41–50 of 219 posts
That's a strange definition of lose. A third party doesn't contract with someone for their product launch, and that is considered a loss of money?
Yeah, that really got my goat too. Google getting a cut of Fortnite’s revenue would be pure rent seeking.
If a user spends $1000, and 30% goes to Apple, that's $300 that could of bought the user a dedicated gaming device that will allow them to avoid that 30% tax.
I love Apple, but 30% for in-app purchases is something I will never find comfortable.
I get the exposure, but a game like Fortnite already has enough exposure.
Will freemium gaming companies eventually produce their own device to avoid this 30%.
Only time will tell, but I can say that if I had a game generating $300 million in revenue, and 60 million went to Apple, I wouldn't mind spending a few million in research on how to get out of paying that 60 million for the next year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, what solution would there be? Allow other companies to bypass Google's revenue system in this area? How much will they lose from other companies who want to be treated equal to Fortnite. edit : This is a question folks, I'm not sure why you're down voting a question.. ya'll are touchy as hell lol. To put it differently, since I think my first attempt just confused you all in mass: If Google were to lower it's t…
I don't understand the framing of this conversation. Does other companies owe Google money by merely existing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, what solution would there be? Allow other companies to bypass Google's revenue system in this area? How much will they lose from other companies who want to be treated equal to Fortnite. edit : This is a question folks, I'm not sure why you're down voting a question.. ya'll are touchy as hell lol. To put it differently, since I think my first attempt just confused you all in mass: If Google were to lower it's t…
I don't understand the framing of this conversation. Does other companies owe Google money by merely existing?
The Play store is just additional icing on the cake. They're not losing sleep over the one unicorn exception known as Fortnite. 99.9% of other companies do not have the word of mouth to overcome the various gates, whether it's Google or Apple or Steam.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that really got my goat too. Google getting a cut of Fortnite’s revenue would be pure rent seeking.
That is essentially what taking a large cut on your app platform is: rent seeking. It's your ecosystem, but it comes out of my pocket as the consumer (unless you're large enough to avoid, like Fortnite).
Allowing people to get apps that don't need these services elsewhere is also a good idea.
"Unlike Apple, which only allows apps to be downloaded from its own storefront, Google’s platform is more open." Oh the irony. Android is more open than iOS and yet its Google that EU found to be at fault with Android. How is this not a classic example that, if anything, Android provides a more open platform?
> In the process, it’s costing Google around $50 million this year in platform fees, according to a new report. It's not costing Google anything, and they're not losing money on this either. It's revenue that they might have expected to earn, which they're now not going to be earning.
Also, what solution would there be? Allow other companies to bypass Google's revenue system in this area? How much will they lose from other companies who want to be treated equal to Fortnite. edit : This is a question folks, I'm not sure why you're down voting a question.. ya'll are touchy as hell lol. To put it differently, since I think my first attempt just confused you all in mass: If Google were to lower it's t…
It's wild how a company distributing an Android app in the exact same way that they already distribute the PC version of the same program has blown up into this huge and controversial news story.