[HN Gopher] Subscription service charge on Google Play store wil...
___________________________________________________________________
Subscription service charge on Google Play store will drop to 15%
next year
Author : aembleton
Score : 174 points
Date : 2021-10-21 16:23 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (android-developers.googleblog.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (android-developers.googleblog.com)
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| Can someone explain the subscription on Google Play and Apple App
| Store today?
|
| I launched an app for a B2B SAAS service that clients paid ten of
| thousands of dollars a year for. We put the app which was
| secondary to the web dashboard which the clients used mostly
| during business hours in the Apple App Store and on Google Play
| without mentioning any payment in the product description which
| both allowed. When I first submitted the app Apple said we had to
| remove the link to the payment form on our website after which
| they were cool with as long as it wasn't on the app description.
| We billed the users and maintained the accounts through the web
| application and web dashboard without giving any money to Google
| or Apple.
|
| Is this still allowed today?
| radley wrote:
| Apple allows B2B to bill outside of the app store. Can't speak
| for Google's Play Store.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Should be 0% or otherwise heavily discounted for your first $x in
| sales. More money in early products today will mean more revenue
| for google later.
| ksec wrote:
| >Today, we're also making changes to the service fee in the Media
| Experience program, to better accommodate differences in these
| categories. Ebooks and on-demand music streaming services, where
| content costs account for the majority of sales, will now be
| eligible for a service fee as low as 10%.
|
| And I _think_ Google has always been taking 15% on the first
| million revenue on services. Which wasn 't clear in the post.
|
| The 10% changes is welcome. But may be too little too late in
| terms of legal and regulation.
| shining373 wrote:
| Do you know about "Payoneer Google Pay"? What you're seeing right
| is talking about two different online payment platforms for
| business. Basically, we have Google pay, PayPal and that of
| Payoneer payment processing service. Where do you think this
| article is driving us all to or what is it trying to review to us
| about. You can only know where the article is leading us all to
| only if you are still sitting down wherever you are and still
| reading the post.
|
| Payoneer Google Pay - Online Payment Processing Platforms For
| Business Payoneer Google Pay
|
| Just as explained earlier, that the topic is about two different
| platforms and we get their names mentioned. If you are to search
| about what you see above "Payoneer Google pay" there is nothing
| you will find about it. But searching after them one after the
| other, I assure you will be able to understand what you are
| looking for. In here, the two things we are discussing is what
| you are seeing as the key header of this post right now but
| beginning with the explanation below.
|
| Payoneer Vs Google Pay
|
| The reason why the words were appearing this way is for us to
| understand better. This is in other to get clear details of what
| we are looking into. However, what you see here is the one that
| tells you about the difference between them. Both starting with
| that of Payoneer and then over to Google pay.
|
| Payoneer
|
| Payoneer you see is a company known for the American financial
| services but not like BOA. This is made for providing online
| money transfer. Not just for a money transfer but also with a
| digital payment service for users with working capital.
|
| Particularly, there is also programs for cross-border payments
| platforms for empowering businesses, online sellers, and
| freelancers. Basically, for the platform to pay and also get
| payments worldwide. There are so many services on the platform
| that you will love, solutions, industries, resources, partners,
| and more. Under each of the service options mentioned here, there
| are sub-options for each one of them.
|
| You have to register on the site before you will be able to
| access the platform and do whatever you wish on the platform. The
| URL of the site if you are thinking of creating an account is
| www.payoneer.com. Also, when you visit this link on your browser,
| it will then link you to their homepage. This is where the
| registration link is.
|
| Google Pay
|
| Now, over to Google pay. Google pay is just like Payoneer, it is
| basically for sending and receiving money online. It is more like
| a digital wallet and a payment system which Google lunch by
| itself. For Android users, it allows them to make payments with
| their Android phones, tablets, or watches.
|
| It is not just for Android users alone. However, users in the
| United States and India can as well use it on their iOS device,
| albeit with less limited functions. For the website, it tells you
| of all the payment activity that you have used your Android
| device to do. Like those that love playing online games whereby
| you buy items, games like Call of duty mobile.
|
| We know it is a very well-known popular game. It also has an app
| free for download. The app is free just as mentioned and you can
| find it on your Android device Google play store. As for the
| website, we have something like www.pay.google.com and you don't
| need to create an account before you can use it.
|
| As long you are a user of the Google platform, if you have your
| Gmail account, you are good to go. You can as well create an
| account if you don't have an account, just visit www.gmail.com
| and you can create your account. Thanks for <a
| href="https://www.tipcrewblog.com/iflix-movies-watch-and-
| download-... </a>your thoughts. I really appreciate your <a
| href="https://www.tipcrewblog.com/paycor/">efforts </a>and I will
| be waiting for your next write ups <a
| href="https://www.tipcrewblog.com/">thanks</a> once again.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| More evidence of price fixing[1] from Apple and Google's mobile
| app distribution and payments cartel.
|
| If there was real competition in the mobile app distribution and
| payments markets, and not just Google and Apple working in tandem
| to protect their profits, then consumers would benefit from
| increased efficiency and lower costs when it comes to how they
| get and pay for apps.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
| kumarm wrote:
| Great news for anyone building business based on
| IAP/Subscriptions on Google Play. It is really sad to see mostly
| negative views on the topic.
|
| Here are important benefits compared to previously made changes
| by google:
|
| 1. Subscription revenue share drops to 15% instead of 30% without
| 1 million/year limit.
|
| 2. E-Books and Music Streaming services will pay 10% instead of
| 30%.
|
| This is great news not only for developers on google Play but
| also iOS Developers, it will put pressure on Apple to cut Apple
| Tax further.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| Wow Google must have done some major restructuring to cut their
| revenue in half! /s
| dcchambers wrote:
| I think people are focused on the wrong issue. The fee % is not
| the problem. The problem is the restriction against using other
| types of payment processors.
|
| I am 100% OK with Google, Apple, or whoever charging whatever
| price they want to charge for using their app store services.
| They are, after all, providing all of the infrastucture for
| software delivery, updates, payments, etc. Not to mention giving
| you access to a massive potential userbase.
|
| The problem is them preventing you (the developer) from allowing
| the user to use other forms of payment processing within the app
| itself. Apple is the worst offender of this. Google obviously
| allows side-loading of apps and other app stores for Android
| while Apple does not. Apple goes so far as to prevent you from
| linking to a website with an external payment option, or to even
| suggest in text within your app that there are ways to
| subscribe/pay outside of the app store.
|
| They claim it's about the user experience and security, which is
| legitimate, but it's almost certainly about keeping those nice
| profit margins. It's within their right to charge what they want
| to use their store, but the restrictive nature of not allowing
| competition is wrong. If Apple would even allow sideloading of
| apps this wouldn't really be an issue. They could keep things as-
| is and just tell developers "Don't like the app store rules?
| That's fine, but you can't list your app here. Good luck in the
| free market."
|
| Because mobile computing has become the primary form of computing
| for many (most?) people, the fact that these few companies have
| so much power about what people can and can not do on their own
| devices is scary.
|
| Edit: At a minimum, they could require developers to make all
| payments available via the official app store payment platform,
| in addition to any other types of payment processing they want to
| do. This would let the customer decide and would get rid of any
| regulatory concerns about monopolies. And you know what? I bet
| most customers would still pay via the official app store/play
| store payment method, but at least the other options are there. I
| also think the policy of not allowing apps from outside the app
| store to be installed is insane. It's your device, you should be
| able to use it how you want to.
| v7p1Qbt1im wrote:
| Apple now moved on this by the smallest possible amount.
| They'll allow media apps (like Netflix and Spotify) to link to
| their own payment system on the web. Though the details aren't
| quite clear afaik.
| threatofrain wrote:
| Where are the profit margins coming from with regards to
| payment processing? With regards to in store fees such as the
| IAP, Apple and Google collect fees because of a legally
| enforced agreement with devs, and using PayPal does not dodge
| this in any way. As far as I know, banks are currently eating
| the very small fee for Apple Pay specifically on their end; not
| sure about Google Pay.
|
| To be clear, I am discussing the distinction between Apple Pay
| and the IAP.
| anxrn wrote:
| Reminder that Jobs initially did not support having an app
| store at all for the original iPhone, IIRC for reasons of
| maintaining the bar on experience. His proposal was to build
| "apps" for use in Safari.
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/07/10/the-revolution-st...
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| That was because their iOS API wasn't ready for public
| consumption. Web apps were a stopgap so they had something to
| ship.
| marcellus23 wrote:
| No, Jobs actually didn't want an App Store. He had to be
| convinced.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Nobody can know what Jobs actually wanted and what is
| narrative-building because he was the best storyteller
| this industry has ever seen.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I'd really love to know his mindset, because it's
| completely unfathomable to me.
|
| The idea of applications on the phone was something
| _blindingly obvious_ to me ever since my first Nokia 3410
| I had as a kid. The phone had a bunch of distinct
| functionalities other than making calls, which you could
| invoke through a menu. Why shouldn 't I be able to add
| new ones? Write new ones myself?
|
| Installing custom software was later normalized when
| phones gained ability to run J2ME applets. By the time
| iPhone was conceived, it was an expected feature.
| hehetrthrthrjn wrote:
| > I'd really love to know his mindset, because it's
| completely unfathomable to me.
|
| He was fixated on having complete control.
| hbn wrote:
| And why would webapps give Apple complete control?
|
| Someone develops a webapp, I can make my own phone and
| anyone who wants to continue using all the webapps they
| were using in Safari on their iPhone can come over and do
| that in the browser on my phone.
|
| People develop native apps for the iPhone, and suddenly
| leaving the iPhone means leaving behind all those apps.
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| It's the other way around. WebApps at the time would have
| been a complete joke since mobile browsers were so
| limited. At least that's how I understand it. He just
| didn't want any third party apps. He wanted to make every
| app in-house. (For example the original YouTube app was
| an in-house project.)
|
| It sounds crazy but at the time the wild west of apps on
| the desktop meant that the user experience was pretty
| poor and allowed malware to explode.
|
| It has been said that Microsoft's failure to fix these
| issues is really what drove web application development.
| No one realized a viable alternative was to lock down the
| device to a single store/publisher and then take a 30%
| cut.
|
| Now that WebApps probably could replace nearly all native
| apps, it's in Apple's best interest to not fully support
| PWAs, WASM, etc. because the app store is so lucrative.
| toyg wrote:
| _> It has been said that Microsoft 's failure to fix
| these issues is really what drove web application
| development._
|
| Nah, what drove web development was 100% ease of
| deployment. No more dealing with installers that don't
| work and people who don't know how to use them, the
| browser is already there; no more dealing with the pain
| of rolling out updates, you push to your own server and
| it's done. And you don't have to care about Windows stack
| vs Mac stack with completely different teams, a few
| css/js tweaks and you're done. Sun understood the issue
| and tried to put up a fight with their Java Web Start,
| but in the end the JRE still required an installer, with
| all the related issues. MS eventually got something like
| that working seamlessly, but it was 15 years too late.
| mthoms wrote:
| Citation? This contradicts everything I've seen on the
| matter.
| finiteseries wrote:
| The article linked in the comment they're replying to.
|
| _According to Walter Isaacson 's biography of Jobs, the
| tech guru was opposed to allowing third-party to run
| natively on iPhone..._
|
| _...Others in the know disagree with Isaacson 's story
| and contend third-party apps were always on the iPhone
| roadmap; Jobs and company were simply not comfortable
| with releasing an SDK at launch._
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/07/10/the-
| revolution-st...
| krferriter wrote:
| We're now at the point where writing web-first apps that can
| get optionally also get compiled into "native" apps that run
| in a js/wasm runtime on any platform and act like native apps
| might get popular again.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Is this allowed under iOS?
| judge2020 wrote:
| PWAs have acceptable (but not full) support on iOS 14 and
| 15, you just are forced to ask customers to "press the
| share button then press add to Home Screen" for it to
| install to the Home Screen like a regular app.
| paxys wrote:
| "Acceptable" is a stretch. There is no way of discovery,
| say via the App Store. There is no "Add to Home Screen"
| button (apps can only tell users to open safari settings
| and do it themselves). There are no push notifications or
| background sync/fetch. No way to play background media.
| Full screen doesn't work for anything outside of video.
| Only a small part of the web manifest file is recognized.
| The cache limit is a tiny 50MB, which will be purged in 7
| days.
|
| Here is a very detailed post on this -
| https://infrequently.org/2021/04/progress-delayed/
| [deleted]
| yen223 wrote:
| Yes. Apps that are basically a webview over a site are
| pretty common.
| [deleted]
| weyland108 wrote:
| As a iOS user I feel safer that all payments go through apple.
| I am assured of certain level of privacy and security which is
| very comforting.
| ls15 wrote:
| Nothing would stop you from limiting yourself to apps that
| only use Apple's ecosystem, but what is the reason to stop
| others from installing apps that are using other ecosystems
| on their iOS devices?
|
| I would certainly enjoy F-Droid for iOS.
| didibus wrote:
| What if the alternatives were PayPal, Amazon Pay, Google Pay,
| Steam, etc. ? Would you not similarly trust those payment
| processors?
|
| Also, it should be telling that if you are using an App which
| only offers: Sketchy Payment Processor, that the app itself
| is sketchy, so just go use another app.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Why not just require whether or not it is going through apple
| to be prominently displayed, and you can only use the apple
| App Store then, and allow other people to use other payment
| processors if they trust them?
| elliekelly wrote:
| If I can make a purchase or get a subscription through Apple
| I always do because I know it will be infinitely easier to
| cancel and I won't have to deal with any shady billing from
| sites that store your card info. I don't understand why Apple
| can't _require_ their payment methods but also allow the
| option for external payment. Apple should position themselves
| like American Express: maybe a touch more expensive but worth
| it for the peace of mind and ease of getting assistance.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Are you also feel safer that Apple decides what apps you are
| allowed to run? For example, in China, iOS users aren't
| allowed to run Signal or Protonmail apps.
|
| Did it occur to you that if a user is not the final authority
| who decides which apps should run on the device, he is not
| really owning the device, but merely leasing it, under some
| strict terms?
| dymk wrote:
| This isn't really a concern for me, no
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| "When they came for Communists, I wasn't concerned,
| because I'm not a Communist."
| dymk wrote:
| Take it up with the CCP
| dcchambers wrote:
| I think the solution is for Apple to require that all
| payments at least have the option of being made through the
| app store payment system, while allowing developers that want
| to take the time and effort to set up outside payments do
| that as well.
|
| Consumers can continue to use app-store payments if they wish
| (and I bet the vast majority would), but developers and
| companies can no longer complain about Apple's monopoly over
| payment processing.
| notsrg wrote:
| The problem with this is that using Apple Pay would be more
| expensive and so why would anyone use it?
| didibus wrote:
| A bunch of people here just mentioned they love the fact
| that the payment is handled by Apple for piece of mind.
| So I guess that would be why?
| dcchambers wrote:
| Security and peace-of-mind, as the other commenter
| requested. Convenience - already having a credit card
| linked and ready to go.
|
| Also who is to say the developer would charge less? Let's
| say, for example, a company called ezpay charges $1 per
| transaction. If an IAP costs $10, they make $7 off the
| user who buys via Apple, and $9 off the user that buys
| via ezpay API in the app. They could lower the ezpay
| price to $8 and still only make $7, but why bother?
| Gigachad wrote:
| Virtually no one is concerned with the security of card
| payments on non apple processors. They have been typing
| their card numbers in to stripe/paypal/etc for years.
|
| Only the tiniest % of HN idealists will pay 30% extra to
| have it go through Apple.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| If competing payment methods were reasonably available
| then maybe Apple Pay would lower its fees.
| vanattab wrote:
| Are you sure they wouldn't considering it would be 15%-20%
| cheaper?
| dcchambers wrote:
| Who is to say the developer would charge less? Let's say,
| for example, a company called ezpay charges $1 per
| transaction. If an IAP costs $10, the dev makes $7 off
| the user who buys via Apple, and $9 off the user that
| buys via ezpay API in the app. They could lower the ezpay
| price to $8 and still only make $7, but why bother?
| Gigachad wrote:
| Because another company will offer the same product for
| slightly cheaper now that their fees are lower.
|
| Google One already charges you less if you subscribe via
| web or android. They just haven't been allowed to
| advertise this fact in the iOS app.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| krferriter wrote:
| Okay but charging fees on in-app purchases as a pretty high
| percentage of the purchase amount is ridiculous and basically
| just a moneymaking racket with no real justification, that
| they do just _because they can_ and they already have a
| stable base of customers who are unlikely to switch to a
| competitor (Android is the only competitor).
|
| Flat per-transaction fees to cover operating costs is more
| acceptable. But Apple might make less money in that scheme.
| On the other hand, more developers might be willing to write
| apps for iOS if they weren't getting gouged by such high
| Apple Store fees, so Apple might even come out ahead if they
| reformed their pricing and payments policy.
| 8note wrote:
| Control over payment flow is already in the right place imo,
| though I think the charges should be per transaction flat rates
| and not % based.
|
| App developers are bad actors and should not be trusted to
| control payment information, refund policies, or subscription
| management. They will abuse all of them, and they already abuse
| the limited tools they have for in app payments.
|
| Payment flow needs to be controlled by an entity that is trying
| to protect the buyer, not the developer
| pornel wrote:
| And Apple likes to pretend that there are no better payment
| options. I would prefer to subscribe via PayPal, because it's
| easier to cancel via them than via Apple's iTunes corpse.
| criddell wrote:
| The reason I vastly prefer paying via Apple over other
| methods is precisely because of how easy it is for me to see
| my subscriptions in one place and cancel with a click.
| CountSessine wrote:
| I don't understand?
|
| Settings -> AppleID -> Subscriptions?
|
| It's on your phone? You don't have to use iTunes at all? I
| wouldn't have even thought to use iTunes? Unsubscribing is
| the easiest thing in the world - much easier than PayPal.
| It's right there in the Settings app.
| [deleted]
| realusername wrote:
| I want it one step further, it's not called "sideloading" but
| just "normal install", people should be able to install
| anything they want without some unwanted middleman, all the
| restrictions are just market distortions.
| [deleted]
| Denzel wrote:
| > people should be able to install anything they want without
| some unwanted middleman
|
| What "people" are you referring to? The millions of people,
| like yours truly, who've made the conscious decision to pay
| Apple _because_ of their App Store model.
|
| I'm an engineer, I have a desktop and a laptop I can install
| whatever I want on. I'm ok with not doing that on my phone.
| In fact, I _don't_ want that experience on my phone.
|
| So, I don't understand when others speak for "people" like me
| who've voiced their opinion via purchase. There's a long list
| of moments where I've been over-the-moon, downright happy
| with Apple's payment and subscription experience. It's been a
| breath of fresh air vs. dealing with independent providers
| where, oh, I have to cancel by calling your customer support
| center? Oh, no, you need me to send an email instead? With a
| photo of my ID? Oh, you accidentally continued charging me
| because the subscription wasn't canceled? That's ok, but why
| did you double the price of the subscription without so much
| as an email notifying me? Oh, you sent an email titled
| "Thanks for being a customer" and buried it in the addendum,
| gotcha. Yeah, I'm ok, I'll stick with Apple's payments and
| subscriptions system on my phone.
|
| Those are all real experiences, by the way, that I'm happy to
| say I haven't had with Apple for the past decade.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Some people went with Apple in spite of their closed App
| Store model. They might have well not wanted it, but other
| advantages of iPhones won out for reasons that will remain
| their own.
|
| As a reminder, Android requires manually ticking a checkbox
| before allowing sideloading. Sideloading is a choice, not a
| requirement. If you don't want to do it, don't enable it.
| FpUser wrote:
| That is your experience that I would not challenge. Mine is
| completely different for a very simple reason: except
| Netflix I completely ignore products that do not offer
| perpetual license no matter what. And finding decent
| products I need on generic web in my opinion is way better
| then doing the same thing on app stores. There are
| exceptions of course like off-line GPS software.
| ajconway wrote:
| This can be easily resolved by forcing developers who
| provide their own method of payment to also include the App
| Store's default in-app purchases. That's how it currently
| works with Sign in with Apple.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Problem is we need an Appstore with enforcing rules nowadays
| to protect ourselves from greedy ruthless software makers.
| Just look at Windows - and ecosystem where Software mostly is
| installed outside of an Appstore. What major players in the
| Industry do now (Big players like Adobe but also other
| smaller shops) would have been considered malware/adware some
| 10 years ago. Stuff like uploading personal data, contents of
| your Download folder, contacts information etc.
|
| Even on Linux you can see that this "moderation" is
| beneficial. No software will land in the repositories that
| spy on the users, and its uncommon to install software
| outside those repos that ship with your distro.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Even on Linux you can see that this "moderation" is
| beneficial. No software will land in the repositories that
| spy on the users, and its uncommon to install software
| outside those repos that ship with your distro.
|
| Which demonstrates that this works perfectly well without
| restricting users from installing software outside of the
| repositories.
|
| You want the App Store to exist. You don't want it to be
| mandatory.
| neximo64 wrote:
| And how would it be enforced? (If charged outside of the app
| store and get an invoice from google instead on their cut)
| gberger wrote:
| Why should Google get a cut for a payment made outside of
| their app store?
| willseth wrote:
| > The problem is them preventing you (the developer) from
| allowing the user to use other forms of payment processing
| within the app itself.
|
| One major kink in this idea is that it breaks the free tier
| model, since paid apps are essentially subsidizing free ones.
| If you can use any payment processor in-app, then developers
| will make their apps nominally "free" for App Store purposes,
| and then use the payment processor of their choice in-app,
| circumventing Apple's ability to collect any fee whatsoever. So
| how do you address this problem without charging every
| developer, even if they were otherwise willing to give away
| their app?
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| They would still be required to report that they have in-app
| purchases, just like they are currently required to report
| they have ads, even if they aren't using Apple's or Google's
| ad APIs.
| willseth wrote:
| This is the only reasonable suggestion I've heard, but it's
| still very messy because it would not only require even
| more careful policing of app code, but mostly because Apple
| would have to invent an entirely new fee structure for apps
| under this umbrella. It think to do it fairly it would just
| end up looking like an AWS bill.
| fyzix wrote:
| An Apple developer account costs $100 per year and with
| 20Million registered developers. $2B a year is more than
| enough to host an appstore.
|
| Or they can compete in the free market and offer their
| payment gateway for a competitive fee, or they can do what
| google is doing and allow third party app installs.
| bww wrote:
| If Apple allowed developers to keep 100% of revenue from App
| Store transactions while Apple continued to pay for all the
| operating costs it would still, undoubtedly, work out greatly
| to Apple's advantage. They derive enormous value from having
| apps in their store creating value for their platforms.
|
| Of course, they would not be satisfied with that arrangement
| because no company has ever been satisfied with making a ton
| of money if it is possible for them to make some more. But
| that certainly doesn't mean the model can't work or that if
| there were regulation to this effect that it wouldn't still
| be in Apple's enormous interest to continue to operate the
| App Store.
| bialpio wrote:
| I think this could be defendable if they were selling the
| devices at a loss ("cheap printer, expensive ink" model, or
| gaming consoles model), but providing something that is
| effectively a general purpose device on which they already
| earn money, and that is locked down like this makes me
| annoyed with them ("we know better what you should do with
| your device, trust us"). That's the primary reason why I
| don't even look at what devices they are offering, which is a
| shame (I'd like to have more options).
|
| > So how do you address this problem without charging every
| developer, even if they were otherwise willing to give away
| their app?
|
| Aren't they already requiring developers to pay a fee to have
| a developer account? I'm sure there are ways they could
| recoup the costs of providing a service to the publishers of
| free apps (normally, a free market would converge on the
| actual price of providing this service). But they will only
| look for a solution when forced to, why give away a stable
| source of income?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| In an alternate universe these app "stores" operate the same as
| package managers on Linux do. No account necessary.
| summerlight wrote:
| > I think people are focused on the wrong issue. The fee % is
| not the problem. The problem is the restriction against using
| other types of payment processors.
|
| I generally agree with this sentiment, but still feel that the
| fee % itself is a significant part of the problem and worth to
| tackle it in parallel.
|
| My concern is that Google/Apple have lots of direct/indirect
| advantages against its payment competitors as platform holders
| and I'm 90% sure that they're willing to exercise that position
| to keep the dominance of their payment solutions. And I think
| they have a good chance of winning. We need to push them in all
| possible directions even if some approaches don't work.
| concinds wrote:
| I don't see the point. Spotify's not willing to give up 10% of
| their Android revenue, they'll still use their own payment. Epic
| won't give up 15%. South Korea mandated that apps be allowed to
| have custom payment methods within apps. Why would any big
| company, whether Netflix, Epic or Spotify, still give Android
| 10%? It just seems that the "app store pay toll" is getting less
| and less justifiable; and it seems outrageous that mobile-first
| startups should give 15% of their revenues to rent-seeking by the
| #1 biggest company in the world and #5 biggest company in the
| world.
|
| BTW, this regulatory pushback may really harm Android, because
| according to Sundar, Google Play constitutes most of Android
| revenue. With those revenues gone, that's a big chunk of money
| gone for Google. App Store revenue is also 37% of Apple's
| _profits_ , so obviously they're fighting tooth and nail, but
| it's easy to see where things are going. Apple/Google are going
| to be pretty desperate to prevent a total exodus.
| thetrb wrote:
| My view is that it's an effort to avoid regulation. It's easier
| to justify a fee of 10-15% to regulators than a flat 30% fee.
| totony wrote:
| >Google Play constitutes most of Android revenue.
|
| Google also includes a few services apps use (eg google play
| services) which they could disable if an app isnt bought
| through google play. Their alternative might be to monetize
| their current services.
| joenathanone wrote:
| Agreed, personally I think 3-5% would be fair anything more is
| rent seeking.
| kfprt wrote:
| The percentage should be set by the market. The problem is
| that there exists a rent seeking monopoly at present.
| echelon wrote:
| Credit card transactions take far less, and they deal in
| legitimate risk (chargebacks, stolen cards, fraud, etc).
|
| As developers, we don't even _need_ app stores. They 're an
| artifice that got shoved down our throat by trillion dollar
| mega corporations. A taxation clearinghouse. You can
| distribute the same program bytes from anywhere, most notably
| the web.
|
| It's Steve Ballmer's old dream of taxing all software.
| There's just no point in it. It's massively unfair.
|
| The excruciating review process adds insult to injury. And it
| makes fixing bugs a slow and stressful nightmare.
|
| If smart phone manufacturers really want to protect
| customers, the best way to do that is to store signatures of
| known bad applications and provide solid permissions-based
| access to system resources.
|
| Screw app stores.
| beojan wrote:
| From a user's perspective, the review is absolutely
| necessary and really needs to be much better on Android.
| Proactive vetoing of malware from distribution is much
| better than reactive malware scanning against a signature
| library.
|
| That doesn't really justify a slice of subscription revenue
| though.
| echelon wrote:
| > review is absolutely necessary
|
| Wholeheartedly disagree. I download software on Linux and
| Mac frequently without ever having it reviewed.
|
| I buy physical products that have sensors. These don't
| get scrutinized.
|
| If we truly need a "health inspector", then it should be
| a third party. Not the mafia that makes the device and
| frequently launches competing apps and features.
|
| And it seems totally uneven that websites can access and
| deal in the same data, yet they escape review.
|
| It's an invented charade that is brutally unfair.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| From a user's perspective, what do they want?
| Availability, cheapness, quality, (all other things),
| security, privacy
|
| Android users don't care that they're being tracked, as
| long as it doesn't break their app or drain their battery
| too fast.
|
| Google cares that apps track users, because (a) it allows
| apps to end run around their own ad offering & (b) it
| provides Apple with a talking point to bludgeon them
| about the head with.
|
| Review is a PR measure masquerading as a user benefit, in
| order to technically enforce a centralized toll gate.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| But you know, that you can also just download and install
| software on Android?
|
| But yes, this requires knowledge of what you are doing.
|
| So most people rightfully choose the playstore - and
| maintaining (and curating) the playstore requires work.
| So I also think it is fair, if google gets a cut. But 30%
| and also 15% is just cutthroat price range.
| [deleted]
| cptskippy wrote:
| > Credit card transactions take far less, and they deal in
| legitimate risk (chargebacks, stolen cards, fraud, etc).
|
| For high volume merchants.
|
| For mom and pop shops they usually pay a fixed fee + %. For
| transactions under $5 they can lose money on a sale which
| is why you quite often see minimum purchase prices or
| discounts when paying with cash. In some states however
| there are no laws protecting small businesses and processor
| contractors usually have a clause forbidding merchants from
| steering customers away from paying with a card.
|
| A local baobao shop by me offers a 10% discount for cash
| transactions, that tells me they make more money offering a
| 10% discount than accepting a card. When I was in Georgia
| my drycleaner told me she didn't make money on any card
| transaction under $25.
| sofixa wrote:
| As a consumer, i want app stores. It's million times better
| than the default Windows situation downloading random
| binaries off the Internet. Code signing and malware
| signature matching are at best bandaids on a waterfall.
|
| Having a centralised place with reviews categories, updates
| etc. is very valuable.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| webOS in the Palm/HP Pre days and Maemo both had app
| stores. webOS had the App Catalog and Maemo built an app
| store around the apt package manager.
|
| The difference is that Palm, HP and Nokia didn't take a
| cut, and the stores themselves were based on open
| protocols that allowed users to add their own sources for
| apps. That resulted in excellent things like PreWare[1]
| and, in Maemo's case, enthusiast run apt repositories.
|
| It's entirely possibly to have safe and open app stores
| that don't follow Apple's model. Apple's App Store model
| is implemented and maintained to protect the revenue it
| generates, and security has always been an afterthought.
|
| [1] https://webos-internals.org/wiki/Application:Preware
| [deleted]
| smoldesu wrote:
| Not all app stores are centralized, Linux has had this
| figured out for years.
| justapassenger wrote:
| And yet, year of Linux on the desktop never happened.
|
| Geeks are very different audience from general public.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > Geeks are very different audience from general public.
|
| HNers forget this quite often.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Sorry, I'll let the general public decide which package
| manager is more ethical.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| I'll take any package manager that supports emoji in
| package names.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| Suggesting that App distribution is even part of the
| consideration for why Linux didn't catch on is kind of
| hilarious to be honest. Their app distribution methods
| being good or not had nothing to do with their lack of
| adoption and it's kind of a non sequitur.
|
| If I dropped their app distribution onto Windows it would
| also succeed there with the general mainstream public, in
| fact even more so, because of the garbage state for app
| management there.
| sofixa wrote:
| Considering ChromeOS and Android's success, and the fact
| that Windows 10 and Windows 11 include Linux VMs, it's
| fair to say Linux on the desktop has had some decent
| success, albeit somewhat indirectly. The generational
| switch to Windows 11 will probably only help with that,
| and IMHO Linux has never been easier on a desktop than
| today.
| sofixa wrote:
| I'm not at all arguing for centralised app stores - the
| Linux way is great, with default one(s) preconfigured,
| and you are free to add extra ones you trust/want.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Credit card transactions take far less.
|
| Depends on the payment processor/mechant bank/payment
| network/issuing bank and the fixed fees vs transaction
| amount. 3-5% is in range for a card not present transaction
| for a low dollar amount with not a lot of volume.
|
| If Google or Apple gets a good deal on credit card
| processing because of volume and takes that plus a little
| extra to pay for their services, that's a lot more fair
| than 15-30%; high volume developers might want to shave
| that margin a bit more, but low and medium probably
| wouldn't bother.
| wastedhours wrote:
| As a developer I want the _option_ of App Stores taking
| their cut - them being the Merchant of Record takes out a
| monumental admin overhead from selling apps globally for a
| small developer.
|
| I also work for a global tech company whereby that approach
| isn't needed as we have our own payment processing to
| handle that, but as a part-time indie, I want the option of
| deferring to the stores for payments.
| commoner wrote:
| As long as the cut is priced into that option (as in, the
| fee is passed on to the customer through a higher price
| for app stores) without affecting the price of buying
| directly from the developer, and without any anti-
| steering rules that prevent the developer from presenting
| the customer with all purchase options and prices in the
| app, there shouldn't be a problem.
|
| Developers who don't want to set up payments outside of
| the app store can choose not to do that. But that choice
| should not prevent the developers who do want to offer a
| lower-cost payment processing option to their customers
| from doing so.
| Factorium wrote:
| Just to be clear, this is just 30% --> 15% for _subscriptions_.
|
| One-off purchases for large companies ($1m+) still attracts
| 30%.
| mdoms wrote:
| > I don't see the point. Spotify's not willing to give up 10%
| of their Android revenue, they'll still use their own payment.
| Epic won't give up 15%.
|
| Sounds like we've got a healthy competitive marketplace. Great.
| didibus wrote:
| On the desktop, ton of apps don't do their own payments. It
| takes quite a lot for a company to be able to process their own
| payments. That's why you see a lot of pay with PayPal, Amazon,
| Google Pay, Apple Pay, etc.
|
| So I think for sure people will still offer Apple Pay. The
| difference is that there'd be competition now, so Apple would
| be forced to reduce their margins to the minimum, maybe close
| to cost price to compete.
|
| That's basically the point, the competition would drive prices
| down.
| [deleted]
| moonchrome wrote:
| Apple pay != App store payment
| likeabbas wrote:
| It's pretty easy to integrate Stripe as a payment processor
| and they only take 3%
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| Google makes most of it's money on Android from integration of
| services. If Windows Phone had taken over the non-Apple market,
| as looked somewhat likely in 2009, Google may not have ended up
| a trillion dollar company
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| No need for complicated pricing tier systems. Here's what I think
| fairer pricing would look like:
|
| For anything that competes with the platform owner's paid apps
| (eg. Spotify, Netflix, Sweat with Kayla, Audible, etc compete
| with Apple Music, YouTube, Apple Fitness+, Google Books etc) -
| they should be allowed to use their own payment service in their
| apps just like Uber and Doordash do.
|
| Anything else should be no more than a 15% cut.
| CodesInChaos wrote:
| The google play subscription API is probably the worst I ever had
| to integrate with.
|
| For example
|
| * Response leaves out historic data (i.e. a subscription doesn't
| show it was paused, had a trial, etc. once they're over)
|
| * Fetching the subscription state frequently returns data
| inconsistent with previous results (e.g. the start date of the
| subscription keeps changing, the expiry date keeps jumping
| around), so piecing together a subscription's history by
| combining versions observed at different times is practically
| impossible
|
| * Each subscription is a singly linked list, but doesn't give you
| enough information to actually follow the link. And it's from
| newest to oldest
|
| * Authentication is a mess (it's half integrated into the google
| cloud, but not really)
|
| * Settings changes take about ~24h to take effect
| nicewarmvalley wrote:
| +1
| gdeglin wrote:
| Here are some non-obvious reasons why this is a big deal:
|
| 1. Regulatory and technology changes are making advertising a
| less effective business model. It's both more expensive to
| acquire users and less profitable to run ads. So each week more
| companies are switching to one-time IAP or subscriptions as a
| primary revenue source. This change will further accelerate this
| transition.
|
| 2. A lot of apps sell digital content at a low margin. For
| example, Spotify and other music apps have to pay record labels
| for content. You can also consider marketplaces for user
| generated content that have this issue. Apple and Google's high
| service fees have prevented a large category of businesses from
| existing on the app store. Yes, they could try to direct users to
| pay through the browser, but anti-steering policies made this
| nearly impossible for companies without an established brand.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-21 23:00 UTC)