Google Also Planning to Adopt 85/15 Subscription Revenue Split for Developers

[shandyman]

If the revenue split was really what's keeping Amazon off the Apple TV, they wouldn't have had an Amazon Video app on iOS devices for the past several years.

Only Bezos knows what's really going on in that head of his...

There is no logical argument for the Apple TV not having Amazon Prime Video.

The Xbox, with a much larger audience than the Apple TV, has an app that doesn't have the ability to buy/rent other videos, which is the main point. Also, they're fine Google taking 30%, but not Apple?

 

[MrNomNoms]

That would be awesome if apple gave 85% to hard working devs with any sale.

Personally I'd go one further: "Credit card processing fee + 5%" thus being around 7-9% for most people with American Express being the most expensive (maybe give developers the option to opt out of supporting American Express so the American Express might reduce their charges since they're most expensive in the industry).

 

[MH01]

Google is copying Apple, like Apple copied spotify by setting its subscription $.

This is for the benefit of devs who produce apps on both platforms, otherwise while would you bother producing apps for a platform with much worse returns.

Competition people.

 

[IGI2]

Call me nuts, but I do think it's for Amazon, to finally release their app for Apple TV.

Maybe Apple's testing whether Amazon will take that opportunity or not

 

[Naaaaak]

Google just one-upped Apple. This is the kind of action we need: competitors applying pressure to fight for devs so Apple will do the same. There is no compelling reason Apple should charge 30% for the first year; devs don't get any extra services that first year, so it's effectively just Apple throwing their weight around. A flat 15/85 split is simpler and should also be the rate for non-subscription purchases. The App Store is just a payment processor with strict terms of use.

 

[b0nd18t]

That's a pretty good incentive for developers to move to subscriptions for everything they can. Move over freemium, there is a new king of annoying in town.

 

[Zirel]

Omg, it's not copying if Google was also testing it. In fact this is the market at play.

Then why didn't they announce it first to developers?

Doesn't matter, Google needs this revenue stream, Apple doesn't. Apple already made their money selling hardware, Schiller might easily one-up Google.

 

[DJLAXL]

No brainer. Do you guys not watch Silicon Valley? Pied Piper does one thing and Hooli follows and vice versa. Just the nature of the market and the business. In the end we all win with more devs wanting to do more cross platform stuff.

 

[31 Flavas]

If the revenue split was really what's keeping Amazon off the Apple TV, they wouldn't have had an Amazon Video app on iOS devices for the past several years.

Only Bezos knows what's really going on in that head of his...

Yea. I mean, correct me please, but Amazon could just mirror their iOS app on an AppleTV right? The iOS Amazon Video app lets you sign in to your AmazonPrime account to stream "prime" videos and if you want to rent or buy non-prime videos -- you go to Amazon.com and purchase them.

That isn't anything that is otherwise prohibited for an AppleTV app, right?

So like you said the reason for no Apple TV Amazon Video app has to be some other reason.

 

[American Hero]

Apple needs to match this and just make it 85/15 right away too. Developers are going to take a revenue hit by switching to subscriptions due to less upfront sales (I know, I'm a developer who's test subs before). So that extra 15% makes up for some of the loss. If Google is going to earn me more money, I might throw my resources there first.

Your move Apple.

Do you really think developers are going to take a revenue hit from subscriptions?

If they charge $2.00 for an app, and then charge $1.00 for every full update from there on out, they're making more money in the long run than before, not less.

That is of course, before CC charge-back fees from angry App Store customers occur, and then developers will end up losing money when they're charged $45 per customer per charge-back.

 

[Stella]

That's a pretty good incentive for developers to move to subscriptions for everything they can. Move over freemium, there is a new king of annoying in town.

I'd be all for subscriptions, if IAPs were removed.

Subscriptions, if cheap enough are good for the customer and developer. Since there is no upgrade option on the AppStore, developers often release the next major version, and existing users get that - for free. The Developer hopes that the new version will encourage new users to get more revenue - which isn't feasible for the long run.

Since developers are now getting more reliable revenue, less likely that the software will become abandoned. Subscriptions will encourage more developers, and therefore, more software, hopefully of good quality!

 

[Mackinjosh]

Google once again showing Apple to do something properly.
[doublepost=1465483323][/doublepost]

Well, that was quick.

Is Google also going to halt Music sales as well and only use Google Play Music All-Access?

Yeah Apple never copies anyone ....oh right they do it all the time.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Didn't even realize that Android was still around. I know NOBODY who uses their crap.

 

[shandyman]

Call me nuts, but I do think it's for Amazon, to finally release their app for Apple TV.

Maybe Apple's testing whether Amazon will take that opportunity or not

The Xbox is the perfect comparison, as Amazon have set a precedent.

Yea. I mean, correct me please, but Amazon could just mirror their iOS app on an AppleTV right? The iOS Amazon Video app lets you sign in to your AmazonPrime account to stream "prime" videos and if you want to rent or buy non-prime videos -- you go to Amazon.com and purchase them.

That isn't anything that is otherwise prohibited for an AppleTV app, right?

So like you said the reason for no Apple TV Amazon Video app has to be some other reason.

Also, exactly the same for the Xbox 360 and One, witch is a much bigger market than the Apple TV.

 

[Flow39]

Google once again showing Apple to do something properly.
[doublepost=1465483323][/doublepost]
Yeah Apple never copies anyone ....oh right they do it all the time.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was just kind of saying something like: is the whole industry going to converge with developer fees and getting rid of music downloads? If that were to happen, I'd be pretty irritated.

 

[rjohnstone]

So will this push Amazon to finally bring their streaming service to Apple TV?

Subscription revenues are not the issue... in-app purchases are.
This is why most platforms that Amazon Video is available on do not offer video rental or purchase options.
Amazon doesn't want to share that revenue with anyone, especially since they (Apple) are not involved in the delivery of the the video.
[doublepost=1465503393][/doublepost]

There is no logical argument for the Apple TV not having Amazon Prime Video.

The Xbox, with a much larger audience than the Apple TV, has an app that doesn't have the ability to buy/rent other videos, which is the main point. Also, they're fine Google taking 30%, but not Apple?

Google doesn't take a cut of in-app purchases on Amazon Prime video rentals.
Unlike Apple, Google doesn't force in-app purchases to be processed exclusively through the play store.

 

[shandyman]

Subscription revenues are not the issue... in-app purchases are.
This is why most platforms that Amazon Video is available on do not offer video rental or purchase options.
Amazon doesn't want to share that revenue with anyone, especially since they (Apple) are not involved in the delivery of the the video.
[doublepost=1465503393][/doublepost]
Google doesn't take a cut of in-app purchases on Amazon Prime video rentals.
Unlike Apple, Google doesn't force in-app purchases to be processed exclusively through the play store.

My point about the Xbox stands tho

 

[FightTheFuture]

Omg, it's not copying if Google was also testing it. In fact this is the market at play.

This is reactionary. Google could've announced this at the I/O event weeks ago. Apple didn't even wait until WWDC.

 

[mildocjr]

Can't innovate my ***

 

[usamaah]

Then why didn't they announce it first to developers?

Doesn't matter, Google needs this revenue stream, Apple doesn't. Apple already made their money selling hardware, Schiller might easily one-up Google.

They didn't announce it first because there was no incentive yet, that is what I mean by the market at play. If Best Buy throws something on sale and NewEgg also puts it on sale, I wouldn't call it copying, they're both selling the product and they need to stay competitive. Here Apple and Google were testing this pricing model and Apple pulled the trigger first so Google had to in order to stay competitive, and in fact they went one step further to stay ahead of Apple.

This is reactionary. Google could've announced this at the I/O event weeks ago. Apple didn't even wait until WWDC.

Yes, reaction to a price drop of a service. That's how capitalism works. This isn't copying, this is the market at play. Google was testing it like Apple, but Apple decided to move with it first and Google matched then exceeded Apple's move.