Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

android-developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 250 posts

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#161

Post by judge2020 »

calsy wrote: post #138
Denzel wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people should be able to install anything they want without some unwanted middleman What “people” are you referring to? The millions of people, like yours truly, who’ve made the conscious decision to pay Apple because of their App Store model. I’m an engineer, I have a desktop and a laptop I can install whatever I want on. I’m ok with not doing that on my phone. In fact, I don’t want that experience on my phone. So…

Yeah everything super easy when you control the entire process, from what apps you will see, to how you purchase them. There is no conscious decision to chose to pay with apple. You either purchase an apps subscription through apples payment gateway or not. Alternative solution are convoluted because Apple makes it that way, it's by design. You are paying more than you need to, and developers get less then they shoul…

Apple controls the entire process except the minds of those that buy the iPhone and the bank accounts the money comes from.

> People complain about 1% surcharge on a visa, which is made clear before each purchase.

This is utterly false. I've never seen a physical nor online POI specifically say "price includes x% fee paid to credit card processor". I imagine Visa and MC explicitly forbid you from making it a line-item as well.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#162

Post by [deleted] »

supah wrote: post #142
concinds wrote: post #3

I don't see the point. Spotify's not willing to give up 10% of their Android revenue, they'll still use their own payment. Epic won't give up 15%. South Korea mandated that apps be allowed to have custom payment methods within apps. Why would any big company, whether Netflix, Epic or Spotify, still give Android 10%? It just seems that the "app store pay toll" is getting less and less justifiable; and it seems outrage…

The part that people overlook. Is what does your mobile first start up look like without Google or Apple providing a distribution point like the respective app stores. While the original 30% fee is BS. 15% Is reasonable to pay to get your application out there. Otherwise your Brilliant idea in most cases is worthless if it’s not visible to majority of users. I like the way that Apple has approached it where it’s capp…

[deleted]

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#163

Post by judge2020 »

johnny35 wrote: post #150

This seems like a significant milestone in what I really hope is the path toward the app ecosystem opening up to the level of freedom we’ve enjoyed in the web and desktop software space for decades now. Needing the recurring approval from two mega-corps scrutinizing whatever details of your business and customer relationships they wish, forcing their way in between… feels terrible compared to hooking up to a standard…

Even if this came to fruition, someone is still the gatekeeper. Many often forget that safe browsing gates access to every domain you type in and will throw up an error page if it's been flagged as malware. The same already happens for side-loading apps via Play Protect[0], iOS would surely have a similar system with Apple collecting samples of side-loaded apps and continuously scanning & expanding their blocklist of malicious apps.

0: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853?hl=en

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#164

Post by rahimnathwani »

dataviz1000 wrote: post #110

Can someone explain the subscription on Google Play and Apple App Store today? I launched an app for a B2B SAAS service that clients paid ten of thousands of dollars a year for. We put the app which was secondary to the web dashboard which the clients used mostly during business hours in the Apple App Store and on Google Play without mentioning any payment in the product description which both allowed. When I first s…

Yes:

3.1.3(c) Enterprise Services: If your app is only sold directly by you to organizations or groups for their employees or students (for example professional databases and classroom management tools), you may allow enterprise users to access previously-purchased content or subscriptions. Consumer, single user, or family sales must use in-app purchase.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#165

Post by johnny35 »

judge2020 wrote: post #163
johnny35 wrote: post #150

This seems like a significant milestone in what I really hope is the path toward the app ecosystem opening up to the level of freedom we’ve enjoyed in the web and desktop software space for decades now. Needing the recurring approval from two mega-corps scrutinizing whatever details of your business and customer relationships they wish, forcing their way in between… feels terrible compared to hooking up to a standard…

Even if this came to fruition, someone is still the gatekeeper. Many often forget that safe browsing gates access to every domain you type in and will throw up an error page if it's been flagged as malware. The same already happens for side-loading apps via Play Protect[0], iOS would surely have a similar system with Apple collecting samples of side-loaded apps and continuously scanning & expanding their blocklist of…

I get that - it’s not like traditional payment processors never shut anyone off. Reality is all in the squishy gray area, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a meaningful difference between what it’s like selling a service on a website vs. with an app.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#166

Post by heavyset_go »

dbt00 wrote: post #135
heavyset_go wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

webOS in the Palm/HP Pre days and Maemo both had app stores. webOS had the App Catalog and Maemo built an app store around the apt package manager. The difference is that Palm, HP and Nokia didn't take a cut, and the stores themselves were based on open protocols that allowed users to add their own sources for apps. That resulted in excellent things like PreWare[1] and, in Maemo's case, enthusiast run apt repositorie…

None of those platforms got big enough to deal with abuse and malware at an industrial scale.

Apt is one of the most used app distribution methods on Linux, and is what Maemo and Meego used. It was even ported to macOS as Fink and, before Homebrew was popular, millions of macOS users ran apt without being exposed to abuse or malware. Billions of machines run Linux using package managers like apt, and abuse and malware are minute.

The App Store model is about profits, and security is an afterthought that makes for good PR.

Apple is responsible for letting scams and fraud flourish on the iOS App Store[1]:

> That man’s name is Kosta Eleftheriou, and over the past few months, he’s made a convincing case that Apple is either uninterested or incompetent at stopping multimillion-dollar scams in its own App Store. He’s repeatedly found scam apps that prey on ordinary iPhone and iPad owners by luring them into a “free trial” of an app with seemingly thousands of fake 5-star reviews, only to charge them outrageous sums of money for a recurring subscription that many don’t understand how to cancel. “It’s a situation that most communities are blind to because of how Apple is essentially brainwashing people into believing the App Store is a trusted place,” he tells The Verge.

Apple is also responsible for distributing 500 million copies of Xcodeghost to users via the App Store[2]. Despite claiming that Android users are protected by Play Protect, the Play Store is the #1 vector for malware on Android[3].

It isn't 2003 anymore, operating system vendors have been taking security seriously for a while now. Abuse and malware are not a problem on macOS despite barely anyone using the Mac App Store to install apps. Same goes for Windows, it isn't Windows XP anymore, and despite nobody using the Microsoft Store, abuse and malware are much less of a problem than they were in the past.

The App Store model isn't necessary for security, it's only necessary to secure profits.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...

[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is...

[3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#167

Post by worrycue »

reissbaker wrote: post #153
paxys wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if cutting subscription fees on the Play Store forces Apple to cut their take on the App Store by half Will it though? Or will the fee just become another "premium" differentiator between the two? The average Android phone sells for $250, but that hasn't discouraged Apple from pricing iPhones at 3-5x that. Other than strong government regulation (or the threat of it), I don't see Apple ever willingly reducing the A…

One of Apple's arguments in the Epic case was that 30% was standard; if it's not, it makes it look worse to courts and potential regulators.

Even if Google decides to become the exception, there are other stores on other platforms using 30% commissions for it to still be considered the standard.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#168

Post by reilly3000 »

likeabbas wrote: post #94
didibus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the desktop, ton of apps don't do their own payments. It takes quite a lot for a company to be able to process their own payments. That's why you see a lot of pay with PayPal, Amazon, Google Pay, Apple Pay, etc. So I think for sure people will still offer Apple Pay. The difference is that there'd be competition now, so Apple would be forced to reduce their margins to the minimum, maybe close to cost price to compe…

It’s pretty easy to integrate Stripe as a payment processor and they only take 3%

Don’t forget the + $.30. That is the most material part of transaction fees on small purchases, such as $.99

If not for the bulk discounts they must get, they would lose money at 30% of a $0.99 sale.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#169

Post by heavyset_go »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #158
RNCTX wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

15% is highway robbery. The cost via your own account on Stripe is 5% on the high end.

This would carry more weight if Stripe were to maintain a mobile operating system, and an app store to help developers get customers.

App developers already pay Apple $100 a year and, as someone in these comments calculated, that earns Apple $2 billion a year alone. Developers regularly need to buy Apple computers, tablets and phones that have 64% profit margins. Users are also buying those computers, tablets and phones that have 64% profit margins.

> and an app store to help developers get customers.

Apple strictly enforces limits and restrictions on users' devices that ensure that the App Store is the only way to get customers. Every other way is banned. Customers cannot get the apps they want without the App Store. Developers are able to find customers on their own, otherwise.

If you want to enter the mobile or tablet markets at all, you're forced to give either company 15% to 30% of your gross revenue. There's no choice, alternative or competition because all the competition is banned.

Personally, I don't think running an exclusive mobile app repository, and then forcing all apps to use Apple or Google's payment methods, should entitle either company to 15% to 30% of a company or developer's gross revenue.

Re: Decreasing service fees on subscriptions to 15%

#170

Post by andreareina »

crakenzak wrote: post #154
reissbaker wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that so much of Apple's profits are from extortionate App Store fees... I can't help but think this is a classic "commodify your complement" strategy from Google. The lion's share of Google's revenue comes from search: if cutting subscription fees on the Play Store forces Apple to cut their take on the App Store by half, then Apple loses considerably more than Google — and Apple's loss is Google's gain. And if…

> and Apple's loss is Google's gain. Elaborate? Apple is not involved in the search market, and I don’t see how them not making as much money on their own platform benefits Google in any way. Note: I still think the value that Google Play and App Store provide to developers is not worth the 30% (or 15% in this case), but just want to understand your reasoning.

I'd guess Apple has less money -> worse products (or less effective marketing) -> Apple loses market share to Android -> Google gets more data -> Google makes more money

I'm not sure how valid it is given the absolute mountain of cash Apple is sitting on.

Post reply on HN