Google may mimic the new App Store subscription revenue sharing, but with a plot twist
posted by Daniel P. / Jun 09, 2016, 2:19 AM
Apple just announced sweeping changes to its app discovery and subscription take methods, and Google will be quickly following suit, it seems. The The team from Cupertino put Phil Schiller in charge of the App Store, and the result is that there will be now app ads in its search results, giving devs a chance to stand out in the ocean of barely visible apps out there.
Moreover, you will be able to subscribe for games now, not only streaming services, dating apps, or the like. Apple will even lower the percentage it takes from developers' revenue from 30% to 15%, if an app user has been subscribed for your services for more than a year, which is a nice incentive to make your software exceptionally sticky.
Google, it seems, has a similar program in the works, dubbed internally Subscription 2.0, but it will lower its 30% take to 15% immediately for all app subscription services sold through the Play Store. That's a pretty important distinction, if it materializes, and may ultimately lead to lower subscription prices for all. Google already offers publishers and other sub service sellers the ability to keep it all if they process payments on their own, but for those who can't be bothered, and still want the greater customer base and visibility that comes with being in the Play Store, life may become easier if/when Google rolls out its Subscription 2.0.
Posts: 3231; Member since: Oct 03, 2015
Apple and Google are secretly friends, laughing at their fanboys who are always fighting.
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 2:25 AM 15
It's not a secret... Google and Apple partner up on all sorts of things even today... They even have/had people that used to work in the other one's team. They love this fanboy wars stuff - it's good publicity even if it's trolling and talking smack... LOL even Samsung sold more devices for Apple mentioning iPhones in their own commercials than it's own devices a couple years back...
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 2:27 AM 4
Posts: 17357; Member since: Jun 17, 2009
I'm sure Google hasn't been working in this for a while, and just announced it off the cuff immediately after Apple.
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 2:38 AM 3
Posts: 4063; Member since: Jul 23, 2013
Well why not? This is why competition is good and why iOS hardware is usually half a decade behind the competition. This only helps the consumer and Google is even going one step beyond Apple when they do activate this.
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 2:41 AM 1
FF, iOS hardware has no lacking when it comes to performance, you know that!!! But explain how this going one step further to cut cost to devs to 15% off the bat helps consumers. I predict this may happen: Not having a probationary period until 15% cuts will/may motivate developers to move to subscriptions all together because it will yield 85% right away instead of 70% if you just had one time price. And no one wins if every single app/game developer moves to subscriptions. It only ends up screwing all users and those developers that choose not to go to the subscription route. It is all about money, ofcourse, but probationary period Apple added will also discourage developers from being jackasses and moving to subscriptions without having the services/content to offer. Honestly, I dont know what this will do to cost of apps/games overall. IAP's are more horrible to consumers than beneficiary. This may cost us both more in the long run.
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 2:53 AM 6
Everytime Apple announces something that Google didnt have it's "Google has been working on it for a while" Dont you think Apple has been working on things for a while too? Yes, my 1st post above was a bit of a troll, but it's passive aggressive (if that makes sense to you) :-) Bottom line, Apple already had subscriptions based services for a while for media of all sorts. This is just moving into apps. But frankly speaking, ted, I'm not really happy about this. Everyone sees positive for devs and in return you and I get better app support and development, but I'm not a fan of subscription concept. I will pay what the dev is asking for if I believe it's worth it, but I do not want to continue to pay for it, if certain apps I need to use only few times a year.
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 2:47 AM 4
I agree. Not a fan of subscriptions either. I rather have IAP's for new features so I can decide myself if I want to pay for those. In the end developers need to be careful, I remember Push bullet was free and popular. Then they moved existing features behind a subscription and they lost a lof of users.
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 6:35 AM 1
Posts: 132; Member since: Feb 07, 2012
Huh, 'competitive friends' are usually the best arrangement!! :) one finds something new, they shout about it a lot, getting plenty of *press* attention, sell some stuff... the *other* does the same, rinse and repeat!! :) :)
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 3:51 AM 1
Posts: 132; Member since: Feb 07, 2012
Now if apple could look at improving the hardware / kernel software side to get what ALL other smartphones have had for ages... eg Bluetooth file transfer **out of the box**, full screen widget apps ( I have a weather app, bus checker app, and calendar app, that **does not** need a button to start it, like apple does! it just sits on your screen.. :)
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 4:26 AM 2
Posts: 473; Member since: Mar 13, 2012
I fear that this could bring a new norm of having to pay for apps yearly, or paying for updates, as compared to now where mostly you buy an app once and also have the rights to all future updates. I'm sure that this is why Apple did this. Even if they lower their percentage share of the sales, they will be making more overall because of this. A true Apple move (yet more reasons for me to hate the company). Hopefully it will not be as bad on the Google side.
posted on Jun 09, 2016, 9:17 AM 3
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):