Wow! Finally Google play store has reached the economies of scale, I'm wondering when will Apple do? /sarcasm
Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
331–340 of 342 posts
Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Could you please provide good reasons why you think 15%-30% of your whole business is rightfully Google’s to take?
Google and Apple are running a business, there is no right and wrong here. If you dont like you can go and develop apps for Windows phones or some other phones, oh wait, they all failed.
Now the problem is Google/Apple can charge these prices is because they dont allow side loading, Google allows it but makes the experience terrible. If Side loading is easy or they allow competing App Stores on their platform, Devs will move away from the official app stores.
So if you want to attack Google/Apple that is a legitimate point, attacking their 30% cut is not.
Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't more competition be the logical thing to ask for instead?
The first step in fostering a healthy competitive market is breaking down the monopoly, which is prob what the prev comment was suggesting.
Indeed. But suggesting to break Google apart nets in -4 karma on HN. smh.
Let's not even start with all the evil they've been doing in the recent years since Pichai Sundararajan took over.
Google has too much concentrated power and it is a monopoly. Search + Ads alone, a browser, a DNS network, an OS, cars, cloud. It's just the tip of the iceberg.
And it's using its influence exclusively for their own advantage and to crush people who oppose them.
Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
#334Earlier 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.
You can buy an Android phone for $25 in the US, and much of the rest of the world is completely priced out of buying apps or subscriptions. There are many people who use Android phones because they're affordable, but they can't afford to buy apps, though.
I don't believe that there are many people who can afford a phone and monthly service but a $1 app is out of reach. They exist, but not in numbers high enough to explain the gap between the two platforms.
Because Android is the default phone, there are a lot of people who get one and then never install a single app on it because all they really wanted was a mobile phone and a camera.
Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Further evidence that developer pressure and legal pressure on smartphone platforms work, that they aren't a waste of time. Sure, if you're Epic. For the rest of us minnows, we just have to play the hand we're dealt.
This change directly impacts minnows, it's a revenue cut for companies making less than a million dollars, not more. And if your point is that it took a company as large as Epic raising a fuss to get that change, well... why should I care? It's still a change that will help smaller developers. Honestly, I don't get HN's position on this. When Epic sued, people complained that Epic was too big and progress would only…
> This change directly impacts minnows, it's a revenue cut for companies making less than a million dollars, not more.
Do note that while the Apple policy won’t benefit Epic, the Google one will.
Apple swaps from 15 to 30% cut when you reach 1 million. Google gets 15% from the first 1 million, then taxes the rest at 30.
Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to see that if your app was free with no ads, you didn't have to pay for a dev account.
Presumably this would result in a flood of "free" apps that are nothing more than facades for scams (e.g. a fun personality/quiz app -- look ma, no ads! -- that makes you reveal your secret questions and answers). Maintaining the integrity of an app store is a very non-trivial task, and building an entry barrier in the form of developer fees is one way of doing it. Not saying this is the only solution or even a parti…
Ha, that's a good point, though I think if Apple were to implement something like it, there would be a ton of rules. Perhaps banning network requests from the free app (no saas, no tracking) or limiting it in some way from being abused.
Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can buy an Android phone for $25 in the US, and much of the rest of the world is completely priced out of buying apps or subscriptions. There are many people who use Android phones because they're affordable, but they can't afford to buy apps, though.
I don't believe that there are many people who can afford a phone and monthly service but a $1 app is out of reach. They exist, but not in numbers high enough to explain the gap between the two platforms. Because Android is the default phone, there are a lot of people who get one and then never install a single app on it because all they really wanted was a mobile phone and a camera.
There are quite literally billions of people on Earth for whom a smartphone is a necessity that they will save for to buy used, but for whom paid apps are superfluous and whose costs cannot be justified.
Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
#338Earlier 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…
You are talking about a target market's ability to pay, which is a real and important consideration. I think shimfish is talking more about a market's willingness to pay, which is a very different consideration. You can absolutely poison an otherwise viable marketplace by setting the buyer expectation to be free. I think "reluctance to spend money on apps" is a big problem on Google Play outside of the population tha…
On the other hand, it heavily influences the perception of the platform itself - for a random utility that does something, my expectation is that there will be free apps for that on Android, while the iOS equivalent will cost a couple euros. Multiply that by many apps and that's a reason to choose an Android phone if you want to avoid all these extra fees for every app you'd use. It would be compensated by a richer choice of apps, but it isn't in practice, Android is large enough so that there's a good app for everything anyways.
Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe that there are many people who can afford a phone and monthly service but a $1 app is out of reach. They exist, but not in numbers high enough to explain the gap between the two platforms. Because Android is the default phone, there are a lot of people who get one and then never install a single app on it because all they really wanted was a mobile phone and a camera.
There are quite literally billions of people on Earth for whom a smartphone is a necessity that they will save for to buy used, but for whom paid apps are superfluous and whose costs cannot be justified.
Even in markets where that isn't true, it doesn't explain the gap between spending on apps by Android users and iOS users.
Re: Google Play service fee reduced to 15% for the first $1M/year
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Good for you as a parent I don’t allow my children to use apps with adverts. If the app is free with ads we buy the ad-free version or it’s a no go.