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

231–240 of 342 posts

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

#231

Post by occamrazor »

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…

For physical products in physical stores the cut can be higher than 50%. Online referrals can be up to 20%, without the actual distribution.

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

#232

Post by smeyer »

andechs wrote: post #214
sidlls wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is just true. Compared to the only other major mobile app ecosystem, Android users are relatively cheap. That doesn’t mean nobody pays or that nobody who distributes an app earns money through purchases. It just means that on Android it’s a smaller group than on, say, Apple.

I'd actually argue that Android users have more options, thus the market price for apps is reduced by the amount of supply. When you're looking for a "Todo" app, there's 1000's on Android, and many or most are free. Many people might be better served by a quality app, but when the alternatives are good enough, it's a hard sell.

>Android users have more options

> When you're looking for a "Todo" app, there's 1000's on Android, and many or most are free.

There are also a massive number of "Todo" apps on the Apple app store. Searching for numbers online seems to indicate that there are about 50% more apps total on the Google play store than the Apple app store, but for the more common use cases that still means massive numbers of choices on each store, both free and paid.

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

#233

Post by ehsankia »

sidlls wrote: post #177
WA wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. Yes, Android users tend to pay less for apps, but useful apps that provide daily utility actually make good money as well. If you have a brand-name app like Runtastic, Netflix, Headspace or whatever, the platform doesn't really matter. You buy the product, because you want it. It's probably different for utility apps like a different Camera, a photo editor, small productivity apps you need only once…

It is just true. Compared to the only other major mobile app ecosystem, Android users are relatively cheap. That doesn’t mean nobody pays or that nobody who distributes an app earns money through purchases. It just means that on Android it’s a smaller group than on, say, Apple.

It's pretty straight forward. Users buying phones that cost $250 on average [1] will also spend less money on apps that users buying phones that cost on average closer to $700.

That being said, worldwide Apple only has 20% of the market now so while the average user is cheaper, there are quite a bit more users. That's probably why ad-based monetization also works a lot better on Android (more users).

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/951537/worldwide-average...

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

#234

Post by leetcrew »

criddell wrote: post #221
leetcrew wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pure speculation, but I doubt there's some intrinsic quality of android that makes users reluctant to pay for apps. more likely, people that are very price sensitive are more likely to have an android phone to begin with. the cheapest new iphone is already $400. while it may not be a good long-term value, you can buy an android phone for $50.

I think there is some intrinsic quality of Android hardware and software. It might be that it's from Google and so it feels like ever swipe and tap is monetized in some way. Or maybe it's the latency of the display and the way so many apps have display issues that makes everything feel second tier. Apple's stuff feels better in the hand and I think that makes a user more willing to invest in it.

meh. the apple hardware and fit/finish is unquestionably better, but neither platform offers anything that I personally want to "invest" in past the purchase price of a serviceable phone. google doesn't respect my privacy, but apple doesn't respect my judgement.

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

#235

Post by macintux »

askafriend wrote: post #212
giantg2 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least they aren't charging $100 per year to be a developer like Apple does. I would have liked to make my apps multiplatform, but it just doesn't make sense at that price. Edit: It's great to see that this platform likes downvoting people who release their software for free. Profit matters above all else. I guess next you all will tell me my job is worthless and I suck at life because I make under $100k.

The $100 a year ensures that trash doesn’t litter the App Store and also supports the ongoing development of tooling and management of the store (manual review, Xcode, documentation, distribution, APIs like Metal, etc). If you’re not committed enough to releasing something with >$100 in value or not committed to releasing something high quality, the App Store doesn’t need you or your app - period. As a user (and as a…

> The $100 a year ensures that trash doesn’t litter the App Store

As an Apple fan, I really wish that were true.

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

#236

Post by giantg2 »

nsomaru wrote: post #193
giantg2 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't there fewer free apps to choose in iOS? They charge $100 per year to be a developer. That's kept me from making my apps multiplatform.

Is the $100 fee really the difference and is it comparable with the man hours you would spend porting?

It's absolutely the fee. I can't see paying $100 every year just to let other people use my apps that's $1k over a decade!). If it were a one-time fee like Google, then I would have done it.

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

#237

Post by MajorBee »

withinboredom wrote: post #190
giantg2 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it doesn't make money - it's free . It doesn't have ads either.

I'd love to see that if your app was free with no ads, you didn't have to pay for a dev account.

Presumably this would result in a flood of "free" apps that are nothing more than facades for scams (e.g. a fun personality/quiz app -- look ma, no ads! -- that makes you reveal your secret questions and answers).

Maintaining the integrity of an app store is a very non-trivial task, and building an entry barrier in the form of developer fees is one way of doing it. Not saying this is the only solution or even a particularly good one, but every solution will have its share of unintended consequences and exploited armor chinks. Making dev accounts free for no-ads would be an interesting experiment, though. I'd support it for science!

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

#238

Post by ehsankia »

skizm wrote: post #229

This would have accounted for around 5% of the Play Store's revenue if applied for 2020: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/google-apple-giving-up-less-...

Giving 5% of your revenue (not profit) right back into the pockets of smaller developers seems pretty great overall. Did people expect them to cut their revenue in half?

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

#239

Post by necovek »

pja wrote: post #194
kop316 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy Respectfully, I would like a citation on this. How is piracy for Android any easier than say, Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux?

I guess the point is that of the two main mobile platforms, it’s much easier to pirate Android Apps than iPhone Apps. Desktops are a whole different kettle of fish, which is why profitable companies have (mostly) given up on selling software & are making money via SaaS approaches on desktop.

That's most likely not [1] why software companies like AutoDesk, Adobe or Microsoft (with Office365) are moving towards a SaaS model: regular monthly payments add up to more than one-time licenses, and provide a more predictable revenue stream.

Market was willing to accept that, so there was no reason for them not to do it.

[1] Citations missing for my claims too! :)

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

#240

Post by runevault »

criddell wrote: post #156
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…

I've always wondered what it is about Android that makes users reluctant to pay for apps. I'm guilty of it too. I have both iOS and Android devices and I spend far more money buying apps on my iOS device.

IMO it is because Apple got people used to buying on iTunes when it was only music. Apple's put the effort in to get people used to purchasing digital goods from them. Google's focus has always been ads first so they never created the same mindshare around expecting to purchase software from them, at least not at the consumer level.
Post reply on HN