Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ pi-victor 7 hours ago

I think it bothers OP less that they take a 15% tax than the fact that google provides terrible support for their own play store. If they would take that tax and provide good feedback and speedy version reviews, nobody would ever complain - it is expected to pay something since the play store doesn't run on good thoughts and prayers. But because they're a monopoly (or a duopoly if you count apple, which is a different platform altogether) they can afford to act this way.

▲indymike 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> it bothers OP less that they take a 15% tax than the fact that google provides terrible support for their own play store.

The terrible support is really deeper than support. You literally stopped doing business here, because the lack of a feedback channel that allows Google to improve their business (i.e. realize they need a way to quickly correct stupid automated decisions) been Google's worst enemy and best friend. By ignoring support & feedback, the friction for internal decision making is low (no pesky customer demands, the product manager is king, management gets their way), but it leads to I think a lot of Google's products failing because they do not really understand their users, and the why behind the what they use.

I'm not sure being a monopoly alone explains Google's behavior here, but it could be as simple as that: who cares about one small customer... it's not like they have a viable alternative.

▲matsemann 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, I spend my free time making it accessible to bike in my area. Some of that is providing google with free street view data and other stuff. The amount of broken stuff and lack of support, when I'm literally giving them free work, is insane. I hate to do it, but the good outweighs the bad imo (I also provide it to open alternatives like OSM, Mapillary etc).

Like, their pipeline has been broken for months. No way to contact them. There is a support page for the api, but they close all issues as "the api is working". Well, sure, you accept the street view so the api is technically working, but haven't processed any for months.. It's probably a different team, but no way they would bother talking to each other..

▲smnplk 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just don't upload to Google. Their maps navigation is terrible anyway. Fuck them. But do continue to provide your valuable data to alt maps.

▲nickserv 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just don't upload to Google. They'll take the data from OSM anyway, after some time.

▲hapless 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Specifically, no one will earn a promotion by talking to another team or improving customer service

▲Zak 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Being a monopoly alone does not explain Google's behavior here. Google has a long history of not providing support.

The company's philosophy on the issue seems to be rooted in the hacker ethos of not giving repetitive work to humans if a machine could do it. When a machine can't do it, Google's thinking is to improve the machine. If the systems are good enough, nobody will need support.

The systems are not good enough, and that has been true for a long enough time that a reasonable company would have realized that a good support team is necessary until some far-future time.

▲travisgriggs 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> The company's philosophy on the issue seems to be rooted in the hacker ethos of not giving repetitive work to humans if a machine could do it. When a machine can't do it, Google's thinking is to improve the machine. If the systems are good enough, nobody will need support.

I have not worked at Google, but rather at 4 different companies that built automation machinery (ie multi discipline execution between mechanical, electrical, and software engineers). In none of those cases was it ever “the hacker ethos”. It was mid to upper level management whose incentive loops tended to be associated more with either shareholder perception or HR head counts. All of the engineers were usually begging the company to do a better job (allocate resources) to last mile customer support. Engineers build things, and are usually more satisfied if the products they build are well received because of the “last mile” bit where someone helps a customer appreciate their creation.

▲TeMPOraL an hour ago | parent [-]

GP is not wrong, though. Google is well and publicly known for this approach. One of the most prominent example is their formulation of the role of SRE, which is now considered standard in the industry.

▲arrosenberg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I'm not sure being a monopoly alone explains Google's behavior here, but it could be as simple as that: who cares about one small customer... it's not like they have a viable alternative.

The last line contradicts the first line. Being a monopoly means they don’t have to care. If Apple and Google were required to allow competing app stores as first-class citizens then they would have to provide better service or no one would use their stores and they’d lose out on all of the rents they’re collecting from app developers.

▲dataflow 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Thanks for writing this out. I'd seen a lot of arguments for why we need multiple app stores, but I think this might be the first time I've seen someone crystallize the fact that an app store itself is a competitive business model that could provide better/cheaper services with competition.

▲genxy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My favorite quip in response to asking for something to get improved inside of Google is, "no one ever asked for this", knowing full well the opportunity to ask was near zero and no one ever looked.

Google is a crazy town, data driven by cherry picked post-hoc rationalizations driven by perf. The user never enters the equation.

▲pessimizer 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the friction for internal decision making is low (no pesky customer demands, the product manager is king, management gets their way)

I'd like to support that this goes "both" ways for companies who destroy their customer service. Not only do they not know what their customers want/problems they're having, but they don't know what their customers wouldn't want/problems they're not having. Like you say, it "lowers the friction," so some dumb, destructive idea that somebody has gets implemented based on title and force of personality.

But that's a monopoly. Nothing they do is destructive, other than putting any more work in than is necessary. If the store went down for weeks at a time, they might have a problem. The problem would result from this personally irritating and inconveniencing a regulator/politician, judge, or major stockholder/owner.

▲inputmice 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Author here: Indeed, 15% is fine. They do provide some services. They provide the CDN for downloading the APK. They handle sales taxes in the various countries, which would be a PITA to handle yourself. Similar-ish services like Patreon charge a fee too. The 30% they charged a couple of years back was bad. But I could live with 15% if the support were anything other than zero.

▲rkangel 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is that it ISN'T a fee for services as it should be. Their platform power means that they can levy a tax, and they don't feel the need to do anything on exchange for that.

▲lemagedurage 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yep, I'd hypothetically economically gladly build an alternative app store charging "only" 5% on app revenue. The blocker would be that Google has a hold on what store is installed by default on Android. Apple even more so. This is hardly a fair market.

▲brainwad 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are other app stores on Android, e.g. OEM ones like the Galaxy store. The latter doesn't really compete on price though - 20% cut of one time payments and 15% of subscriptions. I think the Android app stores anchor to the iOS app store prices to piggy back on Apple's monopoly power - devs are used to having to pay Apple that much, so they will not resist if you charge the same.

▲xethos 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

> they will not resist if you charge the same.

Sure, but they also won't generally bother if the fees are the same as the installed-on-every-device Play Store

▲philipallstar 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That would work because someone else "Google" is doing all the development of Android etc etc. Of course you can create a parasitic service for less.

▲benoau 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Google is not developing Android for the IAP fees, they're doing it to sell phones loaded with their search, advertising, browser and services. They take hundreds of billions in revenue annually from this, they are being paid several times over for that work even if they get no IAP fees.

▲b112 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's sad that Google has absolutely no foresight.

The speed of government is slow, incredibly slow. It's measured in election cycles. It takes government eight, twelve years to simply turn around and notice. But once it does, it's a juggernaut.

Nothing can stop it. Nothing can avert it. Nothing can prevent it. And as everybody from Facebook to Microsoft knows, once it starts moving, you're screwed.

In the US, the oil companies thought they were too big. Then the telco companies thought they were too big. What really happens is eventually people just get pissed off, and then it's too late.

Google is fast approaching that. They almost had chrome and other things ripped away from them, and now they've got requirements to have alternate play stores. If they don't turn course, and turn course blazingly fast, they're going to have their entire empire wrenched away from them.

Oh well.

▲mrandish 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If they don't turn course, and turn course blazingly fast, they're going to have their entire empire wrenched away from them.

Unfortunately, that's no longer the case with the app store monopolies. While Apple is under some partial enforcement on parts of their app store policies, Google managed to play the game of regulatory brinksmanship better and largely avoided that for their app store. So the regulatory powers (such as they are) have already taken their best shot and this is where we are.

▲b112 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Once this starts it never ends. Regulatory action has been steadily increasing around the world, and it will continue to do so.

Juggernauts do not have to be fast. And the judge has seen Google being intractable and sneaky with alternate app stores too:

https://www.theverge.com/policy/979852/that-is-not-acceptabl...

There is now a record of this. The next action against Google, will see people pointing out each step they took to avoid compliance.

A case a year down the road about AI, will see stubborn attempts to comply like the above cited.

Google, with the gold plated shovel, digging a hole for itself. Put another way, breaking up a company typically comes after other methods don't work. Such as being sneaky and making them not work.

Or even because the required competition didn't occur, regardless of fault.

It's not over. It's a step taken, with a positive outcome, and a judge who is making sure there's follow through. Next step will be more stark.

▲philipallstar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can already stand up an alternate store.

▲izacus 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Google is funding Android fully from Play Store, since previous CFO the ad revenue isn't shared between parts.

▲benoau 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They also say they generate $57 billion ad revenue from being default search engine on iPhone, so obviously there is a cash value to being the default search (and everything else) on Android too even if their accountants can finagle reasons that doesn't contribute to Android's development costs.

If they didn't develop Android they'd be paying $10s of billions annually for the prime positioning their apps and services and search enjoy too, so even if you buy their accounting tricks the development is paying for itself many times over.

▲izacus 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That would then go against the wishes of people here for Google to be broken up and Android to self-fund, no? ;)

▲benoau 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If Android did belong to someone else then there could be an argument that IAP fees are funding it and subsequently required, perhaps even under less-than-competitive circumstances.

But if the court allowed, Google would be paying that company $10s of billions for the prime real estate their software, search and services enjoy and it would then be a very weak argument that only IAP funds its development. Just like it is when Google earns $100s of billions in revenue from Android now.

▲agsnu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Would it be OK for Microsoft to prevent Steam from running on Windows because Valve doesn't contribute enough to funding the Experiences and Devices org? I've never really understood why mobile platforms should be different from how we think about desktop ones.

▲philipallstar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Only Apple is. Android supports alternate app stores, and has done since 2008. Samsung's app store for Android has been running since 2009.

▲rpdillon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Parasitic? Writing software for folks' devices and selling it isn't parasitic...it's just participating in the market. Weird that the overton window has moved so far that anything not built by the trillion-dollar duopoly is considered some kind of free-rider.

▲philipallstar 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not weird - you've just completely misunderstood the situation. This is about the OS, which the software in question (the alternate app store) relies on, but generates no revenue for. The devices are still being sold, because their manufacturers are allowed to make money, the alternate store is allowed to make money. Only the OS maker will make no money, because that would be bad.

▲zem 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

what you are arguing for is objectively extremely bizarre. if you take a step back, this is what is playing out: company C makes a device. it needs an operating system to run software, so they add it. if there was no operating system the device would be useless and no one would buy it. now person A buys said device. it's theirs, they have paid money for it, they own it. person B writes some software. it runs on the device's operating system. they want to sell it to person A. person A wants to buy it from them. why should company C be involved at all? I found this super weird and distasteful when game consoles were allowed to use this business model, and am even more taken aback that general purpose computers get away with it.

▲necovek 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You seem to imply Google was forced to open source Android or even to give it for free: sounded like it was a purely business decision to capture more of the market.

Now that they have, they are also turning around on bits of that too.

▲arrosenberg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah yes, Microsoft famously never made money off of Windows.

▲catlifeonmars 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That trillion dollar duopoly is probably the worst case of free riders. It’s an enabler/vehicle for all the other billion dollar free riders to steal from the population.

▲pydry 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

theres nothing parasitic about a competing app store.

it is parasitic to try and prohibit competing app stores and then leverage your monopoly by charging monopoly prices.

everything google is trying to do to discourage graphene, newpipe, competing app stores, etc. is parasitic and it's right that they are being fined by the EU for this behavior.

▲philipallstar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> theres nothing parasitic about a competing app store.

I think a more honest way to say this might be: Android OS development is massively funded by Google, and the Play Store feeds into this hugely. No other store does this, so it shouldn't be surprising that they can charge a lower fee. They're just doing the easy bit.

▲ajkjk 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is rent extraction which always feels like bullshit because it is. Competition is supposed to be the counterbalancing force but it barely exists here.

▲Loquebantur 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It doesn't exist because it can't:

The basic services Google provides can effectively only be consumed by humans individually, creating an inevitable bottleneck.

Such bottlenecks impede interchangeability of goods, as you can't reasonably entertain multiple suppliers simultaneously there. And that means, you cannot have a free market, because you can't really have meaningful competition.

Google has captured services that really are public utilities. Them being "new" doesn't play a role.

▲benoau 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apple recently submitted in court filings that you'd have to pay ~8% for off-the-shelf solutions like Stripe or Paddle to be Merchant of Record anyway so 15% isn't really bad except for the high-earning apps, but Google should be doing something for that extra 7%.

▲jeltz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

8% for Stripe? Why would anyone have to pay that when my tiny company pays 1.5%?

▲benoau 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a level of service above their payment processing, where they also collect and remit certain taxes which I believe is built-in to that ~8%. This is the same service that Google and Apple provide for in-app payments.

https://stripe.com/managed-payments

This is what Apple said about it:

> Stripe and Paddle are leading full-service, turnkey payment processing, and merchant-of-record providers handling all the services necessary for link-out, including payment processing, tax compliance, fraud detection, and customer service. Across the top apps, the mean implied processing and merchant-of-record fee based on Stripe’s and Paddle’s rack rates (which few, if any, large developers actually pay because they negotiate discounts or provision in-house) is 8.1% using Stripe rates, or 7.8% using Paddle rates.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

▲basch 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They also develop the OS and development platforms that the apps are built upon. The apps don’t exist on islands.

▲phreack an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a pretty common sentiment. I make iOS exclusive apps because I know when facing any problem Google support will be non-existent. Apple takes ages to respond but has been known to be humanly possible so far.

▲SOLAR_FIELDS 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah this the thing that grinds my gears about Apple too. These fools will argue in court out of one side of their mouth that the cut is used to police the store etc and do reviews then out of the other side of their mouth they just don’t do it or give the most mediocre half assed attempts and collect the revenue. Which is it? You shouldn’t be able to charge people and not provide the service your charging them for

▲chii 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

people hate taxation without representation. That's why this model has to be unsustainable, but the legislation has not caught up at all.

▲627467 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If different words exists why insist in making "creative" use of the wrong word?

Your local monopoly of water provider charges a fee not a tax (although many collect taxes on behalf of the state that sanctions the monopoly)

Platform apps stores tend to be a monopoly (specially in iOS case) and that decreases incentive to provide a decent service/product to their customers who hate that fact - not because customer have no representation.

I never submitted an app to play store but knowing how Google handles app customers (or any customer of their services/products) its believable that app devs are shafted too. I personally wonder if there's any differentiated service level between an app that results in revenue for Google vs one that is 100% free. I'd be pissed if my 15% fee is not buying me priority over the latest adware filled flashlight app

▲echelon 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

"Representation" means ability to hire an alternative should the original relationship sour.

We don't need better support. We need a way to fire Google via a robust market full of alternatives.

▲philipallstar 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This isn't taxation. It's just a silly name for a fee. Fees are what make things sustainable.

▲bambax 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's taxation when it's imposed by a monopoly over users who have no choice except walking away.

▲mitxela 6 hours ago | parent [-]

This definition doesn't work, because my only choice when buying a burger at Dairy Queen is to pay the burger's price or walk away too, but it's not taxation.

▲chii 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

you have the choice not to purchase burgers from dairy queens, but from macdonalds, or five guys, or wataburger.

You don't have a real choice in an app store on android (except recently, and even then, the alternative stores don't behave well for google-based apps).

That's why it's not a tax when you choose to buy DQ burgers, but a tax when you choose to deploy an app to google app store.

▲mitxela 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If there's no other burger joint in the small town it's the only place I can get burgers.

I agree Google is using a tax here but the rule you suggested doesn't work

▲Nevermark 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Your town prohibits you from making your own burger?

Because burger meat is commonly sold in the smallest of grocery stores, and is not technically dependent on what buns, sauces, tomatoes, lettuce … or other ingredients you pair them.

And you can grow your own veggies, and bake your own bread.

It is an entirely componentized market. No gatekeepers.

Even single groceries in tiny towns continue having to compete with larger stores in bigger towns. Because they carry small selections most people make the drive to load up their larder regularly.”

You need to find an example that matches the point you are trying to make.

TLDR: Analysis reveals burger markets are nearly perfect economic opposites of centralized app store markets.

▲mitxela 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Who is stopping me from strapping a Raspberry Pi to a battery pack? Nobody, that's a componentized market too.

▲chii 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

but that raspberry pi won't be able to run google apps (or other apps like your bank's) that require play store certification.

▲mitxela 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I can't make a DQ burger at home either.

▲Nevermark 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes. But what is your point?

This is getting confused. Just find an example that does make your point.

▲philipallstar 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> You don't have a real choice in an app store on android

You do, and you also can pick iPhone. Or not a smartphone. Or not use apps.

> (except recently, and even then, the alternative stores don't behave well for google-based apps).

Google provides planetscale services like Google Maps for free and you want to build apps that use their services but not pay them 15% for their store, and still complain they don't work perfectly? You seem to be outsourcing a lot to Google but expect to give them nothing in return.

▲stephenhuey 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Bringing up Google Maps here does nothing for your point because on web or native mobile you pay money to use the API for Google Maps (outside of the store fee). Offering a free version to end users does financially benefit Google.

There are numerous examples of people needing a smartphone to do things in their daily lives. I’ve read compelling stories of people who ran into trouble after ditching their smartphone.

There are lots of parallels to the railroad monopolies. Choice is not as available as you say it is.

▲philipallstar 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Offering a free version to end users does financially benefit Google.

How so?

> I’ve read compelling stories of people who ran into trouble after ditching their smartphone.

It'd be helpful if you mentioned them instead of just saying everyone should trust that you were compelled by stories.

▲ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
▲close04 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You don’t get Maps “for free”, you pay with your data (your searches, your preferences, etc.). For Google maps is the bait to reel you in, you are the product they sell to their real customers: businesses. Google can shape your preferences by showing you what their paying customers want you to see.

I thought it’s self evident that products like Gmail, Search, Maps and others aren’t free because Google is aiming to do charity but because your personal data allows them to build a digital model of you and charge other businesses for access to that knowledge.

Around me I can’t think of a bank that allows any remote operation without a TAN only available on iOS or Android. That’s the root of a lot of future problems, not the least of which being that the bank charges you more for in person operations.

▲philipallstar 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand that, but how does that factor into the larger conversation? Are you saying that Google should want to make sure these services should work flawlessly on other stores so we can be tracked by them even if we don't use the Play Store?

▲saintfire 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google maps makes money through its API as well as accepting sponsored results to appear before correct results.

I'd agree you have a choice with 3rd party stores but they're working on limiting/killing those tiny markets, already.

▲mitxela 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google Maps has its own billing model.

▲applfanboysbgon 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> and you also can pick iPhone.

"Reee!! It's not a monopoly!!! It's a duopoly!!!!" screeched the pedant.

> Or not a smartphone. Or not use apps.

"Submit to the duopoly or else you're not allowed to develop for the most common consumer computing device on the planet"

▲kmeisthax 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, this analogy doesn't work because of switching costs. If I want a different burger, I drive across the street. If I want a different app store, I have to buy a new phone.

▲pydry 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

if the only way to use government services was to purchase either a dairy queen or McDonalds burger first that is a duopoly and they would be way more expensive and shittier quality than regular burgers as a result.

some smart alec would then point out that because even the cheapest, shittiest beef isnt free that this price is justified.

▲bigstrat2003 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

Nobody has said what Google is doing is justified. People are (correctly) saying that "taxation" is not the correct term for what they are doing. Google is in the wrong, but that doesn't make bad arguments correct just because they are aimed at Google.

▲catlifeonmars 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s not a fee, thats just a silly name for a tax. Taxes are what make things sustainable.

See what I did there?

▲mitxela 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do you define taxation?

▲philipallstar 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Something you pay or you're thrown in jail.

▲jeltz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In my country if I do not pay my taxes I do not get thrown in jail. Tax fraud gets you thrown in jail, but correctly declaring income but just not paying does not get you thrown in jail since we abolished debtors prison. And when we had debtors prison any debt could throw you in prison so that was a terrible definition since it means Sweden has no tax right now and in the past any debt would have been tax.

▲mitxela 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If your landlord requires you to pay rent with a phone app the phone is taxation?

▲tenuousemphasis 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A court ordered judgement isn't taxation, try again.

▲mitxela 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It kind of is.

▲sdenton4 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's when the guys who print the money pull some of the money back in from the market.

#mmt bay-beeee!

▲jeltz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

So countries without their own currency don't have taxation? Not all countries can print money.

▲applfanboysbgon 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At the level of customer service they provide (ie ~none), Google Play would be "sustainable" at a 1% cut. Everything above that is pure profit. Which is exactly why they're doing everything they can to lock people into Google Play and lock people out of distributing/accessing apps outside of it. This isn't some kind service Google is providing at cost out of the goodness of their hearts, it's their attempt to corner the market and extract a massive amount of economic value without doing any meaningful work.

▲ 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
▲charcircuit 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The revenue funds more than just support, it funds the development of an entire OS and various SDKs to support the apps that it distributes from the store.

▲cwillu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nothing added to android in the last 10-15 years has been of any benefit to me, mostly just pointless interface churn, the addition of nag screens, and removal/deprecation/awkwardification of features I actually use.

Given that, I think the world would be improved by reduction of such “development”.

▲famouswaffles 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The 100s of billions they get from being installed in so many devices and advertising doesn't fund that? Could have fooled me. The result is the same. Play Store doesn't do anywhere enough to justify a 15% cut.

▲pydry 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

mostly it funds google shareholders and their wildly overcompensated workforce.

▲crossroadsguy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And that's my problem with such business practises in general. Take an example of Claude. Not only, at this point, their models might be just marginally better than the open weight competition, they also also makes it entirely impossible for you to reach human support in case of an issue (and I am talking about real money related issues). You just can't do it. Yes, there's an email but that is also handled by the same bot.

I just don't understand how these companies can get away with that. These are the aspects of life that tells very clearly how most Govts are not chosen and ran for "the people" but the few, not the conspiratorial spirals. These are the smaller, but harsh Kafkaesque realities of life that says we lost this to the power of the "rich" - and it's an abstract power, it's not fixed, and if someone from the "masses" manages to become part of it they also reap the benefit but by the design of things that number has to be really small.

Okay, it deviated. The point is

> provides terrible support for their own play store.

Something like this is so abhorrent and yet is it normal and I didn't even start at how they can just charge 15 and 33% for of the incomes.

▲eviks 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course people would complain, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to have the same expectation of what a fair fee is that somehow exactly matches the current fee (even if the service is great)