Google now as greedy as Apple?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

What would they gain?

Transparency? Integrity? You know ... just the things everyone is all so ready to pounce on Google and Apple for not having.

I don't get it. I really don't. You (and seemingly others) are OK with B&N doing things that you admittedly say only benefit B&N, but want to call Apple and/or Google greedy for doing the same things.

Is this really a "businesses I like are good and business I don't like are greedy" sort of thing? Even when both businesses are only out for themselves? Because that's the vibe I'm getting from many here.

[salamanderjuice]

I don't get what your point is either. Doing the change 17 months ago isn't any more transparent, nor does it have more integrity while making the user experience worse for longer. And sending more emails to customers earlier about would have just made them seem MORE angry at Google no?

I don't really feel like Google's abuses of their power is quite on the same level. You can say they are both about greed fine.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

You can say they are both about greed fine.

Thanks?

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

That's not allowed by Section 4 of Google's rules.

https://support.google.com/googlepla.../9858738?hl=en

...apps may not lead users to a payment method other than Google Play's billing system.

So it seems that it would be permitted to point out that they are charging 30% extra in the app but they are not to give any indication within the app of how the customer could have avoided it.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Transparency? Integrity? You know ... just the things everyone is all so ready to pounce on Google and Apple for not having.

I don't get it. I really don't. You (and seemingly others) are OK with B&N doing things that you admittedly say only benefit B&N, but want to call Apple and/or Google greedy for doing the same things.

Is this really a "businesses I like are good and business I don't like are greedy" sort of thing? Even when both businesses are only out for themselves? Because that's the vibe I'm getting from many here.

From my point of view, it's often fairly clear when a company is Evil, in the rather tongue-in-cheek way that Page and Brin meant it, as opposed to achieving their wealth and success by serving their customers.


Google became the Goliath it is by giving away a bunch services to users (and monetizing the resultant data*) and later by creating a free and open operating system for phones that gave users a lot more freedom and choice than competing systems.
Then, instead of continuing that model (which is still hugely profitable, I wager) they started taking away free features, removing much of that freedom, and locking down that OS, undoing many of the things that made them better than the competition and got them where they were. That threw their turn to Evil in to sharp relief. Bill Gates' and Steve Jobs' brand of evil was visible from day one.


There's more than one way to succeed in business. I recently read an economics article describing the difference between "shareholder capitalism" and "stakeholder capitalism." I had never heard the terms before.
If I understood the idea correctly, shareholder capitalism is what we see when companies seem to put their their short-term profits and their stock value ahead of everything else. Screw other stakeholders: the customers, the employees, the community.
Stakeholder capitalism is when a company looks for success by considering all those stakeholders, and increases profits by increasing value to all of them. Provide great products, retain the best talent, foster the future customer base by building goodwill in the community, etc, and all that will line the shareholder's pockets as well.

If I have it right, I see the former as "Evil" and the latter as good business.

My perception is that Google shifted from the latter towards the former.

ApK

*Yes, some find the idea of making you and your data the product to be Evil, but I say you knew what you were signing up for. Complaining about that is as dumb as positing a bunch of personal data to share publicly on Facebook then complaining that Facebook shared your data.

[Quoth]

They bought in Android.

"shareholder capitalism" and "stakeholder capitalism."
Those are just two varieties.
Google was ALWAYS evil, it was always about the user being the product. That's why they don't seem to charge anything*, because it's the advertisers that are charged.

*Their cloud servers are of course charged. There is no Cloud, that's marketing for rental of someone else's server. Unlike 1960s it's connected via the Internet and you have no idea where it is or the security or privacy.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

Google became the Goliath it is by giving away a bunch services to users (and monetizing the resultant data*) and later by creating a free and open operating system for phones that gave users a lot more freedom and choice than competing systems.
Then, instead of continuing that model (which is still hugely profitable, I wager) they started taking away free features, removing much of that freedom, and locking down that OS, undoing many of the things that made them better than the competition and got them where they were.

The only problem with that, is that I still use Google the same way I always did. These so called "evil" changes haven't taken anything away from me.

I am quite invested in the Google infrastructure, to boot (email, calendar, contacts, Google One, etc...). On phone, tablets, and PCs.

No complaints about the free and paid-for services I get from them. But as mentioned ... I think in-app purchases are for suckers. I don't play that game. So maybe that's where the difference lies. *shrug*

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The only problem with that, is that I still use Google the same way I always did. These so called "evil" changes haven't taken anything away from me.

I am quite invested in the Google infrastructure, to boot (email, calendar, contacts, Google One, etc...). On phone, tablets, and PCs.

No complaints about the free and paid-for services I get from them. But as mentioned ... I think in-app purchases are for suckers. I don't play that game. So maybe that's where the difference lies. *shrug*

No doubt some are impacted more than others. I have lost several free features I had come to depend on, I have experienced more and more bugs and performance issues across many products, I've seen a loss of options and flexibility in Android that have forced me into less-optimal solutions, and now I'm notified I'm losing my whole family email platform with the elimination of the free legacy GSuite. So I'm beginning to divest myself of Google as much as I can. The sour taste in my mouth is not merely from having less good free stuff available. It's from the perception (rightly or wrongly, but I think rightly) that the ONLY reason they are making the changes is to gouge more money from an addicted customer base. Not because the economics have changed and the offerings are no longer profitable or sustainable, not because they take too many resources to maintain or support, not because the new offerings are better, and not because they want to make things more secure. (I don't accept the need for security at the cost of being trapped in a child-proofed walled garden, guarded by lawyers.)


So, I vote yes, Google is now as greedy as Apple. Where's the poll? I wanna see the results....

ApK

[DiapDealer]

Obviously your mileage may vary. But many of us just manage to use them without ever even thinking about their motivations/evilness.

The main place I hear people talking about the "bad behavior" of Google/Apple is here. In real life, it's typically only the folks who refuse to use the likes of Apple/Google/Microsoft/Amazon/Facebook/Twitter/ESPN/CNN/FOX/Reddit/Stackoverflow, etc... and only browse the internet via VPN/Tor that I hear discussing the bad behavior of tech giants. *shrug*

I'll use them all until they don't work for me and my processes. Then I'll do something else. But it won't be because of some perceived greed that I stop using the free services the giants offer.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'll use them all until they don't work for me and my processes. Then I'll do something else. But it won't be because of some perceived greed that I stop using the free services the giants offer.

To be clear, the main reason I'm trying to mostly divest myself of Google is because the changes they are making are breaking or taking away things I depend on. Plan A would have had me staying using the Google services I've always used. The Evilness part is just a factor in why my plan B is finding replacements services other than Google, rather than paying Google for more stuff.

For example, though they are taking away my free Gsuite, which I relied on for email for my personal domains, and I would rather pay for some other company's email service rather than pay Google for their business service, I intend to keep using Gmail as the front end if possible, because it serves me well.

Similarly, I think Disney is Evil, but I still subscribe to Disney+, because they haven't screwed me over enough to force me off. Yet.
As my son put it "it's Evil, but it's reasonably priced Evil."
There are only few orgs I will flatly refuse to engage with period, and several, even huge mega-corps, that have been non-Evil enough to keep my business even if there are some cheaper alternatives.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

...I don't feel all that sorry for any vendor who wants to suggest that the sky is somehow "suddenly" falling. That the "new" rate is crippling. Sorry, but you've had over a year to prepare for a change you were warned would be coming. Nobody's being blindsided here.

B&N, Audible and PocketBook (to name three) "prepared for the change" by dropping the service. Again, there is NO WAY any eBook seller could compete if they have to add 30% to the cost of their books. That's more than exorbitant, it's basically extortion — and it gives Google and Apple a huge advantage in the eBook market (the spur of the moment eBook market at any rate).

As far as being "blindsided" it depends on how far back you go. Google in their (hypocritical) "do no evil" stage, invited vendors into their Play Store at very reasonable rates. This is a big part of how they caught up and surpassed Apple's "there's an app for that" early advantage. Now, when these companies are dependent on the platform, they "turn the screw." As I mentioned in an earlier message — at one point Google was "making hay" by comparing their terms to Apple's exorbitant ones (which they basically match now).

I've never bought anything from Apple, but I did buy a few eBooks from Google. That won't happen again.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I would expect them to pay attention to the fact that the enforcement of the already in-place rule (for no in-app sales outside of the Play Store) has been in the pipeline for over a year and to plan accordingly. I expect them not to cry foul now when they've known all along that it was going to happen....

As far as I know, none of these companies "cried foul." They just stopped in-app selling. I don't think they really had a choice. There was no way they could compete at this exorbitant rate. I'm the one crying foul because I think Google is foul. (Apple has been foul ever since they got into the eBook business by colluding with the publishers, so at least they're not hypocrites, just anti-trust thieves.)

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And don't forget that consumers are complicit in this fiasco as well. Everybody thinks all apps should be free or $0.99. If we (the royal we) were willing to actually pay a reasonable price for apps we find useful, vendors wouldn't be forced into going the subscription route (that everyone then complains about) in order to get the lower rate in the first place. They'd also be able to afford their own deployment/payment infrastructure.

No, I'm not "complicit" in Apple's and Google's greed. And we're not talking about the price of apps, we're talking about the cut (the exorbitant cut) that Apple and Google think they're entitled to for in-app sales from companies who provide free apps for their customer's convenience. A completely different subject. Google is now attempting to force these competitors to pay an extra 30% to sell their eBooks on their platform. That's Google's and Apple's greed, not mine.

As for "paying for their own infrastructure," that's exactly what Google is NOT allowing them to do, use their own infrastructure. They (long ago) had it paid for.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I, for one, would rather see all in-app purchasing be done away with entirely. I don't use it.

Apple's and Google's greed is doing a pretty good job of getting rid of it, so you may get your wish. Me, I kind of like picking something out of the store and buying it from my phone (rarely, but it's still nice for spur of the moment purchases). Fortunately I can still do it from the eBook devices, so not a huge loss. At a reasonable rate, Apple and Google could have probably made a "tidy sum" of cash from their competitor's in-app sales, but greed often shunts common sense.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Then they probably should have gotten out over a year ago when the plan to disallow in-app purchases outside of the Play Store was first announced.

Why? They were able to continue selling, in-app at a non-crippling fees, until now. To continue doing so, until the deadline was the act of prudent businessmen. Just because an exorbitant fee is coming, doesn't mean you should stop selling on the platform before the "greed tax" goes into effect. If you competed with Google by selling a book for $10 and then were required to add a 30% surcharge to stay on the platform... would you stay? Not if you wanted to stay in business, you wouldn't.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

Of course they're mad, it's a change that literally just benefits Google.

Nobody would remember or care if they announced it 18 months ago, telling people a few weeks beforehand gets it taken more seriously.

And where did I insinuate this was a sudden change?

Makes most business sense to wait for the final day anyways.

Exactly.

[DiapDealer]

You all have fun storming the castle. There's c!early too many differences in our philosophies to have any meaningful discussion about this.