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

Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year

android-developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 342 posts

Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year

#201

Post by curryst »

joebob42 wrote: post #58
dfabulich wrote: post #48

Here's the next achievable goal to fight for: I want the fee structure Microsoft provides on the Microsoft Store. https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2018/05/07/a-new-... Microsoft takes only a 5% cut if customers click on a link on my website with my referral code, taking them directly to the store details page. Otherwise, they take a 15% cut. > consumer applications (not including games) sold in Microsoft St…

One other case where imo the 5% should apply: if someone goes to the store and searches for your app by exact name. Ie if I go to the store and search "Netflix", the store hasn't helped me discover that product.

They have, in a way, by providing the index you use to find it. They're your portal to apps in a sense. Frankly it makes more sense to me to charge more when people find your app through the app store. It makes less sense to me that they take 15% if someone Googles your app to get the app store link. They didn't even use the app store search to find it.

Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year

#202

Post by curryst »

koonsolo wrote: post #77
Crazyontap wrote: post #74

I sometimes wonder if Apple didn't come up with this model of charging devs 30% even Google wouldn't have too. These companies often end up with similar policies. But that one greedy kid showed everyone how easy it is to leech off on hard work of devs (who are also to be blame as we happily agreed to this BS) and now it's a common practice. If safari browser had a Safari store with 30% cut pretty sure chrome extensio…

30% is pretty common, just look at Steam. You can download and install games on you Windows machine straight from any website. Yet Steam was able to take a 30% cut and be very successful. The fact remains that developers are very happy to give 30% when their sales increase with a few factors.

Steam also offers a more substantial service. They have fairly significant social services from chat to profiles to the ability to join a friend's game right from Steam. The downloads are also usually substantially larger (although the average price is also significantly higher). The same is true of most of the desktop game stores.

I don't know what the real pricing should be, but I can't see how the pricing for something like Google's games would match up against Steam. They don't have feature parity, and some of the features they have are way less useful on mobile. E.g. I wouldn't use their chat even if it existed; my phone already has 4 or 5 messengers.

Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year

#203

Post by vmladenov »

Waterluvian wrote: post #107
danybittel wrote: post #41

It puzzles me that some people still think 30% is a reasonable cut for any kind of online store. Imagine you're 3 guys / girls and working on an app / game / .. whatever and one person only does "distribution" of the final asset. You are working one / two years or more on it, and one person only checks / verifies the final asset and organizes hosting. How is this in any way justified? And the days that person made an…

A reasonable amount is literally any amount the market will tolerate. Seems 30% nolonger cuts it in any of these stores.

MobiHand on BlackBerry, a third-party sales and distribution platform, used to take 40% and fees on top. I stopped working with them long before this incident, but appears that wasn’t enough[1]. When the Apple App Store launched with 70/30 it felt like a very generous offering, and the first-party App World launched with the same split later.

[1] https://forums.crackberry.com/developers-lounge-f9/mobihand-...

Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year

#204

Post by shimfish »

jeswin wrote: post #176
shimfish wrote: post #106

What's also not being said here is that ~99% of apps on Google Play don't make money this way either. Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spend money on apps at all and the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy, most developers only way to make money is through in-app advertising, which this change obviously makes no difference to. Google Play is mostly a pyramid scheme. Devel…

> Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spend money on apps at all and the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy Ridiculous allegation, which doesn't take into account the wealth inequality around the world. Hundreds of millions of people in the developing world have a smartphone today due to Android; a $1000 phone, or even a $400 phone is way out of reach for them. So the "relu…

I make kids apps.

Firstly, I'm not sure the struggling to survive demographic are the ones giving devices to their children.

Secondly, kids (and adults for that matter) have been conditioned by the market to expect software for free. You can read all my reviews on Google Play to see how offended they are that stuff isn't free, with some even moaning that there should be video ads that will unlock the app for 30 minutes.

Thirdly, I've seen YouTube videos made by kids specifically giving instructions how to download my apps for free. In fact, generally you just need to sideload just one "alternative app store" and you're good to go. This isn't rocket science. It's following a few simple steps that aren't hard to find.

Finally, I'm making broad generalisations about the vast majority of app store activity. The existence of fisherfolk isn't relevant here. I know people are enabled by the App Store existing. I've been lucky enough to live comfortably for the past decade entirely because App Stores exist. I'm merely offering a few thoughts from the perspective of a long term app developer that some people may not have realised.

Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year

#205

Post by mrkramer »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #134
krisgenre wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was really the outcome of Microsoft losing the anti-trust case? Windows still comes with a preinstalled browser and I don't remember ever seeing a version of Windows without one.

Google exists, for one. Microsoft decided against early attempts to acquire Google or block their toolbar in IE because of the fear of further antitrust legislation.

You think Google would sell to Microsoft? Larry and Sergey are one the smartest founders ever. They had clear vision and mission for Google.

Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year

#206

Post by avipars »

Starting on July 1, 2021 we are reducing the service fee Google Play receives when a developer sells digital goods or services to 15% for the first $1M (USD) of revenue every developer earns each year. With this change, 99% of developers globally that sell digital goods and services with Play will see a 50% reduction in fees. These are funds that can help developers scale up at a critical phase of their growth by hiring more engineers, adding to their marketing staff, increasing server capacity, and more.

Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year

#208

Post by distances »

kyrra wrote: post #161
shimfish wrote: post #106

What's also not being said here is that ~99% of apps on Google Play don't make money this way either. Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spend money on apps at all and the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy, most developers only way to make money is through in-app advertising, which this change obviously makes no difference to. Google Play is mostly a pyramid scheme. Devel…

(googler opinions are my own) At least according to this site[0], Google play moves $38B, while Apple moves $72B (annually). So people are spending money on Google play, just less. But I also believe more people have android phones vs iPhones, so that dilutes the per person revenue even more. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/444476/google-play-annua...

Apple has much stricter requirements on payments outside the apps though, is that considered in the numbers? If you can get direct payments from Google customers but have to go through Apple and give a slice in their platform, that would mean the higher store revenue number is actually partly squeezed from the developers instead of profiting them.

Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year

#210

Post by mrkramer »

kyrra wrote: post #161
shimfish wrote: post #106

What's also not being said here is that ~99% of apps on Google Play don't make money this way either. Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spend money on apps at all and the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy, most developers only way to make money is through in-app advertising, which this change obviously makes no difference to. Google Play is mostly a pyramid scheme. Devel…

(googler opinions are my own) At least according to this site[0], Google play moves $38B, while Apple moves $72B (annually). So people are spending money on Google play, just less. But I also believe more people have android phones vs iPhones, so that dilutes the per person revenue even more. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/444476/google-play-annua...

Different demographics use iPhone than Android. There are more Android devices in the world than iOS ones but people with greater purchasing power use iPhone that's why there is such a big difference in revenues of App Store and Google Play.
Post reply on HN