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

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

#261

Post by aviraldg » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

csa wrote: post #257

aviraldg wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fun…

> 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 agree, a hypothetical universe with paid apps subsidised for students and for people from developing nations would be better, but I haven't seen this happen in practice (and it's difficult for the reasons I mentioned before - it's hard to ensure that it isn't abused.)

> 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.

I said nothing about Google Ads in my comment - the best example of an ad subsidised service that helped in this context would be Stack Overflow, who, AFAIK run their own ad network.

> 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.

I just wanted to share my personal experience here in the hope that folks here take the users I mentioned into account - whether that's through an ad supported business model, or subscription based business models that are affordable for them.

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

#262

Post by robertlagrant » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:20 PM UTC

withinboredom wrote: post #189

briandear wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If $100/yr is too much, then it’s very likely your app isn’t profitable. A person doesn’t say “I would sell my product at Target, but spending money on gas to deliver it to their distribution center is too expensive.” Literally, it’s $8.33 per month to be a part of the Apple Developer program. If your app isn’t making that much in a month, then your app isn’t very good or you’re bad at business. No disrespect intende…

But it does mean that your app needs to make $8.33 a month, whether via ads, in-app purchases, cost of the app, or all of the above. On Android, an app doesn't have a floor. You could make a free app, with no ads, and not have to make any money.

I think this is an over-attribution of this cost. Even if you release the same app for nothing, and that cost went away, your overwhelming cost would still be your time, and the value of that time. $8.33/mo isn't even a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.

What it does do is pay for all the app store infrastructure, IDE development, etc etc, so your choice to release something for nothing doesn't externalise those costs on others.

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

#263

Post by ogre_codes » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #166

criddell wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

How many places are you going to restart this same well trod argument?

I wouldn’t say anything except this is twice you’ve brought this up out of the blue under one thread that I’ve seen and this isn’t even talking about the Apple ecosystem.

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

#264

Post by aviraldg » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #259

aviraldg wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See my other comment - subsidize it directly, if you can make it work with subscription models; I don't care. It's just that from what I've seen so far, this is harder to do with subscription models and so often not done at all.

As for why you should do this: the opportunities created this way are good for everyone in the long term. See: all the companies started and being led by people from developing nations, in developed ones.

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

#265

Post by KorematsuFred » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

shimfish wrote: post #204

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…

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 minut…

> struggling to survive demographic are the ones giving devices to their children.

You will be surprised. It is common for India to own a smartphone but not a toilet. IT is also common for the entire family to use the same smartphone and as the working dad returns home the kid jumps on his phone to play his/her favourite game.

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

#266

Post by tapirl » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:26 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #179

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.

If $100/yr is too much, then it’s very likely your app isn’t profitable. A person doesn’t say “I would sell my product at Target, but spending money on gas to deliver it to their distribution center is too expensive.” Literally, it’s $8.33 per month to be a part of the Apple Developer program. If your app isn’t making that much in a month, then your app isn’t very good or you’re bad at business. No disrespect intende…

> If your app isn’t making that much in a month, then your app isn’t very good or you’re bad at business.

Yes, many indie developers are bad at business, but they made good apps. Their month sells might one or two. They pay the $99 to Apples per year just to prevent their apps from being removed App Store.

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

#267

Post by sidlls » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #187

briandear wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If $100/yr is too much, then it’s very likely your app isn’t profitable. A person doesn’t say “I would sell my product at Target, but spending money on gas to deliver it to their distribution center is too expensive.” Literally, it’s $8.33 per month to be a part of the Apple Developer program. If your app isn’t making that much in a month, then your app isn’t very good or you’re bad at business. No disrespect intende…

Or maybe I released it as free software.

Application software such as this shouldn’t be free. It hides the true cost to developers from consumers and, if they’re ad supported hooks into one of the most insidious, malicious systems we’ve ever devised.

I won’t work on free software. I have too much respect for myself, my family, and my colleagues to do that.

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

#268

Post by bjustin » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:36 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #11

Worth remembering that as good as it is that Google is reducing it's abusive taxation on third party developers, the primary reason they're doing this is to try to quiet the majority of developers asking for stronger government regulations against this taxation without actually reducing their profit much, since the large companies which bring in the majority of revenue still have to pay full price. Basically, they're…

I agree, and even with a selfish motive, this is still a positive move on their part (and Apple's). Companies changing their behavior to avoid regulation is a better outcome than regulation in some cases, including this one IMO.

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

#269

Post by LatteLazy » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

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…

99% of YouTube channels, Facebook pages, personal websites, Flickr users etc don't make money. Sometimes people just like doing things and sharing. That doesn't make it a pyramid scheme: no one is cheating anyone and people are just building and sharing.

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

#270

Post by giantg2 » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

ogre_codes wrote: post #263

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.

How many places are you going to restart this same well trod argument? I wouldn’t say anything except this is twice you’ve brought this up out of the blue under one thread that I’ve seen and this isn’t even talking about the Apple ecosystem.

The structure of the ecosystem precludes some free apps from being listed for iOS. That structure seems to incentivize app makers to monetize, which could explain why people spend more on iOS apps.