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

321–330 of 342 posts

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

#321

Post by fomine3 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #262
withinboredom wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's cost but sometimes it's fun for developer and makes resume/GitHub/fame good. Paying $100 isn't fun or good for anyone.

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

#322

Post by 908B64B197 »

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

Rule of thumb: No matter the distribution of devices across your users, the majority of revenues comes from iOS. Often supporting Android is almost not worth it.

I've seen a lot of mobile dev shops, and customers always want the iOS app to be the first on the market. Often the Android one is effectively a port.

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

#323

Post by fredophile »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #118
dbrgn wrote: post #90

TLDR: Out of your firsts million dollars in yearly revenue that you make on Google Play, Google stoped billing you 300'000$ and now only bills you 150'000$. And they frame it in a way that suggests empowerment and goodwill. Seriously, when did fees of 15-30% for a service that you essentially cannot avoid as a software publisher become acceptable?

While I agree with you, most countries charge that and more in unavoidable taxes. The difference being that you can choose not to partecipate in their private stores (eg. develop on the web) but it's much harder to escape taxes.

Why is it hard to avoid taxes? You can just move to a country with lower taxes.

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

#324

Post by ksec »

nfin wrote: post #180
ksec wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not automatic, you need to enrol into the programme. It only work for first year, subsequent year revert back to 30% if your previous year exceed $1M. ( the 1,000,000.01 problem ) Google also has a much more flexible definition of Services, Teaching to a group of Students via Video Call is not considered as Digital Services as on Apple App Store, and hence requires 30% of commission when signing up. ( And since…

1) Can you can explain what "And since been exempt after bad PRs"? Does Apple does not charge for Teaching to a group of students anymore? 2) and is "teaching to a group of students" just an example for teaching to groups, or does it really only apply to students and to groups, but not when teaching to one person interested in guitar for example? Thanks! PS: any good ressources that distill such App Store & digital s…

>Does Apple does not charge for Teaching to a group of students anymore?

This wasn't enforced or known until fairly recently [1] and finally got its public attention during pandemic. Those bad PR was what caused Apple to make concessions. Basically since 2018 Apple has been steadily Pushing these changes for their Services Strategy revenue target. If you look around on the Internet or places like MacRumours, you find a group of "Apple Apologist" who are perfectly in flavour of Apple charging 30% for these educational digital class.

>but not when teaching to one person interested in guitar for example?

Teaching one to one are exempt from sign up link. Which is basically a FaceTime Call. But that is only on the basis if the teaching is "live". If you are showing large quantity pre-recorded Video you might / will be counted towards "Digital Goods".

But again Apple Apologist thinks it is Apple's platform. They can do whatever they want.

Edit: I wanted to add some additional context. A lot of these were rules not previously enforced before 2016 / 2018. So App Store has been perfectly fine for many conducting online / digital business. And the App Store problem isn't just about the 30% commission.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/apple-extends-fee-waiver-for...

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

#325

Post by 40four »

sumedh wrote: post #312
40four wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not not at all. What they are doing now is taking advantage of their position of power.

I think you’re being difficult on purpose. You know what I’m arguing. You don’t agree and that’s ok. But please don’t act like you don’t get it, and twist my point.

I’m arguing that what they are taking is not worth what they are offering. A 30% cut of your hard earned business is loan shark and pawn broker territory.

Ok, now it’s 15% until you get really successful. I don’t care 10%, 5%. I believe any percentage makes no sense for the the service they are providing.

This isn’t ‘Shark Tank’ the TV show. App developers aren’t coming and asking for loans to fund their startup idea. That would be the type of scenario where it would be expected to take a percentage of the company. We give you ‘X’ amount of dollars up front to fund your company, but we get ‘X’ percent of the money you make.

Hell, even Y Combinator is in this business. That’s when you should get a percentage. Not when hey, we run the only app distribution service and we’re going to keep it that way.

Now, I’ve ranted way too much in this point :) and I think I’ve made good clear points. Could you please provide good reasons why you think 15%-30% of your whole business is rightfully Google’s to take? I’m willing to be persuaded.

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

#326

Post by pier25 »

giantg2 wrote: post #165
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…

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.

I had a free app on the Mac App Store with no ads. Last time I checked, it had an average of 60 downloads per day. Not much, but I guess it was valuable to some people. I still use it almost daily.

After a couple of years I decided it didn’t make sense to keep paying $100 to Apple every year just to host a small free app.

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

#327

Post by shimfish »

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?

I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of advertising to children directly in an app.

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

#328

Post by rsj_hn »

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 don't think that developers, as a group, have much political power, or that Google is afraid of who developers will vote for.

To the degree that Google cares about developers, it is because of:

https://tenor.com/view/microsoft-windows-steve-ballmer-devel...

It's hard to retain Android developers already when there is less money to be had vs iOS, especially after Apple cut their take.

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

#329

Post by lowdose »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #273
shimfish wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll also make more because of it. I'm just saying that it won't make that much difference to the vast majority of developers.

Yeah but that comment is kind of ignoring the segment for whom it does matter... There are tons of free crappy apps on Android, but for the ones that generate moderate value and are paid for because they are functional apps and not games or ad-ridden networking apps then this is a huge change. The "vast majority" of developers might just not be making apps that benefit from this but its a bit misleading to say this i…

So maybe this is a very calculated financial incentive to nudge the "vast majority".

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

#330

Post by urthor »

ehsankia wrote: post #233
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.

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.…

Even though Android is 80% of the market, the numbers are still shockingly tilted.

People who choose the cheap option really don't do much discretionary spending, people with iPhones actually make up the majority of revenue for many apps.

Post reply on HN