Basically, they're hoping that this will stop some app developers from demanding the right to use third party payment processors, which would likely be used many of the larger >$1 million revenue publishers.
The Android Police article about this cites an example from iOS, that "On Apple's App Store, the 98% of developers who qualified for a lower revenue share rate were responsible for less than 5% of Apple's total collected revenue"
Also, I don't think Google mindlessly copies anything Apple does. Sure, part of it is pure competition. But I'm sure they also evaluated the reasons behind Apple's decision.
There wouldn't seem to be any strong reason for both stores to pick identical fee structures - they aren't really in competition.
Basically - Situation is not at all the same as with iOS - There is too much emphasis on friction-less low value installs and less on highly valuable things that users are willing to invest time and money on. Those apps would not survive without vendor-included single click app stores anyway.
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.
Technically Android is OpenSource.
De-facto - its not.
For many many years now Google is adding all non-os functionality into "support" libraries, "Google Services" - the name changes periodically - but the essence is the same: Making sure that any Android that is not "Google certified" won't be able to run Android apps - which all use these libraries - and won't have apps such as YouTube, Gmail, Photos come pre-installed..
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 ...
Where's a custom rom for my Blackberry Priv, for instance?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1328941/downl...
It's clearly written, a short read and gets interesting each subsequent page.
The android stuff begins on page 19.
User installable 3rd party app stores are cannot compete with the Play Store on feature parity because 3rd party app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can.
Manufacturers fight against users' abilities to root or replace their OS on the phones they sell. There are thousands of models of phones that will only ever run their OEM installed ROMs, and there are millions, if not billions, of Android devices that cannot be rooted or won't run custom ROMs, and more are produced every year.
For over 90% (rough guess) of devices this isn't true.
ARM isn't an open platform like Intel/PC.
I thought you could do that for apps through the Play store. For example I pay for the Windy app through Paypal.
Google has actually changed their minds on that, and will start being Apple-level strict in September of this year: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/google-announces-cra...
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.
While Google's change is nice, it doesn't address the core issue at all.
Anyway, Google's hold on mobile ecosystems is really a menace. So much so that it's difficult to even tell apart Google Play the store, Google Play the service(s), Google Play the library(/ies), and whatever else they call by that name.
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. Developer's can only make money from showing ads and at the same time can only get downloads if they place ads on other people's apps. And Google just happens to own all the mobile ad companies.
This 15% cut ends up "costing" Google virtually nothing.
And as for Google "helping developers build sustainable businesses", the only times they've ever reached out to me were to offer me the opportunity to have someone help me spend thousands of dollars a month on mobile ads. Never, for example, to actually take down all the scam apps that use my app's name, icon and screenshots.
If you have a brand-name app like Runtastic, Netflix, Headspace or whatever, the platform doesn't really matter. You buy the product, because you want it.
It's probably different for utility apps like a different Camera, a photo editor, small productivity apps you need only once per month.
I'm happy about this change and it will definitely affect my bottom line in the range of several thousand euro per month – and I'm an indie dev.
Edit: I just looked it up and calculated the difference. I will make roughly 17,000€ more per year through this change.
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 "reluctance to spend money on apps" is that it's a choice between that and food on the table.
Also, very few people are side-loading apps - the rest are too tech illiterate to make that happen.
Add: I responded to your post because you're calling Google Play a "pyramid scheme". From fisherfolk trying to sell at optimal prices to daily labourers hunting for jobs, you've no idea how many people are enabled by the platform and its apps.
Firstly, I'm not sure the struggling to survive demographic are the ones giving devices to their children.
Secondly, kids (and adults for that matter) have been conditioned by the market to expect software for free. You can read all my reviews on Google Play to see how offended they are that stuff isn't free, with some even moaning that there should be video ads that will unlock the app for 30 minutes.
Thirdly, I've seen YouTube videos made by kids specifically giving instructions how to download my apps for free. In fact, generally you just need to sideload just one "alternative app store" and you're good to go. This isn't rocket science. It's following a few simple steps that aren't hard to find.
Finally, I'm making broad generalisations about the vast majority of app store activity. The existence of fisherfolk isn't relevant here. I know people are enabled by the App Store existing. I've been lucky enough to live comfortably for the past decade entirely because App Stores exist. I'm merely offering a few thoughts from the perspective of a long term app developer that some people may not have realised.
The existence of ad supported apps and services and free software is what allowed me to teach myself programming and graphic design in school. In HN's dream world of hundreds of dollars of SaaS subscriptions, this would not have been possible, or certainly more difficult.
Disclaimer: I work for Google
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 that must chose between a $5 app and food on the table. I've just seen a lot of grumbling among even affluent people about dropping a few dollars on an app when they'll easily spend 3x as much on a single drink. That's a problem in the perception of value.
I wonder if app prices could be more on a sliding scale by geography? Has that been tried?
Sometimes yes. But also, spending money on apps you dont need is not virtue. For that matter, spending money on stuff you dont need is not virtue in general.
At least according to this site[0], Google play moves $38B, while Apple moves $72B (annually). So people are spending money on Google play, just less. But I also believe more people have android phones vs iPhones, so that dilutes the per person revenue even more.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/444476/google-play-annua...
Also Play store has 1.5x more apps.
So almost 8x difference for developers. (per person)
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.
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.
If you’re not committed enough to releasing something with >$100 in value or not committed to releasing something high quality, the App Store doesn’t need you or your app - period.
As a user (and as a dev), I like this. The bar does not need to be lower.
Also if you look at a platform like Unity, the Hobbyist license is $25 a month and the Pro license is $125 a month.
Literally, it’s $8.33 per month to be a part of the Apple Developer program. If your app isn’t making that much in a month, then your app isn’t very good or you’re bad at business. No disrespect intended, but $8.33 as a cost of doing business is so trivial as to not even be worth mention.
Most businesses fail because they don't get customers... that doesn't make starting a business a pyramid scheme.
App stores are super saturated with apps, there's the reason you can't make money. If you can't and choose to use ads ... that's your business decision...
Sometimes I think the issue of fees and other issues including poor customer service from google gets tied up with the difficulty of even just making any money on the play store / a whole glut of apps that straight up most won't make money no matter what happens.
How about occam's razor instead: people who buy cheaper phones have less cash to spend on "premium" apps.
https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/monument-valley-developer...
Respectfully, I would like a citation on this. How is piracy for Android any easier than say, Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux?
Desktops are a whole different kettle of fish, which is why profitable companies have (mostly) given up on selling software & are making money via SaaS approaches on desktop.
https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/monument-valley-developer...
The rent is higher to get in to the AppStore, too, given you need a $100/year subscription and a Mac. Apple keenly understands aspirational marketing and it trickles down to apps.
Of course Android has millions of users that simply can’t afford to buy apps, but even among those that can, it is a psychological difference.
If it's true or not, I don't know. But my impression from using both platforms daily is that iOS paid apps are higher quality, in both design/looks and performance.
While with Android even with most default roms it's just a matter of changing one setting in the options and transferring the pirated apk file to the device to launch it.
A much more straight-forward process with Android devices vs iOS devices and piracy strives on convenience.
Otherwise, this is a big win for small developers. Most developers probably don't approach the $1M cap, and all of them will see their fees drastically reduced.
Of course I'm cynical enough to view this mostly as a defensive measure against monopoly concerns, but that doesn't mean there's no benefit for many developers.
What do you believe, with respect to the app store, would be a more developer-friendly change? I'd like to see then allow developers to use different payment providers and not fight against alternate app stores that much. However for things that go through the play store even with a different payment provider, I think Google deserves some small cut for hosting all these apps and providing the platform. Something like a one-time fee for all paid apps or apps with paid content. It seems reasonable to pay them for use of their infrastructure in some form. Apps that make use of less of it-- like not using it's payment system-- would pay less.
But I do wonder if the problem doesn't lie in the fact that there are 5000000 apps and yours is just 5000001 that nobody is going to use. App market seems saturated.
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.
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 is being sued for antitrust isn't because it was taking 30% -- it's because it forced manufactures not to install or bundle any 3rd party stores by threatening to remove access to the Play store if any competing storefronts were enabled by default on consumer devices. So this doesn't change the original complaint, but it's still a very big win for smaller developers.
Sure, if you're Epic. For the rest of us minnows, we just have to play the hand we're dealt.
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?
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.
[1] https://forums.crackberry.com/developers-lounge-f9/mobihand-...
That is how things like anti-trust law work.
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
Ie if I go to the store and search "Netflix", the store hasn't helped me discover that product.
That means no scary warnings and endless dialogs filled with FUD about malware and stealing personal data, or requiring non-technical users to understand and enable a checkbox hidden deep inside the settings app, or dedicating full-time teams of security researchers to finding and irresponsibly disclosing vulnerabilities in competing stores, among other things.
Because when there's competition, a fee structure like what the Microsoft Store has will naturally appear.
That’s less than the Stripe tax!
I said it about Apple and I’ll say it about Google: this is a PR move, nothing more.
Google really missed an opportunity here to put Apple in a tough spot by just cutting it to 15%.
Your biggest users of your payment infrastructure are also the most likely, most willing and most able to handle their own payments because they already do (eg Netflix, Epic).
If either company has reduced their cut to 15% for only their largest customers then this would make sense as a business decision. Doing the opposite is trying to stave off government intervention, nothing more.
The writing is on the wall for being the sole payments provider AND charging 30% for it. The only question is what they will be forced to do and (imho) you’re better off placating your biggest customers because they’re the ones who will likely sue you and lobby against you in the US/EU.
Why would Google want to start a bidding war here? They're both monopolies and they don't compete with each other. If Google lowers the fee to 5%, that's not going to convince developers (and their customers) to leave iOS for Android; it's just going to shift revenues out of Google's piggy bank and into developers' piggy banks in the best case.
In the worst case, it will increase anti-trust scrutiny, either because Apple doesn't lower it so they're showing they don't need to compete, or they do lower it despite it being an illogical business decision (and possibly inviting lawsuits from shareholders), suggesting that there's some collusion going on to stave off anti-trust regulation.
If I make $2 million on Apple i'll have to pay $600k in fees.
On Google it's $450k.
I assumed it wouldn't be that dumb. Is it really the case?
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 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 been exempt after bad PRs )
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.
Nothing doing. Still about 50 imitation apps that come up in their search when looking for my app.
I'm not familiar with the app dev business. There's a 2016 post from Mike Sonders about ios and android game revenue [1] that suggests that app revenue is extremely skewed, to the extent that 0.3% of apps in the category of top 500 action games accrue over 90% of the revenue. I.e. the top 1 or top 2 games out of the _top 500 games_ in the category get 90% of the revenue.
If the same relationship holds for other categories, that suggests that the bottom 99.7% of the app distribution accounts for at most 10% of play store revenue, so cutting fees by 50% for the bottom 99% of developers would reduce google's rake by at most 5%.
[1] https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-reve...
I believe Google & Apple should not be allowed to take a percentage at all. It should be a tiered system of fees, like a subscription or something. Sure, their systems help distribute and promote discovery of our apps, so let us pay for that. It should be a yearly fee appropriate for this service.
The idea they they deserve to hover up a percentage of everyone’s business in perpetuity is completely bonkers. They don’t deserve it. But they do deserve to be paid for running the app store infrastructure and services.
We should be able to pay for it, but we should also be able to choose not to use it, and bypass the Apple/Google duopoly on mobile app distribution for more competitive options, which we currently can't do. Apple bans all mobile app distribution competitors, and Google makes sure that competitors cannot compete with the Play Store on feature parity, either.
and what would be the fair price for that?
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 downloads then you have to bump up to the next tier. Maybe there would be an enterprise level for huge companies.
Imagine if all developers on Google play started off paying $100 a year, that alone would weed out a lot of the BS & discourage low effort bad actors.
I don't want to install your application, just give me a good web mobile experience.
And if your app is FOSS, consider F-Droid among other options.
If safari browser had a Safari store with 30% cut pretty sure chrome extension store would also be charging 30% instead of their 5% now.
The fact remains that developers are very happy to give 30% when their sales increase with a few factors.
I don't know what the real pricing should be, but I can't see how the pricing for something like Google's games would match up against Steam. They don't have feature parity, and some of the features they have are way less useful on mobile. E.g. I wouldn't use their chat even if it existed; my phone already has 4 or 5 messengers.
What does this even mean? "on a path to self-sustaining" makes it seem like they're not currently self-sustainable. Given the crazy profit margins in software, I find it hard to believe that most apps making millions per year are not sustainable.
I urge everyone to simply just develop web apps and it will be competitive enough.
Seriously, when did fees of 15-30% for a service that you essentially cannot avoid as a software publisher become acceptable?
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.
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.
[1] https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/18/app-store-commission-cut-anti...
[2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/13/spotify-supports-...
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 amount.
It feels backwards.
Realistically, that's probably where much of the money is at; if anything, props to them for getting away with it.
Valve is presumably hoping giving these large publishers a deal will cause them to reevaluate the effort in developing and maintaining their own storefronts.
...In otherwords, it's also an anticompetitive play, it's just the one that makes sense in Valve's particular monopoly space.
Poorer citizens with unknown prospects have more to gain from the government's services, and won't mind paying 30% of their earnings for all that help.
Wealthier citizens like Bezos and Musk are already taking care of their own garbage, lobbying, education, protection and who knows what else and have close to zero to gain from government services.
I'll withhold judgement. It's certainly an unconventional argument to make in a world where progressive tax rates are the conventional norm. But we do live in interesting times.
It's almost like the standard wasn't ever set in stone or based on careful cost-benefit analysis to begin with.
30% seems like a reasonable fee but the problem is when you are forced to pay it. As a small dev I'm happy to pay 30% for what is a great value. A company like netflix probably doesn't see as much value when the cost of doing their own payment processing becomes cheaper.
