Hacker News Reader

Comment by shimfish | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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)

So maybe this is a very calculated financial incentive to nudge the "vast majority".

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.

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.

>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.

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...

Even though Android is 80% of the market, the numbers are still shockingly tilted.

People who choose the cheap option really don't do much discretionary spending, people with iPhones actually make up the majority of revenue for many apps.

I'd like to say that users on Apple's AppStore is especially great about paying for digital contents, rather than users on Play aren't great.

Congrats on the 17,000€ - happy to hear that this change puts that kind of money into "small" app developer's pockets.

Congrats. What app is this?

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> struggling to survive demographic are the ones giving devices to their children.

You will be surprised. It is common for India to own a smartphone but not a toilet. IT is also common for the entire family to use the same smartphone and as the working dad returns home the kid jumps on his phone to play his/her favourite game.

Do you see a difference with the Apple App Store?

For my latest app, which is free with in-app purchase area unlocks...

Google Play: 10 times the amount of downloads than Apple Store

Apple Store: 2.5 times the income of Google Play.

Reviews on Google Play frequently mention how everything should be unlocked for free. Apple reviews seem to focus more on what extra content they would like to see.

Piracy on my paid apps seemed to be way, way higher on Android.

Have you tried switching to the ads model on Android (like suggested by your app's Android feedback/reviews)? I am curious if that would increase your revenue from Android users and somewhat lower piracy?

What if the developer has an app where the benefit of the app is to get users out of the app as soon as possible. For example, I have an app that helps me copy magnet links on my iPhone. I never spend more than two seconds in the app every time.

I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of advertising to children directly in an app.

Good for you as a parent I don’t allow my children to use apps with adverts. If the app is free with ads we buy the ad-free version or it’s a no go.

This is definitely an interesting data point that might support the ideas that a) walled gardens with DRM reduce piracy and b) iPhone owners tend to spend more.

Since kids tend to have more time than money, I'd also expect games/apps they use to have a higher degree of piracy, at least when it is relatively easy.

You are talking about a target market's ability to pay, which is a real and important consideration.

I think shimfish is talking more about a market's willingness to pay, which is a very different consideration. You can absolutely poison an otherwise viable marketplace by setting the buyer expectation to be free.

I think "reluctance to spend money on apps" is a big problem on Google Play outside of the population that must chose between a $5 app and food on the table. I've just seen a lot of grumbling among even affluent people about dropping a few dollars on an app when they'll easily spend 3x as much on a single drink. That's a problem in the perception of value.

I wonder if app prices could be more on a sliding scale by geography? Has that been tried?

Google Play (unlike Apple) allow you to set prices by country.

I don't think the precise pricing is so much the issue though. It's more free vs not free.

On the other hand, it heavily influences the perception of the platform itself - for a random utility that does something, my expectation is that there will be free apps for that on Android, while the iOS equivalent will cost a couple euros. Multiply that by many apps and that's a reason to choose an Android phone if you want to avoid all these extra fees for every app you'd use. It would be compensated by a richer choice of apps, but it isn't in practice, Android is large enough so that there's a good app for everything anyways.

Thank you for bringing this up. I find HN's obsession with getting rid of ads and replacing them with paid subscriptions disappointing for this reason. While everything is ad supported, it is easier for users in developing nations (like my country of origin) to afford services subsidised by users in wealthier nations (the ads the former group see are probably worth much less anyway, due to their limited purchasing power.) When services switch to a paid subscription model, this is much harder to justify since end users can see price differences across markets and will often try to use accounts in other reasons to get cheaper prices (Steam prices are the best example here.)

The existence of ad supported apps and services and free software is what allowed me to teach myself programming and graphic design in school. In HN's dream world of hundreds of dollars of SaaS subscriptions, this would not have been possible, or certainly more difficult.

Disclaimer: I work for Google

> The existence of ad supported apps and services and free software is what allowed me to teach myself programming and graphic design in school.

I don’t know what country you are from, but I’m guessing the “free” vastly outweighed the “ad supported”. Furthermore, given the low ad revenue in developing countries, an organization seeking money probably could have gotten just as much by seeking a government grant or funding from a non-profit/NGO, and the whole process probably would have been easier in terms of securing revenue as well as app design (i.e., not having to design the app around ads).

I appreciate what you are saying broadly, but google ads doesn’t seem like the optimal way to facilitate this type of information creation and dissemination in developing countries.

Furthermore, Google has shifted from having “don’t be evil” as part of their code of conduct to straight up doing evil things. Trying to dress these actions up as being a boon for the developing world is approaching if not reaching the level of being a corporate shill. Again, there are better and probably easier ways to do this other than kowtowing to the Googlith.

> I don’t know what country you are from, but I’m guessing the “free” vastly outweighed the “ad supported”. Furthermore, given the low ad revenue in developing countries, an organization seeking money probably could have gotten just as much by seeking a government grant or funding from a non-profit/NGO, and the whole process probably would have been easier in terms of securing revenue as well as app design (i.e., not having to design the app around ads).

I agree, a hypothetical universe with paid apps subsidised for students and for people from developing nations would be better, but I haven't seen this happen in practice (and it's difficult for the reasons I mentioned before - it's hard to ensure that it isn't abused.)

> I appreciate what you are saying broadly, but google ads doesn’t seem like the optimal way to facilitate this type of information creation and dissemination in developing countries.

I said nothing about Google Ads in my comment - the best example of an ad subsidised service that helped in this context would be Stack Overflow, who, AFAIK run their own ad network.

> Furthermore, Google has shifted from having “don’t be evil” as part of their code of conduct to straight up doing evil things. Trying to dress these actions up as being a boon for the developing world is approaching if not reaching the level of being a corporate shill. Again, there are better and probably easier ways to do this other than kowtowing to the Googlith.

I just wanted to share my personal experience here in the hope that folks here take the users I mentioned into account - whether that's through an ad supported business model, or subscription based business models that are affordable for them.

Imagine a dystopian novel where people who don't own toilets are forced to lose a quarter of their portable device's viewport to look at glamorous photos of products for rich people living on the other side of their globe.

That's Android right now. Yeesh.

Why should we be willing to subsidize developing countries with our attention? My obsession with creating subscription models instead of ad-supported is entirely based on my unwillingness to pay with attention any further.

See my other comment - subsidize it directly, if you can make it work with subscription models; I don't care. It's just that from what I've seen so far, this is harder to do with subscription models and so often not done at all.

As for why you should do this: the opportunities created this way are good for everyone in the long term. See: all the companies started and being led by people from developing nations, in developed ones.

I think it's going to be a really tough sell to convince me or anyone else that we should pay more in cash or attention for products to subsidize developing nations. We've been doing it for decades on things like tech and pharmaceuticals and it seems like people are getting tired of sacrificing for the rest of the world.

Whenever I try to picture who wishes to put ads in front of people making less than 5$ a day, all my ideas are social media hacks trying to goose up engagement, or evil companies like Monsanto ... and Google.

(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-annua...

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.

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.

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)

What's difference in average cost of an Android phone versus an iPhone?

Huge, but in the end metric is revenue per user. Luckily game engines targeting both automatically, otherwise Android would suffer much.

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.

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.

Or maybe I released it as free software.

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.

They were simple apps made for learning and to improve my resume.

I happen to like FOSS. It's voluntary after all. I have a bigger issue with how the industry interviews and assesses employees.

> Application software such as this shouldn’t be free

Who are you to tell someone how they should or shouldn't spend their free time?

I’m offering an opinion about providing software for free, not trying to dictate the use of anyone’s time.

> 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.

But it does mean that your app needs to make $8.33 a month, whether via ads, in-app purchases, cost of the app, or all of the above. On Android, an app doesn't have a floor. You could make a free app, with no ads, and not have to make any money.

I think this is an over-attribution of this cost. Even if you release the same app for nothing, and that cost went away, your overwhelming cost would still be your time, and the value of that time. $8.33/mo isn't even a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.

What it does do is pay for all the app store infrastructure, IDE development, etc etc, so your choice to release something for nothing doesn't externalise those costs on others.

It's cost but sometimes it's fun for developer and makes resume/GitHub/fame good. Paying $100 isn't fun or good for anyone.

The same reasoning applies for time and money. It's all the same. $100 + $10000 worth of time to make resume/GitHub/fame moves. The $100 is minimal.

I pay $100/yr to keep a few free apps (no in-app purchases, no ads, no commercialization attempts at all) in the App Store. I get emails all the time from people who want to buy the apps and ruin them.

I've been doing this for about ten years.

Now, my development time is worth a lot more than the accumulated $1000. But it's free time, and I volunteer it.

I also recognize the value of $100/yr as a "bozo filter" to Apple. But every year when they auto-bill me, I read the email and think about how it also excludes lots of good people from participating in iOS development.

It'd be great if there was a "NCA" class of app. No commercialization allowed. Always free, never ads, no in-app purchases ever. If all of your apps are NCA, your developer fee would be waived. This is probably too complicated for an Apple product though. :) And I think alternate App Stores or side-loading would be a net negative for the platform. So I pay.

I read a few years ago that only about 0.01% of Android apps make enough money to cover development costs. It isn’t the end of the world if there were slightly less competition driving down peoples revenues

Most apps don’t make any money, in fact that’s what started this particular thread. Many apps are also free.

And $8/month is not trivial for billions of people. Consider yourself fortunate that you’re not one of them, but it’s useful to have a more global perspective when discussing the accessibility of a major platform.

> If your app isn’t making that much in a month, then your app isn’t very good or you’re bad at business.

Yes, many indie developers are bad at business, but they made good apps. Their month sells might one or two. They pay the $99 to Apples per year just to prevent their apps from being removed App Store.

If it doesn’t make sense at $100/year, your apps just don’t make enough to matter to your budget at all anyhow.

Of course it doesn't make money - it's free. It doesn't have ads either.

I'd love to see that if your app was free with no ads, you didn't have to pay for a dev account.

Same, help my FOSS projects out!

Presumably this would result in a flood of "free" apps that are nothing more than facades for scams (e.g. a fun personality/quiz app -- look ma, no ads! -- that makes you reveal your secret questions and answers).

Maintaining the integrity of an app store is a very non-trivial task, and building an entry barrier in the form of developer fees is one way of doing it. Not saying this is the only solution or even a particularly good one, but every solution will have its share of unintended consequences and exploited armor chinks. Making dev accounts free for no-ads would be an interesting experiment, though. I'd support it for science!

Ha, that's a good point, though I think if Apple were to implement something like it, there would be a ton of rules. Perhaps banning network requests from the free app (no saas, no tracking) or limiting it in some way from being abused.

This discussion is about how the vast majority of apps don’t make any money. What needs to make sense for that completely arbitrary fee?

The $100 a year ensures that trash doesn’t litter the App Store and also supports the ongoing development of tooling and management of the store (manual review, Xcode, documentation, distribution, APIs like Metal, etc).

If you’re not committed enough to releasing something with >$100 in value or not committed to releasing something high quality, the App Store doesn’t need you or your app - period.

As a user (and as a dev), I like this. The bar does not need to be lower.

Also if you look at a platform like Unity, the Hobbyist license is $25 a month and the Pro license is $125 a month.

> The $100 a year ensures that trash doesn’t litter the App Store

As an Apple fan, I really wish that were true.

I think that if you were to round up 100 people off the street and take their phones they all have more or less the same apps on them.

90% of what you find in the app stores of Google and Apple is fluff.

> The $100 a year ensures that trash doesn’t litter the App Store

And yet I found a half of a dozen Chinese knockoff BonziBuddy clones on the Mac App Store.

I had a free app on the Mac App Store with no ads. Last time I checked, it had an average of 60 downloads per day. Not much, but I guess it was valuable to some people. I still use it almost daily.

After a couple of years I decided it didn’t make sense to keep paying $100 to Apple every year just to host a small free app.

>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.

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.

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...

> 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?

Why leave out the only actual platform that android competes with, iOS?

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.

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.)

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...

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.

That's most likely not [1] why software companies like AutoDesk, Adobe or Microsoft (with Office365) are moving towards a SaaS model: regular monthly payments add up to more than one-time licenses, and provide a more predictable revenue stream.

Market was willing to accept that, so there was no reason for them not to do it.

[1] Citations missing for my claims too! :)

From 2015. No reason to believe things would have got better since then.

https://venturebeat.com/2015/01/05/monument-valley-developer...

> How is piracy for Android any easier than say, Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux?

I'm not arguing if it is easier, I am asking how is it easier? That article does not answer how.

Aren't APK files simply java .jar packaged together? It's trivial to fully decompile java binary (bytecode) directly to source code.

Google offers protection via obfuscation. I've seen the results of its decompilation and it's practically useless.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is the $100 fee really the difference and is it comparable with the man hours you would spend porting?

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.

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.

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.

The structure of the ecosystem precludes some free apps from being listed for iOS. That structure seems to incentivize app makers to monetize, which could explain why people spend more on iOS apps.

pure speculation, but I doubt there's some intrinsic quality of android that makes users reluctant to pay for apps. more likely, people that are very price sensitive are more likely to have an android phone to begin with. the cheapest new iphone is already $400. while it may not be a good long-term value, you can buy an android phone for $50.

I think there is some intrinsic quality of Android hardware and software. It might be that it's from Google and so it feels like ever swipe and tap is monetized in some way. Or maybe it's the latency of the display and the way so many apps have display issues that makes everything feel second tier.

Apple's stuff feels better in the hand and I think that makes a user more willing to invest in it.

meh. the apple hardware and fit/finish is unquestionably better, but neither platform offers anything that I personally want to "invest" in past the purchase price of a serviceable phone. google doesn't respect my privacy, but apple doesn't respect my judgement.

Ease of access to piracy could play a big role. I haven't looked into this for a long time, but last I checked an iPhone needs to be jailbroken to side-load anything not from the AppStore.

While with Android even with most default roms it's just a matter of changing one setting in the options and transferring the pirated apk file to the device to launch it.

A much more straight-forward process with Android devices vs iOS devices and piracy strives on convenience.

Trust. Any experienced marketer will tell you that is the most difficult part of securing a transaction. Whether Android users and fans agree or not, the purchase behavior on iOS vs Android mirrors any other comparison of luxury or near-luxury shopping behavior compared to lower rent shopping options.

The rent is higher to get in to the AppStore, too, given you need a $100/year subscription and a Mac. Apple keenly understands aspirational marketing and it trickles down to apps.

Of course Android has millions of users that simply can’t afford to buy apps, but even among those that can, it is a psychological difference.

> Of course Android has millions of users that simply can’t afford to buy apps

I think the portion of Android users that can't afford to buy an app is very, very small. It's no where near big enough to explain the difference between the two platforms.

> but even among those that can, it is a psychological difference

I think so too. Even people who are able to spend a dollar or two on an app are unwilling.

IMO it is because Apple got people used to buying on iTunes when it was only music. Apple's put the effort in to get people used to purchasing digital goods from them. Google's focus has always been ads first so they never created the same mindshare around expecting to purchase software from them, at least not at the consumer level.

I do that as well.

If it's true or not, I don't know. But my impression from using both platforms daily is that iOS paid apps are higher quality, in both design/looks and performance.

You can buy an Android phone for $25 in the US, and much of the rest of the world is completely priced out of buying apps or subscriptions. There are many people who use Android phones because they're affordable, but they can't afford to buy apps, though.

I don't believe that there are many people who can afford a phone and monthly service but a $1 app is out of reach. They exist, but not in numbers high enough to explain the gap between the two platforms.

Because Android is the default phone, there are a lot of people who get one and then never install a single app on it because all they really wanted was a mobile phone and a camera.

There are quite literally billions of people on Earth for whom a smartphone is a necessity that they will save for to buy used, but for whom paid apps are superfluous and whose costs cannot be justified.

Even in markets where that isn't true, it doesn't explain the gap between spending on apps by Android users and iOS users.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

> 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.

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

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

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

Wouldn't more competition be the logical thing to ask for instead?

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.

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.

> 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.

The first step in fostering a healthy competitive market is breaking down the monopoly, which is prob what the prev comment was suggesting.

Indeed. But suggesting to break Google apart nets in -4 karma on HN. smh.

Let's not even start with all the evil they've been doing in the recent years since Pichai Sundararajan took over.

Google has too much concentrated power and it is a monopoly. Search + Ads alone, a browser, a DNS network, an OS, cars, cloud. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

And it's using its influence exclusively for their own advantage and to crush people who oppose them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com