Breaking Up with Google Play: Why Conversations Is Now Free
Developers reacting to an XMPP app author leaving the Google Play Store argue that Google and Apple have become de facto gatekeepers, extracting 15–30% “rent” while providing poor review processes, opaque rules, and almost nonexistent support. Many see mobile app stores as monopolistic or utility-like infrastructure that should be opened to real competition or regulated, especially given how tightly they’re tied to core services like banking and communications. Others counter that the stores still provide significant distribution, infrastructure, and billing value, but even they tend to agree that power asymmetries and lock‑in leave both developers and users with few meaningful alternatives.
App Store Fees, “Tax,” and Rent-Seeking
- Many see the 15% Play Store cut as a de facto “tax” enabled by market power and lock‑in, not a normal fee; some say Google provides “negative value” and would prefer the store shut down.
- Others argue 15% is reasonable given hosting, billing, and tax handling, and comparable to full “merchant of record” providers; the main grievance is that support and review quality don’t match the cost.
- There is debate over terminology: some insist it’s just a private fee; others say when there’s no realistic alternative, it feels like taxation or rent extraction.
Monopoly / Duopoly and Market Power
- Many commenters describe Google and Apple app stores as an effective duopoly that developers must accept to reach smartphone users.
- Counterarguments stress that Android allows alternate stores and forks, and that iOS exists as another platform, so “monopoly” is overstated in a strict sense.
- Several argue that practical switching costs (buying a new phone, banking apps tied to certified devices) make this distinction semantic.
Support, Automation, and Developer Experience
- Repeated complaints about Google’s near‑nonexistent, bot‑like support and opaque, error‑prone review/verification processes.
- Stories of months‑long review/verification loops, bans, and requirements (phone verification, test users, DUNS, etc.) that feel arbitrary, especially for small developers.
- Some see this as a cultural choice: preference for automation and internal metrics over human support or real user feedback.
Regulation, Utilities, and Remedies
- Strong support from many for heavier regulation or even breaking up app store gatekeepers; comparisons are made to railroads and other historically regulated monopolies.
- Some argue core digital services (search, mobile OSes, app distribution) function like public utilities and should be state‑owned or tightly regulated; others counter they’re not natural monopolies like water or power lines.
- Suggested remedies include forcing equal treatment of alternative app stores, opening APIs, loosening Play Services tie‑ins, and preventing anti‑competitive blocks (e.g., on NewPipe, Aurora).
Workarounds and Alternatives
- Developers describe tactics to avoid Play fees (long free trials, off‑store subscriptions), or abandoning Play entirely in favor of direct distribution/F‑Droid, accepting lower reach.
- Some now target iOS only, judging Apple’s process and human support—while still bad—to be relatively more predictable.
- Users mention de‑Googled Android, alternate OEM stores, GrapheneOS, and PWAs, but acknowledge serious limits (banking apps, push infra, user apathy).
Messaging, XMPP, and Push Constraints
- Conversations is praised as a strong XMPP client, especially for self‑hosting and as a UnifiedPush distributor.
- Discussion of architectural workarounds for push on privacy‑focused apps: long‑lived connections, polling, UnifiedPush, or iOS background refresh, all with trade‑offs in reliability and battery.