6 ms·

What's also not being said here is that ~99% of apps on Google Play don't make money this way either. Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spen

What's also not being said here is that ~99% of apps on Google Play don't make money this way either. Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spend money on apps at all and the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy, most developers only way to make money is through in-app advertising, which this change obviously makes no difference to. Google Play is mostly a pyramid scheme. Developer's can only make money from showing ads and at the same time can only get downloads if they place ads on other people's apps. And Google just happens to own all the mobile ad companies. This 15% cut ends up "costing" Google virtually nothing. And as for Google "helping developers build sustainable businesses", the only times they've ever reached out to me were to offer me the opportunity to have someone help me spend thousands of dollars a month on mobile ads. Never, for example, to actually take down all the scam apps that use my app's name, icon and screenshots.

WA 6y ago
This is not true. Yes, Android users tend to pay less for apps, but useful apps that provide daily utility actually make good money as well. If you have a brand-name app like Runtastic, Netflix, Headspace or whatever, the platform doesn't really matter. You buy the product, because you want it. It's probably different for utility apps like a different Camera, a photo editor, small productivity apps you need only once per month. I'm happy about this change and it will definitely affect my bottom line in the range of several thousand euro per month – and I'm an indie dev. Edit: I just looked it up and calculated the difference. I will make roughly 17,000€ more per year through this change.
- shimfish 6y ago
  I'll also make more because of it. I'm just saying that it won't make that much difference to the vast majority of developers.
  - darkwizard42 6y ago
    Yeah but that comment is kind of ignoring the segment for whom it does matter... There are tons of free crappy apps on Android, but for the ones that generate moderate value and are paid for because they are functional apps and not games or ad-ridden networking apps then this is a huge change. The "vast majority" of developers might just not be making apps that benefit from this but its a bit misleading to say this isn't a good change or helpful. If anything it will incentivize people to perhaps look into developing more away from an ad model into a sustainable paid model (given the margins just got 100% better)
    - lowdose 6y ago
      So maybe this is a very calculated financial incentive to nudge the "vast majority".
- sidlls 6y ago
  It is just true. Compared to the only other major mobile app ecosystem, Android users are relatively cheap. That doesn’t mean nobody pays or that nobody who distributes an app earns money through purchases. It just means that on Android it’s a smaller group than on, say, Apple.
  - andechs 6y ago
    I'd actually argue that Android users have more options, thus the market price for apps is reduced by the amount of supply. When you're looking for a "Todo" app, there's 1000's on Android, and many or most are free. Many people might be better served by a quality app, but when the alternatives are good enough, it's a hard sell.
    - smeyer 6y ago
      >Android users have more options > When you're looking for a "Todo" app, there's 1000's on Android, and many or most are free. There are also a massive number of "Todo" apps on the Apple app store. Searching for numbers online seems to indicate that there are about 50% more apps total on the Google play store than the Apple app store, but for the more common use cases that still means massive numbers of choices on each store, both free and paid.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    It's pretty straight forward. Users buying phones that cost $250 on average [1] will also spend less money on apps that users buying phones that cost on average closer to $700. That being said, worldwide Apple only has 20% of the market now so while the average user is cheaper, there are quite a bit more users. That's probably why ad-based monetization also works a lot better on Android (more users). [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/951537/worldwide-average-selling-price-android-smartphones/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/951537/worldwide-average...
    - 6y ago
- snappieT 6y ago
  Congrats on the 17,000€ - happy to hear that this change puts that kind of money into "small" app developer's pockets.
- johnx123-up 6y ago
  Congrats. What app is this?
mcintyre1994 6y ago
iOS is full of the same free ad-supported games that seem to solely advertise other free ad-supported games. I wouldn't be surprised if Google own all the ad companies they're using too since Apple ditched iAds.
bottled_poe 6y ago
Client applications should be assumed to be insecure. If you’re app doesn’t load content from a secure (paid) backend, you’re not going to make much money on the Play Store.
dalu 6y ago
That's exactly one of the reasons, but a representative one, why Google needs to be broken apart
- eru 6y ago
  Wouldn't more competition be the logical thing to ask for instead?
  - oblio 6y ago
    More competition how? MS-DOS cornered the desktop market around 1981. It remained the dominant desktop OS, despite being an utter piece of crap OS and technologically obsolete even at the moment it was introduced, until around 1990, when it was overtaken by products from the same company, Windows 3.1 and later Windows 95. Windows 95 then took over in... 1995 :-) Windows is still the dominant desktop platform in 2021, and it will probably be for at least 1 more decade. Linux took over server environments around 2005, I think, and its still dominating in 2021. It will probably dominate for many decades more. Smartphone OSes are in the same place. Smartphones have matured, they're primarily slabs of glass/metal/plastic. You either get Android or you switch both hardware AND software and get iOS. Android is almost free for manufacturers and customers, so it's even worse than Windows. How is it ever going to be displaced? Keep in mind that not even beauties such as Windows Me, Windows Vista, Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 made much of a negative dent in the Windows marketshare.
    - ethbr0 6y ago
      Break Google's ad business off the company. It'll cause some churn, and a lot of Google stuff will die, but it needs to happen. Strangling the revenue pipe, while owning most platforms to ensure most people are forced through said pipe, is harmful to the greater internet ecosystem. Google does amazing, great things. But they're funding them by dumping toxic waste out the backdoor.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      > MS-DOS cornered the desktop market around 1981. Sorry, but in what concerns Europe, the desktop market was split across boring PCs with MS-DOS, Atari and Amigas, and in 1986 the option was still between ZX Spectrum and Commodore descendants, with most people migrating to 16 bit desktop systems around 1990. In 1988, our computer club at the school just had a couple of newly bought Amstrad PC1512, where I got to play Defender of the Crown, with students having turns at the keyboard.
davidkuennen 6y ago
Actually this change helps me a lot with my app. This reduction will pay for servers and data sources alone, which helps me 'build a sustainable business'.
atleta 6y ago
I think the platform makes little difference. The app store/play store app game is a long tail one: most apps make exactly 0 money and see very little traction.
criddell 6y ago
I've always wondered what it is about Android that makes users reluctant to pay for apps. I'm guilty of it too. I have both iOS and Android devices and I spend far more money buying apps on my iOS device.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Aren't there fewer free apps to choose in iOS? They charge $100 per year to be a developer. That's kept me from making my apps multiplatform.
  - nsomaru 6y ago
    Is the $100 fee really the difference and is it comparable with the man hours you would spend porting?
    - giantg2 6y ago
      It's absolutely the fee. I can't see paying $100 every year just to let other people use my apps that's $1k over a decade!). If it were a one-time fee like Google, then I would have done it.
  - criddell 6y ago
    There's no shortage of apps of any kind in Apple's store as far as I can see. I would say the same is true of the Play store. There are some exclusives on each platform though, but nothing without competitor. FWIW, I avoid free apps and apps with subscriptions as much as I can.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    How many places are you going to restart this same well trod argument? I wouldn’t say anything except this is twice you’ve brought this up out of the blue under one thread that I’ve seen and this isn’t even talking about the Apple ecosystem.
    - giantg2 6y ago
kyrra 6y ago
(googler opinions are my own) At least according to this site[0], Google play moves $38B, while Apple moves $72B (annually). So people are spending money on Google play, just less. But I also believe more people have android phones vs iPhones, so that dilutes the per person revenue even more. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/444476/google-play-annual-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/444476/google-play-annua...
- distances 6y ago
  Apple has much stricter requirements on payments outside the apps though, is that considered in the numbers? If you can get direct payments from Google customers but have to go through Apple and give a slice in their platform, that would mean the higher store revenue number is actually partly squeezed from the developers instead of profiting them.
- mrkramer 6y ago
  Different demographics use iPhone than Android. There are more Android devices in the world than iOS ones but people with greater purchasing power use iPhone that's why there is such a big difference in revenues of App Store and Google Play.
- bluesign 6y ago
  Android phones are approx. 2.5x more than Apple phones worldwide Also Play store has 1.5x more apps. So almost 8x difference for developers. (per person)
  - zucker42 6y ago
    What's difference in average cost of an Android phone versus an iPhone?
    - bluesign 6y ago
      Huge, but in the end metric is revenue per user. Luckily game engines targeting both automatically, otherwise Android would suffer much.
giantg2 6y ago
At least they aren't charging $100 per year to be a developer like Apple does. I would have liked to make my apps multiplatform, but it just doesn't make sense at that price. Edit: It's great to see that this platform likes downvoting people who release their software for free. Profit matters above all else. I guess next you all will tell me my job is worthless and I suck at life because I make under $100k.
- briandear 6y ago
  If $100/yr is too much, then it’s very likely your app isn’t profitable. A person doesn’t say “I would sell my product at Target, but spending money on gas to deliver it to their distribution center is too expensive.” Literally, it’s $8.33 per month to be a part of the Apple Developer program. If your app isn’t making that much in a month, then your app isn’t very good or you’re bad at business. No disrespect intended, but $8.33 as a cost of doing business is so trivial as to not even be worth mention.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Or maybe I released it as free software.
    - sidlls 6y ago
      Application software such as this shouldn’t be free. It hides the true cost to developers from consumers and, if they’re ad supported hooks into one of the most insidious, malicious systems we’ve ever devised. I won’t work on free software. I have too much respect for myself, my family, and my colleagues to do that.
      - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
        > I won’t work on free software. I have too much respect for myself, my family, and my colleagues to do that. This is a strange attitude for me to see on HN, considering how much most of us love FOSS. I can understand saying you don't have the time, or simply aren't interested, but to frame it as having "too much respect for myself" seems arrogant and spits in the face of the people who have written major software used in servers around the world.
jeswin 6y ago
> Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spend money on apps at all and the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy Ridiculous allegation, which doesn't take into account the wealth inequality around the world. Hundreds of millions of people in the developing world have a smartphone today due to Android; a $1000 phone, or even a $400 phone is way out of reach for them. So the "reluctance to spend money on apps" is that it's a choice between that and food on the table. Also, very few people are side-loading apps - the rest are too tech illiterate to make that happen. Add: I responded to your post because you're calling Google Play a "pyramid scheme". From fisherfolk trying to sell at optimal prices to daily labourers hunting for jobs, you've no idea how many people are enabled by the platform and its apps.
- watwut 6y ago
  > So the "reluctance to spend money on apps" is that it's a choice between that and food on the table. Sometimes yes. But also, spending money on apps you dont need is not virtue. For that matter, spending money on stuff you dont need is not virtue in general.
- shimfish 6y ago
  I make kids apps. Firstly, I'm not sure the struggling to survive demographic are the ones giving devices to their children. Secondly, kids (and adults for that matter) have been conditioned by the market to expect software for free. You can read all my reviews on Google Play to see how offended they are that stuff isn't free, with some even moaning that there should be video ads that will unlock the app for 30 minutes. Thirdly, I've seen YouTube videos made by kids specifically giving instructions how to download my apps for free. In fact, generally you just need to sideload just one "alternative app store" and you're good to go. This isn't rocket science. It's following a few simple steps that aren't hard to find. Finally, I'm making broad generalisations about the vast majority of app store activity. The existence of fisherfolk isn't relevant here. I know people are enabled by the App Store existing. I've been lucky enough to live comfortably for the past decade entirely because App Stores exist. I'm merely offering a few thoughts from the perspective of a long term app developer that some people may not have realised.
kop316 6y ago
> the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy Respectfully, I would like a citation on this. How is piracy for Android any easier than say, Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux?
- nsomaru 6y ago
  Why leave out the only actual platform that android competes with, iOS?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    I don't think Android really significantly competes with iOS or vice versa. Android and iOS are almost entirely independent markets. The competition for Android devices is other Android devices. The competition for iOS devices...isn't.
    - JKCalhoun 6y ago
      That's an interesting take. I think you're right. I don't think that was the case 8 or so years ago, but I agree it appears that way now. (Anecdotal: gave my dad two hand-me-down iPhones. Because of the cost he was never going to buy one (on a fixed retirement income after all). Him and his wife having used iPhones now seem to have crossed over. I suppose I'll have to keep sending him over my old phones from now on.)
  - kop316 6y ago
    Becuase I want to know if the reason they say piracy is easy is because users can install their own apps (which to me is a red herring, as Windows and Linux, this has been true for decades and there are established ways to curtail piracy[1]), or if there is actually a reason that piracy is easy on Android. [1] https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
- pja 6y ago
  I guess the point is that of the two main mobile platforms, it’s much easier to pirate Android Apps than iPhone Apps. Desktops are a whole different kettle of fish, which is why profitable companies have (mostly) given up on selling software & are making money via SaaS approaches on desktop.
duxup 6y ago
>Google Play is mostly a pyramid scheme. Developer's can only make money from showing ads and at the same time can only get downloads if they place ads on other people's apps. And Google just happens to own all the mobile ad companies. Most businesses fail because they don't get customers... that doesn't make starting a business a pyramid scheme. App stores are super saturated with apps, there's the reason you can't make money. If you can't and choose to use ads ... that's your business decision... Sometimes I think the issue of fees and other issues including poor customer service from google gets tied up with the difficulty of even just making any money on the play store / a whole glut of apps that straight up most won't make money no matter what happens.
JeremyNT 6y ago
You're blaming piracy? Color me incredibly skeptical. How about occam's razor instead: people who buy cheaper phones have less cash to spend on "premium" apps.
- shimfish 6y ago
  Why is that a simpler theory than "why pay when it's incredibly simple to download for free"? https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/monument-valley-developer-only-5-of-android-installs-were-paid-for/ https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/monument-valley-developer...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ineedasername 6y ago
Piracy isn't google's fault. It's a byproduct of having a system that is at least a little bit more open than others like iOS. This isn't munch different than the situation developers face with piracy on a PC. Otherwise, this is a big win for small developers. Most developers probably don't approach the $1M cap, and all of them will see their fees drastically reduced. Of course I'm cynical enough to view this mostly as a defensive measure against monopoly concerns, but that doesn't mean there's no benefit for many developers. What do you believe, with respect to the app store, would be a more developer-friendly change? I'd like to see then allow developers to use different payment providers and not fight against alternate app stores that much. However for things that go through the play store even with a different payment provider, I think Google deserves some small cut for hosting all these apps and providing the platform. Something like a one-time fee for all paid apps or apps with paid content. It seems reasonable to pay them for use of their infrastructure in some form. Apps that make use of less of it-- like not using it's payment system-- would pay less.
LatteLazy 6y ago
99% of YouTube channels, Facebook pages, personal websites, Flickr users etc don't make money. Sometimes people just like doing things and sharing. That doesn't make it a pyramid scheme: no one is cheating anyone and people are just building and sharing.
holoduke 6y ago
Not true. I have multiple successful apps. Didn't spend a single dollar on marketing.
MomoXenosaga 6y ago
Honestly not even that- I have blokada so no ads for me. But I do wonder if the problem doesn't lie in the fact that there are 5000000 apps and yours is just 5000001 that nobody is going to use. App market seems saturated.
yccheok 6y ago
I am indie developer who makes and sales apps on Android. I can tell you this is not true. Users are willing to pay for good apps.
canadianfella 6y ago
What piracy?
fomine3 6y ago
I found more horrible monetize method for Apps: residential proxy SDK like Luminati. Anyone knows how many apps uses it?
908B64B197 6y ago
> Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spend money on apps at all Rule of thumb: No matter the distribution of devices across your users, the majority of revenues comes from iOS. Often supporting Android is almost not worth it. I've seen a lot of mobile dev shops, and customers always want the iOS app to be the first on the market. Often the Android one is effectively a port.

WA 6y ago

This is not true. Yes, Android users tend to pay less for apps, but useful apps that provide daily utility actually make good money as well. If you have a brand-name app like Runtastic, Netflix, Headspace or whatever, the platform doesn't really matter. You buy the product, because you want it. It's probably different for utility apps like a different Camera, a photo editor, small productivity apps you need only once per month. I'm happy about this change and it will definitely affect my bottom line in the range of several thousand euro per month – and I'm an indie dev. Edit: I just looked it up and calculated the difference. I will make roughly 17,000€ more per year through this change.

shimfish 6y ago
I'll also make more because of it. I'm just saying that it won't make that much difference to the vast majority of developers.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  Yeah but that comment is kind of ignoring the segment for whom it does matter... There are tons of free crappy apps on Android, but for the ones that generate moderate value and are paid for because they are functional apps and not games or ad-ridden networking apps then this is a huge change. The "vast majority" of developers might just not be making apps that benefit from this but its a bit misleading to say this isn't a good change or helpful. If anything it will incentivize people to perhaps look into developing more away from an ad model into a sustainable paid model (given the margins just got 100% better)
  - lowdose 6y ago
    So maybe this is a very calculated financial incentive to nudge the "vast majority".
sidlls 6y ago
It is just true. Compared to the only other major mobile app ecosystem, Android users are relatively cheap. That doesn’t mean nobody pays or that nobody who distributes an app earns money through purchases. It just means that on Android it’s a smaller group than on, say, Apple.
- andechs 6y ago
  I'd actually argue that Android users have more options, thus the market price for apps is reduced by the amount of supply. When you're looking for a "Todo" app, there's 1000's on Android, and many or most are free. Many people might be better served by a quality app, but when the alternatives are good enough, it's a hard sell.
  - smeyer 6y ago
    >Android users have more options > When you're looking for a "Todo" app, there's 1000's on Android, and many or most are free. There are also a massive number of "Todo" apps on the Apple app store. Searching for numbers online seems to indicate that there are about 50% more apps total on the Google play store than the Apple app store, but for the more common use cases that still means massive numbers of choices on each store, both free and paid.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ehsankia 6y ago
  It's pretty straight forward. Users buying phones that cost $250 on average [1] will also spend less money on apps that users buying phones that cost on average closer to $700. That being said, worldwide Apple only has 20% of the market now so while the average user is cheaper, there are quite a bit more users. That's probably why ad-based monetization also works a lot better on Android (more users). [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/951537/worldwide-average-selling-price-android-smartphones/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/951537/worldwide-average...
  - 6y ago
snappieT 6y ago
Congrats on the 17,000€ - happy to hear that this change puts that kind of money into "small" app developer's pockets.
johnx123-up 6y ago
Congrats. What app is this?

mcintyre1994 6y ago

iOS is full of the same free ad-supported games that seem to solely advertise other free ad-supported games. I wouldn't be surprised if Google own all the ad companies they're using too since Apple ditched iAds.

bottled_poe 6y ago

Client applications should be assumed to be insecure. If you’re app doesn’t load content from a secure (paid) backend, you’re not going to make much money on the Play Store.

dalu 6y ago

That's exactly one of the reasons, but a representative one, why Google needs to be broken apart

eru 6y ago
Wouldn't more competition be the logical thing to ask for instead?
- oblio 6y ago
  More competition how? MS-DOS cornered the desktop market around 1981. It remained the dominant desktop OS, despite being an utter piece of crap OS and technologically obsolete even at the moment it was introduced, until around 1990, when it was overtaken by products from the same company, Windows 3.1 and later Windows 95. Windows 95 then took over in... 1995 :-) Windows is still the dominant desktop platform in 2021, and it will probably be for at least 1 more decade. Linux took over server environments around 2005, I think, and its still dominating in 2021. It will probably dominate for many decades more. Smartphone OSes are in the same place. Smartphones have matured, they're primarily slabs of glass/metal/plastic. You either get Android or you switch both hardware AND software and get iOS. Android is almost free for manufacturers and customers, so it's even worse than Windows. How is it ever going to be displaced? Keep in mind that not even beauties such as Windows Me, Windows Vista, Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 made much of a negative dent in the Windows marketshare.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Break Google's ad business off the company. It'll cause some churn, and a lot of Google stuff will die, but it needs to happen. Strangling the revenue pipe, while owning most platforms to ensure most people are forced through said pipe, is harmful to the greater internet ecosystem. Google does amazing, great things. But they're funding them by dumping toxic waste out the backdoor.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    > MS-DOS cornered the desktop market around 1981. Sorry, but in what concerns Europe, the desktop market was split across boring PCs with MS-DOS, Atari and Amigas, and in 1986 the option was still between ZX Spectrum and Commodore descendants, with most people migrating to 16 bit desktop systems around 1990. In 1988, our computer club at the school just had a couple of newly bought Amstrad PC1512, where I got to play Defender of the Crown, with students having turns at the keyboard.

davidkuennen 6y ago

Actually this change helps me a lot with my app. This reduction will pay for servers and data sources alone, which helps me 'build a sustainable business'.

atleta 6y ago

I think the platform makes little difference. The app store/play store app game is a long tail one: most apps make exactly 0 money and see very little traction.

criddell 6y ago

I've always wondered what it is about Android that makes users reluctant to pay for apps. I'm guilty of it too. I have both iOS and Android devices and I spend far more money buying apps on my iOS device.

giantg2 6y ago
Aren't there fewer free apps to choose in iOS? They charge $100 per year to be a developer. That's kept me from making my apps multiplatform.
- nsomaru 6y ago
  Is the $100 fee really the difference and is it comparable with the man hours you would spend porting?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    It's absolutely the fee. I can't see paying $100 every year just to let other people use my apps that's $1k over a decade!). If it were a one-time fee like Google, then I would have done it.
- criddell 6y ago
  There's no shortage of apps of any kind in Apple's store as far as I can see. I would say the same is true of the Play store. There are some exclusives on each platform though, but nothing without competitor. FWIW, I avoid free apps and apps with subscriptions as much as I can.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  How many places are you going to restart this same well trod argument? I wouldn’t say anything except this is twice you’ve brought this up out of the blue under one thread that I’ve seen and this isn’t even talking about the Apple ecosystem.
  - giantg2 6y ago

kyrra 6y ago

(googler opinions are my own) At least according to this site[0], Google play moves $38B, while Apple moves $72B (annually). So people are spending money on Google play, just less. But I also believe more people have android phones vs iPhones, so that dilutes the per person revenue even more. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/444476/google-play-annual-revenue/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/444476/google-play-annua...

distances 6y ago
Apple has much stricter requirements on payments outside the apps though, is that considered in the numbers? If you can get direct payments from Google customers but have to go through Apple and give a slice in their platform, that would mean the higher store revenue number is actually partly squeezed from the developers instead of profiting them.
mrkramer 6y ago
Different demographics use iPhone than Android. There are more Android devices in the world than iOS ones but people with greater purchasing power use iPhone that's why there is such a big difference in revenues of App Store and Google Play.
bluesign 6y ago
Android phones are approx. 2.5x more than Apple phones worldwide Also Play store has 1.5x more apps. So almost 8x difference for developers. (per person)
- zucker42 6y ago
  What's difference in average cost of an Android phone versus an iPhone?
  - bluesign 6y ago
    Huge, but in the end metric is revenue per user. Luckily game engines targeting both automatically, otherwise Android would suffer much.

giantg2 6y ago

At least they aren't charging $100 per year to be a developer like Apple does. I would have liked to make my apps multiplatform, but it just doesn't make sense at that price. Edit: It's great to see that this platform likes downvoting people who release their software for free. Profit matters above all else. I guess next you all will tell me my job is worthless and I suck at life because I make under $100k.

briandear 6y ago
If $100/yr is too much, then it’s very likely your app isn’t profitable. A person doesn’t say “I would sell my product at Target, but spending money on gas to deliver it to their distribution center is too expensive.” Literally, it’s $8.33 per month to be a part of the Apple Developer program. If your app isn’t making that much in a month, then your app isn’t very good or you’re bad at business. No disrespect intended, but $8.33 as a cost of doing business is so trivial as to not even be worth mention.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Or maybe I released it as free software.
  - sidlls 6y ago
    Application software such as this shouldn’t be free. It hides the true cost to developers from consumers and, if they’re ad supported hooks into one of the most insidious, malicious systems we’ve ever devised. I won’t work on free software. I have too much respect for myself, my family, and my colleagues to do that.
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      > I won’t work on free software. I have too much respect for myself, my family, and my colleagues to do that. This is a strange attitude for me to see on HN, considering how much most of us love FOSS. I can understand saying you don't have the time, or simply aren't interested, but to frame it as having "too much respect for myself" seems arrogant and spits in the face of the people who have written major software used in servers around the world.

jeswin 6y ago

> Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spend money on apps at all and the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy Ridiculous allegation, which doesn't take into account the wealth inequality around the world. Hundreds of millions of people in the developing world have a smartphone today due to Android; a $1000 phone, or even a $400 phone is way out of reach for them. So the "reluctance to spend money on apps" is that it's a choice between that and food on the table. Also, very few people are side-loading apps - the rest are too tech illiterate to make that happen. Add: I responded to your post because you're calling Google Play a "pyramid scheme". From fisherfolk trying to sell at optimal prices to daily labourers hunting for jobs, you've no idea how many people are enabled by the platform and its apps.

watwut 6y ago
> So the "reluctance to spend money on apps" is that it's a choice between that and food on the table. Sometimes yes. But also, spending money on apps you dont need is not virtue. For that matter, spending money on stuff you dont need is not virtue in general.
shimfish 6y ago
I make kids apps. Firstly, I'm not sure the struggling to survive demographic are the ones giving devices to their children. Secondly, kids (and adults for that matter) have been conditioned by the market to expect software for free. You can read all my reviews on Google Play to see how offended they are that stuff isn't free, with some even moaning that there should be video ads that will unlock the app for 30 minutes. Thirdly, I've seen YouTube videos made by kids specifically giving instructions how to download my apps for free. In fact, generally you just need to sideload just one "alternative app store" and you're good to go. This isn't rocket science. It's following a few simple steps that aren't hard to find. Finally, I'm making broad generalisations about the vast majority of app store activity. The existence of fisherfolk isn't relevant here. I know people are enabled by the App Store existing. I've been lucky enough to live comfortably for the past decade entirely because App Stores exist. I'm merely offering a few thoughts from the perspective of a long term app developer that some people may not have realised.

kop316 6y ago

> the rampant piracy that Android's open model makes trivially easy Respectfully, I would like a citation on this. How is piracy for Android any easier than say, Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux?

nsomaru 6y ago
Why leave out the only actual platform that android competes with, iOS?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  I don't think Android really significantly competes with iOS or vice versa. Android and iOS are almost entirely independent markets. The competition for Android devices is other Android devices. The competition for iOS devices...isn't.
  - JKCalhoun 6y ago
    That's an interesting take. I think you're right. I don't think that was the case 8 or so years ago, but I agree it appears that way now. (Anecdotal: gave my dad two hand-me-down iPhones. Because of the cost he was never going to buy one (on a fixed retirement income after all). Him and his wife having used iPhones now seem to have crossed over. I suppose I'll have to keep sending him over my old phones from now on.)
- kop316 6y ago
  Becuase I want to know if the reason they say piracy is easy is because users can install their own apps (which to me is a red herring, as Windows and Linux, this has been true for decades and there are established ways to curtail piracy[1]), or if there is actually a reason that piracy is easy on Android. [1] https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe-Newell-Says-Piracy-Is-a-Service-Problem https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114391-Valves-Gabe...
pja 6y ago
I guess the point is that of the two main mobile platforms, it’s much easier to pirate Android Apps than iPhone Apps. Desktops are a whole different kettle of fish, which is why profitable companies have (mostly) given up on selling software & are making money via SaaS approaches on desktop.

duxup 6y ago

>Google Play is mostly a pyramid scheme. Developer's can only make money from showing ads and at the same time can only get downloads if they place ads on other people's apps. And Google just happens to own all the mobile ad companies. Most businesses fail because they don't get customers... that doesn't make starting a business a pyramid scheme. App stores are super saturated with apps, there's the reason you can't make money. If you can't and choose to use ads ... that's your business decision... Sometimes I think the issue of fees and other issues including poor customer service from google gets tied up with the difficulty of even just making any money on the play store / a whole glut of apps that straight up most won't make money no matter what happens.

JeremyNT 6y ago

You're blaming piracy? Color me incredibly skeptical. How about occam's razor instead: people who buy cheaper phones have less cash to spend on "premium" apps.

shimfish 6y ago
Why is that a simpler theory than "why pay when it's incredibly simple to download for free"? https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/monument-valley-developer-only-5-of-android-installs-were-paid-for/ https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/monument-valley-developer...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ineedasername 6y ago

Piracy isn't google's fault. It's a byproduct of having a system that is at least a little bit more open than others like iOS. This isn't munch different than the situation developers face with piracy on a PC. Otherwise, this is a big win for small developers. Most developers probably don't approach the $1M cap, and all of them will see their fees drastically reduced. Of course I'm cynical enough to view this mostly as a defensive measure against monopoly concerns, but that doesn't mean there's no benefit for many developers. What do you believe, with respect to the app store, would be a more developer-friendly change? I'd like to see then allow developers to use different payment providers and not fight against alternate app stores that much. However for things that go through the play store even with a different payment provider, I think Google deserves some small cut for hosting all these apps and providing the platform. Something like a one-time fee for all paid apps or apps with paid content. It seems reasonable to pay them for use of their infrastructure in some form. Apps that make use of less of it-- like not using it's payment system-- would pay less.

LatteLazy 6y ago

99% of YouTube channels, Facebook pages, personal websites, Flickr users etc don't make money. Sometimes people just like doing things and sharing. That doesn't make it a pyramid scheme: no one is cheating anyone and people are just building and sharing.

holoduke 6y ago

Not true. I have multiple successful apps. Didn't spend a single dollar on marketing.

MomoXenosaga 6y ago

Honestly not even that- I have blokada so no ads for me. But I do wonder if the problem doesn't lie in the fact that there are 5000000 apps and yours is just 5000001 that nobody is going to use. App market seems saturated.

yccheok 6y ago

I am indie developer who makes and sales apps on Android. I can tell you this is not true. Users are willing to pay for good apps.

canadianfella 6y ago

What piracy?

fomine3 6y ago

I found more horrible monetize method for Apps: residential proxy SDK like Luminati. Anyone knows how many apps uses it?

908B64B197 6y ago

> Due to a combination of Android user's reluctance to spend money on apps at all Rule of thumb: No matter the distribution of devices across your users, the majority of revenues comes from iOS. Often supporting Android is almost not worth it. I've seen a lot of mobile dev shops, and customers always want the iOS app to be the first on the market. Often the Android one is effectively a port.