Here's a summary of the themes expressed in the Hacker News discussion:
Bypass of In-App Payment Systems
A central theme is the observed trend of Japanese smartphone game developers bypassing the native in-app payment systems of app stores, primarily to avoid the stated fees. The discussion begins with a statistic: "A Kyodo News survey found that among the top 30 best-selling game titles in 2024, at least 11 of the 16 offered by domestic companies have introduced payments through external websites." This practice is seen as a direct response to the perceived high costs imposed by platform owners like Apple and Google.
Criticism of the 30% Platform Fee
Many participants express strong dissatisfaction with the standard 30% fee charged by app stores. Some view this fee as excessive and unwarranted given the services provided. "30% is not skimming," states "ivape," directly challenging the notion that it's a minor deduction. "galkk" questions the justification for this fee, stating, "Obviously I don’t know economics and costs behind it, but from very uninformed point of view it feels that even 10% would still give quite a profit to stores, even after processor fees." The figure is also described as an "ungodly corrupting amount of money" by "2OEH8eoCRo0." "wmf" notes the historical precedent for such fees in retail and suggests it stems from billions of dollars in profit, while also acknowledging, "Obviously the app stores do not need or deserve 30% but that argument could apply to any profitable company."
The Nature of "Parasitic Middlemen" and "Giants"
The discussion frequently characterizes Apple and Google as "parasitic middlemen" or "IT giants" that extract value without proportionate contribution. This leads to heated rhetoric about the ethics of such fees and the power wielded by these companies. "BLKNSLVR" suggests alternative, more inflammatory titles for the article: "70% of Japan smartphone games bypass in-app payments to avoid unnecessarily additional costs to customers" or even "70% of Japan smartphone games bypass in-app payments to avoid unnecessarily parasitic middlemen." "Cloudef" further labels certain games as "parasitic games that certainly aren't just illegal casinos." "micromacrofoot" concisely captures this sentiment with, "yeah they're fighting over who gets more of our blood."
The Role and Justification of Platform Fees
While many criticize the 30% fee, some users offer explanations or context for its existence, referencing historical precedents and the value provided by platforms. "layer8" points out that "30% has been the video games cut going as far back as the NES. Mobile app stores adopted that standard figure." "wmf" reiterates this, stating, "Retail stores have always charged 30-40% so that's where the number comes from. You can see the exact breakdown in Europe: it's x% for payment processing, y% for app review/downloads/updates, and z% for recommendations etc." "DrNosferatu" offers a historical perspective, claiming "30% on the App Store was an answer to Nokia’s Ovi store some 70%!" "musicale" highlights that in the "free to play" model, platform commissions were the "only way that walled-garden game stores could make money from them" and draws parallels to traditional console platform fees: "Interestingly enough the Wikipedia article claims that DRM and licensing were introduced to combat shovelware; someone should take a look at the current eShop game library."
Concerns about Billionaires and Unchecked Greed
A philosophical tangent emerges concerning the nature of wealth accumulation, particularly among billionaires, and its potential societal impact. Some users question the motivations and the societal role of individuals who accumulate vast fortunes, linking it to a relentless pursuit of more. "simmerup" suggests that the desire for more is what drives billionaires, stating, "The fact you're thinking 10% is good enough is why you're not part of the cohort which is driven to be 100+ billionaires, more powerful than states, people." "bluefirebrand" questions the societal benefit of such individuals: "Maybe we should be identifying those types of people and preventing them from ever controlling anything? I mean, if we ever want society to improve at all." "hattmall" uses a psychology lecture analogy about hunter-gatherers to describe the "psychology of billionaires today," suggesting, "There is never enough they don't even actually care about the bounty it's just the idea of getting more and more."
Monopoly Concerns and Calls for Openness
The overwhelming market share and control held by a few major tech companies, particularly Apple and Google, is a recurring concern. Users express a desire for greater freedom and less restrictive ecosystems. "echelon" argues, "Two companies can't own all of computing. Smartphones are the internet for most people, and two companies have installed comprehensive paywalls and distribution gateways. It's unnatural how large and complete their monopolies are." They advocate for "complete freedom on mobile" and urge users to contact legislators. "ronsor," while agreeing with the sentiment of breaking monopolies, cautions against a complete return to the early days of software distribution: "I agree, but we shouldn't end app stores entirely. I don't want to go back to the days of Windows in the 2000s where you always had to download random executables from websites to install software."
User Safety vs. Platform Control
The justification of "walled gardens" for user safety and security is questioned by some, who argue that these platforms fail to adequately protect users from malicious apps and policies. "ryankrage77" states, "Apple and Google insist their walled gardens are needed for user safety and security, but they can't even catch popular apps violating their own policies. It casts (even more) doubt on their ability to screen for malware, phishing, etc, which are already rampant."
Mobile Gaming's Predatory Practices
A significant portion of the discussion criticizes the broader landscape of mobile gaming itself, particularly the prevalence of microtransactions, gambling-like mechanics, and data collection, suggesting that the debate over platform fees is occurring within a problematic ecosystem. "autoexec" asserts, "If only those games weren't infested with micro/macro transactions to manipulate players out of their money in the first place. Mobile gaming is a cesspool of ads, gambling, greed, data collection, and bullshit all of which has been slowly spreading like a cancer to gaming on every other platform for decades." They express concern that allowing developers to bypass fees will only make these "tactics even more profitable." "georgeecollins" sarcastically remarks, "How dare they charge for that slot machine!" before acknowledging that while some games have single payments, "The vast majority of popular apps have in game transactions."
Trust and Security of Payment Information
Conversely, some users express a preference for using the official app store payment systems due to concerns about the security of their financial information when using external payment methods. "Razengan" states, "Apple provides an almost-always guaranteed refund process for purchases made through the App Store, usually no questions asked. No way do I want to trust randoms with my payment info." They also cite a negative experience trying to remove payment information from "Claude.ai."