[HN Gopher] Amazon Appstore will reduce its developer revenue cut
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon Appstore will reduce its developer revenue cut
Author : WaitWaitWha
Score : 201 points
Date : 2021-06-17 16:44 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.aftvnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.aftvnews.com)
| aeturnum wrote:
| This has real "company scrip" vibes that I am not crazy about.
| I'm sure it will be good in the short term for companies that are
| already using a lot of AWS services and have a lot of sales on
| the Amazon app store[1], but long term doubling down on Amazon's
| offerings seems risky.
|
| I wonder if the solution, instead of breaking up amazon et. al.,
| is to subsidize small companies' spend in the space in a way that
| effectively equalizes subsidies. These pricing strategies matter
| the most when you are small and dealing with a lot of cashflow
| problems and there's a real risk that you choose the provider you
| can afford and then get stuck.
|
| [1] does anyone have a lot of sales on the amazon app store....?
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| Think you mean "scrip", not "script".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip
| ahmedalsudani wrote:
| New word of the day! This one is going to come in handy.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I absolutely do! Thank you.
| Spivak wrote:
| Eh I mean that's what Amazon is hoping but it only happens if
| you start depending on the AWSBucks.
|
| * Pay 30% to Apple or Google on their stores.
|
| * Pay 20% to Amazon on their store and get 10% in AWS credits.
|
| If you just treat it like the credits are worthless then it
| might still be a good deal. But probably not since Amazon is
| cutting fees and offering incentives because their store has so
| few customers. The Microsoft store had similar programs a while
| back and it didn't really go anywhere.
|
| People always focus on the Apple "tax" but forget that the App
| Store and the Play Store's value are as sales channels and they
| can get away with charging that much because in aggregate
| publishers will make more money paying it than not being in the
| store. Amazon doesn't have that value prop currently.
| servercobra wrote:
| Except for developers starting out, it's 15% to Apple or
| Google if you're making under 1 million.
|
| I'm very confused why Amazon changed their cut and are still
| above the big players (unless you value AWS credits 1:1 with
| dollars).
| karmicthreat wrote:
| Amazon would pay their employees in store credit if they
| thought they could get away with it.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| Similar to company scrip, this reminds me of "Charles Robin and
| Company" from the Gaspe region of Canada. The company was an
| exporter of fish that abused its monopoly position in the
| market. Fishermen were independent businesses but Robin's
| company was both buying the fishermens' catch (thus setting its
| price) and also the mortgage lender for the fishing boats (so
| they controlled their debt too).
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Might incentize some new spendings on AWS service.
| aeturnum wrote:
| Given that Amazon already makes a lot of money on AWS and
| that they have lots of cash on hand, I am very skeptical that
| they need more financial incentives to be able to develop new
| services.
|
| Like, this could happen, but it feels like the marginal
| utility of the "aws buks" are near zero for Amazon itself.
| _jal wrote:
| If the Amazon Bux are transferrable, it is less of a problem.
|
| If they aren't, well, yeah, they're crack coupons.
| entangledqubit wrote:
| Isn't any compute more-or-less transferable (presumably at
| less than AWS's dollar cost) if you take it and mine some
| currency with it? I assume there's something out there that
| effectively buy spares cycles if you install a client. Or
| resell S3 space. (And yes, this may be potentially dangerous
| to your AWS account reputation.)
| tshaddox wrote:
| Sure, but it's almost certainly going to be exchangeable
| for a very small portion of its face value.
| Verdex wrote:
| This is actually something that I'm hoping that eventually
| homomorphic encryption would enable. Right now it's kind of
| a bad idea to buy leased out computation time from
| arbitrary sources. "Hey, I have all these AWS credits and I
| want to recoup the value of them, so I'll give you a 10%
| discount on compute time. Uh oh, it turns out I'm also a
| competitor for your protein folding endeavor, so I'll be
| analyzing your inputs to steal your secrets and then
| returning faulting outputs." I suppose you could just
| demand admin access to their AWS account and lock them out
| for the duration of your lease, but that's just as bad idea
| for them as the opposite is for you.
|
| If we had efficient homomorphic encryption, then we could
| just sell so many operations. Then someone looking to lease
| second hand computation could just put a counter in the
| output to make sure they're actually running the full
| amount and bingo cryptographically certain results.
| slg wrote:
| It is weird how we allow monopolistic behavior if the company
| is part of an oligopoly rather than a pure monopoly. If we
| agree this is an abusive business practice, the specific market
| share of Amazon's app store shouldn't matter.
| hobofan wrote:
| I'm wondering whether Google in their Play Store revenue cut
| reduction considered doing the same thing but decided against
| it due to the antitrust risk.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Great reminder that Android manages to have a third party app
| store or two run by giant companies (there's a Samsung one as
| well I believe) and it doesn't water down the Google Play Store
| or lead to important exclusive apps being restricted to those
| stores. A lessons for those who believe Apple opening up their
| apps would pose a threat to the App Store.
| DoctorOW wrote:
| It's amazing to me that all the comments here are about Apple
| when the much larger Google Play store also has a Google cloud
| offering that competes with AWS. If Google implemented something
| similar to this they could score big customers who have an app on
| both Apple/Google stores.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| If I had to guess why that doesn't exist, I'd guess that Google
| is scared of anything that smells like abusing monopoly power
| given all of the government interest in them over the last
| couple of years. Of course, big corporations are weird. I could
| just be overthinking it and it's just that the cloud folks and
| the play store folks don't talk to each other.
| otrahuevada wrote:
| Why is charging a flat fee never an option? Just take $200 and
| let me do my thing. Taking any % of my income on the regular as a
| kind of existence tax is detrimental for the ecosystem.
| DoctorOW wrote:
| I've never developed for Amazon, but on Apple it's both.
| $99/year + 30%
| CodesInChaos wrote:
| 1. Some of their costs scale with the number of purchases or
| revenue made through the shop (traffic, support, payment
| processing fees)
|
| 2. Fixed costs, like development effort, need to be distributed
| across their customers. Fixed fees will be negligible for big
| customers and unaffordable for small customers.
|
| 3. They're gatekeepers for these devices. If you want your app
| on a device they can control you need to pay their fees. So as
| long as the fees are not big enough to deter a developer from
| publishing their app for that device, they can charge whatever
| they want.
|
| I think revenue sharing is the best pricing model for an app
| store, but without abusing the gatekeeper status the fees would
| likely be significantly lower.
| ramesh1994 wrote:
| While I do agree with what you've said, I think they should
| be able to price these into a bill that they can send the app
| developers monthly. They have shown competency in running the
| pricing on AWS to such great margins and few people seem to
| complain about pricing.
|
| Perhaps it is a combination of the sentiment that they are
| owed a percentage of your income and it being such a large
| number (20-30%) frustrates the developers.
| Yeroc wrote:
| There are incremental costs involved in bandwidth, if nothing
| else, to actually distribute your application so it makes sense
| it's not a simple flat fee.
| otrahuevada wrote:
| I've actually never looked at what the bandwidth and storage
| costs for my apps could be. But also, they could easily be
| taken out of the equation by letting me pay for that
| separately? Inclusion in the mandatory single point of
| failure that is the app stores _by itself_ should not demand
| a hefty, ongoing tax
| Siira wrote:
| You are asking the thieves to just take $200 when they can take
| more? Good dreams.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| That's... nuts.
|
| It increases developer revenue by ~15%, and adds an AWS credit
| for another ~15% on top of that.
|
| I've never really felt the urge to develop a public-facing app on
| my own, but I'm going to have to give it some serious thought
| now. Developing an Android app through contract labor and
| distributing it via Amazon's App Store could potentially end up
| bootstrapping another line of business by providing AWS
| infrastructure.
|
| Now, if Amazon comes out with a viable competitor for Oculus and
| quickly expands into AR...
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| They are doing this because the platform is not attractive
| enough for developers. Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing this.
|
| 70% of something easily beasts 90% of almost nothing, ever day.
| mypalmike wrote:
| I think you replied to a sarcastic comment. But honestly I'm
| not sure.
| GrinningFool wrote:
| I don't think it was sarcastic.
|
| When BlackBerry was adding incentives to get developers to
| build for their new platform, their app store got flooded
| with minimum-qualifying-effort crap. I'd expect something
| similar here, if people think it'll pay off.
| ohyeshedid wrote:
| You don't have to expect, Amazon's app store is filled
| with shovelware already.
|
| I'm wondering what the magic in accounting is doing with
| this incentive structure.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Haha, wake me when they start paying developers to publish on the
| Amazon Appstore. Remember, this is for the de-Google-ified
| Android devices Amazon sells. They don't have Google services so
| chances are your apps will need major refactoring, and then you
| are stuck supporting two ecosystems all the time that are subtly
| different and broken (Amazon tries to emulate some Google
| services) while the Google side keeps tightening the noose around
| your neck that are the Google services.
|
| And all that, to sell on an app store for devices that are the
| cheapest crap imaginable and attract a crowd that is about the
| opposite of what you would want when charging money for apps.
| Black101 wrote:
| was there a lawsuit in the rear view mirror?
| the_reformation wrote:
| I wonder if this is the way Apple and Google will eventually
| retreat from their 30%* cut, by using their app store chokepoint
| to nudge developers to their platform. Seems like a worse
| monopolistic practice than the 30% cut to me.
|
| For Google, that'd obviously be GCP discount. For Apple, less
| obvious. Pushing iCloud storage? Apple Music? They've already
| forced every app to support Apple Pay and Sign In with Apple, so
| they likely don't even need the carrot.
|
| *yes I know its not 30% anymore for some/most usecases.
| toomuchredbull wrote:
| The Amazon what now? I didn't even know this was a thing. If
| anything they probably did it to atttract developers to a non-
| successful platform.
| ineedasername wrote:
| They sell a ton of kindle fires. Their app store doesn't have
| the selection of iOS or Android, but it's got a significant #
| of apps that average consumers might consider deal-breakers. In
| particular, as a cheap iPad alternative for kids, they have
| plenty of games.
| tediousdemise wrote:
| Your move, Apple.
| shagie wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > Apple announced last year that it will reduce its App Store's
| developer revenue cut from 30% to 15% for developers that earn
| less than $1 million in revenue per year. This change went into
| effect at the start of 2021. Earlier this year, Google
| announced that it too will reduce the Play Store's cut form 30%
| to 15%, but only for the first $1 million in annual revenu
| earned by all developers. That change will go into effect on
| July 1st.
|
| > This change by the Amazon Appstore brings its revenue share
| more closely in line with the new policies of Apple's App Store
| and Google's Play Store. ...
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| Ahhh the company store.
| cwkoss wrote:
| For developers who don't want to use AWS Credit for normal
| business operations, has anyone figured what sort of crypto
| mining on AWS has the highest ROI?
|
| Seems like you could convert AWS credit to crypto to 'cash it
| out'. Do you get 10% of the face value of the credits or more or
| less?
| lallysingh wrote:
| My guess is spot instances, I dunno if you can get them with
| gpus attached.
|
| EDIT: yes you can: https://bash-prompt.net/guides/aws-gpu-spot/
| speedgoose wrote:
| Joke aside, you really do not care about the environment if
| consider crypto mining on AWS.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| I would imagine mining in a datacenter is more efficient than
| mining on a desktop.
| deathanatos wrote:
| Perhaps not, but hasn't Amazon here basically lined up the
| incentives to make it the most logical thing for someone to
| do? A person in this scenario is receiving AWS credit they
| don't want, AWS won't offer a market for, so they're
| exchanging? arbitraging? it into some cryptocurrency. (And
| from there, probably to cash.)
| cwkoss wrote:
| Someone should make an AWSWS webservice where you can get
| paid to run others' instances on your account to monetize
| credits - would probably be a lot more efficient.
|
| Would be interesting to see where the market prices these
| credits.
| [deleted]
| dannyw wrote:
| This is a cute offer, I like it. It's clear that app store costs
| have been going down for small developers, which is a really nice
| thing to see. This is only happening thanks to regulatory
| attention.
|
| It would be nice if more preferable terms can still be had for
| medium sized companies, who are the biggest competitive to the
| mega caps. I'm talking about maybe <$100M of revenue per year,
| 20% would be nice.
|
| <$1 million: 15% (or 10% if using same platform)
|
| $1 - $100 million: 20%
|
| >$100 million: 30%.
| caymanjim wrote:
| Amazon has an app store? For what, Kindle/Fire type devices?
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Its been around for a decade.
| adamqureshi wrote:
| Yes. I would like know too. APP store for what?
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Good thing they're cutting, because obv, it's not worth the
| same cut as other companies that properly promote their
| AppStore.
|
| This is just a play to nudge apple to reduce prices by trying a
| new anchor
| bogwog wrote:
| > This is just a play to nudge apple to reduce prices by
| trying a new anchor
|
| Not really, this is just them copying Apple and Google. This
| fee reduction only applies to developers making less than $1
| million per year in revenue, which IIRC is the same thing the
| others are doing. (although to be fair, there probably aren't
| a ton of devs making more than $1m per year on their store
| lol)
|
| I think this is most likely a ploy to stave off regulation.
| In other words, they're doing the exact same thing
| Apple/Google are doing for the exact same reasons.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > although to be fair, there probably aren't a ton of devs
| making more than $1m per year on their store lol
|
| Why would you assume that? I don't know if there are or
| not.
|
| If you have, oh, 5 or 10 developers working for a company,
| it better have $1 million/year in revenue to pay them all.
|
| I don't know how many entities selling apps in an app store
| have more than 5 developers, or otherwise how many have
| more than $1 million in revenue.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Didn't notice the <1m. Then yes, they're following.
| Forge36 wrote:
| I have it, generally i don't use it. I think it's primary
| purpose is their own devices but they didn't device lock their
| own app.
| salamandersauce wrote:
| Yeah. It was also made available on BB10 when they added
| Android compatibility near the end. I used it more when they
| handed out free apps every day.
| bogwog wrote:
| > It was also made available on BB10 when they added
| Android compatibility near the end.
|
| BB10 launched with Android compatibility, IIRC. I know that
| the first phone they released with it (BB Z10) had it.
| simcop2387 wrote:
| All android devices actually. You can usually side load it onto
| any android device
| cableshaft wrote:
| The way the headline is worded made me think it was giving
| developers less money, but it sounds like it's actually giving
| them more money as it's reducing Amazon's cut. So yeah, seems
| good for devs on that platform.
| tolbish wrote:
| Definitely misleading. It should say "Amazon will reduce _its_
| dev. revenue cut... "
| lamontcg wrote:
| The title on the actual article reads exactly that way.
| [deleted]
| fullstop wrote:
| It's also encouraging them to use AWS instead of Google
| Cloud/Microsoft Azure/etc.
| [deleted]
| sheikheddy wrote:
| ...what? This sounds like a blatant way to reduce the amount paid
| out, like their backloaded stock offers.
|
| Edit: Actually read TFA, I was mistaken, this is about reducing
| the fee charged to app developers. On surface a good thing,
| didn't even know Amazon had an app store.
| castlecrasher2 wrote:
| It's a terrible title for sure, I imagine most would interpret
| it the same way you and I initially did.
| [deleted]
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Amazon Appstore will reduce developer revenue cut from 30% to
| 20% and give 10% in Free AWS Credit
|
| I feel like this title is amazingly hard to read for many reasons
| all working against us at the same time!
|
| 'developer revenue cut' really means it's Amazon's part that's
| reducing, not the developer's.
|
| And they're reducing the 'cut' as in the proportion, not reducing
| some other previous cut they made to revenue.
|
| 'Amazon reduces App Store fee from 30% to 20% and also gives 10%
| in AWS credit' is I think what they mean, and is the opposite of
| almost every way I could find to read their title.
| dang wrote:
| Submitted title was "Amazon will reduce dev. revenue cut from
| 30% to 20% and give 10% in AWS Credit". We've replaced it with
| a prefix of the article title. (The specific numbers don't need
| to be in the title, and we try to avoid abbrevs.)
| have_faith wrote:
| It took me multiple passes to read even though I already
| understood what it was trying to say.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Sorry, for some reason I'm still having a hard time
| understanding. If a developer with less than $1 million in
| revenue sells an app on Amazon's app store for $100 Amazon
| would get $30 and the developer would get $70 from each sale
| but now Amazon will get $20 and the developer will get $80
| _plus_ $10 in AWS credit from each sale. Am I understanding
| that correctly?
| jrockway wrote:
| That's exactly right.
| conductr wrote:
| That's how I grep. But wouldn't be shocked if the credit was
| $8
| eipipuz wrote:
| That's what I understand as well.
| idorosen wrote:
| The first paragraph of the article is much clearer, and seems
| to agree with your interpretation:
|
| "The Amazon Appstore has announced that it will be reducing
| its cut of developer revenue from 30% to 20% for developers
| that earn less than $1 million in revenue per year. The new
| terms, which Amazon is calling the Amazon Appstore Small
| Business Accelerator Program, will also provide developers
| with AWS promotional credit in an amount equivalent to 10
| percent of the developer's revenue if they earn less than $1
| million in revenue per year. If a developer chooses to use
| those AWS credits, that brings their total Amazon Appstore
| revenue share up from 70% to an equivalent of 90%."
| elliekelly wrote:
| I think maybe I was (am?) reading too much into it because
| when I initially read that paragraph it just left me more
| confused! I guess I don't really understand how the
| accounting of it works because they called it a "revenue
| share" which made me think one sale would result in:
|
| $80 in developer revenue
|
| $20 in Amazon revenue
|
| But it also said the AWS credits will be based off of the
| developer's revenue and judging by the "equivalent of 90%"
| it would seem that Amazon sees the transaction as more
| like:
|
| $100 in developer revenue
|
| ($20) in developer expenses to list on the app store
| resulting in
|
| $20 in Amazon revenue
|
| But I wouldn't consider that revenue sharing?
| biztos wrote:
| From the quoted paragraph I get:
|
| You sell for $100. Amazon was taking $30. Now Amazon takes
| $20 and gives you a "promotional credit" of 10% of the $80,
| or $8.
|
| So if you use _all_ of the "promotional credit" then you
| make $88 which is not quite the equivalent of 90% but
| pretty close.
|
| Assuming "promotional credit" means just regular credit you
| can use for anything on AWS, I wonder how much of this
| credit either gets left on the table (don't need AWS,
| credit expires) or stimulates further spending for Amazon
| (let's use AWS, it's "free").
|
| It might be interesting to have that extra 8% not booked as
| revenue, but IANAn Accountant.
| handrous wrote:
| What are the _tax_ implications of this? Is that $8
| income?
| ezekg wrote:
| Why would a credit be taxable? Regardless, you don't pay
| taxes on expenses anyways. IANAL.
| pbreit wrote:
| Pretty sure it's 10% of $100 and so according to Amazon
| "This brings total program benefits up to an equivalent
| of 90 percent of revenue."
| pbreit wrote:
| Totally!
|
| In fact, developer share is increasing from 70% to 90% (with
| 10% being paid in AWS credits).
| p1necone wrote:
| It's increasing to 80%, the 10% AWS credit is nice, but it's
| not the same thing as an actual extra 10% of revenue.
|
| Lets not forget the past:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store
| thih9 wrote:
| That seems a dangerous way of wording this. The market value
| of AWS credits is less than the equal amount in regular
| currency (so: 10% in AWS credits is less than 10% of the
| revenue). The developer share is increasing to 80% (with
| bonus AWS credits).
|
| Also:
|
| > You may not sell, license, rent, or otherwise transfer
| Promotional Credit. Promotional Credit may be applied only to
| your own AWS account. Promotional Credit has no intrinsic
| value, is not redeemable for cash, has no cash value, is
| nonrefundable, and serves merely as a means to provide an
| incentive to use our Services. Promotional Credit may not be
| purchased for cash, and we and our affiliates do not sell
| Promotional Credit.
|
| Source: https://aws.amazon.com/awscredits/
|
| And:
|
| > The AWS promotional credits can be used for 12 months from
| the date they were granted.
|
| Source: https://developer.amazon.com/blogs/appstore/post/93e8
| 9be7-16...
| munk-a wrote:
| While I definitely agree that saying it's upping the take
| home from 70% to 90% would be misleading - in a fair number
| of cases that 10% credit will be pretty easy to convert to
| direct value. It is certainly more valuable than, say, 10%
| of earnings being spendable on Amazon Basic items - they're
| not quite trying to pull a company store trick here and the
| fact that 80% of revenue is take-home sales already puts a
| decent chunk above Apple.
| runarberg wrote:
| As a general labor rule, when a company gives me credit,
| I value that at $0. Even if this is technically wrong (it
| is definitely valued more) the reason for this is that
| the limitation imposed to how I use the value of my labor
| is a disingenuous negotiation tactic and I will not under
| any circumstances let my self by fooled by it. Therefore
| I treat the 10% credit as nothing more valuable then a
| smile or a letter of good will.
| servercobra wrote:
| Apple gives 85% for devs under a million/year in sales.
| Google as well.
| [deleted]
| saurik wrote:
| FWIW, I had understood it first try, but I do agree that it is
| a bit strange as the normal way of phrasing this would be
| "Amazon reducing their cut of developer revenue from...".
| chrisseaton wrote:
| How did you disambiguate 'developer revenue cut' to be
| Amazon's cut not the developer's? Since it says 'developer'
| not 'Amazon'.
|
| And weirder than that it's not Amazon's cut of the
| developer's 'revenue' either - since the developer was never
| getting it in the first place - it's their cut of the sale
| price, or the combined revenue, not the developer's revenue.
| saurik wrote:
| 1) We normally don't talk about the developer /
| manufacturer getting a cut: we talk about the middleman /
| sales channel "taking their cut", so inherently the word
| "cut" is biased to make it at least sort of understandable.
|
| 2) And no: developer "revenue" is the full cost of the
| receipt, and then a cost of their doing business is the cut
| taken by the platform, which decreases their resulting
| "income". The word "revenue" specifically is a number from
| which you deduct costs to obtain "income".
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I think revenue is money you get your hands on, and then
| pay costs out of. If you never get your hands on it then
| it's not your revenue, it's someone else's revenue that
| they're paying _their_ costs - your developer fee - out
| of. Like a singer 's revenue is not all record sales as
| they're not selling the records they've just licensed
| someone else to do so and they're getting a cut (wait...
| so that's cut the other way around...)
| saurik wrote:
| So, the definition "money you get your hands on"
| definitely isn't correct, and the way to make this
| clearer is to think of it in terms of credit card
| processing and merchant accounts: if you sell a $5
| product and the credit card processor takes $0.25, your
| revenue is $5, not $4.75, and they actually will report
| the full $5 to the government as part of a 1099-K and
| then your job is to report that full gross income and
| deduct the fees you paid. They also will report any sales
| you made which were refunded, and you would then
| separately report deductions for that also.
|
| Now, that said, one can actually use that construction to
| argue that the store is then having revenue, and giving a
| royalty to the developer or something, and in fact my
| store did something where I sometimes modeled it as a
| retail storefront of licenses I purchased wholesale, but
| these are just not normal models for how the word "cut"
| is then applied: most people reasonably--and I think
| correctly--believe that the user bought something from
| the developer, with the store acting merely as a
| middleman payment processor charging a "fee" or taking a
| "commission" off of every sale (and I am pretty sure at
| least Google even models it directly in that way in its
| reports; there are a ton of advantages to the store to
| doing that, and I think even Apple sometimes reaches for
| this model).
|
| From such standpoint, and to look at this using
| descriptive linguistics, you simply don't ever see anyone
| say "Apple recently increased the cut of smaller
| developer's from 70% to 85%": every single headline I've
| seen says "Apple recently decreased their cut from
| smaller developers from 30% to 15%".
| gouggoug wrote:
| > How did you disambiguate 'developer revenue cut' to be
| Amazon's cut not the developer's? Since it says 'developer'
| not 'Amazon'.
|
| To me it's because in my mind "Amazon" is the person taking
| a "cut".
|
| We never say "developers take 70% cut of the app store
| revenue", because developers don't "take a cut", they sell,
| and amazon takes a cut of their sale.
|
| Still, I agree, the title is ambiguous.
| cortesoft wrote:
| It made sense to me the first time I read it because I know
| most app stores appear to have settled around 30% as their
| cut, so I just assumed the 30% referred to the amount
| Amazon was taking. The rest just followed logically.
| mistersquid wrote:
| > How did you disambiguate 'developer revenue cut' to be
| Amazon's cut not the developer's? Since it says 'developer'
| not 'Amazon'.
|
| Amazon to reduce its cut of dev revenue from 30% to 20%
| with 10% in AWS Credit
|
| or
|
| Amazon to reduce its cut of dev revenue from 30% to 20%
| plus 10% in AWS Credit
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-17 23:01 UTC)