Google now as greedy as Apple?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

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. ...

Actually B&N is NOT doing this any more via Android Play Store (can't speak for the Apple App Store but I guess they don't offer in-app sales there either). I don't know if they ever did do it (which is how this thread got started, changes in the Nook App, also changes in the PocketBook App). Apparently, Google just started enforcing this new 30% rate on them and B&N and PocketBook "declined the offer." How could they possibly compete if subject to those terms?

I don't know about the Amazon Kindle, I do know that Audible (another Amazon company) declined the Google 30% offer also. Maybe Kobo and Kindle have other terms or maybe they just haven't reacted yet.

EDIT: A quick search shows me that Amazon dropped Kindle in-app sales on iPhones in 2017 because of the 30% extortion fee. I sincerely doubt they will continue to offer in-app sales on the Android platform if they have to pay Google 30%. It would be suicide.

[Apache]

30% seems high to me for something like this. Most merchants would probably decline to use any credit card processors who wanted to charge 30% fees to merchants. We would not be able to afford the costs without passing the charges on to consumers. Most credit card processors negotiate with retail companies for fees. The more credit a company processes the better rate they can get. Mine is 1.5% on charges and a flat $0.10 on debit cards. Having the processors take 30% off the top would put me out of business.
Apache

[DiapDealer]

The 30% is not new. Nor should it be a surprise to any vendor. Anyone currently using Google's infrastructure for in-app purchasing has been paying it (or the lower subscription rate) for some time. I assume this to be no small number of vendors. The only people this fee would be new to are those who have ignored the warnings that in-app purchases outside of Google's Play store would eventually be shut down. Under those circumstance, 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.

Banking on an in-place rule remaining unenforced forever is not smart. Contingencies are.

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The 30% is not new. Nor should it be a surprise to any vendor. Anyone currently using Google's infrastructure for in-app purchasing has been paying it (or the lower subscription rate) for some time. I assume this to be no small number of vendors. The only people this fee would be new to are those who have ignored the warnings that in-app purchases outside of Google's Play store would eventually be shut down. Under those circumstance, 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.

Banking on an in-place rule remaining unenforced forever is not smart. Contingencies are.

There's three options companies like B&N can do, either give Google 30% or stop digital sales on the platform or abandon the Play Store. If you don't make greater than 30% margin, yes a 30% cut could be crippling especially if you have a competitor like Google Play Books that doesn't need to do that. What would expect B&N to do? Raise all prices to account for cut?

Google isn't putting this into effect for a little while now. Removing it now is being proactive.

[Quoth]

It's greed & and anti-competitive the way Google & Apple stores are run.
Also Google has an objectionable relationship with PayPal. I now won't buy ANYTHING from Google after the problems I had getting the payment method removed. They are not fit to have Paypal or Credit/Debit card details.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

What would expect B&N to do?

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. I expect them (and anyone) to know that lack of planning on their part does not constitute an emergency on anyone else's. In short: I expect B&N to make better business decisions. But history shows that B&N would rather play the sympathy card and try to convince everyone that the world is out to get them rather than accept any blame for the situation they find themselves in.

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.

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

[salamanderjuice]

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. I expect them (and anyone) to know that lack of planning on their part does not constitute an emergency on anyone else's. In short: I expect B&N to make better business decisions. But history shows that B&N would rather play the sympathy card and try to convince everyone that the world is out to get them rather than accept any blame for the situation they find themselves in.

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.

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

Plan accordingly to do what? Stop selling ebooks through the Play Store? Like they did? Were they not supposed to inform their customers of the change either nor are they allowed to criticize Google in explaining why they made the change?

Please explain how they were supposed to plan better for this.

It's also irrelevant whether companies use their own billing system as Apple and Google want 30% regardless. Apple recently lost a ruling about payments for dating apps in the Netherlands and now "only" want a 27% cut when using a non-Apple billing system.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

Were they not supposed to inform their customers of the change either nor are they allowed to criticize Google in explaining why they made the change?

You insisting on making this sound like a "sudden change" does not actually make it so. Of course they're allowed to criticize Google. But that criticism needs to based on fact rather than spin. The rule about no in-app purchases has been in place for a long time. The plan to begin enforcing that rule has been in the works for a long time as well. The 30% commission on in-app purchases through the Play Store is not new.

B&N should have been telling their customers that this could happen all along. Because they've known it could for as long as the rule has been in place. They're just mad that the grace period on the enforcement of the rule finally came to an end.

[Apache]

I am not suggesting that they do not have the right to charge what they want. I am only saying that, for most merchants that is a crippling amount that has to be passed on to their customers. Most customers would not be happy with a 30% increase in the cost of products.
Apache

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Apache

Most customers would not be happy with a 30% increase in the cost of products.
Apache

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.

[salamanderjuice]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You insisting on making this sound like a "sudden change" does not actually make it so. Of course they're allowed to criticize Google. But that criticism needs to based on fact rather than spin. The rule about no in-app purchases has been in place for a long time. The plan to begin enforcing that rule has been in the works for a long time as well. The 30% commission on in-app purchases through the Play Store is not new.

B&N should have been telling their customers that this could happen all along. Because they've known it could for as long as the rule has been in place. They're just mad that the grace period on the enforcement of the rule finally came to an end.

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.

[jhowell]

It seems to me that vendors have the option to make the situation clear to consumers and let them choose what to do. For example show the price as $10, Google surcharge as $3 and total if purchased through the app of $13 with a prominent note that the Google surcharge can be avoided by purchasing via the web instead. Then consumers can decide whether the convenience of purchasing in app is worth the added cost.

Or do the play store rules not allow this?

[salamanderjuice]

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

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

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by salamanderjuice

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

And it's a change that they could have enforced with no grace period whatsoever. Of course it only benefits Google. It's Google's store.

Are businesses such as B&N under no obligation to plan ahead for changes that they know full well are in the works? Is B&N not complaining about this just now in a thinly veiled attempt to make it look (to their customers) as if Google suddenly pulled the carpet out from under them? Is that not, in itself, a ploy that literally just benefits B&N?

[salamanderjuice]

Of course B&N would rather make Google look like the bad guy???

You don't think they DIDN'T plan ahead to stop sales on the exact day they had to? Apps don't update themselves and emails aren't written automatically either. It just doesn't make a whole of sense for them to announce this change and do it earlier than they absolutely had to. What would they gain?