
Tinder Bypasses Google Play, Joining Revolt Against App Store Fee - samsonradu
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-19/tinder-bypasses-google-play-joining-revolt-against-app-store-fee
======
securityfreak
I might get downvoted on principle, but I genuinely wonder and don't
understand: why is it NOT OK for Google and Apple to ask for a cut? They have
spent years and millions (if not billions) in developing the infrastructure,
public trust and user base that allows developers to reach millions of
potential customers in the first place. They provide some valuable guarantees
that apps should follow that benefit and protect the consumer. I understand
that bypassing fees is a way how to temporarily "have green numbers" and show
savings on the quarterly report, but this is like a sugar company trying to
sell sugar on the streets outside of a supermarket chain, because they don't
want to pay a fee to the supermarket chain. It's their app store, their user
base - why can't they make their own rules which benefit the consumer in the
first place and not the greedy provider?

Again, I am genuinely curious what ethical principle am I missing here.

~~~
hrktb
> It's their app store, their user base

There’s only one app store for Apple device and Apple fought tooth nails to
ban jailbreking and forbidding any other app store like system.

There’s only one extensive app store for android and Google forced it down the
throat of any maker that wanted Google’s service libraries which tons of apps
learned to rely on.

Platform owners have been playing dirty in a lot of aspects, I think it’s game
for service owners to find workarounds or get out of paying a cut to Apple or
Google.

~~~
scarface74
How is this different from the console manufacturers? Yes even when you buy a
physical disk the console maker get a cut.

~~~
hrktb
In principle consoles are not different, and lawyers looking at Apple/Google
stores are also wondering what impact would a ruling in this field have on
consoles as well.

I think nobody goes after consoles for now because there is no big enough
business case getting hurt, and they’re kind of grandfathered in people’s
perception.

------
izacus
Is it a revolt against the app store fee, or against new privacy and security
rules, which demand that they change their target SDK level to something
modern which doesn't allow as much data collection?

~~~
panpanna
Yeah, that is the real question.

Google already has special deals for companies that lowers the 30% fee
significantly.

(I think even 2-3% fee is too much for doing basically nothing, but that is
another discussion).

~~~
maccard
Google certainly aren't doing nothing - 30% includes hosting, bandwidth,
patching, some amount of marketing, payments, fraud. Whether it's worth 30% is
a different discussion, but to say they provide no value is just sily.

~~~
ulfw
Agree on everything except patching? What does Google patch on say a netflix
app?

30% is ridiculous for Apple and Google. It's an arbitrary number that they
could get away with when the Appstore came out nine years ago and everyone ran
with it ever since.

I don't know what a fair amount is. But I doubt it's in the two digits.

~~~
pjmlp
If 30% is ridiculous, what to say about J2ME, Symbian, Blackberry and PocketPC
rates of former operators stores?

~~~
Nullabillity
Can't speak for BB, but J2ME, Symbian, and PocketPC never had any centralized
store that everything had to go through.

Well, I guess Symbian got N-Gage and the Ovi Store towards the end, but they
never tried to lock it down against third party sources.

~~~
scarface74
No the stores were run by the carriers. Sprint and Verizon had an App Store
before the iPhone was introduced where they sold a third party J2ME apps.
Those carriers took a 70% cut.

~~~
Nullabillity
I suppose it might have been regional, but that was never the case here. You
would just download the jars (or cabs) directly from the developer. The only
cut would have been the ~2% credit card processing fee.

------
xg15
I'm not against app store operators demanding a service fee - but I've always
been baffled that everyone seems to be ok with the amount of power Apple and
Google have over the app economy.

If you're a tech startups engaging with end-users, right now there seems
almost no way around offering an iPhone and Android app to accompany your
product or service. There are whole sub economies where the app _is_ the
product.

Yet app stores are basically private property where the companies running the
stores can set (and change) arbitrary rules and regulations. If a rule change
means your app is no longer viable and that app was your product, sucks to be
you.

Shouldn't at least the free market crowd object against a whole economy being
at the mercy of two companies?

~~~
qwerty456127
I'm not against app store operators demanding a service fee... as long as they
do a good job of blocking malware/spyware apps (Google doesn't, many
GooglePlay-approved apps spy on you and send your data home), don't block
innocent apps for sake of their own interest, let a consciously willing user
bypass the store and, at last but not at least, don't demand a ridiculously
high fee. A fee of 5% is ok, 10% is tolerable, 30% is absurd.

~~~
xmprt
The fee would be alright if the ecosystem of app store apps was fair. When
Google bans those kinds of apps from their store and Apple doesn't even
support 3rd party app stores on their devices, it makes the argument of a
monopoly a lot more forseeable.

------
rock_artist
I have to admit that with Android itself there's at least an option. Even
though Google tries to get developers into using the Play Services instead of
the built-in android api (see their location api as an example), you're still
able to run your own software. You can easily get other apks or use Amazon
appstore.

With Apple, you have no proper way running an app without Apple. So it'll
intriguing to see such act within a platform that is truly locked.

~~~
mrtksn
That's not true, you can install whatever you want on your iOS device, it's
just not possible to distribute it through the AppStore.

That's how developers install their own apps in development, prior submitting
the app to Apple for a review.

~~~
Encounter
You're still at the mercy of Apple giving you a valid (and revokable) app
development certificate. Apps installed with a development certificate expire
after a certain number of days. There's also a limit to the number of devices
you can use with a development certificate.

There are enterprise distribution certificates that don't have these
restrictions, but using them to distribute apps outside of the company will
end up getting it revoked. (Like what happened with Facebook)

~~~
Operyl
14 days for free accounts, no limit on Developer accounts.

~~~
rock_artist
With my ios use of free account I got 7 days until the app stopped working

------
throwaway13337
Awesome!

A step in the right direction for software as a whole.

The AOL/compuserve internet that we all thought we won against is here again.
The walled garden is our reality.

This new trend could be the start of crumbling of the second wave of walled
gardens. Open platforms allow for freedom (as in speech) and innovation that
isn't so easily snuffed out by incumbents - a good thing for consumers.

Tinder and others averting the rent-seeking behavior of google signals that
companies have realistic options in the fight against their sharecropping
lords.

This movement could also help win the fight for opening up the iOS platform in
the coming legal battles - the fact you can do this on android and not iOS
might be significant.

The net is consolidating and so the wheel will turn again. Long live the
decentralized, open net!

~~~
roneythomas6
How is this supporting open platform? Tinder is still closed platform and
available on playstore, Can I use premium without paying Tinder tax? No. Now
you need to send in your credit card info to Tinder instead of better privacy
protection from Playstore.

~~~
echelon
If Tinder collects the payment, you're paying Tinder.

If Google or Apple collect the payment, you're paying Google or Apple, they
take a cut, then a portion goes to Tinder.

Guess which one results in Tinder raising their prices?

You could argue that the app stores aren't a charity and don't operate for
free - that they need money to exist. I'd argue that the app store model
itself _doesn 't need to exist_ and that it's a form of greedy rent-seeking
and power thirst. Besides, neither Apple nor Google are hurting from their
phone monopoly.

~~~
roneythomas6
If AppStore model isn’t needed why is Tinder available on AppStore. They could
have gone side load model. But didn’t. This just shows why AppStore is
relevant.

~~~
echelon
"Side loading" is a second class citizen reserved for criminals and nerds.

A true first class distribution model would allow you to install directly from
the web without messing with settings. Perhaps even running as WASM seamlessly
out of the box, never once switching contexts into a storefront.

If we'd done it this way from the beginning we'd have true cross-platform apps
written in WASM with full native experiences. Microsoft still might have their
phone, too. But things didn't evolve that way, sadly... Apple and Google
wanted their control and walled gardens.

Of course, to reach true parity now we'd have to remove the app store to let
web distribution catch up in the minds of consumers. But that will never
happen unless we can lobby for antitrust breakups of these titans.

~~~
shaftway
Isn't that a Progressive Web App?

------
zahrc
And in the end it’s the user who will suffer the most from it. Giving my
payment details to google was acceptable but if it actually continues in that
direction soon you have to feed every third grade company with it.

~~~
bogwog
What the hell does "third grade company" even mean? Tinder probably respects
your privacy more than Google.

Unless you're referring to worries about giving out your payment information
to "random sites"? If so, that's dumb because it's 2019 and there are tons of
dedicated secure payment processors out there. Very few companies would even
be willing to process payments themselves.

Any effort to take power away from Google's iron grip on the internet is good
unless you're a Google employee or shareholder.

~~~
amelius
> Tinder probably respects your privacy more than Google.

Perhaps they do, but the headline "X leaked data of millions of users" is more
likely for X=Tinder than for X=Google, if you ask me.

~~~
jrnichols
I'm not so sure about that. I bet Tinder would love to share your data with
the other IAC properties. (IAC owns Match, Tinder, OKCupid, Plenty of Fish,
and others...)

------
spondyl
Darn, so much for getting Tinder on F-Droid :( I was hoping they were going to
start distributing APKs directly but nope, just seems they're directly
processing payments for in app purchases, rather than using the Play Store

On a side note, I launched Tinder recently to poke around and I see they're
now offering read receipts as a feature. Purchasing "Tinder Gold" to see who
has "liked" you, I can understand. Getting read receipts though? Ehh, it feels
a bit far.

Don't get me wrong though, it's fully what I would expect from any VC funded
entity. You've gotta keep showing growth until the end

~~~
hombre_fatal
I like read receipts because they help me not feel like I'm talking into the
abyss. It moves the needle a tiny, tiny bit closer to more face-to-face
characteristics.

People seem to prefer it at large. If you turn off read receipts on WhatsApp,
then it disables them for you too. Yet I'm not sure I've seen anyone disable
it.

~~~
munmaek
I absolutely hate them. I hate not being able to read a text and respond to it
on my own time. It doesn't do anything for face-to-face characteristics
whatsoever but it does put pressure on me to respond. If it's that urgent,
call me, or just make plans with me to get coffee or something.

KakaoTalk [0] does this and I end up just having way more notifications
because I don't want to leave someone "on read" until I get around to
responding. Actually, many, if not most people "read" incoming texts via the
preview from notification centers so they can read it without feeling like
they have to respond right then.

I hate how it conditioned me over time to check repeatedly to see if someone
had read my text or not. You could argue that they might've just wanted to
respond later, but that's not the "culture" of how kakaotalk is used
generally. I have some friends that take anywhere from ~3 days to 2 weeks to
respond but they don't open the text until then. I vastly prefer imessage or
other apps now simply because I can toggle off read receipts.

[0]: kakaotalk is _the_ messaging app of Korea. I don't think I've ever had
someone send me an actual text or phone call outside of KakaoTalk. Line
(Japan) is similar and also has read receipts unfortunately.

------
arnaudsm
Users don't like to type their credit card number again. I wonder if the
payment friction counterbalances the lower fees.

~~~
notyourday
Oh it is more than that. Users do not trust individual app companies to manage
subscriptions. Match is in for a real surprise.

~~~
jasonlotito
Which is silly because it's better for the consumer to deal with individual
companies rather than go through one provider for everything. Amex already
protects me from fraudulent online purchases. If I get ripped off Apple by
buying one of the apps they sell, charging back risks putting my entire
account with them at risk.

~~~
notyourday
The last thing that I want to do is to deal with Amex to cancel a service
under the "fraud" pretense. For once, it would require me to get a new card
with a new number. It will also require me to talk to Amex. And it may also
require me to fill out paperwork and fax said paperwork ( granted, it was
CapitalOne and not amex but it is still the same point).

Here's what I want to do to cancel something: Click on play store. Click on
subscriptions. Find the one I don't want. Click on "Cancel", click on "yes,
cancel"

I'm going to bet you aren't tinder demographics ( which is basically 18-30).
These people grew up on the internet and they grew up on easy payments. It is
paypal/venmo/applepay/google pay. Credit cards ( not revolvers, but credit
cards as a method of accessing a revolver ) is a relic of previous century.

~~~
jasonlotito
> The last thing that I want to do is to deal with Amex to cancel a service
> under the "fraud" pretense.

So, rather than get your money back from a fraud, you'd just let them have the
money and you'd just cancel the subscription?

Or are you talking about lying and committing fraud yourself by claiming
"fraud" when there was actually none and you just wanted to cancel a
subscription?

Which one is it? I just want to understand which one you are talking about
here. It can only be one or the other in the context of your comment.

~~~
notyourday
It's a subscription, right? So I subscribed, they had no way of "charging me"
and they have no way of continuing to charge me. When I no longer want for
them to charge me I click on "Cancel" and they can't continue to bill me
because they have no credit card information.

If it charged me for a month extra that i don't know, i get a notification and
get it refunded via Google play store the same day.

That's the current workflow. Single location. All Google Play based
subscriptions. No need to deal with a card replacement.

That's what Match is against.

------
denzil_correa
Would the app stores also "revolt" by removing these apps from their store?
They don't have much to keep these apps on their app stores.

~~~
smt88
Netflix, Tinder, and other huge apps are safe from being removed. Neither
Apple nor Google wants to be missing massive "features" that the other
ecosystem has.

~~~
caymanjim
Netflix and the other monster apps might have a lot of influence and
bargaining power with Apple and Google, but at the end of the day, Netflix
needs Apple far more than Apple needs Netflix.

~~~
lal
But Apple needs Netflix far more than Apple needs whatever you think it would
gain by losing Netflix.

------
rawrmaan
I hope they are punished for this. Moves like this only hurt indie/smaller
developers who don't have the resources to setup their own external
subscriptions. If apps can make back even 25% of the cut, that gives them a
significant advantage in UA that is hard to beat.

The 30% cut is fine. It's well worth it for everything App Store/Google Play
gives you as a dev.

~~~
phantom784
I've found the Apple/Google in-app subscription APIs way more annoying to work
with than Stripe/Braintree. Plus, if you sell on web and mobile, you now have
to deal with three different systems instead of just one.

------
zachruss92
I understand where this article and app developers are coming from. There is a
big difference in what Google and Apple do in this ecosystem, however.

Apple basically says that any digital goods purchased through an iOS app needs
to pay Apple's 30% fee. This includes things like subscriptions and in-app
purchases. I really noticed this with Audible, you can search the store but
are not able to buy anything in their app on iOS.

My issue with apple is not that this fee exists, but that it is truly anti-
competitive. Apple does not allow users to install apps outside of the app
store. They also are holding back things like PWAs from being viable
alternatives for very similar reasons (I'm looking at you Web Push
notifications!).

Google's ecosystem on the other hand is more open. You can install APKs from
anywhere and there are even third-party app stores like F-Droid. I honestly
don't know if the play store has the same rules as Apple does, but even if
they did i'd be ok with that because users and companies do have other options
if they don't want to use Google Play.

The argument for me is do you want to be on the App store for the
exposure/convenience of disribution or do you do it because there is no other
alternative. The former is a marketplace with an audience and the ladder is a
monopoly.

~~~
zachruss92
Side Note: Google has been the champion of PWAs which main use case is to be
able to bypass an app store and install an app directly from a website. This
gives Google less control over the app ecosystem but has the potential to be
beneficial to users.

~~~
t0astbread
If I'm not mistaken, Google still has power over the PWA spec, so they can
just add something to give themselves total control again. (Just like they've
done with AOSP and the Play Store + GSF)

------
overgard
This is GREAT. It's been long overdue that these stores should not be
monopolies imposed on device owners. Besides these things can stand perfectly
fine on their own if users have choice. There are plenty of people that will
still want to purchase from various app stores, but it shouldn't be required.

------
MarkMc
Simple question: Why doesn't Google prevent this? Eg. "To publish an app on
the Play Store you must provide a clear way for the user to pay or subscribe
in the app"

~~~
kevingadd
My understanding is that if you're small enough they won't let you do it.
That's what makes it significant for big companies to sideload their own store
or refuse to follow the policy.

~~~
MarkMc
Does Tinder really have that kind of leverage? Google could kick them out of
the Play Store, and requiring users to side-load their app would cause them to
lose far more than 30% of their user base...

~~~
anchpop
Tinder is huge, it's the most popular way people meet their partners these
days

~~~
dep_b
Well that's a really nice way of you to describe what people use the app for!

------
buboard
Developers should have never left the web for some company’s garden. I wonder
how the ~100B of the app economy compare to the web app economy

~~~
pjmlp
The Web is full of closed gardens as well, we call them SaaS.

~~~
buboard
That is nowhere near the level of gatekeeping that the duopoly of Google&Apple
have. The web is full of opportunity, that we owe to TBL's decision to make it
free. The dangerous gatekeepers of the web are Google and FB , but there is
still plenty of opportunity left.

------
bogwog
Get ready for the security and privacy warnings from Google about the dangers
of sideloading apps.

Even though the Play Store is full of malware and spyware.

------
writepub
That Apple was/is even tolerated by app developers to forcefully use their
payment options, is surprising. Devs should've simply refused payment via
Apple channels, and forced consumers to their site, as they're doing now.

By tolerating a tyrannical middleman for short term gains, you justify their
unreasonable claims of value addition

------
PunchTornado
but they are still paying the Apple store fee, aren't they?

~~~
sturgill
It’s much harder to side load apps on an iPhone.

~~~
NullPrefix
We will not be pushed around! We will revolt, but only if it's easy!

~~~
lighthazard
Well.. that and average iOS users can't easily side load either. They need to
jailbreak and that, itself, is a difficult task.

~~~
roblabla
You don't have to - you can sign IPAs with a developer certificate, but the
app will only work for 7 days on a free account (1 year for a 'real'
developper account). Having to resign every week is obviously a dealbreaker.

------
mancerayder
Funny that, and it's just as expensive, as well.

You'd think the costs would trickle down to the consumer.

------
husamia
first thought came into my mind is decentralization (dApp). What is the best
platform? EOS.io?

