• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Google to enforce 30% cut on in-app purchases next year

The Albatross

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
39,010
That sucks.

I had thought that shining a light on Apple's practice would end up seeing Apple cut that down, not bring Google to implement it too.
 
mutantmagnet

mutantmagnet

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,401
AndyD said:
From that very statement " if they also exist on the playstore ". Sideloading entirely can get you around this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure but realistically speaking, don't you understand the fundamental problems at play here and why this runs into similar issues that caused Microsoft to lose to Netscape?


One of the reasons Microsoft lost is due to their outsized ability to influence what people perceive to be their options.


When people look for new apps to download, first and foremost they will think of the Playstore and iOS store respectively and give the alternative store of the company that built their phone a second thought.

In this case the playstore isn't being used to prevent people from sideloading but Google knows they can force sideloading developers to use their payment processor exclusively because it is much harder to market the existence of your software without also being present on the playstore.


So in this case google's violation isn't about the software developers who side load but about the payment processing ecosystem.

Google has several problems unlike Apple and this is the most obvious one where they can lose.
 
lunarworks

lunarworks

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,158
Toronto
Hamster Plugin said:
This sucks a lot. Smartphones have become as important as PCs were in the past - or even more important.

Imagine if Microsoft had the right to charge 30% off every single thing you have ever done on your computer in the past 25 years. There's no way we would have seen the level of tech innovation we have seen. Paying a bill online? Sure, but let the OS maker take a 30% cut from that first. This is where we're heading now, but now there's two companies doing it so they can't get in trouble.

It is in both Apple's and Google's best interests for the other one to exist so they become immune to the kind of lawsuit that killed Internet Explorer way back.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't take a cut of any sort when I pay my Rogers bill through their app.
 
Kthulhu

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,670
Serene said:
I feel like this is less of an issue on Android because at the end of the day you can always sideload the apps entirely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah but the number of people who do that is microscopic compared to the people who don't. It's pretty hard to build a viable business off those users.
 
MidnightMania

MidnightMania

Member
Oct 31, 2017
537
You think once they enforce it, they will stop pestering my ass to upgrade Youtube Premium every fucking time I go to that site/app?
 

Deleted member 31333

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 6, 2017
1,216
AndyD said:
Pretty much this. If you want to use the services you should pay for them. But 30% seems excessive for some stuff for sure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes 30% seems too high. For Apple, Google and even for consoles.

I'm surprised no one gives a discount for the first $100k or $1mil or what every threshold makes sense.
 
Armaros

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,901
Kthulhu said:
That's just for one of the injunctions, not the entire lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

the nature of injunctions is that you have to present the argument that you will outright win the case based on the facts you provide to the judge and that's why the court should use its power to stop Apple before the trial and not afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.