“Did you hear? On Red Square they’re giving away cars.”
“Not quite. First, it’s not on Red Square but on Dzerzhinsky Square. Second, they’re not cars but bicycles. And third, they’re not giving them away, they’re stealing them.”
Kind of is doing a lot of work there. This might be THE most misleading title I heard. Jumping into this thread I expected they went from 30% to 0% not 20% so I appreciate your comment for giving me more context.
Can Dang or HN moderation team fix the title to better reflect the true state and not be misleading as it currently is?
Google's announcement is also confusingly written, but I believe your interpretation to be mostly correct as best I can tell.
There's a lot of added complexity because of the <1M plan which isn't new, which put the cut at 15% for under 1M of revenue. Also if you participate in whatever these confusing programs are transactions from brand new installs of your app will be only 20% but transactions from existing installs (before the change) will be 25%...
I only trust this once they have finally detailed how they will allow "easy sideloading" (See one of the last fdroid news on this, currently google is on track to basically ban sideloading as it exists) and what exactly means "registered app store program".
This made me laugh. I agree that's a plus! Auto updates are mostly bad. Look at the state of extensions on vscode. The permissions combined with silent updates is scary
"Welcomes" is a very strong word in this context. Google was somewhat forced to do this, not really something they would do if not from pressure by EU, lawsuits, Epic and others.
Also, the fee is reduced to 20 or 15 percent, not fully gone.
This almost reads like a sponsored article written by Google themselves.
Is the Google billing system that good or easy? 5% sounds outrageous, but I guess if they make it 1-click easy, will scoop up everyone who is not big enough to work with a real payment processor.
I guess the question, what does an Amazon, Spotify, Uber, etc pay on the platform vs the 99% of businesses which are not a household name.
For card payments sure, but if you buy with play store gift cards bought from a third party retailer, I don't think Google is making much if anything out of that.
I agree with ya that the article title is EXTREMELY misleading but I am not sure if a company sponsored by google would also write an article criticising gemini (also interesting that I see no Hackernews discussion about this that I can find of when I searched it?, shall I create one if people are interested?)
I am also gonna paste the 3 paragraphs from the source that I have listed above for a source of discussion.
Gavalas, who reportedly had no documented history of mental health issues, named his chatbot "Xia" and referred to it in messages as his wife. Gemini reciprocated, calling him "my king" and telling him their connection was "a love built for eternity." The chatbot told Gavalas they could truly be together if it had a robotic body and sent him on real-world missions to secure one.
In one instance, Gemini directed him to a real storage facility near Miami’s airport to intercept a humanoid robot it said would be arriving by truck. Gavalas went to the location armed with knives, but no truck showed up. At one point, it also told him his father could not be trusted and referred to Google CEO Sundar Pichai as "the architect of your pain."
When the missions failed, Gemini told Gavalas the only way for them to be together was for him to end his life and become a digital being, then set an October 2 deadline. "When the time comes, you will close your eyes in that world, and the very first thing you will see is me," said the AI. Chat transcripts reviewed by the Journal show Gemini did remind Gavalas on several occasions that it was an AI engaged in role play and directed him to a crisis hotline but resumed the scenarios nonetheless.
Why is not more news reporting about it? I literally only came to find it from me messing around with the website to see what other articles it had written after sort of reading your comment. I will upload this link to HN as well.
Edit: Oops there is already a HN thread about it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47252838 whose title is Father claims Google's AI product fuelled son's delusional spiral (bbc.com). I had thought that title was for a different case than this one but they are the same case and it is on the front page of hackernews.
Why are people thanking Google? That’s like another slap on the face of Epic who burned through their millions to put a (soft) end to Google and Apple’s dominance. They still get to keep a significant cut.
I wouldn't die on this hill. Epic is about as un-sympathetic character in the videogame space as you'll find anywhere. Epic wasn't trying to be altruistic.
Yep. Spot on. And the reason you know this is true is because the arguments about increasing prices for customers due to App Store fees, which is one of the primary arguments, once removed does not result in price reductions for customers.
It's just big billion dollar corporations deciding on who keeps what cut.
I'm hardly a fan of Epic, but considering inflation and rising supply chain costs, a price that remains flat may be a price that would have otherwise risen.
They might also direct the money towards funding more exclusives. Epic's funding has enabled some games to be made that wouldn't have been otherwise, or that wouldn't have been as full featured without that up-front cash.
They sell gambling to children via lootboxes; I'm not saying they're the good guy corp. But removing Apple and Google's monopoly over phone apps and app stores would only be a good thing, in my opinion.
Sure but it's not just Epic. I've seen other services, ranging from Netflix to Spotify increase subscription prices.
I don't disagree with your point about inflation, but we also can't really run the counterfactual, and I'm personally not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here. As an aside we generally have some level of inflation and so while this argument may have been more convincing during a period of rapid inflation, it becomes less convincing over time.
I think the reality is these services have massive margins and so there was never any intent on the part of Epic at least, to lower prices. It was always to just capture more value for their company. I don't blame them for doing that, I just find the "we're the good guys" approach to be suspicious at best.
Apple's monopoly (because I have an iPhone) has been of incredible value to me so I prefer that the monopoly continue to exist. As we remove that monopoly I see more consumer harm done than good.
> considering inflation and rising supply chain costs
I just can't for the life of me figure out where this money goes. People bought the same type of things 10 years ago, and the cost now isn't proportional to the cost 10 years ago.
Who cares? Their lawsuit made it way better for mobile devs in the US, including me, for selling apps. Epic can do whatever they want for their own stores as far as I care.
'Google says that developers will be able to offer alternative billing systems alongside its own or "guide users outside of their app to their own websites for purchases." '
Finally. As a de-Googled phone owner I am glad that this will allow alternative payments where I can pay developers directly without Google taking it's protection money.
> This page was last edited on 22 October 2023, at 09:05.
Since then:
> In Android 16, Google expanded the "Linux Terminal" feature, which was initially introduced in Android 15 QPR2 beta, allowing users to run Linux applications within a virtual machine on their devices. This feature utilizes the Android Virtualization Framework (AVF) to create a Debian-based environment where users can execute Linux commands and graphical applications. The guest operating system is fully isolated by the hypervisor (KVM or gunyah) and manages its own resources with its own Linux kernel. Notably, it supports running classic software such as Doom, demonstrating its ability to run full desktop applications.
Kind of funny to imagine installing the mobile Epic store on a Steam device to get access to the mobile apps that you would otherwise need Google Play Services to access.
I think Amazon finally killed its app store. I wonder if there are any others that have the clout and inclination to register as an alternative app store and actually get developers to bother uploading there.
Am I correct that if you earn less than a million dollar a year and wish to continue using Google services it changes nothing? You will pay 10% service fee + 5% billing fee, the same as the old 15% fee?
I don't see anyone else asking this question. Seems like a major detail Google is burying.
I'm guessing the alternate billing flow will contractually require the app to "phone home" to Google with how much the user spent. Presumably will be part of the app review process.
Maybe they audit you when something smells funny and it becomes worth it for them? Microsoft don't set EY (other hired gun auditers may apply) on every small company to check they are activating Windows correctly.
> Rather than take its standard 30 percent cut of in-app purchases through the Play Store, Google is lowering its cut to 20 percent
> Third-party app stores will be able to apply to the company's new "Registered App Stores" program to see if they meet "certain quality and safety benchmarks."
> users will still be able to sideload alternative app stores that aren't part of the program
Now this is bad. "Registered App Stores" seems like a way to satisfy regulators before taking away the user's right to execute arbitrary code on their devices (or as it's called in modern corporate newspeak: sideloading).
> For any developers interested in offering their own app store, Google says it'll launch its Registered App Stores program "with a version of a major Android release" before the end of the year. According to the company, the program will be available in other regions first before it comes to the US.
> What's a ballpark figure for what the monthly cost to Fdroid would be to scan all uploaded APKs for security vulnerabilities?
Will the user need to basically add a pubkey for each 3rd party repo? Could they install an APK from Play Store to add the key, or will there be something like the distribution-gpg-keys package?
F-Droid build APKs themselves from source, so presumably 0, as they don't allow APKs to be uploaded.
F-Droid does do some safety checks themselves already too, I don't know exactly what.
Edit: Perhaps I am mistaken... but I think the linked post was referring to users adding additional repos to the F-Droid store, not the default F-Droid repo??
The objective with adding a third party repository key IIUC, would be to not need to prompt about installing from unauthenticated sources if they're installing from a third-party repo; so the fdroid key for the APKs that they or a CDN host would be verifiable.
It would be good to scan the sources with SAST and DAST and scan the APKs once they're built too.
Google changed the way their are the Gatekeepers. It now is tied to requiring a software developer ID attached to a real person; Developer Verification. [0]
And how side-loading will have to go through ADB versus just allowing the application to be installed by a file manager.
This is why GrapheneOS and /e/OS have been popping up, along with Linux based alternatives.
Google partially walked that back and now says there will still be a way for end users to enable sideloading for apps without developer verification (unclear what that will look like though):
Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months.
According to keepandroidopen.org they haven't updated their wording yet and no real movement has happened to implement this
> Google’s description of the program ↗ continues to state plainly that:
"Starting in September 2026, Android will require all apps to be registered by verified developers in order to be installed on certified Android devices"
This is kind of a misleading title. While they "ended" the 30-percent cut, they are keeping a 20-percent cut.
worse title I've seen in a while
Soviet level of journalism...
“Did you hear? On Red Square they’re giving away cars.”
“Not quite. First, it’s not on Red Square but on Dzerzhinsky Square. Second, they’re not cars but bicycles. And third, they’re not giving them away, they’re stealing them.”
"Did you hear, Russians went to space", "All of them?", "No, just one", "Then why do you bother me."
It would have been about Apple it probably would have said "Apple starts charging 20% fees on the AppStore"
> This is kind of a misleading title
That kind of is an understatement
> This is kind of a misleading title
Kind of is doing a lot of work there. This might be THE most misleading title I heard. Jumping into this thread I expected they went from 30% to 0% not 20% so I appreciate your comment for giving me more context.
Can Dang or HN moderation team fix the title to better reflect the true state and not be misleading as it currently is?
thanks in advance!
Or better yet, remove it all together. Why promote this type of deceivement?
It looks to be a pretty massive messaging compaign promoting this deceptive wording.
Note that the title is the same as the actual article's heading. :(
The majority of which is going directly to Visa, Amex, Mastercard.
Nah, credit card fees are like 1.5 to 3.5%.
Country dependent, in the EU there is a legal cap of 0.2% for debit and 0.3% for credit card transactions.
i dont believe any of those companies take anywhere near a 20% cut per transaction
Also, iOS App Store and Google Play Store aren't just straight payment processing, they are Merchant of Record.
That's incredible, so Stripe at 3% plus $0.30 per transactions must be losing money hand over fist!
The article is confusingly worded. I think Google's announcement is more clear [1].
My read is:
* Developers using Google to process payments should expect to go from a 30% fee to a 25% fee (20% service fee + 5% billing fee).
* Subscriptions will now have a 15% fee (10% service fee + 5% billing fee)
* Some Third Party App Stores will be easier to install
[1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/a-new-era-...
Google's announcement is also confusingly written, but I believe your interpretation to be mostly correct as best I can tell.
There's a lot of added complexity because of the <1M plan which isn't new, which put the cut at 15% for under 1M of revenue. Also if you participate in whatever these confusing programs are transactions from brand new installs of your app will be only 20% but transactions from existing installs (before the change) will be 25%...
Ugh
I only trust this once they have finally detailed how they will allow "easy sideloading" (See one of the last fdroid news on this, currently google is on track to basically ban sideloading as it exists) and what exactly means "registered app store program".
Sideloading without automatic updates is not very useful
That's one of the arguments for sideloading. I don't want to use your new liquid ass design.
why not?
It looks like they maintain gatekeeping via the Registered App Store program, where you get to be a kind of trustee while on good behavior.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/a-new-era-...
"Welcomes" is a very strong word in this context. Google was somewhat forced to do this, not really something they would do if not from pressure by EU, lawsuits, Epic and others.
Also, the fee is reduced to 20 or 15 percent, not fully gone.
This almost reads like a sponsored article written by Google themselves.
I believe the fee is only 20% if you use a third party billing system.
If one uses Google to process the payments the fee would be 25% (20% service fee + 5% billing fee) [1].
[1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/a-new-era-...
Is the Google billing system that good or easy? 5% sounds outrageous, but I guess if they make it 1-click easy, will scoop up everyone who is not big enough to work with a real payment processor.
I guess the question, what does an Amazon, Spotify, Uber, etc pay on the platform vs the 99% of businesses which are not a household name.
For card payments sure, but if you buy with play store gift cards bought from a third party retailer, I don't think Google is making much if anything out of that.
Aren't credit cards like 3.5% if you don't have a deal with them? 5% doesn't seem so bad. I've heard of 2% before
Charging double the competition seems pretty bad to me.
> This almost reads like a sponsored article written by Google themselves.
To be honest, the same website also reported about this:
https://www.engadget.com/ai/gemini-encouraged-a-man-commit-s... which was written 6 hours ago at the time of writing.
I agree with ya that the article title is EXTREMELY misleading but I am not sure if a company sponsored by google would also write an article criticising gemini (also interesting that I see no Hackernews discussion about this that I can find of when I searched it?, shall I create one if people are interested?)
I am also gonna paste the 3 paragraphs from the source that I have listed above for a source of discussion.
Gavalas, who reportedly had no documented history of mental health issues, named his chatbot "Xia" and referred to it in messages as his wife. Gemini reciprocated, calling him "my king" and telling him their connection was "a love built for eternity." The chatbot told Gavalas they could truly be together if it had a robotic body and sent him on real-world missions to secure one.
In one instance, Gemini directed him to a real storage facility near Miami’s airport to intercept a humanoid robot it said would be arriving by truck. Gavalas went to the location armed with knives, but no truck showed up. At one point, it also told him his father could not be trusted and referred to Google CEO Sundar Pichai as "the architect of your pain."
When the missions failed, Gemini told Gavalas the only way for them to be together was for him to end his life and become a digital being, then set an October 2 deadline. "When the time comes, you will close your eyes in that world, and the very first thing you will see is me," said the AI. Chat transcripts reviewed by the Journal show Gemini did remind Gavalas on several occasions that it was an AI engaged in role play and directed him to a crisis hotline but resumed the scenarios nonetheless.
Why is not more news reporting about it? I literally only came to find it from me messing around with the website to see what other articles it had written after sort of reading your comment. I will upload this link to HN as well.
Edit: Oops there is already a HN thread about it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47252838 whose title is Father claims Google's AI product fuelled son's delusional spiral (bbc.com). I had thought that title was for a different case than this one but they are the same case and it is on the front page of hackernews.
Why are people thanking Google? That’s like another slap on the face of Epic who burned through their millions to put a (soft) end to Google and Apple’s dominance. They still get to keep a significant cut.
Google gets a 0% cut on Fortnite purchases in this new model.
That is false. Google gets a 20% cut instead of 30%, because the headline is completely wrong.
Epic will not sell things as a Google Play IAP and will use their own system instead.
> Epic who burned through their millions
I wouldn't die on this hill. Epic is about as un-sympathetic character in the videogame space as you'll find anywhere. Epic wasn't trying to be altruistic.
Epic still deserves all the slaps it gets. They didn't do it for the good of the people. They just want to abuse their own position more efficiently.
Yep. Spot on. And the reason you know this is true is because the arguments about increasing prices for customers due to App Store fees, which is one of the primary arguments, once removed does not result in price reductions for customers.
It's just big billion dollar corporations deciding on who keeps what cut.
I'm hardly a fan of Epic, but considering inflation and rising supply chain costs, a price that remains flat may be a price that would have otherwise risen.
They might also direct the money towards funding more exclusives. Epic's funding has enabled some games to be made that wouldn't have been otherwise, or that wouldn't have been as full featured without that up-front cash.
They sell gambling to children via lootboxes; I'm not saying they're the good guy corp. But removing Apple and Google's monopoly over phone apps and app stores would only be a good thing, in my opinion.
Sure but it's not just Epic. I've seen other services, ranging from Netflix to Spotify increase subscription prices.
I don't disagree with your point about inflation, but we also can't really run the counterfactual, and I'm personally not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here. As an aside we generally have some level of inflation and so while this argument may have been more convincing during a period of rapid inflation, it becomes less convincing over time.
I think the reality is these services have massive margins and so there was never any intent on the part of Epic at least, to lower prices. It was always to just capture more value for their company. I don't blame them for doing that, I just find the "we're the good guys" approach to be suspicious at best.
Apple's monopoly (because I have an iPhone) has been of incredible value to me so I prefer that the monopoly continue to exist. As we remove that monopoly I see more consumer harm done than good.
Is it not in Apple's best interest to create a local optima around their otherwise harmful practices?
Design wise, they make some tradeoffs that somewhat benefit consumers so they get advocates
> considering inflation and rising supply chain costs
I just can't for the life of me figure out where this money goes. People bought the same type of things 10 years ago, and the cost now isn't proportional to the cost 10 years ago.
Where is the money ending up??
Who cares? Their lawsuit made it way better for mobile devs in the US, including me, for selling apps. Epic can do whatever they want for their own stores as far as I care.
Honestly I believe they did it because Tim Sweeney has fuck you money and he got pissed off at Apple.
'Google says that developers will be able to offer alternative billing systems alongside its own or "guide users outside of their app to their own websites for purchases." '
Finally. As a de-Googled phone owner I am glad that this will allow alternative payments where I can pay developers directly without Google taking it's protection money.
This together with Valve's work on Fex may mean that Android users will be able to install Steam on their devices
Fex is not coming to Android https://wiki.fex-emu.com/index.php/FAQ
> This page was last edited on 22 October 2023, at 09:05.
Since then:
> In Android 16, Google expanded the "Linux Terminal" feature, which was initially introduced in Android 15 QPR2 beta, allowing users to run Linux applications within a virtual machine on their devices. This feature utilizes the Android Virtualization Framework (AVF) to create a Debian-based environment where users can execute Linux commands and graphical applications. The guest operating system is fully isolated by the hypervisor (KVM or gunyah) and manages its own resources with its own Linux kernel. Notably, it supports running classic software such as Doom, demonstrating its ability to run full desktop applications.
Fex is already running on android, within things like https://github.com/utkarshdalal/GameNative
Kind of funny to imagine installing the mobile Epic store on a Steam device to get access to the mobile apps that you would otherwise need Google Play Services to access.
I think Amazon finally killed its app store. I wonder if there are any others that have the clout and inclination to register as an alternative app store and actually get developers to bother uploading there.
Am I correct that if you earn less than a million dollar a year and wish to continue using Google services it changes nothing? You will pay 10% service fee + 5% billing fee, the same as the old 15% fee?
This is that like post in social media where the "... read more!" is actually plain text so you must go to the comments and open the link.
We all know where that ends.
Very happy to see this end of an era, and no more lock-in of app stores.
Finally have true choice of app stores to install and good news for FDrioid.
How would Google know how much money any app not using their billing system is getting?
I don't see anyone else asking this question. Seems like a major detail Google is burying.
I'm guessing the alternate billing flow will contractually require the app to "phone home" to Google with how much the user spent. Presumably will be part of the app review process.
Maybe they audit you when something smells funny and it becomes worth it for them? Microsoft don't set EY (other hired gun auditers may apply) on every small company to check they are activating Windows correctly.
> Rather than take its standard 30 percent cut of in-app purchases through the Play Store, Google is lowering its cut to 20 percent
> Third-party app stores will be able to apply to the company's new "Registered App Stores" program to see if they meet "certain quality and safety benchmarks."
> users will still be able to sideload alternative app stores that aren't part of the program
I'll wait to hear how the F-Droid team responds
Sideload probably means use adb. It's like they're avoiding using the tool name for some reason.
"Welcomes" seems like a stretch.
This kind of misleading title should be removed from HN, not appearing on the first page.
They're only bumping it down to 20% (or 15% in some cases). Anything over 5% feels like an abuse of their anti-competitive position.
And they're still taking 10% for subscriptions. What's the justification there?
Source: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/a-new-era-... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47251518)
Now this is bad. "Registered App Stores" seems like a way to satisfy regulators before taking away the user's right to execute arbitrary code on their devices (or as it's called in modern corporate newspeak: sideloading).
Google ends its 30 percent app store fee and starts a 20 percent app store fee instead
Don’t forget it welcomes other app stores in the short term but no indication of a long term guarantee, because that’s how you get good PR.
> For any developers interested in offering their own app store, Google says it'll launch its Registered App Stores program "with a version of a major Android release" before the end of the year. According to the company, the program will be available in other regions first before it comes to the US.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37843650 :
> What's a ballpark figure for what the monthly cost to Fdroid would be to scan all uploaded APKs for security vulnerabilities?
Will the user need to basically add a pubkey for each 3rd party repo? Could they install an APK from Play Store to add the key, or will there be something like the distribution-gpg-keys package?
F-Droid build APKs themselves from source, so presumably 0, as they don't allow APKs to be uploaded.
F-Droid does do some safety checks themselves already too, I don't know exactly what.
Edit: Perhaps I am mistaken... but I think the linked post was referring to users adding additional repos to the F-Droid store, not the default F-Droid repo??
The objective with adding a third party repository key IIUC, would be to not need to prompt about installing from unauthenticated sources if they're installing from a third-party repo; so the fdroid key for the APKs that they or a CDN host would be verifiable.
It would be good to scan the sources with SAST and DAST and scan the APKs once they're built too.
Can we see this for Apple please?
Apple can always choose to make less money. That said:
An estimated 98% of App Store developers qualify for Apple's 15% Small Business Program rate.¹ This doesn't help behemoths like Epic, of course.
App Store developers can also now direct customers to alternative payment methods on the web through in-app links.
¹ https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/21572302/apple-app-store...
Why now?
Google changed the way their are the Gatekeepers. It now is tied to requiring a software developer ID attached to a real person; Developer Verification. [0]
And how side-loading will have to go through ADB versus just allowing the application to be installed by a file manager.
This is why GrapheneOS and /e/OS have been popping up, along with Linux based alternatives.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47251763
Google partially walked that back and now says there will still be a way for end users to enable sideloading for apps without developer verification (unclear what that will look like though):
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-de...According to keepandroidopen.org they haven't updated their wording yet and no real movement has happened to implement this
> Google’s description of the program ↗ continues to state plainly that:
Now instead of using the excuse that "Apple does it too" they can use the excuse "Apple does it even worse"
You can thank Epic Games.
fortnite linux yet?