Android introduces $2-4 install fee and 10–20% cut for US external content links

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of the new fees

  • Applies only to apps distributed via Google Play that:
    • Link to external payment for digital content, or
    • Trigger installs of another app after a user follows such a link.
  • Fee structure discussed:
    • Fixed per-install fee within 24 hours of the external link (≈$2.85 for apps, ≈$3.65 for games).
    • Additional 10–20% cut on external revenue.
  • Does not apply to apps installed outside Play (e.g., direct APKs, F-Droid, other third‑party stores), as far as commenters can tell.

Legality and Epic/Apple context

  • Some argue this is a “victory lap” over court rulings, showing penalties on Apple/Google were too weak.
  • Others note recent Apple rulings explicitly allow some fee on external payments; dispute is about how much, not whether.
  • Confusion over the courts’ “middle ground” between IP rights and antitrust: unclear legal principle for limiting, but not banning, fees.
  • Several expect this fee model to be tested again in US courts; some think it’s tailor‑made to sit just inside current rulings.

Fair platform compensation vs gouging

  • Critics call the per‑install fees “egregious,” especially when Google isn’t hosting the content or when a 100MB download supposedly “costs” $4.
  • Defenders say pricing is based on value and market power, not bandwidth cost; the question is only whether it’s legal.
  • Comparison to Unity’s runtime fee: similar per‑install charge, but here developers are seen as more “captive” because of Google’s market power.

Monopoly, “walled gardens,” and comparisons to games consoles

  • Large debate over whether comparing Google/Apple stores to Xbox/PlayStation/Fortnite/Roblox is valid:
    • One side: gaming platforms are numerous and non‑essential; smartphones are near‑essential infrastructure with only two viable OSes.
    • Other side: monopoly law doesn’t distinguish “essential” vs “non‑essential,” and consoles also lock down alternative stores.
  • Some propose a consistent rule: no device should be allowed to exclude competing app stores, consoles included.

Developer options and alternative stores

  • Commenters stress that sideloading and other Android stores (Amazon, Samsung, F-Droid) already exist; historically, user adoption has been tiny.
  • Sideloading is described as “only slightly inconvenient” technically, but the security warnings and user behavior make it commercially costly.
  • Some speculate this move could push a subset of developers toward F-Droid or open‑source distribution, but F-Droid’s constraints (FOSS only) limit that.

Impact on F2P and large platforms

  • View that per‑install fees are specifically hostile to free‑to‑play games using external payments: the cost per acquired user may exceed expected revenue from average users, even with “whales.”
  • Only very large players (Epic, Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, major game studios) are seen as truly motivated to fight this; most small/indie devs either:
    • Accept 15%/30% standard fees, or
    • Avoid in‑app monetization altogether.

Extortion vs voluntary partnership

  • Some commenters label the structure “extortion,” arguing:
    • A duopoly on effectively essential devices makes “choice” illusory.
    • The fee design is clearly meant to punish attempts to bypass Play Billing.
  • Others counter:
    • No one is forced to link to external content or even to build mobile apps; it’s a voluntary business relationship.
    • Labeling it “extortion” requires ignoring the existence of the (admittedly worse) alternatives.

Fraud and abuse risks

  • Concern that tying fees to “installs within 24 hours of following an external link” opens the door to:
    • Competitors or fraud farms generating fake installs to saddle a developer with massive fees.
  • Some argue Google has a strong incentive to invest in antifraud, or developers will abandon the option and revenue will disappear.
  • Others note a conflict of interest: Google makes more money in the short term when there is more chargeable “activity,” fraudulent or not.

Regulatory hopes and jurisdictional differences

  • Many expect US antitrust authorities to look unfavorably on Google claiming a cut of external transactions, especially given existing hostility toward Google vs Apple.
  • Some see this as “testing the waters” in the US while avoiding similar steps in the EU, where regulation and enforcement are perceived as tougher.
  • Suggested remedies include:
    • Fines as a percentage of global turnover, escalating for repeat offenses.
    • More radical ideas like government ownership stakes or personal liability (even jail) for executives.

Google Play review and support frustrations

  • Separate but related complaints about Google’s wider Play ecosystem:
    • Opaque, inconsistent, often AI‑driven app review; especially painful for regulated sectors like healthcare.
    • Weak, slow, or effectively nonexistent human support; creators and developers often resort to public shaming on social media to get issues fixed.
  • Some doubt Google could itself meet the “accessible customer support” standard it’s imposing on others.

Wider reflections

  • A few commenters shrug that “99% of consumers don’t care,” arguing energy would be better spent elsewhere.
  • Others highlight:
    • Growing shift toward B2B as consumer margins shrink.
    • Reminder that most user needs could be met via the web/PWAs—if platform vendors weren’t, in some views, undermining the open web.