4 ms·

Shouldn't this be inverted? Small devs with unknown apps have more to gain from play store's distribution, and won't mind paying 30% of a smaller revenue in exc

Shouldn't this be inverted? Small devs with unknown apps have more to gain from play store's distribution, and won't mind paying 30% of a smaller revenue in exchange for all the help. 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.

howinteresting 6y ago
As an exertion of raw power, yes, it would be inverted. But we live in a world where maximal exertion of raw power is looked down upon.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  Don't most products and services offer a volume discount? Or something equivalent? I don't understand why the equation is reversed in this case. Does google not offer volume discounts to their big GCP customers? Is that also "looked down upon"?
  - howinteresting 6y ago
    Often there's an inverted U shaped curve, where startups and very large customers get discounts but medium-size customers don't.
adanto6840 6y ago
Valve [Steam] does this "inverted" model, as of ~ December 2018... It wasn't overly well-received on the PR front -- though I do suspect that it earned them a decent bit of AAA title/publisher credit, heh. Realistically, that's probably where much of the money is at; if anything, props to them for getting away with it.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  They had to do this because instead of regulatory pressure, they were feeling the opposite: Competitive options in the PC market. With Steam's high cut, any publisher large enough to make their own launcher should would be incredibly stupid not to do so, which is why Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Epic, etc. all have their own launchers now. And some of them have, or could, start selling third party titles as well. 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.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Ah yes, the nuisance launchers that hardly anyone wants or uses.
travisgriggs 6y ago
I see your logic, kind of. But if I abstract the reasoning it might be recast something like this: 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.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  This is not a tax imposed by a government, though. This is a service provided by a business to another business. There have always been wholesale prices and volume discounts if you buy in larger quantities. I see many people are comparing this to a tax, why?
  - travisgriggs 6y ago
    It's not a service, because it's not something I can elect to purchase or not purchase. I have to pay this royalty to be allowed to participate here. That is a tax. If this were an add-on service that Apple/Google offered as an add on, then it would no longer be a tax. And the dynamics you refer to might kick in then.
croes 6y ago
Small devs gain neraly nothing from the App stores because their apps get lost in the masses. If they do have a successful app, they are immediately copied and they can't afford to fight it. And now they are supposed to give away 30% of the little income? How many percent of app developers achieve a revenue of 1 million?

howinteresting 6y ago

As an exertion of raw power, yes, it would be inverted. But we live in a world where maximal exertion of raw power is looked down upon.

perryizgr8 6y ago
Don't most products and services offer a volume discount? Or something equivalent? I don't understand why the equation is reversed in this case. Does google not offer volume discounts to their big GCP customers? Is that also "looked down upon"?
- howinteresting 6y ago
  Often there's an inverted U shaped curve, where startups and very large customers get discounts but medium-size customers don't.

adanto6840 6y ago

Valve [Steam] does this "inverted" model, as of ~ December 2018... It wasn't overly well-received on the PR front -- though I do suspect that it earned them a decent bit of AAA title/publisher credit, heh. Realistically, that's probably where much of the money is at; if anything, props to them for getting away with it.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
They had to do this because instead of regulatory pressure, they were feeling the opposite: Competitive options in the PC market. With Steam's high cut, any publisher large enough to make their own launcher should would be incredibly stupid not to do so, which is why Activision, EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Epic, etc. all have their own launchers now. And some of them have, or could, start selling third party titles as well. 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.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Ah yes, the nuisance launchers that hardly anyone wants or uses.

travisgriggs 6y ago

I see your logic, kind of. But if I abstract the reasoning it might be recast something like this: 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.

perryizgr8 6y ago
This is not a tax imposed by a government, though. This is a service provided by a business to another business. There have always been wholesale prices and volume discounts if you buy in larger quantities. I see many people are comparing this to a tax, why?
- travisgriggs 6y ago
  It's not a service, because it's not something I can elect to purchase or not purchase. I have to pay this royalty to be allowed to participate here. That is a tax. If this were an add-on service that Apple/Google offered as an add on, then it would no longer be a tax. And the dynamics you refer to might kick in then.

croes 6y ago

Small devs gain neraly nothing from the App stores because their apps get lost in the masses. If they do have a successful app, they are immediately copied and they can't afford to fight it. And now they are supposed to give away 30% of the little income? How many percent of app developers achieve a revenue of 1 million?