Android introduces $2-4 install fee and 10–20% cut for US external content links
17 comments
·December 20, 2025dagmx
lobito25
Developers pay Google to access its services. Infrastructure costs account for less than 1% of the profit margin and are practically negligible. Google acts like a pimp, obsessed with squeezing profit above all else.
mrcwinn
Poor Tim! Hey anyone know if I'm allowed to put my own skin store inside the Fortnite store? It's only fair.
hshdhdhj4444
People keep making the comparison between the Apple App Store or the Google Play store and the XBox store or the Fortnite store.
But these are likely irrelevant comparisons.
For one thing, the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist. Gaming is a market. There are many gaming platforms that are extremely popular. Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Steam, and then just open distribution on PCs which essentially means there is no lock in in this industry. And unlike the “web app” comparison folks try to make, open distribution can easily leverage the same capabilities as the store distributed games can (and in fact, they are more capable than games from some stores, like the Windows store).
But more importantly, gaming isn’t an essential part of life, which is basically what smartphones, dominated entirely by iOS/Android, have become at this point.
People depend on these platforms. There are businesses you cannot interact with if not through your phone. There are public transportation systems that are almost unusable.
And finally, maybe this is just me, but I think the idea that general purpose computing is the same as playing video games just strikes me as wrong. General purpose computing, which is what phones are, are basic infrastructure for modern life. They should be treated differently and we shoudoht allow 2 companies to monopolize and/or embargo them like Apple/Google are trying.
8note
in terms of relevance, i think its anticompetitive that i cant use my skins and cosmetics from one game in a different game.
if everything is running on the same couple engines, the cosmetics are all compatible with each other
cmcaleer
> The following fees apply when a user completes [...] any app installs within 24 hours of following an external content link
So does this mean a malicious competitor or motivated disgruntled user could fraudulently cause millions of app installs? With the scale smartphone activity fraud farms are at these days, paying a few thousand dollars on such a service to cause a developer to spend a few million dollars on worthless installs (or a lot of resources arguing with Google) seems like a worthwhile endeavour for the motivated.
heavyset_go
This is just egregious, Google can't be split up fast enough and antitrust laws need to be enforced.
nsagent
Hopefully this gets slapped down hard just like Apple recently did. Both Apple and Google want to continue business as usual despite the court rulings.
dagmx
I think you’ve misread the Apple ruling. The appeals court has said they may charge some amount, just not the higher amount that was originally set.
The costs provided here may very well fall into the acceptable boundaries for the courts.
kmeisthax
I honestly don't understand the court rulings regarding all of this. Like, "you need to allow someone to install your software for free" is easy to understand. And "you can ban software that doesn't pay you your chosen cut" is also straightforward (even though I'm a dirty OS Commie that wants that shit for free). Both of those follow clear-cut legal principles based in antitrust and intellectual property law (respectively).
But it seems to me that the court is trying to enforce some kind of middle ground, which doesn't make sense. There's no legal principle one can use to curtail the power of an IP holder aside from mandating it be given away for free. Indeed, the whole idea of IP law is that the true value of the underlying property can only be realized if the property owner has the power of the state to force others to negotiate for it. Apple was told "you can charge for your IP" and said "well all our fee is actually licensing, except for the 3% we pay per transaction". The courts rejected this, so... I mean, what does Apple do now? Keep whittling down the fee until the court finds it reasonable? That can't possibly be good faith compliance (as if Apple has ever complied in good faith lol).
JumpCrisscross
> the whole idea of IP law is that the true value of the underlying property can only be realized if the property owner has the power of the state to force others to negotiate for it
You're describing property in general. Not just IP.
> Apple was told "you can charge for your IP"
It's a bit misleading to use quotes in this case, given you aren't quoting the court.
musicale
Worked out well for Apple, right?
0xbadcafebee
Why is anyone still developing for these stagnant walled gardens?
lobito25
The extortionists are at it again
null
I’m very curious how Tim Sweeney will react to this. This is very much not the victory lap he was hoping to take (nor are the Apple rulings)
1. I think uptake of third party stores is quite low and there’s a strong incentive to stay available on the primary store
2. The App Store model has very much been that the paid apps are subsidizing the free ones. So it’s somewhat fair to charge for using the infrastructure, if you’re not contributing into the pot (and are siphoning away from it)
3. Those per install costs are brutal. I was thinking they’d do a dollar , but at almost $4, they’re outside what most people would spend. This is a strong way to keep F2P games from instituting external payment processing.