality, the app developers have the choice to sell within the app or not. There’s Twitch (owned by Amazon) which allows you to buy tokens to subscribe to streamers in app, you pay a dollar more for this, but you can always pay for the same subscription without doing this. People on twitch know the in app tokens are pricier yet they still do it.

You might not like that Apple and Google do this that doesn’t make it illegal. Every party involved has a choice