Submitted 1 week ago by thehatfox@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-android-billing-commission-secret-deal
Add it to the pile of app store shenanigans
More than one thing can be true at once. Doesn’t mean it’s shilling.
Have I missed any? I’m not exactly a Google fan
For the suddenly curious: qz.com/1732014/why-is-it-called-antitrust
Isn’t Netflix exempt from these fees too? Or do they just not allow you to sign up in app and redirect to a browser?
Disgusting. So glad I don’t use either.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Google fought to keep the Spotify numbers private during its antitrust fight with Epic, saying they could damage negotiations with other app developers who might want more generous rates.
And in court, Google has focused on benefits like greater flexibility rather than cost savings.
As part of the deal, both parties also agreed to commit $50 million apiece to a “success fund.”
“A small number of developers that invest more directly in Android and Play may have different service fees as part of a broader partnership that includes substantial financial investments and product integrations across different form factors,” says spokesperson Dan Jackson.
In mid-2023, it completely dropped support for Apple’s App Store billing system to avoid paying up to a 30 percent commission, and it was one of the highest-profile early members of the Coalition for App Fairness, a group that included Epic and supported the Fortnite publisher’s antitrust suit against Apple and Google.
But while Epic has continued its legal battle against both parties, Spotify apparently found an easier — and far cheaper — way out of the Google fight.
The original article contains 465 words, the summary contains 181 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
___@lemm.ee 1 week ago
This micro-examples are a reminder that corruption is a part of every human system, no matter how perfect the design.
There will always be concertgoers cutting the unwatched fence to sneak in for free.
The only plausible solution is elective transparency. Either your company and financial metadata are available for independent third party review, and records retained as defined, or else you’re not a company.
Don’t ascribe to it, get boycotted.
sv1sjp@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The plausible solution is named Blockchain and smart contracts. Until then…
Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social 1 week ago
Cryptocurrency is the number one vector for scams and money laundering today despite blockchains.
ramble81@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Okay. I’ll answer seriously to this. Blockchain can’t store an entire contract (not within reason). Likewise, contracts will never be made public. So at most you’ll get is a pointer to where the contract is held. The contents of the contract can be changed (though you could put a checksum in the chain too), but that still doesn’t address things. Also if you are concerned about “well no one else has a contract” then all that needs to happen is everyone gets a contract, then the chain is inundated with contracts and all you’d have is a pointer and a checksum and you have no idea what’s in the actual contract.
LWD@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Can you name a single time the contents of a blockchain secured something for someone? Even the Monkey NFT corporation went after someone for stealing their monkeys outside of the code that is supposedly law.
Neato@kbin.social 1 week ago
Blockchain has no viable uses. Append only databases already exist. Distributed databases already exists. It's all a scam.