51–60 of 342 posts
Funny that it then goes on to list lots of stuff where no human support is actually involved. The support developers want is to get a person to talk to when Google's algorithms ban their app or account for no reason and wrecks their business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make $999k in revenue, you will receive almost $850k in profit. If you make $1000k in revenue, you will instead receive $700k in profit. You're strangely incentivized to completely shut down your app as you approach the 1000k mark, unless you're confident you'll make it past the 1200k mark, where it's worth it again. Silly system.
That does seem terrible. It should be bracketed how our taxes are, honestly.
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…
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…
I find this a little amusing because it's the exact reason why Microsoft lost their IE anti-trust case. Users were given IE by default, and because using something else required effort IE took a huge chunk of the market remarkably quickly. That was deemed to be violating their effective monopoly position on OSs to influence their position in a different market (browsers). Microsoft were made to add a screen in the Windows on-boarding process that gave users options about which browser they wanted.
Sometimes using user 'laziness' to maintain or gain market share doesn't work out so well for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine that it's speculation but it's reasonable speculation, since maximizing profits is pretty much the sole goal of a publicly traded corporation at the end of the day.
I don't think that supports the speculation since as the GP stated, Google is actually doing the opposite of maximizing profits in this case.
Google and Apple understand this well. Since small businesses account for a small % of their revenue, they simply offer a better deal to those small businesses. Now Spotify/Epic Games/Candycrush people will have to argue “but think of the large businesses!” That doesn’t have the same ring to it somehow.
The majority of App/Play Store revenue is protected from government intervention, and profits are maximised. Make sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“ The App Store's standard commission rate of 30 percent remains in place for apps selling digital goods and services and making more than $1 million in proceeds, defined as a developer's post-commission earnings” [1] What is convoluted and worse? I am not a mobile Dev at this time, just going by what I see online. Edit: [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s...
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-...
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 St…
Ie if I go to the store and search "Netflix", the store hasn't helped me discover that product.
Very similar. While I have had reservations on people marching for third party stores in iOS, maybe it is not a bad idea. But what if Epic, FB and Google just create a new app store with their privacy invasive ways? This bugs me. Sure it is hard but a coalition can make it possible right?
Either way, we need to ask for better terms for sure.
Earlier 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…
The App/Play Stores are borderline anti-competitive due to the huge imbalance of power. A 30%->15% reduction doesn't change that. So while it's nice, the fundamental problem hasn't been solved.
What do I want? Pretty simple. I don't want to run my business at the whims of two unaccountable monopolies, and I want the option of extricating myself from their ecosystem. Specifically, this means:
- My choice of store/payment processor on both iOS and Google devices
- a clear, impartial and independent review process that determines whether or not an app's removal from the "official" stores was legitimate.
Ideally I'd also like direct installation ("sideloading") to be as simple as desktop software, but that's probably a bit of a reach.