Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe's 9% Flash tax

blog.alexmaccaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#41

Post by samnm »

justindocanto wrote: post #40

So i would have to pay more if I become more successful? Even if the new revenue had nothing to do with the api im licensing? I see no fairness in this whatsoever. If my game makes 60k one year, then 300k the next year because I poured money into marketing, development, new content, better experience, etc.... why should adobe get more money? Especially if none of the new growth had anything to do with the licensing.…

It's not too far from the 30% that Apple charges for App Store distribution... You are paying for the use of Adobe's Flash Player.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#42

Post by ghshephard »

dwiel wrote: post #32
pavel_lishin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$79 is half of a percent of what you just spent on that software. While I agree that charging you is disappointing in principle, it's odd to fume over a penny when you just spent $150.

This reminds me of people who aren't willing to drive across town to save $250 on a $15000 car purchase, but who make sure to buy their groceries when they are on sale to save money ... Just because you recently spent $15,000 doesn't mean the next $80 are worth less.

False comparison - You buy a new car once every 5-7 years. You buy groceries 2-3 times a week.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#43

Post by rprasad »

azakai wrote: post #28
crazygringo wrote: post #7

Still, the $50K limit and 3D/memory-specific technology seems like there is only a handful of companies that will ever fulfill these conditions... and Adobe surely has a list of exactly who they are. So this is a very targeted policy that will never apply to 99.99% of us. Is this an accurate assessment?

> Still, the $50K limit and 3D/memory-specific technology seems like there is only a handful of companies that will ever fulfill these conditions... and Adobe surely has a list of exactly who they are. So this is a very targeted policy that will never apply to 99.99% of us. > Is this an accurate assessment? No. If you want to create a 3D game using Unity and deploy to Flash, for example, you will need to pay the 9%.…

Based on Adobe's announcements on this subject earlier in the week, the licensing requirement only applies to apps that use both the 3d and memory-optimization technologies. Using one or the other by itself won't require licensing. The practical effect on Unity-Flash games are that small 3d games should not be subject to the licensing requirement.

Caveat: Adobe has actually not issued specific rules or statements on when licensing is required, so until they do, any analysis is really just conjecture.

Edit: The facts on which I based my analysis have changed. Adobe has issued a FAQ, and Unity has confirmed that the Unity-Flash conversion uses both features. Consequently, the practical effect is that any game that succeeds in reaching the $50,000 revenue threshold will incur licensing fees of 9% on the revenue in excess of $50,000 (i.e., $0.09 for $50,001 total revenue, $4500 licensing fee for $100,000 total revenue).

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#44

Post by azakai »

benologist wrote: post #34
azakai wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still, the $50K limit and 3D/memory-specific technology seems like there is only a handful of companies that will ever fulfill these conditions... and Adobe surely has a list of exactly who they are. So this is a very targeted policy that will never apply to 99.99% of us. > Is this an accurate assessment? No. If you want to create a 3D game using Unity and deploy to Flash, for example, you will need to pay the 9%.…

You can of course make a Unity game and publish for the Unity web player. There's plenty of precedent for it these days. You might want to export to Flash if you're going the licensing/sponsorship route ala Armor Games, Kongregate etc but there's not a ton of demand for the 3d stuff anyway.

The Unity plugin is installed in far, far fewer places than Flash. That's why so many Unity devs have been asking for Flash export from Unity.

This 9% cost will affect all those developers. They are not a small group - Unity would not have put the effort it did into supporting a new (and very different) platform, Flash, if it wasn't for a large group.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#45

Post by justindocanto »

samnm wrote: post #41
justindocanto wrote: post #40

So i would have to pay more if I become more successful? Even if the new revenue had nothing to do with the api im licensing? I see no fairness in this whatsoever. If my game makes 60k one year, then 300k the next year because I poured money into marketing, development, new content, better experience, etc.... why should adobe get more money? Especially if none of the new growth had anything to do with the licensing.…

It's not too far from the 30% that Apple charges for App Store distribution... You are paying for the use of Adobe's Flash Player.

Two totally different things.

Apple has a giant marketplace thats allows people to find your app by search or discovery, they distribute it, they host it, they manage the servers for the store, they keep it secure, they host the feedback, they have a massive customer base that they offer your app to in an easy to use marketplace, etc. etc.

adobe is just unlocking a portion of an language/api essentially. Ive never heard of a premium upgrade taking a portion of your revenue. ive only ever seen a fixed rate to have access to better features. That's just insane. I would never pay this & I pay 25% of my revenue for a marketplace for my scripts & themes

9% for unlocking an api? that's insane/offensive/hilarious & i would never participate in such a thing. it feels like a bully taking part of my lunch money no matter how much my mom gave me.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#46

Post by ChuckMcM »

"I think it's pretty peculiar that Adobe would announce such a regressive tax,... even if you created the SWF yourself (using tools like haxe), you'd still have to pay the tax."

I disagree it is 'pretty peculiar', I think it is 'pretty obvious' why Adobe has done this. After years of growth and dividends and success, they have gone through a decade of sideways motions where they are resorting various and sundry cost cutting moves to keep their stock afloat. They have 'good enough' disease.

That is the disease where computers and their products which run on those computers have become 'good enough' and their customer base isn't rolling over every 12months to pony up an upgrade fee. One of the interesting ways to see this effect is to look for sales of technical books about older versions of a particular software. When they are still selling well it is because those folks are using the 'old' version rather than upgrade.

Given the pricing model Adobe doesn't have a good way to capture that market. They have aggressively been trying to shut down re-sale of older versions on Ebay and elsewhere but the courts have handed them a couple of set backs too because their licenses do actually allow it.

So they have a product, Flash, which they have already said is 'dead' [2] in that its future is maintenance only, and so they perhaps figure, what the heck, lets get some money out of it before it goes.

[1] http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...

[2] http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/10/technology/adobe_flash/index...

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#47

Post by JoeAltmaier »

billycravens wrote: post #38
vinayan3 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Apple takes a 30% tax and one says anything?

Google charges the same 30%: http://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/bin/a... However, this isn't an apt comparison to what Adobe's doing. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc provide the infrastructure, hosting, payment processing, and the integration into the device. Adobe is providing none of this, yet is still claiming a piece of the action.

None of that justifies a 'cover charge' - lots of folks make hardware, everybody has their store. They only 'provide' the store because they won't let anyone else.

The guys that do it, do it because they can.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#48

Post by rdw »

rprasad wrote: post #43
azakai wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still, the $50K limit and 3D/memory-specific technology seems like there is only a handful of companies that will ever fulfill these conditions... and Adobe surely has a list of exactly who they are. So this is a very targeted policy that will never apply to 99.99% of us. > Is this an accurate assessment? No. If you want to create a 3D game using Unity and deploy to Flash, for example, you will need to pay the 9%.…

Based on Adobe's announcements on this subject earlier in the week, the licensing requirement only applies to apps that use both the 3d and memory-optimization technologies. Using one or the other by itself won't require licensing. The practical effect on Unity-Flash games are that small 3d games should not be subject to the licensing requirement. Caveat: Adobe has actually not issued specific rules or statements on…

Adobe has released a FAQ: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/premium-fea...

Unity's export to Flash does currently require both 3D and memory-optimization technologies. Any Unity-Flash game that has a chance of netting $50k falls under the requirement, from what I currently understand. This basically covers any non-hobbyists. Unity could solve this problem by making their Flash exporter not use "domain memory", but that might be technically infeasible.

One interesting question is, if my company makes 5 games, each of which makes $49k, is that legit? Could I get away with taking down any game right before it nets the magic number and putting up a "new" game which is only slightly different? I'm guessing the answer is "no", but edge cases sound like a nightmare.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#49

Post by justindocanto »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #30
kenrikm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed: Personal Anecdote I made a $15,000 software purchase a few years ago (A bunch of copies of CS5 Master) and the same day I called for support because it was not running well on our brand new machines. I was told "Sorry sir you have to pay $79 to talk to a technician because you use a server (Level two Escalation)" Me: I just purchased $15,000 of software and I have to pay to talk to someone who may or may not…

$79 is half of a percent of what you just spent on that software. While I agree that charging you is disappointing in principle, it's odd to fume over a penny when you just spent $150.

this is ridiculous. i wish i could downvote.

so because i just spent 1500 on something valuable, i should be ok with spending 79 on something not worth its value?

also a lot of companies offer great customer service for high-ticket items for free in order to encourage more purchases so people feel 'they got what they paid for'.

adobe's value in support is nothing, zilch, nada, zero. paying 75 for it, even if i just paid 1500, is not worth it AND they could learn a thing or two about customer service and should offer it for free.

Re: Adobe's 9% Flash tax

#50

Post by AgentConundrum »

ghshephard wrote: post #42
dwiel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of people who aren't willing to drive across town to save $250 on a $15000 car purchase, but who make sure to buy their groceries when they are on sale to save money ... Just because you recently spent $15,000 doesn't mean the next $80 are worth less.

False comparison - You buy a new car once every 5-7 years. You buy groceries 2-3 times a week.

It's not a false comparison, and luckily I don't have to explain it, because this is covered in my personal favorite TED talk, "Dan Gilbert on our mistaken expectations".[1] It's a bit long for a TED talk, running for about half an hour, but I'd recommend at least reading the transcript if you can't watch the video.

The relevant portion comes after Gilbert sets up a situation not unlike the one being discussed here. People won't shlep across town to save $100 on a $31k car, but they will to save $100 on a $200 stereo. He explains the cognitive mistake as follows:

> This kind of thinking drives economists crazy, and it should. Because this 100 dollars that you save -- hello! -- doesn't know where it came from. It doesn't know what you saved it on. When you go to buy groceries with it, it doesn't go, I'm the money saved on the car stereo, or, I'm the dumb money saved on the car. It's money. And if a drive across town is worth 100 bucks, it's worth 100 bucks no matter what you're saving it on.

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.h...

Post reply on HN