Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store • Hacker News Board

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#111

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #54

annabellish wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple aren't doing anything to prevent competition with their platform. Google are/were. It's that simple. iOS is a closed platform, and Android is a more open platform, but that's 100% orthogonal to Apple or Google's _business practices_. Closed platforms are not illegal, while anticompetitive behaviour is.

> Apple aren't doing anything to prevent competition with their platform. This is a categorically false statement. I can point to a lot of places where Apple are doing quite a bit to prevent competition on their platform. I mean, browser engine choice is the easiest to see of dozens of ways Apple is doing something to prevent competition on their platform. Did you mean something else by your statement I do not unders…

So a lot of places is “1”?

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#112

Post by gaius » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

minimaxir wrote: post #60

gkoberger wrote: post #11

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…

> It also completely ignores how much Fortnite will lose from people who don't install it because they can't figure out how. Like Snapchat, this may be a case where deliberately counterintuitive behavior may actually help , since sideloading will now become "cool" for the teenagers/millennials it targets.

will now become "cool"

If it does and becomes the «new normal» then that could cost Google alot more...

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#113

Post by asdkhadsj » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

TremendousJudge wrote: post #45

Drakim wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the framing of this conversation. Does other companies owe Google money by merely existing?

No, it's the same writing that frames piracy as "costing" money to the developers. If something costs you some money there's the implication that you had the money, and then you didn't have it after that something happening. As much as they'd like to believe it, projected earnings aren't money you actually have

> No, it's the same writing that frames piracy as "costing" money to the developers.

I hope you're not referring to me. I never once said anything about Google losing money. I merely asked the question, would they gain or lose given a scenario.

I didn't state anything.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#114

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

tzakrajs wrote: post #33

annabellish wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple aren't doing anything to prevent competition with their platform. Google are/were. It's that simple. iOS is a closed platform, and Android is a more open platform, but that's 100% orthogonal to Apple or Google's _business practices_. Closed platforms are not illegal, while anticompetitive behaviour is.

Can you explain to me how the Apple Maps limitation of Siri is not anti-competitive? I believe you are right but I am curious as a layman.

What Apple Maps limitation? You can open Google Maps with Siri now with an ugly work around (https://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/17/how-to-use-google-maps-with-...)

And in iOS 12 any app will be able to provide a Siri shortcut.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#115

Post by bena » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #65

mkhalil wrote: post #43

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?

Why do you assume that that money goes back to the customer?

They're not paying the 30%, the developer is. That's just 30% more money the developer makes. The price point for the item wasn't chosen solely based on how much the lose through the app store, it was chosen based on what the customer will bear.

They know that they're only getting 69 cents on that 99 cent download. But they'd take 34 cents if the item will only move at 49 cents. And they'd happily charge $1.50 if they thought you'd buy it.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#116

Post by mcphage » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:51 PM UTC

bena wrote: post #89

TremendousJudge wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's the same writing that frames piracy as "costing" money to the developers. If something costs you some money there's the implication that you had the money, and then you didn't have it after that something happening. As much as they'd like to believe it, projected earnings aren't money you actually have

I'd say that the piracy does cost developers something. Not every pirated copy is a lost sale, but there are some number of people who are capable of buying software that instead choose to pirate it for any number of reasons and would buy it if piracy was not an option. I wouldn't say it's a high percentage, but it's not insignificant. I'd count that as a lost sale. But I do agree that this is a different situation.…

> I'd count that as a lost sale.

It's a lost sale, but that's still not a cost. It's just money they never got. If it had actually cost them, then I'd expect it would take away money they previously had, like I say lunch costs me $15 because after the transaction I'm down $15 (but up a lunch).

At best, it's akin to opportunity cost.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#117

Post by philipov » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

Benjammer wrote: post #105

gkoberger wrote: post #11

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…

>the fact that phone OSes get a cut That's how a platform business _works_ though. I mean we could discuss reasonable limits or something or how a platform effects competition once it's entrenched, but you're basically just saying "The concept of a platform business is an insane racket." Do you think building a global software distribution platform is easy? Let alone the value of compounding network effects.

The concept of a platform business is an insane racket.

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#118

Post by charlesdm » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:53 PM UTC

miguelrochefort wrote: post #99

charlesdm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a significant amount

If you're rich enough to spend $1000 on mobile games, you probably don't care about a 30% saving.

But the company selling you those services does. Do you think the consumables are any cheaper just because they're not paying the 30% App Store fee? Think again

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#119

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

TremendousJudge wrote: post #45

Drakim wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the framing of this conversation. Does other companies owe Google money by merely existing?

No, it's the same writing that frames piracy as "costing" money to the developers. If something costs you some money there's the implication that you had the money, and then you didn't have it after that something happening. As much as they'd like to believe it, projected earnings aren't money you actually have

[deleted]

Re: Google will lose $50M or more in 2018 from Fortnite bypassing the Play Store

#120

Post by jdietrich » Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

asdkhadsj wrote: post #90

jdietrich wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can provide an APK download from their website and bypass the Play Store. Unlike iOS, Android is not a walled garden. For most app developers, the ease of discovery, installation and payment provided by the Play Store is worth the 30% fee. Epic Games clearly think that Fortnite is in such high demand that it isn't worth paying the Play Store tax; Fortnite players will make the effort to find the app, install i…

I think you misunderstand me. As I said in another post: > In other words, the claim is that Google is "losing" money by their choices which cause Fortnite to choose to not use them. But it's those same choices which make Google money. > So if Google were to, for example, take less of a cut - they might get Fortnite onto their system. But how much would they loose from all the other companies currently using Google a…

Google intentionally allow app developers to do this. They have chosen to leave this option on the table. They could have just as easily chosen to make the installation of apps from third-party sources impossible or prohibitively inconvenient.

One app is not going to change Google's approach to the Play Store, even a multi-million dollar app. The vast majority of apps don't have the marketing power to profitably circumvent the Play Store, so cutting fees across the board would be a huge net loss for Google. Offering special discounts on the Play Store fee is a very slippery slope - if you offer it to anyone, everyone is going to start demanding it. It would undermine the value proposition of the Play Store and create a two-tier system, with one rule for blockbuster apps and one rule for everyone else.

App developers begrudgingly pay the Play Store tax because it's preferable to the alternatives. They'd very much prefer to get all the benefits of the Play Store at lower cost, but Google has absolutely no reason to sell their service at less than the market rate. One outlier does not change that equation.