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

311–320 of 342 posts

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

#311

Post by Ploskin »

heavyset_go wrote: post #304
Ploskin wrote: post #136

I always felt the discussion being focused on the platform tax to be a distraction. Sure, now app developers make more. Great. Doesn't change how unresponsive or draconian Google (and Apple) is in when they decide you aren't allowed to be on their Play Store anymore. Or how arbitrarily they choose to enforce their rules.

The elephant in the room is Google and Apple's duopoly in mobile app distribution, which is the cause of the two problems in your post.

Something which is inevitable. It's hard to turn back the clock on something like this and I don't see any obvious solution for it, which is why both companies need to be regulated heavily to ensure they treat app developers fairly. If they're going to monopolize their own platforms, then whoever wants to sell on that platform needs to have guarantees that they aren't arbitrarily banned and that they have sane avenues to dispute any conflicts with Google or Apple. This is what regulation is for, to ensure fair marketplaces.

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

#312

Post by sumedh »

40four wrote: post #282
sumedh wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 downl…

> Whatever price Google or Apple determines they could run the service and make a profit.

Isn't that what they are doing now?

You are essentially arguing that those giants should take a small profit instead of huge profit.

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

#313

Post by sidlls »

heavyset_go wrote: post #291
sidlls wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Application software such as this shouldn’t be free Who are you to tell someone how they should or shouldn't spend their free time?

I’m offering an opinion about providing software for free, not trying to dictate the use of anyone’s time.

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

#314

Post by heavyset_go »

Ploskin wrote: post #311
heavyset_go wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The elephant in the room is Google and Apple's duopoly in mobile app distribution, which is the cause of the two problems in your post.

Something which is inevitable. It's hard to turn back the clock on something like this and I don't see any obvious solution for it, which is why both companies need to be regulated heavily to ensure they treat app developers fairly. If they're going to monopolize their own platforms, then whoever wants to sell on that platform needs to have guarantees that they aren't arbitrarily banned and that they have sane avenue…

Agreed, and it's not just app developers that would benefit from regulation, it's also billions of users. Consumers will benefit greatly from the increased efficiencies and lowered costs that real competition in the app distribution market will bring.

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

#315

Post by philistine »

hashingroll wrote: post #298
shimfish wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you tried switching to the ads model on Android (like suggested by your app's Android feedback/reviews)? I am curious if that would increase your revenue from Android users and somewhat lower piracy?

What if the developer has an app where the benefit of the app is to get users out of the app as soon as possible. For example, I have an app that helps me copy magnet links on my iPhone. I never spend more than two seconds in the app every time.

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

#316

Post by philistine »

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…

Imagine a dystopian novel where people who don't own toilets are forced to lose a quarter of their portable device's viewport to look at glamorous photos of products for rich people living on the other side of their globe.

That's Android right now. Yeesh.

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

#317

Post by philistine »

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…

Whenever I try to picture who wishes to put ads in front of people making less than 5$ a day, all my ideas are social media hacks trying to goose up engagement, or evil companies like Monsanto ... and Google.

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

#318

Post by fomine3 »

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.

I'd like to say that users on Apple's AppStore is especially great about paying for digital contents, rather than users on Play aren't great.

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

#319

Post by fomine3 »

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 found more horrible monetize method for Apps: residential proxy SDK like Luminati. Anyone knows how many apps uses it?

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

#320

Post by musicale »

shimfish wrote: post #283
Mc_Big_G wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is definitely an interesting data point that might support the ideas that a) walled gardens with DRM reduce piracy and b) iPhone owners tend to spend more.

Since kids tend to have more time than money, I'd also expect games/apps they use to have a higher degree of piracy, at least when it is relatively easy.

Post reply on HN