Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Feb 2013 08:21 UTC
Google "Sebastian Holst makes yoga mobile apps with his wife, a yoga instructor. The Mobile Yogi is sold in all the major mobile app stores. But when someone buys his app in the Google Play store, Holst automatically gets something he says he didn't ask for: the buyer's full name, location and email address. He says consumers are not aware that Google Inc. is sharing their personal information with third parties. No other app store transmits users' personal information to third-party developers when they buy apps, he said." Oh Google.
Thread beginning with comment 552665
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

No, just wrong, patently false.

Google does not pass on 100% of app revenue to devs and then get payed back a 30% cut. And Apple and Amazon aren't different because you decided to use "royalties" inappropriately.

Such misinformation is not helpful, nor do I even see how, if such a setup were the case, that would impact this privacy issue anyway. It simply sounds like tortured and incorrect rationalization in hopes of handwaving away a real privacy issue.

Edited 2013-02-15 19:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No, just wrong, patently false.


You don't even have a Google Wallet merchant account, yet you think that you are in a position to make such claims?
(Do you even have a CC registered with Google Wallet?)

All the statements made by GP are factually correct.

Reply Parent Score: 3

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

How do you know if I have Google Wallet?

No, he is precisely wrong. Extending the ability to offer refunds to developers doesn't change the seller/agent model in the least. We could compare the terms and services of the agreements if you'd like, but the simplest way to point out that it is still a seller/agent model is that the seller doesn't get access to the money on a transactional basis. Google provides monthly payouts (when they can do so on time) with their agency % removed.

The money is not flowing directly to the developer at all. The developer is not then obligated to pay back Google's share at all.

All that is different is that Google has offloaded a small measure of customer service to its developers (this has pros as well as cons) and they've tied those devs to their PayPal clone. That doesn't alter the seller/agent relationship.

Edited 2013-02-16 05:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1