10 ms·

Worth remembering that as good as it is that Google is reducing it's abusive taxation on third party developers, the primary reason they're doing this is to try

Worth remembering that as good as it is that Google is reducing it's abusive taxation on third party developers, the primary reason they're doing this is to try to quiet the majority of developers asking for stronger government regulations against this taxation without actually reducing their profit much, since the large companies which bring in the majority of revenue still have to pay full price. Basically, they're 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"

enos_feedler 6y ago
The primary reason they are doing it is because Apple did it. Same goes for every other rev share change that Apple has implemented.
- DeusExMachina 6y ago
  That still poses the question: why did Apple do it? I believe the reasons are the ones explained by the parent comment. 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.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    Note that this is 4 months later. That's about as quick as things like this can be done in a big organisation like Google where the decision has to go via policy, legal, engineering, translation, etc.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    I believe that Google's goal is to show regulators that Apple has market power. The easiest way to demonstrate that is to follow what they do and make it look like they are in control. The reason I believe this is that it is uncharacteristic of Google to blatantly copy something like this over the years, yet it is clear they are fast following all of Apple's decisions around the app store. I would expect Google to try and differentiate and come out with a new, competitive way to make the developer ecosystem happy.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      > I believe that Google's goal is to show regulators that Apple has market power. Unlikely, since Google and Apple monopolize in the same way. Google and Apple are close allies in this fight, and if the Epic lawsuit or an antitrust investigation goes bad for one, it'll go bad for the other. > The reason I believe this is that it is uncharacteristic of Google to blatantly copy something like this over the years, This is comical. Google me-toos everything. Google Home's entire product line being a blatant Amazon Echo rip off. Google Cloud needing to launch a copy of every AWS service, etc.
      - enos_feedler 6y ago
        Actually they don't. Apple makes a consumer product and exercises control between developers and users. On the other hand, Google has power over the rest of the smartphone ecosystem via Android (practically speaking) and the installation of Google Play store. It's important that Apple move first as the "leader" and Google, representing the rest of the ecosystem "follow"
- londons_explore 6y ago
  Which is odd... Users of the Play store and App store are a disjoint set. Very few users will switch from Android to iOS or back because in-app purchases are cheaper. Developers are generally forced to support both stores. There wouldn't seem to be any strong reason for both stores to pick identical fee structures - they aren't really in competition.
  - salicideblock 6y ago
    The discourse is that Play store and App store are monopolies (arguably duopolies) facing the developers, not the users. I expect that developers for the Play store and App store are two sets with a big overlap
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      This is the story that Google wants you to believe by fast following Apple with pricing changes. They want to demonstrate that Apple has pricing power to regulators (just my theory). The reality is that Apple and Google are in competition, and if Google actually innovated on business model the way they do with every other aspect of their business, it would actually drive the app store fees down for Apple. Microsoft has tried to do this [1] but they don't have enough market power to move the needle. [1] https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-store-now-gives-app-developers-bigger-cut-revenue https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-store-now-gives-app...
  - lordnacho 6y ago
    Users might not change phones but android users might have different behaviour to ios users in terms of how likely they are to spend. Which perhaps skews the developers towards starting on one platform or the other. But generally yes I agree that it can't be all that big a difference.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Low end Android phones/tablets are so cheap that some serve as dedicated displays/devices. I have one that I use as a OBD2 scanner, another sits as a DRO display on a desktop mill. My actual phone is iOS. If those facts mean I’m counted as an iOS user once and Android user twice, the iOS me spends a lot more in the Apple App Store than the two Android mes put together.
natex 6y ago
Is your feeling on what Google's hopes speculation, or do you have some inside information?
- elmomle 6y ago
  I imagine that it's speculation but it's reasonable speculation, since maximizing profits is pretty much the sole goal of a publicly traded corporation at the end of the day.
  - elwell 6y ago
    > maximizing profits is pretty much the sole goal of a publicly traded corporation Would that extend to for-profit private companies? Employees? Sub 1m revenue app developers?
  - natex 6y ago
    I don't think that supports the speculation since as the GP stated, Google is actually doing the opposite of maximizing profits in this case.
    - nindalf 6y ago
      It is exactly what you’d do if you maximise profits. The general argument against the Apple/Google tax is “think of the small businesses!” They use this argument because no politician wants to be against the small business owner. Google and Apple understand this well. Since small businesses account for a small % of their revenue, they simply offer a better deal to those small businesses. Now Spotify/Epic Games/Candycrush people will have to argue “but think of the large businesses!” That doesn’t have the same ring to it somehow. The majority of App/Play Store revenue is protected from government intervention, and profits are maximised. Make sense?
    - elwell 6y ago
      > Google is actually doing the opposite of maximizing profits in this case You've chosen a difficult position to argue.
    - 6y ago
cat_plus_plus 6y ago
You know that Android is open source and you can just sideload apps, install a 3rd party app store or replace entire OS with your own ROM right? What, your app/game is not valuable enough to the user to bother with unless it's a single click install without having to enter credit card? Well... Basically - Situation is not at all the same as with iOS - There is too much emphasis on friction-less low value installs and 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.
- onion2k 6y ago
  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.
  - xmprt 6y ago
    I strongly believe that if the Microsoft anti-trust case happened today, Microsoft would easily win. The tech monopolies that we have today have a much bigger impact on society.
    - joering2 6y ago
      Absolutely! First time I loaded Google Search and saw ad under search box, where nobody else can advertise, no matter how much they offer to pay, saying “not using Chrome? Click to install now”, I thought to myself “damn they gonna get huge ant-minopoly lawsuit that will cost then billions”. And what happened?? Nothing! Other than Chrome is number one browser now for decades to come.
  - 6y ago
aembleton 6y ago
> they're hoping that this will stop some app developers from demanding the right to use third party payment processors I thought you could do that for apps through the Play store. For example I pay for the Windy app through Paypal.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  I believe Games is the one exception - Games must use the Play Store for all in-app purchases.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  This is actually somewhere Google has generally been more accepting than Apple. While Apple has been very harsh on both the app purchase and any in-app content or services being through them, Google has been more lenient, historically, on the latter. 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-crackdown-on-in-app-billing-aimed-at-netflix-and-spotify/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/google-announces-cra...
einpoklum 6y ago
But can't Google avert this by paying off politicians? You know, with the legalized-bribe political contributions that are so popular? 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.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Paying off politicians has worked well for Google since the Obama era, but it's not working anymore. Reason why was Trump's election. Politicians realized that Google's services, and how they're moderated, can do a lot more to affect an election than a donation ever could.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    You have a point there... but even so - Google has been censoring non-mainstream political views, and artificially promoting mainstream news media (the big networks anyway). Isn't that enough to curry favor?
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Not really. Perception is everything. Democrats believe Google allowed Trump to be elected by valuing profit on platforms like YouTube rather than intervening in extremism. Republicans believe Google and it's largely liberal-leaning employees are censoring conservative voices via algorithm updates and deplatforming. The truth is probably both are right in certain respects, and so Google finds itself now without many friends in the political sphere.
bjustin 6y ago
I agree, and even with a selfish motive, this is still a positive move on their part (and Apple's). Companies changing their behavior to avoid regulation is a better outcome than regulation in some cases, including this one IMO.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Apple and Google have held a duopoly in the mobile app distribution market for over a decade now. It's time for the market and consumers to enjoy the benefits that real competition in this space can bring and to rid them of the years of anti-competitive stagnation they've had to suffer through for benefit of Google and Apple's shareholders. While Google's change is nice, it doesn't address the core issue at all.
rsj_hn 6y ago
I don't think that developers, as a group, have much political power, or that Google is afraid of who developers will vote for. To the degree that Google cares about developers, it is because of: https://tenor.com/view/microsoft-windows-steve-ballmer-developers-gif-9638716 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.

enos_feedler 6y ago

The primary reason they are doing it is because Apple did it. Same goes for every other rev share change that Apple has implemented.

DeusExMachina 6y ago
That still poses the question: why did Apple do it? I believe the reasons are the ones explained by the parent comment. 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.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  Note that this is 4 months later. That's about as quick as things like this can be done in a big organisation like Google where the decision has to go via policy, legal, engineering, translation, etc.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  I believe that Google's goal is to show regulators that Apple has market power. The easiest way to demonstrate that is to follow what they do and make it look like they are in control. The reason I believe this is that it is uncharacteristic of Google to blatantly copy something like this over the years, yet it is clear they are fast following all of Apple's decisions around the app store. I would expect Google to try and differentiate and come out with a new, competitive way to make the developer ecosystem happy.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    > I believe that Google's goal is to show regulators that Apple has market power. Unlikely, since Google and Apple monopolize in the same way. Google and Apple are close allies in this fight, and if the Epic lawsuit or an antitrust investigation goes bad for one, it'll go bad for the other. > The reason I believe this is that it is uncharacteristic of Google to blatantly copy something like this over the years, This is comical. Google me-toos everything. Google Home's entire product line being a blatant Amazon Echo rip off. Google Cloud needing to launch a copy of every AWS service, etc.
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      Actually they don't. Apple makes a consumer product and exercises control between developers and users. On the other hand, Google has power over the rest of the smartphone ecosystem via Android (practically speaking) and the installation of Google Play store. It's important that Apple move first as the "leader" and Google, representing the rest of the ecosystem "follow"
londons_explore 6y ago
Which is odd... Users of the Play store and App store are a disjoint set. Very few users will switch from Android to iOS or back because in-app purchases are cheaper. Developers are generally forced to support both stores. There wouldn't seem to be any strong reason for both stores to pick identical fee structures - they aren't really in competition.
- salicideblock 6y ago
  The discourse is that Play store and App store are monopolies (arguably duopolies) facing the developers, not the users. I expect that developers for the Play store and App store are two sets with a big overlap
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    This is the story that Google wants you to believe by fast following Apple with pricing changes. They want to demonstrate that Apple has pricing power to regulators (just my theory). The reality is that Apple and Google are in competition, and if Google actually innovated on business model the way they do with every other aspect of their business, it would actually drive the app store fees down for Apple. Microsoft has tried to do this [1] but they don't have enough market power to move the needle. [1] https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-store-now-gives-app-developers-bigger-cut-revenue https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-store-now-gives-app...
- lordnacho 6y ago
  Users might not change phones but android users might have different behaviour to ios users in terms of how likely they are to spend. Which perhaps skews the developers towards starting on one platform or the other. But generally yes I agree that it can't be all that big a difference.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Low end Android phones/tablets are so cheap that some serve as dedicated displays/devices. I have one that I use as a OBD2 scanner, another sits as a DRO display on a desktop mill. My actual phone is iOS. If those facts mean I’m counted as an iOS user once and Android user twice, the iOS me spends a lot more in the Apple App Store than the two Android mes put together.

natex 6y ago

Is your feeling on what Google's hopes speculation, or do you have some inside information?

elmomle 6y ago
I imagine that it's speculation but it's reasonable speculation, since maximizing profits is pretty much the sole goal of a publicly traded corporation at the end of the day.
- elwell 6y ago
  > maximizing profits is pretty much the sole goal of a publicly traded corporation Would that extend to for-profit private companies? Employees? Sub 1m revenue app developers?
- natex 6y ago
  I don't think that supports the speculation since as the GP stated, Google is actually doing the opposite of maximizing profits in this case.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    It is exactly what you’d do if you maximise profits. The general argument against the Apple/Google tax is “think of the small businesses!” They use this argument because no politician wants to be against the small business owner. Google and Apple understand this well. Since small businesses account for a small % of their revenue, they simply offer a better deal to those small businesses. Now Spotify/Epic Games/Candycrush people will have to argue “but think of the large businesses!” That doesn’t have the same ring to it somehow. The majority of App/Play Store revenue is protected from government intervention, and profits are maximised. Make sense?
  - elwell 6y ago
    > Google is actually doing the opposite of maximizing profits in this case You've chosen a difficult position to argue.
  - 6y ago

cat_plus_plus 6y ago

You know that Android is open source and you can just sideload apps, install a 3rd party app store or replace entire OS with your own ROM right? What, your app/game is not valuable enough to the user to bother with unless it's a single click install without having to enter credit card? Well... Basically - Situation is not at all the same as with iOS - There is too much emphasis on friction-less low value installs and 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.

onion2k 6y ago
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.
- xmprt 6y ago
  I strongly believe that if the Microsoft anti-trust case happened today, Microsoft would easily win. The tech monopolies that we have today have a much bigger impact on society.
  - joering2 6y ago
    Absolutely! First time I loaded Google Search and saw ad under search box, where nobody else can advertise, no matter how much they offer to pay, saying “not using Chrome? Click to install now”, I thought to myself “damn they gonna get huge ant-minopoly lawsuit that will cost then billions”. And what happened?? Nothing! Other than Chrome is number one browser now for decades to come.
- 6y ago

aembleton 6y ago

> they're hoping that this will stop some app developers from demanding the right to use third party payment processors I thought you could do that for apps through the Play store. For example I pay for the Windy app through Paypal.

madeofpalk 6y ago
I believe Games is the one exception - Games must use the Play Store for all in-app purchases.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
This is actually somewhere Google has generally been more accepting than Apple. While Apple has been very harsh on both the app purchase and any in-app content or services being through them, Google has been more lenient, historically, on the latter. 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-crackdown-on-in-app-billing-aimed-at-netflix-and-spotify/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/google-announces-cra...

einpoklum 6y ago

But can't Google avert this by paying off politicians? You know, with the legalized-bribe political contributions that are so popular? 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.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Paying off politicians has worked well for Google since the Obama era, but it's not working anymore. Reason why was Trump's election. Politicians realized that Google's services, and how they're moderated, can do a lot more to affect an election than a donation ever could.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  You have a point there... but even so - Google has been censoring non-mainstream political views, and artificially promoting mainstream news media (the big networks anyway). Isn't that enough to curry favor?
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Not really. Perception is everything. Democrats believe Google allowed Trump to be elected by valuing profit on platforms like YouTube rather than intervening in extremism. Republicans believe Google and it's largely liberal-leaning employees are censoring conservative voices via algorithm updates and deplatforming. The truth is probably both are right in certain respects, and so Google finds itself now without many friends in the political sphere.

bjustin 6y ago

I agree, and even with a selfish motive, this is still a positive move on their part (and Apple's). Companies changing their behavior to avoid regulation is a better outcome than regulation in some cases, including this one IMO.

heavyset_go 6y ago

Apple and Google have held a duopoly in the mobile app distribution market for over a decade now. It's time for the market and consumers to enjoy the benefits that real competition in this space can bring and to rid them of the years of anti-competitive stagnation they've had to suffer through for benefit of Google and Apple's shareholders. While Google's change is nice, it doesn't address the core issue at all.

rsj_hn 6y ago

I don't think that developers, as a group, have much political power, or that Google is afraid of who developers will vote for. To the degree that Google cares about developers, it is because of: https://tenor.com/view/microsoft-windows-steve-ballmer-developers-gif-9638716 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.