Google will reduce Play Store cut to 15% for a developer’s first $1M annually | Hacker News Reader

Google will reduce Play Store cut to 15% for a developer’s first $1M annually

theverge.com

37 pointsAlupis9 comments

I hope they are also supportive of the government taxing all income in similar brackets: 15% until 1M, 30% until 1B, 40% until 10B, 70% until 100B. This type of thinking should apply to the big tech companies...

Why should Google get 70B on 100B earnings through an App in the App Store? That makes no sense at all.

Because Google is providing an ecosystem platform of billions of customers to the app developer.

Think of it this way, without the App Store, would the app developer be able to make more than 100B earnings? There's very little incentive for Google and Apple to reduce the cut on their platform, doing so can cause an escalating chain of events that would reduce their revenue and significantly impact their key stakeholders.

That still doesn't make any sense.

I could use your same argument - without all the App Developers making Apps, would Google's App store make any money at all? No, of course not. See Windows Mobile, as an example of what happens with an empty ecosystem.

google and apple developed their os and app store and made it enticing to users. difference here js that you don’t HAVE to use googles app store, other app stores exist but they make it easy and supported it over the last decade+. i don’t know how much they deserve but they at least have made it worth a developers while to support it. developers need the store for exposure more than google needs the developers, theres always someone willing to developer and their store seems more open than apples

Income tax is already progressive so I'm assuming you're talking about corporate tax. The usual arguments for progressive taxes (ie. "because the rich can afford to pay more") doesn't really apply because a company making 10B of profit on 100B worth of revenue is very different than a company making 10B of profit on 11B of revenue. Similarly, a company making 1M of profit with five employees is very different than a company making 1M of profit with 100,000 employees.

That's nice, but we need to just regulate the oligopoly of stores held by Google-Apple on mobile phones, Google-Mozilla for browsers, Steam for games, etc. much more strongly. The fees are atrocious, their support of developers is terrible, and their arbitrary and capricious bans of content they disagree with is unacceptable from a free speech perspective.

Ultimately what we need is freer hardware and freer fundamental software (OS, browsers, etc) that does not have controlling interests from these entities no one elected.

How is steam a monopoly? If you don't like Steam, just use another distributor like GoG or self publish.

Most of the users are on Steam and the fact that they have an existing library on there is a bit of a network effect. Users will prefer to get more games where their existing ones are. The social networking aspects (having friends on Steam, the ability to stream to each other, join games, and so on) also provide a barrier to new competition via network effects.

Are they a monopoly? I am not sure if it meets the current definition of one in practice, since seemingly no antitrust action is taken on by the government these days. But in my mind Steam is a monopoly for digital game distribution on PC. You could argue that consoles constitute a similar monopoly within each console's platform, I suppose. And you could argue that not all games are sold via digital distribution. But I think we need a new modern anti-trust law that doesn't rely on a very high bar like a "monopoly" but some other less stringent definition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com