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

251–260 of 342 posts

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

#251

Post by curt15 »

modeless wrote: post #43
im3w1l wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A third party app store can not automaticly apply updates to apps. The user has to explictly approve every update. This puts the play store in a privileged position of lower ongoing friction.

There was a recent Android blog post that said "we will be making changes in Android 12 (next year's Android release) to make it even easier for people to use other app stores on their devices". https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...

"Android has always allowed people to get apps from multiple app stores. In fact, most Android devices ship with at least two app stores preinstalled, and consumers are able to install additional app stores. "

What is the most common preinstalled app store besides Google play?

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

#252

Post by aviraldg »

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…

Thank you for bringing this up. I find HN's obsession with getting rid of ads and replacing them with paid subscriptions disappointing for this reason. While everything is ad supported, it is easier for users in developing nations (like my country of origin) to afford services subsidised by users in wealthier nations (the ads the former group see are probably worth much less anyway, due to their limited purchasing power.) When services switch to a paid subscription model, this is much harder to justify since end users can see price differences across markets and will often try to use accounts in other reasons to get cheaper prices (Steam prices are the best example here.)

The existence of ad supported apps and services and free software is what allowed me to teach myself programming and graphic design in school. In HN's dream world of hundreds of dollars of SaaS subscriptions, this would not have been possible, or certainly more difficult.

Disclaimer: I work for Google

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

#253

Post by ineedasername »

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…

Piracy isn't google's fault. It's a byproduct of having a system that is at least a little bit more open than others like iOS. This isn't munch different than the situation developers face with piracy on a PC.

Otherwise, this is a big win for small developers. Most developers probably don't approach the $1M cap, and all of them will see their fees drastically reduced.

Of course I'm cynical enough to view this mostly as a defensive measure against monopoly concerns, but that doesn't mean there's no benefit for many developers.

What do you believe, with respect to the app store, would be a more developer-friendly change? I'd like to see then allow developers to use different payment providers and not fight against alternate app stores that much. However for things that go through the play store even with a different payment provider, I think Google deserves some small cut for hosting all these apps and providing the platform. Something like a one-time fee for all paid apps or apps with paid content. It seems reasonable to pay them for use of their infrastructure in some form. Apps that make use of less of it-- like not using it's payment system-- would pay less.

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

#254

Post by modeless »

curt15 wrote: post #251
modeless wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a recent Android blog post that said "we will be making changes in Android 12 (next year's Android release) to make it even easier for people to use other app stores on their devices". https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...

"Android has always allowed people to get apps from multiple app stores. In fact, most Android devices ship with at least two app stores preinstalled, and consumers are able to install additional app stores. " What is the most common preinstalled app store besides Google play?

I'm going to guess the Samsung one.

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

#255

Post by enos_feedler »

salicideblock wrote: post #108
londons_explore wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is odd... Users of the Play store and App store are a disjoint set. Very few users will switch from Android to iOS or back because in-app purchases are cheaper. Developers are generally forced to support both stores. There wouldn't seem to be any strong reason for both stores to pick identical fee structures - they aren't really in competition.

The discourse is that Play store and App store are monopolies (arguably duopolies) facing the developers, not the users. I expect that developers for the Play store and App store are two sets with a big overlap

This is the story that Google wants you to believe by fast following Apple with pricing changes. They want to demonstrate that Apple has pricing power to regulators (just my theory). The reality is that Apple and Google are in competition, and if Google actually innovated on business model the way they do with every other aspect of their business, it would actually drive the app store fees down for Apple. Microsoft has tried to do this [1] but they don't have enough market power to move the needle.

[1] https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-store-now-gives-app...

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

#256

Post by lenkite »

krisgenre wrote: post #144
lenkite wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So basically nothing" Umm..no. IE could now be un-installed on Windows. After various settlement fines in the US with several parties, the EU took it further and also leveraged its largest anti-trust penalty of that era. (~1 billion) Microsoft were forced to share ALL their earlier private computing API's as open specs. MS word, excel formats, SMB, etc. This was amazing and resulting in several OSS libraries.

>>IE could now be un-installed on Windows. Why is this important?

Avoiding security vulnerabilities.

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

#257

Post by csa »

aviraldg wrote: post #252
jeswin wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Thank you for bringing this up. I find HN's obsession with getting rid of ads and replacing them with paid subscriptions disappointing for this reason. While everything is ad supported, it is easier for users in developing nations (like my country of origin) to afford services subsidised by users in wealthier nations (the ads the former group see are probably worth much less anyway, due to their limited purchasing po…

> The existence of ad supported apps and services and free software is what allowed me to teach myself programming and graphic design in school.

I don’t know what country you are from, but I’m guessing the “free” vastly outweighed the “ad supported”. Furthermore, given the low ad revenue in developing countries, an organization seeking money probably could have gotten just as much by seeking a government grant or funding from a non-profit/NGO, and the whole process probably would have been easier in terms of securing revenue as well as app design (i.e., not having to design the app around ads).

I appreciate what you are saying broadly, but google ads doesn’t seem like the optimal way to facilitate this type of information creation and dissemination in developing countries.

Furthermore, Google has shifted from having “don’t be evil” as part of their code of conduct to straight up doing evil things. Trying to dress these actions up as being a boon for the developing world is approaching if not reaching the level of being a corporate shill. Again, there are better and probably easier ways to do this other than kowtowing to the Googlith.

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

#258

Post by howinteresting »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #15
howinteresting wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an exertion of raw power, yes, it would be inverted. But we live in a world where maximal exertion of raw power is looked down upon.

Don't most products and services offer a volume discount? Or something equivalent? I don't understand why the equation is reversed in this case. Does google not offer volume discounts to their big GCP customers? Is that also "looked down upon"?

Often there's an inverted U shaped curve, where startups and very large customers get discounts but medium-size customers don't.

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

#259

Post by arrosenberg »

aviraldg wrote: post #252
jeswin wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Thank you for bringing this up. I find HN's obsession with getting rid of ads and replacing them with paid subscriptions disappointing for this reason. While everything is ad supported, it is easier for users in developing nations (like my country of origin) to afford services subsidised by users in wealthier nations (the ads the former group see are probably worth much less anyway, due to their limited purchasing po…

Why should we be willing to subsidize developing countries with our attention? My obsession with creating subscription models instead of ad-supported is entirely based on my unwillingness to pay with attention any further.

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

#260

Post by oh_sigh »

jahmed wrote: post #28
oh_sigh wrote: post #26

Wow, it sure is a coincidence that its being cut to basically the same rate (though a different structuring) as Apple. First google independently came up with the 30% rate just like Apple did, and then they independently came up with 15% for the first $1M like Apple did.

I get the sarcasm but really its a duopoly game like a Stackleberg. The best move is to match and not try to undercut.

Right. But you would never even know that another company existed reading their PR piece about how they're doing it for the developers.
Post reply on HN