61–70 of 219 posts
The framing of this article feels weird to me. Google offers a service (distribution), and it just so happens Fortnite doesn't need it. It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault. I mean, the fact that phon…
Not just a cut but 30%.
> 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…
Solution to what?
Can't google just block installs from websites in a future android update? I don't want my kid to install apps from websites...
By default it is blocked although it's usually one of the first things I turn off. I always have at least one or two apps that aren't on the play store. I hope that Google doesn't block this feature and turn entirely into a walled garden.
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.
I wonder if this becomes a norm in the Android freemium gaming community, will they start advertising more Android ads to iPhone users. Maybe even start offering free "trade-up" program if they spend enough. 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 somethi…
How many iOS users willing to invest $300 on a low-end Android device to play Fortnite in order to start saving 30% after spending over $700 in in-app purchases do you think exist in the world?
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?
So as i read it, the argument being made is: if Google had chosen the same path as apple did in their app store, Google would not have missed this opportunity.
The framing of this article feels weird to me. Google offers a service (distribution), and it just so happens Fortnite doesn't need it. It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. A better way would be "Fortnite is big enough to bypass Google and still make $180MM", rather than acting like this is Google's fault. I mean, the fact that phon…
Why are we still falling for this crap?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By default it is blocked although it's usually one of the first things I turn off. I always have at least one or two apps that aren't on the play store. I hope that Google doesn't block this feature and turn entirely into a walled garden.
As soon as they do, they die with users like me. I am pretty tolerant of the eco-system lock in because I can so easily opt-over the wall when I want to. If they change that, I'll go to the next platform that respects my ability to make choices for myself, even if they don't match what some people in power in California thinks I should choose.
I wonder if this becomes a norm in the Android freemium gaming community, will they start advertising more Android ads to iPhone users. Maybe even start offering free "trade-up" program if they spend enough. 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 somethi…
> 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. How many iOS users willing to invest $300 on a low-end Android device to play Fortnite in order to start saving 30% after spending over $700 in in-app purchases do you think exist in the world?
I can't imagine that 100% of the people interested in fortnite for android are willing to sideload the apk. I would be surprised if this wasn't having a net-negative impact on the total number of android users. I wonder if this is just to avoid paying a percentage on in-app purchases? What else could it be?