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

281–290 of 342 posts

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

#281

Post by MomoXenosaga »

macintux wrote: post #235
askafriend wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that if you were to round up 100 people off the street and take their phones they all have more or less the same apps on them.

90% of what you find in the app stores of Google and Apple is fluff.

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

#282

Post by 40four »

sumedh wrote: post #172
40four wrote: post #147

Really a meaningless gesture if you ask me, reluctantly following Apple’s lead. A meager attempt to get regulators off their back. I believe Google & Apple should not be allowed to take a percentage at all . It should be a tiered system of fees, like a subscription or something. Sure, their systems help distribute and promote discovery of our apps, so let us pay for that . It should be a yearly fee appropriate for th…

> so let us pay for that. and what would be the fair price for that?

I have no idea. Whatever price Google or Apple determines they could run the service and make a profit.

Apple already charges $100 a year, that seems like a reasonable starting point. If your business takes off, and you’re using more resources of the store, or you want to promote you app, you pay more.

It could be tiered price levels depending on your usage and needs. Maybe once you cross a certain threshold of downloads then you have to bump up to the next tier. Maybe there would be an enterprise level for huge companies.

Imagine if all developers on Google play started off paying $100 a year, that alone would weed out a lot of the BS & discourage low effort bad actors.

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

#283

Post by shimfish »

Mc_Big_G wrote: post #271
shimfish wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you see a difference with the Apple App Store?

For my latest app, which is free with in-app purchase area unlocks...

Google Play: 10 times the amount of downloads than Apple Store

Apple Store: 2.5 times the income of Google Play.

Reviews on Google Play frequently mention how everything should be unlocked for free. Apple reviews seem to focus more on what extra content they would like to see.

Piracy on my paid apps seemed to be way, way higher on Android.

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

#284

Post by arrosenberg »

aviraldg wrote: post #264
arrosenberg wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

I think it's going to be a really tough sell to convince me or anyone else that we should pay more in cash or attention for products to subsidize developing nations. We've been doing it for decades on things like tech and pharmaceuticals and it seems like people are getting tired of sacrificing for the rest of the world.

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

#285

Post by yccheok »

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 am indie developer who makes and sales apps on Android. I can tell you this is not true. Users are willing to pay for good apps.

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

#286

Post by snappieT »

WA wrote: post #124
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…

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…

Congrats on the 17,000€ - happy to hear that this change puts that kind of money into "small" app developer's pockets.

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

#287

Post by why_Mr_Anderson »

kop316 wrote: post #228
shimfish wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 2015. No reason to believe things would have got better since then. https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/monument-valley-developer...

> How is piracy for Android any easier than say, Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux? I'm not arguing if it is easier, I am asking how is it easier? That article does not answer how.

Aren't APK files simply java .jar packaged together? It's trivial to fully decompile java binary (bytecode) directly to source code.

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

#288

Post by Saris »

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.

I do that as well.

If it's true or not, I don't know. But my impression from using both platforms daily is that iOS paid apps are higher quality, in both design/looks and performance.

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

#289

Post by travisgriggs »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #84
travisgriggs wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your logic, kind of. But if I abstract the reasoning it might be recast something like this: Poorer citizens with unknown prospects have more to gain from the government's services, and won't mind paying 30% of their earnings for all that help. Wealthier citizens like Bezos and Musk are already taking care of their own garbage, lobbying, education, protection and who knows what else and have close to zero to ga…

This is not a tax imposed by a government, though. This is a service provided by a business to another business. There have always been wholesale prices and volume discounts if you buy in larger quantities. I see many people are comparing this to a tax, why?

It's not a service, because it's not something I can elect to purchase or not purchase. I have to pay this royalty to be allowed to participate here. That is a tax. If this were an add-on service that Apple/Google offered as an add on, then it would no longer be a tax. And the dynamics you refer to might kick in then.

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

#290

Post by stale2002 »

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.

No, it would not be reasonable if certain participants in that market have a large amount of market power.

That is how things like anti-trust law work.

Post reply on HN