Large customers normally have lots of leverage: "if you don't give me a good deal, I will take my business elsewhere". I run an alternative to the Apple App Store for jailbroken iOS devices (Cydia); and, when I have sold software (which I did "at scale" for a decade) I absolutely was forced to cut deals--sometimes ones extremely lucrative for the developer--to keep the business of my largest clients from not only listing their products (which notably were generally ineligible, for technical reasons as opposed to content ones, from being available in the official App Store) with competing stores or even merely accepting payments themselves, but actively building their own competing stores! Think about it: if you are paying a hefty percentage of your revenue to someone else in fees--and are doing enough volume (as you are a large customer)--you can afford to hire an entire team to work on this problem as the App Store is in no way "magic" or anything... at which point you "may as well" offer the service to others in an attempt to cut the margins of your prior fee recipient. It should be the small customers who generally tolerate the (on a percentage basis) higher fees, as they are willing to pay a potentially "hefty cut" for the privilege of using an off-the-shelf, integrated solution that users trust, as the absolute cost of that larger cut is small, and is thereby unlikely to be large enough to make sense expending a bunch of effort building (and marketing) a bespoke solution (that users might not trust anyway); but if you aren't having to fight for the larger customers, something distorted is happening: that Apple and Google (both, which might be surprising to some but maybe less if you read Epic's lessor-known lawsuit against Google surrounding anticompetitive moves Google has taken--and maybe are now attempting to address, but only now--to lock in their Play Store) feel able to specifically squeeze their largest customers with seemingly no ramification is a testament to the power they possess to control and direct the relevant markets from their respective positions.
Sure, but it’s important to note that over time both companies have carved out special deals and considerations for larger customers. You can read this for yourself in the news and numerous court proceedings where emails have been released showing the companies having these exact discussions.
It’s a bit contentious but it appears Epic itself tried to get a special deal from Apple [1]. Why would you even bother asking if they don’t negotiate or cut deals with different app vendors? Apple (and maybe Google idk) even changed/lowered pricing for certain app categories because of developer complaints.
Thank you for your comment. One minor nitpick: The words app store shouldn't be capitalized because Apple does not have a trademark on that term. They have a pending trademark and when Amazon started their "AppStore" app store, Apple took them to court over it and they ended up dropping the case before it was concluded because they would have lost.
Of course your iPhone automatically capitalizes it and it's still listed as a trademark on their site because Apple is so petty.
All their announcements read like fees will be automatically reduced to 15% for the first 1M$, and even the linked article implies that:
Starting July 1, 2021, the service fee for each developer will be 15% for the first $1M (USD) of earnings you make each year when you sell digital goods or services.
However, when you read on, you realize that it's an opt-in that you need to take action on:
To officially enroll for the 15% service fee tier, you must: [list of requirements and steps]
I resent Google's policy on insisting using their payments gateway, but this criticism is unfair: Google Play console has message about enrolment to this program on the most visible place they have, with a very noticeable red tint, so it is impossible to miss whenever you log into that console.
Create an account group to help us understand if there are any other developer accounts that you're associated with. We'll use this information to make sure that you're eligible for Google Play developer programs and services, such as the 15% service fee.
This looks like a fully arbitrary requirement that has nothing to do with the 15% fee and everything with Google collecting as much data as it can get away with.
Is nobody else bothered by the fact that it took impending government intervention to cause a change in practices?
To me it raises all sorts of questions as to their profit margins, anti-competitive practices, and what the money they're sucking would have done for the other smaller businesses that actually wrote the apps they're profiting off of.
When things get this "bad", it seems indicative of a market disorder. There is an imbalance that can't simply be solved via raising capital to start a competing service. The degree of vertical integration in the mobile device market makes supplanting their position all but impossible.
When every moderately successful app is launched in a separate company will Google say, "it's the rules that are broken there's nothing wrong with lowering your play store liability by following the rules."
That's such a large cut, I just don't think the Play Store provides nearly that much value. It's also a bit of a strong-armed position anyway, so the fee feels even more disproportionate. You only have to pay them because they've cultivated a mono-store environment for android phones.
Your question could have been written 15 years ago about Internet Explorer vs Netscape Navigator.
It's mostly as a result of pre-bundling and commercial agreements. We've seen the gradual move away from AOSP to a situation where 'Google Play Services' becomes a closed-source dependency for almost every major Google App, together with their iron grip on device manufacturers to strong-arm its installation in exchange for access to their ecosystem.
At that point, Play Store is the default and most users wouldn't need/want/think about moving away from it.
But also.... ....just in case those naughty users did think about being unfaithful. There is a lot of ethically gray UX design that makes it harder for a third party App Store to gain as deep an integration into the OS, by raising the barrier.
For example, overly alarmist alerts relating to security / unknown sources. Your average techie might know what they're doing, but they're sufficiently scary for your mum to probably abandon her attempts to install that third party App Store and just use the default.
Why would I, as an end-user, install another app store? I can't imagine a compelling reason. Install apps banned by Google? Never heard of any that I want. Install apps that have better pricing because of lower fees? Haven't heard of any, I use mainly very popular apps like Uber and Yelp. Installing an app store sounds like a "big" thing to do to my phone, what's the super compelling reason I should do it?
I'm not really answering your question here, but sideloading allow alternatives with different goals than google play.
For example F-Droid is actually very big particularly with users trying to get rid of google services on their phones.
But it's a marketplace for opensource apps and services, which most commercial apps are not.
Google prevents mobile app distribution competitors from competing with the Play Store on feature parity because user installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can.
If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution method for malware on Android[1] when they go to install apps with it.
The Play Store isn't alone in being a vector for malware, as Apple's App Store is responsible for nearly half of a billion malware installs of just XcodeGhost alone[2]. This is why the mobile app distribution market needs healthy competition.
It is hard to make revenue from an app store, because most downloaded apps are free ones, and a large percentage of them use Admob to monetize. A qualified competitor needs to provide significant amount of bandwidth for the free apps.
For paid apps, Google could always cut less than you if they feel threatened.
And Google controls the Android OS development.
BTW, there are tons of Android app markets in China. No monopoly there.
because running an app store costs a lot of money and would only be profitable if you had a lot of customers at which point you have a hard time fighting the advantage google has with play store already available.
Play store works too well. They've hardly banned anything. They handle payments well (Inc refunds, reminders of upcoming charges etc). Why bother going elsewhere?
Think about how expensive user acquisition is in general. You need to pay a lot for advertising, you need to have a solid product, an operations team to look at analytics and constantly improve the user experience, you need to offer deals that give new customers value, etc. You have to spend a lot of money, especially if you want to compete with Google.
Now on top of that, you have these burdens that make it practically impossible to compete with Google, even if you have the funding, talent, and a better product:
* You need to train every potential customer on how to find and enable the "allow unknown sources" option on their phone (which is different on every phone, and constantly changes place between OS updates)
* Convince them to ignore the many scary warnings from Google about malware and security and all that stuff when they try to do so
* Teach them how to download and install an APK from your website (and maybe how to deal with the Play Protect pop-up that insinuates your app is possibly malware)
And if you manage to do that with enough customers to build a sustainable business (unlikely), you'll still be at a competitive disadvantage on their phone because your store can't install updates automatically, so you need to send users annoying notifications to install updates manually.
You're also at risk of being targeted by Google's competition ~~hit-squad~~ I mean Project Zero, which, if you get in their sights, they will analyze your store around the clock until they find a vulnerability, and then irresponsibly disclose it in order to scare customers away[1]
Plus there's Play Protect, which (at least last time I checked) you can never really get rid of. When you install an app, it will ask you if you want Play Protect to send it to Google for analysis. If you decline, it will just ask you again later.
And if you accept, Google's notoriously unreliable bots could decide that your app is malware, and then block it from being installed on any device. Good luck getting a decision like that resolved.
I always say things like this and get downvotes without comment, but here goes. This is a place where decentralization has a role to play. Things like cryptocurrencies and content-centric networking, databases and search.
In my opinion it should be possible to create an app store that actually isn't owned by any particular company but runs on a large network of peers and uses payments in cryptocurrency.
Cool! And when they do finally get hit with a healthy dose of antitrust regulation, they'll be forced to lower the fee (even more than this) for everyone in order to stay competitive.
Context: US Congress is discussing a bill that will force Play Store to act like a platform (meaning no cut at all if you choose to use another form of payment)
[+] [-] saurik|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericmay|4 years ago|reply
It’s a bit contentious but it appears Epic itself tried to get a special deal from Apple [1]. Why would you even bother asking if they don’t negotiate or cut deals with different app vendors? Apple (and maybe Google idk) even changed/lowered pricing for certain app categories because of developer complaints.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/21/apple-contends-epics-ban-w...
[+] [-] wayneftw|4 years ago|reply
Of course your iPhone automatically capitalizes it and it's still listed as a trademark on their site because Apple is so petty.
[+] [-] ge0rg|4 years ago|reply
Starting July 1, 2021, the service fee for each developer will be 15% for the first $1M (USD) of earnings you make each year when you sell digital goods or services.
However, when you read on, you realize that it's an opt-in that you need to take action on:
To officially enroll for the 15% service fee tier, you must: [list of requirements and steps]
[+] [-] Andrew_nenakhov|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ge0rg|4 years ago|reply
Create an account group to help us understand if there are any other developer accounts that you're associated with. We'll use this information to make sure that you're eligible for Google Play developer programs and services, such as the 15% service fee.
This looks like a fully arbitrary requirement that has nothing to do with the 15% fee and everything with Google collecting as much data as it can get away with.
[+] [-] natpalmer1776|4 years ago|reply
To me it raises all sorts of questions as to their profit margins, anti-competitive practices, and what the money they're sucking would have done for the other smaller businesses that actually wrote the apps they're profiting off of.
When things get this "bad", it seems indicative of a market disorder. There is an imbalance that can't simply be solved via raising capital to start a competing service. The degree of vertical integration in the mobile device market makes supplanting their position all but impossible.
[+] [-] echelon|4 years ago|reply
People get into cars and use the web everyday. They don't need Apple or Google branded Floaties® for Computing.
Tell your legislators.
[+] [-] mkl95|4 years ago|reply
> The service fee for each developer will be 15% for the first $1M (USD) of earnings you make each year when you sell digital goods or services. *
* https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|4 years ago|reply
This is probably an indication that Google/Apple make most of their App Store profits from a small number of big developers.
[+] [-] cwkoss|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etothepii|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HuangYuSan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehnto|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidlls|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] urbandw311er|4 years ago|reply
It's mostly as a result of pre-bundling and commercial agreements. We've seen the gradual move away from AOSP to a situation where 'Google Play Services' becomes a closed-source dependency for almost every major Google App, together with their iron grip on device manufacturers to strong-arm its installation in exchange for access to their ecosystem.
At that point, Play Store is the default and most users wouldn't need/want/think about moving away from it.
But also.... ....just in case those naughty users did think about being unfaithful. There is a lot of ethically gray UX design that makes it harder for a third party App Store to gain as deep an integration into the OS, by raising the barrier.
For example, overly alarmist alerts relating to security / unknown sources. Your average techie might know what they're doing, but they're sufficiently scary for your mum to probably abandon her attempts to install that third party App Store and just use the default.
[+] [-] wccrawford|4 years ago|reply
If you install a third-party store, every installation is met with scary warnings about installing from unknown sources and how unprotected you are.
It's hard to make a store work if your customers are bombarded with warnings about how dangerous you are.
[+] [-] spoonjim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] njibhu|4 years ago|reply
For example F-Droid is actually very big particularly with users trying to get rid of google services on their phones. But it's a marketplace for opensource apps and services, which most commercial apps are not.
[+] [-] heavyset_go|4 years ago|reply
If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution method for malware on Android[1] when they go to install apps with it.
The Play Store isn't alone in being a vector for malware, as Apple's App Store is responsible for nearly half of a billion malware installs of just XcodeGhost alone[2]. This is why the mobile app distribution market needs healthy competition.
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bbmz/the-fortnite-trial-is...
[+] [-] tapirl|4 years ago|reply
For paid apps, Google could always cut less than you if they feel threatened.
And Google controls the Android OS development.
BTW, there are tons of Android app markets in China. No monopoly there.
[+] [-] f6v|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] canada2us|4 years ago|reply
Otherwise, Google threatens manufacturers out of the Android ecosystem, and will not allow them to install Gmail, Google, etc apps.
So, there is no competition at all. Google is a monopoly.
[+] [-] isoprophlex|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|4 years ago|reply
An app store is not a product, it is a feature.
[+] [-] LatteLazy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bogwog|4 years ago|reply
Now on top of that, you have these burdens that make it practically impossible to compete with Google, even if you have the funding, talent, and a better product:
* You need to train every potential customer on how to find and enable the "allow unknown sources" option on their phone (which is different on every phone, and constantly changes place between OS updates)
* Convince them to ignore the many scary warnings from Google about malware and security and all that stuff when they try to do so
* Teach them how to download and install an APK from your website (and maybe how to deal with the Play Protect pop-up that insinuates your app is possibly malware)
And if you manage to do that with enough customers to build a sustainable business (unlikely), you'll still be at a competitive disadvantage on their phone because your store can't install updates automatically, so you need to send users annoying notifications to install updates manually.
You're also at risk of being targeted by Google's competition ~~hit-squad~~ I mean Project Zero, which, if you get in their sights, they will analyze your store around the clock until they find a vulnerability, and then irresponsibly disclose it in order to scare customers away[1]
Plus there's Play Protect, which (at least last time I checked) you can never really get rid of. When you install an app, it will ask you if you want Play Protect to send it to Google for analysis. If you decline, it will just ask you again later.
And if you accept, Google's notoriously unreliable bots could decide that your app is malware, and then block it from being installed on any device. Good luck getting a decision like that resolved.
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu...
[+] [-] heavyset_go|4 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel
[+] [-] ribosometronome|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pandabob|4 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/24/22547934/google-play-app-...
[+] [-] fnord77|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] canada2us|4 years ago|reply
Can they just lower the fees when they make way more than enough money?
No, they don't. They just keep making more and more money, seeing economic inequality becomes more and more a serious problem.
It's just against social good.
[+] [-] ilaksh|4 years ago|reply
In my opinion it should be possible to create an app store that actually isn't owned by any particular company but runs on a large network of peers and uses payments in cryptocurrency.
[+] [-] bogwog|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nomdep|4 years ago|reply
https://world.hey.com/dhh/here-comes-the-law-eb302a46
[+] [-] avipars|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshstrange|4 years ago|reply
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26486737
[+] [-] f6v|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josefx|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonplackett|4 years ago|reply