4 ms·

But doesn't Google provide a simple way to both support the developer AND stay within the rules? Make it a pay app.

vhanda 6y ago
It's really not the same thing. With Donations you want a subset of users to pay for the app, who really want to. With a paid app, every one needs to pay. Also, a donation is very different than selling something from a legal point of view. When selling, you need to pay VAT. One could keep two apps, one paid and one free, but then on the paid one you're essentially paying 30% to Google and about 20% more to VAT. So you're effectively losing half the money and having to do lots more work to maintain two apps, and their subsequent ASO.
- ec109685 6y ago
  Why can't you do an in-app purchase that is the donation and doesn't unlock anything? Yeah, you're still paying the various taxes, but you don't need two apps.
  - vhanda 6y ago
    Yup. You're right. You can do that. You then have the problem of writing and maintaining the code for the IAP, which isn't always trivial. But yes, absolutely do-able. At this point it's the same thing as selling an invisible skin for your app. The fundamental issue is that of selling vs donating.
  - bluetwo 6y ago
    Yep. And if you are in-tune with your users, create something the power-users will appreciate.
kentonv 6y ago
Yes, and they take a 30% cut, with is insane. Like, completely nutso absurd. 30% is a reasonable tax rate for a government that provides roads, schools, defense, social security, etc., not a reasonable fee for a company to process electronic payments. But Google (like Apple) has no incentive whatsoever to reduce the price, because they have a captive audience. If Google took a more reasonable cut, like 5%, maybe even 10%, then sure, I wouldn't be so bothered by them insisting that this app use in-app purchases for donations.
- LordAtlas 6y ago
  Google has reduced the cut to 15% for revenue below $1 million.
  - coding123 6y ago
    But as long as they force you into their payment plan AND not allow competition (ie additional stores) there definitely seems to be anti-trust problems.
  - cma 6y ago
    So good luck getting funding for something that you tell the funder could earn millions if it works out. That means less greenfield investment, and ultimately less investment for apps that make less than a million, since only X% will end up doing so, but investment will be impacted for all.
    - LordAtlas 6y ago
      I mentioned this in the context of this particular post where the person is soliciting donations, not the overall app ecosystem. I doubt he's making > 1 million in donations.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Solely under threat of upcoming litigation, yes, they now rip people off half as much.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Are you claiming that the 30% (or 15%) cut is to only support the payments infra, and isn't supporting the android ecosystem as a whole?
  - kentonv 6y ago
    1. I think they should support the ecosystem by selling phones. That would result in far fewer perverse incentives and market distortions compared to their approach of taxing developers. 2. I don't think Google actually needs a 30%/15% cut to "support the Android ecosystem". I think they're charging way more than necessary, just because they can. (Same arguments for Apple.)

It's really not the same thing. With Donations you want a subset of users to pay for the app, who really want to. With a paid app, every one needs to pay. Also, a donation is very different than selling something from a legal point of view. When selling, you need to pay VAT. One could keep two apps, one paid and one free, but then on the paid one you're essentially paying 30% to Google and about 20% more to VAT. So you're effectively losing half the money and having to do lots more work to maintain two apps, and their subsequent ASO.

ec109685 6y ago
Why can't you do an in-app purchase that is the donation and doesn't unlock anything? Yeah, you're still paying the various taxes, but you don't need two apps.
- vhanda 6y ago
  Yup. You're right. You can do that. You then have the problem of writing and maintaining the code for the IAP, which isn't always trivial. But yes, absolutely do-able. At this point it's the same thing as selling an invisible skin for your app. The fundamental issue is that of selling vs donating.
- bluetwo 6y ago
  Yep. And if you are in-tune with your users, create something the power-users will appreciate.

kentonv 6y ago

Yes, and they take a 30% cut, with is insane. Like, completely nutso absurd. 30% is a reasonable tax rate for a government that provides roads, schools, defense, social security, etc., not a reasonable fee for a company to process electronic payments. But Google (like Apple) has no incentive whatsoever to reduce the price, because they have a captive audience. If Google took a more reasonable cut, like 5%, maybe even 10%, then sure, I wouldn't be so bothered by them insisting that this app use in-app purchases for donations.

LordAtlas 6y ago
Google has reduced the cut to 15% for revenue below $1 million.
- coding123 6y ago
  But as long as they force you into their payment plan AND not allow competition (ie additional stores) there definitely seems to be anti-trust problems.
- cma 6y ago
  So good luck getting funding for something that you tell the funder could earn millions if it works out. That means less greenfield investment, and ultimately less investment for apps that make less than a million, since only X% will end up doing so, but investment will be impacted for all.
  - LordAtlas 6y ago
    I mentioned this in the context of this particular post where the person is soliciting donations, not the overall app ecosystem. I doubt he's making > 1 million in donations.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Solely under threat of upcoming litigation, yes, they now rip people off half as much.
joshuamorton 6y ago
Are you claiming that the 30% (or 15%) cut is to only support the payments infra, and isn't supporting the android ecosystem as a whole?
- kentonv 6y ago
  1. I think they should support the ecosystem by selling phones. That would result in far fewer perverse incentives and market distortions compared to their approach of taxing developers. 2. I don't think Google actually needs a 30%/15% cut to "support the Android ecosystem". I think they're charging way more than necessary, just because they can. (Same arguments for Apple.)