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

41–50 of 342 posts

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

#41

Post by danybittel »

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 any marketing / visibility are long gone. I think more "fair" is something like 5%, more in the line of what a payment processor does. Which probably, at this point does more than.

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

#43

Post by modeless »

im3w1l wrote: post #40
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that Android is open source and you can just sideload apps, install a 3rd party app store or replace entire OS with your own ROM right? What, your app/game is not valuable enough to the user to bother with unless it's a single click install without having to enter credit card? Well... Basically - Situation is not at all the same as with iOS - There is too much emphasis on friction-less low value installs and…

A third party app store can not automaticly apply updates to apps. The user has to explictly approve every update. This puts the play store in a privileged position of lower ongoing friction.

There was a recent Android blog post that said "we will be making changes in Android 12 (next year's Android release) to make it even easier for people to use other app stores on their devices". https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...

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

#44

Post by croes »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #7

Shouldn't this be inverted? Small devs with unknown apps have more to gain from play store's distribution, and won't mind paying 30% of a smaller revenue in exchange for all the help. Bigger apps like Netflix are already doing their own advertising and marketing and have close to zero to gain from play store. And they will be making a large amount of revenue. According to this they will have to pay 30% of a larger am…

Small devs gain neraly nothing from the App stores because their apps get lost in the masses. If they do have a successful app, they are immediately copied and they can't afford to fight it. And now they are supposed to give away 30% of the little income? How many percent of app developers achieve a revenue of 1 million?

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

#45

Post by bdcravens »

cute_boi wrote: post #34
cat_plus_plus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that Android is open source and you can just sideload apps, install a 3rd party app store or replace entire OS with your own ROM right? What, your app/game is not valuable enough to the user to bother with unless it's a single click install without having to enter credit card? Well... Basically - Situation is not at all the same as with iOS - There is too much emphasis on friction-less low value installs and…

this opensource thing is not so straight as you have explained. In Android these days I find lot of finance app using some proprietarytechnology like google safety net. And most app are using google play services which again is closed source. Android is not true opensource software ...

Snaps in Ubuntu also has proprietary components.

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

#46

Post by croes »

oh_sigh wrote: post #26

Wow, it sure is a coincidence that its being cut to basically the same rate (though a different structuring) as Apple. First google independently came up with the 30% rate just like Apple did, and then they independently came up with 15% for the first $1M like Apple did.

It has nothing to do with the antitrust lawsuits.

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

#47

Post by fakedang »

jahmed wrote: post #28
oh_sigh wrote: post #26

Wow, it sure is a coincidence that its being cut to basically the same rate (though a different structuring) as Apple. First google independently came up with the 30% rate just like Apple did, and then they independently came up with 15% for the first $1M like Apple did.

I get the sarcasm but really its a duopoly game like a Stackleberg. The best move is to match and not try to undercut.

This kind of price matching is the perfect definition of a duopoly.

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

#48

Post by dfabulich »

Here's the next achievable goal to fight for: I want the fee structure Microsoft provides on the Microsoft Store.

https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2018/05/07/a-new-...

Microsoft takes only a 5% cut if customers click on a link on my website with my referral code, taking them directly to the store details page.

Otherwise, they take a 15% cut.

> consumer applications (not including games) sold in Microsoft Store will deliver to developers 95% of the revenue earned from the purchase of your application or any in-app products in your application, when a customer uses a deep link to get to and purchase your application. When Microsoft delivers you a customer through any other method, such as in a collection on Microsoft Store or any other owned Microsoft properties, and purchases your application, you will receive 85% of the revenue earned from the purchase of your application or any in-app products in your application

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

#49

Post by danShumway »

nmfisher wrote: post #36
danShumway wrote: post #24

Further evidence that developer pressure and legal pressure on smartphone platforms work, that they aren't a waste of time. Prolonged campaigns for better terms can make a tangible difference, and we should be encouraged by this result to advocate for even better terms. It turns out that when they have real pressure, it is possible for Google and Apple to come up with better terms. Keep in mind that the reason Google…

> 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 be made if an ideologically pure company pushed for it. When conversation started talking about regulation, I heard people complain that it wasn't going to go anywhere and that regulators didn't care. Then when other companies like Hey and Microsoft started joining in making statements against current app store terms, people complained there weren't going to be any changes, that this was just a farce that would result in at best a backroom deal with Epic and/or Microsoft that wouldn't affect smaller devs.

Now there's a tangible policy change that will have a huge impact on smaller devs, and the complaint is that the wrong company had a role in it? What do you want?

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

#50

Post by loosetypes »

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…

Masters of Doom described a similar sentiment circa ‘93 only now “tech” are the perpetrators.
Post reply on HN