> That math is why many book apps like those from Bookshop, Kobo and Barnes & Noble’s Nook haven’t typically let you buy e-books and audiobooks from their iPhone or Android apps. Instead, you must leave the app, buy from the bookstore’s website and hop back into the app to read or listen to it.
Not accurate, at least for Kobo. They accepted Google's billing system, so buying from the Kobo app on Android hooks into your Google Wallet billing method and works without an issue.
It does mean you can't use Kobo gift cards towards purchases made on your phone, but you can always pop onto the website to do that.
I'm actually really glad that Kobo just did that, even if Google is taking a ridiculous cut. Anecdotally I'm buying way more impulse books on Kobo (i.e. a book on sale for $2.99 or less) since they got the app working with Google Wallet.
jorvi 4 hours ago [-]
Why not add your payment method to Kobo's app?
It's very little effort for doing your part in fighting the oligopoly.
mvdtnz 4 hours ago [-]
Google Play billing is the only option in the Kobo Android app.
jorvi 4 hours ago [-]
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought Kobo added the Google Pay (Wallet Pay? Google Wallet? God knows with the constant name changes) button / system to the app in addition to their own payment flow. Damn.
glitchc 2 hours ago [-]
That does seem odd given that Google is liable to take a 30% cut of each purchase.
mvdtnz 54 minutes ago [-]
It isn't "odd" it's the only way they are permitted by Google to sell their product. Yes, it's farcical and should be illegal.
It sucks because it means users can't buy books from Kobo on the app unless they give Google their payment info. I don't want Google to have my payment info, least of all so I can buy something from a completely different company.
If Google insisted on being an option in the app it would be relatively fine. Users who prefer Googles payment system could chose it, but Google doesn't want users to have that choice.
fn-mote 2 hours ago [-]
> It sucks because it means users can't buy books from Kobo on the app unless they give Google their payment info.
Google having my payment info is no worry at all to me. Google is on a very short list of companies whose defense against hacking and social engineering attacks I trust.
Google seeing every one of my purchases? Not a fan. I don't think that's the argument you're making here, though.
bluGill 2 hours ago [-]
It is a problem for me. Google is reasonable enough, but I do not want it to be too easy to make a mistake. I want those extra seconds it takes to type in my payment information to think again do I really need this thing. More than once I've realized the "toy" I was interested in wasn't really in my current budget and abandoned the purchase. I never turned on amazon one-click shopping for similar reasons. I want buying things I need easy, but not too easy.
resize2996 1 hours ago [-]
Yes. Fraud protection for online purchases is fine. I have certain cards set up in a way that I will basically hand them out to anyone. Data protection is not a solved problem in that way.
lupusreal 10 minutes ago [-]
I'm not buying anything from Google so there is NO reason for them to have my payment info. Fuck them.
AdmiralAsshat 2 hours ago [-]
I already gave Google my payment info, though, because I use Google Wallet. And I actually find that more secure, because IIRC the credit card number that is stored in Google Wallet is a virtual credit card number, not the real number that is printed on the physical card (which Rakuten Kobo would store).
Even when I buy books from Kobo, I never stored my credit card with them. I always bought gift cards and loaded the balance onto my account. That would occasionally get cumbersome, since the only vendor for those cards in the US used to be Wal-Mart, until they discontinued their relationship. Now I think Kobo might sell them directly out of Amazon.com--but either way, for the odd $2 and $3 purchases that I do on impulse buys (because a book may be on sale), just having it go through Google Wallet is much easier.
xp84 26 minutes ago [-]
> not the real number that is printed on the physical card (which Rakuten Kobo would store).
Citation needed!
In 2014 I worked for a small, unimportant ecommerce retailer. We migrated at around that time to storing only a token, using our payment processor (Braintree at the time) - and no longer kept any card numbers in our database whatsoever. If someone had dumped our 'credit_cards' table after that migration, they'd have nothing but useless garbage (the token could only be used by our own merchant account). I think even Braintree didn't need to store the card number itself either, but I'm not so sure of their internals.
Storing a payment card number in your database is considered an incredibly bad practice, is not PCI compliant, and probably violates other important "compliance" things you have to regularly certify as well.
kubav027 2 hours ago [-]
My bank gives me virtual credit cards. Google is just unnecessary expensive middle man. But I live in Europe so US situation might be different.
bluGill 2 hours ago [-]
Why would I want a virtual credit card - US law gives me strong fraud protection and so if my number is compromised I just call my bank and dispute the charges and then I get a new number.
Though I've never had the above happen. I've had a few times where my number was compromised but the bank found out and gave me a new card before whoever got the number was able to use it.
xp84 23 minutes ago [-]
It's great and I'd say essential to have those protections, but a virtual card makes that whole thing much more efficient plus doesn't cause you to have to update your card on file with all the "good" vendors where you have it stored.
You can proactively decide when a card will expire and how much it can be billed ("Sure, NY Times, I'll take a subscription for the trial offer of $4 a month, so let's make sure this card only allows a charge of $4 every month and/or expires when that offer expires.")
oldpersonintx2 5 hours ago [-]
Anna's Archive still charges what it always has
SoftTalker 3 hours ago [-]
Seems pretty safe to assume that all the big platforms are colluding and scamming at this point. Why not, nobody is going to stop them.
davidw 3 hours ago [-]
I have gone back to using the local library a bunch. They have a 'request a book' feature that usually gets me the book in a reasonable time frame.
kjkjadksj 2 hours ago [-]
And the book publishers tried to ruin that too. Get people to buy ereaders -> let massive libraries only have 5 “copies” of an ebook -> people shrug and pay $5 from the kindle store instead of waiting.
Basically priming a generation against libraries.
And then the ebook readers have these invented gripes why paper books no longer work for them and they must engage with the walled garden system in order to read. Some of it is truly pedantic stuff like “book too heavy.”
fn-mote 2 hours ago [-]
> Basically priming a generation against libraries.
You have left off the abusive terms under which the ebooks are leased to the libraries.
breakingcups 1 hours ago [-]
$550 for perpetual access to 1 copy which may only be lent to 1 person at a time.. Yep, abusive.
xp84 17 minutes ago [-]
It's even more gross in my brief research - some publishers will sell a non-perpetual license for about 3-4x what a physical book costs libraries, and that license dies after 2 years or 26 loans, whatever comes first:
If I'm going on vacation a book is too heavy. But most of the time I'm not carrying a weeks worth of books that hopefully it isn't raining and thus I never open those books. Even when that is a real worry, I find that there are more free books around such that I don't need to buy them anyway.
deceiving 1 hours ago [-]
Ebooks are way more convenient than print books. Plus you dont have to go through Amazon's system if you dont want to there are serveral alternative ereaders (kobo, pocketbook, boox).
Where are you getting inventing gripes from? Change font style and size is a major factor for many people along with weight. I started reading way more when I could use a ereader instead of print books.
Henchman21 3 hours ago [-]
I agree generally, but… It is within our power to shut all this stuff down. I’ll walk past multiple EPO buttons as part of my normal work day.
palata 3 days ago [-]
> Google said Amazon doesn’t have a special deal. The company and Amazon declined to offer specifics.
> Google and Amazon say the payment options aren’t new. Google said Amazon was among a few companies that had been able to offer non-Google payment options for their existing customers, under a test program.
"It's not a special deal. It's just that only a few companies can benefit from it."
Who are they kidding, seriously?
StopDisinfo910 3 days ago [-]
I thank the US for voluntarily deciding to run the experiment on what decades of voluntary non enforcement of competition laws will do to companies. I suggest we have the results now and it could safely be stopped.
bigbadfeline 3 days ago [-]
You thank Peter "Competition IsForLosers" Thiel and humbly ask him to stop "the experiment"? You know what he's gonna say, right?
3 hours ago [-]
barbazoo 5 hours ago [-]
> Google said Amazon was among a few companies that had been able to offer non-Google payment options for their existing customers, under a test program.
"Test program", what a bunch of corporate shitspeak.
rs186 3 days ago [-]
The time comes when we need to define what "special" means. To me, if "only a few" companies can do this, among possibly millions of companies that put their apps on the store, it seems very special.
some_random 3 hours ago [-]
I suspect it's something along the lines of "it's not special, you just need to be making enough money that we can justify giving you a rep specifically to manage and execute this deal".
palata 3 days ago [-]
Agreed, it is obviously special treatment.
bbarnett 5 hours ago [-]
I wonder, will they release the names of all these special companies?
bwb 3 days ago [-]
Ya at the very least they could extend it to all book sellers like Kobo, bookshop.org, etc
Henchman21 3 hours ago [-]
They baldfaced lie to the public because there are exactly zero consequences for doing so. One of the dilemmas of modern existence, IMO, is this general comfort with lying as if it were no big deal.
gamblor956 3 hours ago [-]
It's not a special deal. Google would love to have a deal with Amazon.
It's simply that Amazon is one of the few companies that can get away with not paying Google anything. Amazon is the big dog in this context.
If Google were to cut off Amazon from search results, people would just do all their shopping (and searches) directly on Amazon and cut Google out of the process entirely, and Google would lose hundreds of millions in ad revenue for the ads it show sin Amazon-related google searches. Amazon could even promote competitors to Google on their website just for the hell of it (or more likely in exchange for $$$ or stock), and Google would start seeing material drops in usage (material meaning large enough for investors to care about).
iLoveOncall 5 hours ago [-]
It's pretty clear to me that it means they still pay the same 30% cut but just have the UX option to buy in one click.
criddell 5 hours ago [-]
The article also says:
> Amazon doesn’t seem to be paying Google a fee
iLoveOncall 5 hours ago [-]
It's a supposition based on nothing at all.
xp84 4 hours ago [-]
If Amazon were happy selling books for zero or less than zero profit, as they'd have to be if this idea that they're somehow still paying Google requires, then they would have also been doing it on iOS too, wouldn't they? That's "all" Apple has been demanding this whole time.
patmorgan23 4 hours ago [-]
So is the assurance they're paying Google, unless you have a citation to provide?
5 hours ago [-]
iLoveOncall 5 hours ago [-]
> With its own one-click e-book and audiobook purchases in Android apps, Amazon doesn’t seem to be paying Google a fee. That gives Amazon a rare privilege among digital booksellers: It can turn a profit from selling e-books and audiobooks in a smartphone app.
So, an article entirely built on speculation.
Speculations refuted by Google: "Google said Amazon doesn’t have a special deal.".
What's more likely is that the share of users who buy books exclusively from the mobile Kindle app is extremely low, and that therefore it's worth selling at a loss or no profit for Amazon, to retain the customer experience.
It's also likely that Amazon doesn't have a special deal with Google, but has a special deal with book publishers, which means it's able to turn a profit even with the 30% app store cut.
xp84 4 hours ago [-]
Why do you cling to this idea despite the evidence contrary? If they were happy giving 30% to Google and thus likely losing money on every sale, why wouldn't they have been happy to do the same with Apple? Instead we saw for a decade plus that they weren't willing to, to the extent of having a bad user experience.
criddell 4 hours ago [-]
I'm guessing Amazon is large enough that they qualify for the Google Play Media Experience Program and pay far less than 30%. I believe they are paying at most a 10% fee to Google.
barbazoo 3 days ago [-]
I’m surprised this was authorized to be published at all given that the WaPo is owned by Lord Bezos.
fooker 5 hours ago [-]
Why would Bezos not want you to know that he has made a deal beneficial for him and his Amazon stocks?
barbazoo 5 hours ago [-]
Because that would draw attention to a practice that might possibly be anti competitive.
Henchman21 3 hours ago [-]
Don’t pretend he cares to hide his behavior. He’s openly lobbying to have the NLRB declared unconstitutional.
kirubakaran 1 hours ago [-]
"I don't get it. Why are they confessing?"
"They're not confessing. They're bragging."
-- The Big Short
guywithahat 4 hours ago [-]
I feel like Bezos has been pretty hands-off with the wapo, excluding Arc XP
Not accurate, at least for Kobo. They accepted Google's billing system, so buying from the Kobo app on Android hooks into your Google Wallet billing method and works without an issue.
It does mean you can't use Kobo gift cards towards purchases made on your phone, but you can always pop onto the website to do that.
I'm actually really glad that Kobo just did that, even if Google is taking a ridiculous cut. Anecdotally I'm buying way more impulse books on Kobo (i.e. a book on sale for $2.99 or less) since they got the app working with Google Wallet.
It's very little effort for doing your part in fighting the oligopoly.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
If Google insisted on being an option in the app it would be relatively fine. Users who prefer Googles payment system could chose it, but Google doesn't want users to have that choice.
Google having my payment info is no worry at all to me. Google is on a very short list of companies whose defense against hacking and social engineering attacks I trust.
Google seeing every one of my purchases? Not a fan. I don't think that's the argument you're making here, though.
Even when I buy books from Kobo, I never stored my credit card with them. I always bought gift cards and loaded the balance onto my account. That would occasionally get cumbersome, since the only vendor for those cards in the US used to be Wal-Mart, until they discontinued their relationship. Now I think Kobo might sell them directly out of Amazon.com--but either way, for the odd $2 and $3 purchases that I do on impulse buys (because a book may be on sale), just having it go through Google Wallet is much easier.
Citation needed!
In 2014 I worked for a small, unimportant ecommerce retailer. We migrated at around that time to storing only a token, using our payment processor (Braintree at the time) - and no longer kept any card numbers in our database whatsoever. If someone had dumped our 'credit_cards' table after that migration, they'd have nothing but useless garbage (the token could only be used by our own merchant account). I think even Braintree didn't need to store the card number itself either, but I'm not so sure of their internals.
Storing a payment card number in your database is considered an incredibly bad practice, is not PCI compliant, and probably violates other important "compliance" things you have to regularly certify as well.
Though I've never had the above happen. I've had a few times where my number was compromised but the bank found out and gave me a new card before whoever got the number was able to use it.
You can proactively decide when a card will expire and how much it can be billed ("Sure, NY Times, I'll take a subscription for the trial offer of $4 a month, so let's make sure this card only allows a charge of $4 every month and/or expires when that offer expires.")
Basically priming a generation against libraries.
And then the ebook readers have these invented gripes why paper books no longer work for them and they must engage with the walled garden system in order to read. Some of it is truly pedantic stuff like “book too heavy.”
You have left off the abusive terms under which the ebooks are leased to the libraries.
https://pressbooks.openeducationalberta.ca/ciicm/chapter/pub...
The above source fits with what ChatGPT told me (the chatgpt info is otherwise unverified):
https://chatgpt.com/share/682cffab-65b4-8002-8561-1b5842dc25...
Where are you getting inventing gripes from? Change font style and size is a major factor for many people along with weight. I started reading way more when I could use a ereader instead of print books.
> Google and Amazon say the payment options aren’t new. Google said Amazon was among a few companies that had been able to offer non-Google payment options for their existing customers, under a test program.
"It's not a special deal. It's just that only a few companies can benefit from it."
Who are they kidding, seriously?
"Test program", what a bunch of corporate shitspeak.
It's simply that Amazon is one of the few companies that can get away with not paying Google anything. Amazon is the big dog in this context.
If Google were to cut off Amazon from search results, people would just do all their shopping (and searches) directly on Amazon and cut Google out of the process entirely, and Google would lose hundreds of millions in ad revenue for the ads it show sin Amazon-related google searches. Amazon could even promote competitors to Google on their website just for the hell of it (or more likely in exchange for $$$ or stock), and Google would start seeing material drops in usage (material meaning large enough for investors to care about).
> Amazon doesn’t seem to be paying Google a fee
So, an article entirely built on speculation.
Speculations refuted by Google: "Google said Amazon doesn’t have a special deal.".
What's more likely is that the share of users who buy books exclusively from the mobile Kindle app is extremely low, and that therefore it's worth selling at a loss or no profit for Amazon, to retain the customer experience.
It's also likely that Amazon doesn't have a special deal with Google, but has a special deal with book publishers, which means it's able to turn a profit even with the 30% app store cut.
"They're not confessing. They're bragging."
-- The Big Short
https://apnews.com/article/washington-post-bezos-opinion-tru...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washin...