The Android Developers Union(andevuni.org)
andevuni.org
The Android Developers Union
http://www.andevuni.org/
85 comments
A union has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with collective bargaining. When parties negotiate as a group, they can get a better deal. The drawback is that you must dilute your own interests with those of everyone else. But when all members have roughly the same interests, it's worthwhile.
All this site has to say is that the new curated app platforms are creating a huge power imbalance, and the way to even the field is to unionize. All the ideology just muddies the water and leads to endless bickering.
All this site has to say is that the new curated app platforms are creating a huge power imbalance, and the way to even the field is to unionize. All the ideology just muddies the water and leads to endless bickering.
regarding the first point about 32% take, below is my cut'n'paste from the same issue on the Apple platform. At least on Android you can sideload. Summary: "If you want to do business, you have to pay for services. Deal with it".
If you think otherwise, well, there's a market full of screaming developers with little business experience, and this is the 'home of startups' - there's a startup idea to capitalise on.
---- I don't like Apple's business practises and never have, but this 70/30 split furore is hilarious to someone who has worked in retail and supply before. It is entirely normal for a retailer (apple) to take this kind of split in the retail price and the supplier/wholesaler to take 70%. In the retail industry I worked in, the retailer took a 35-40% portion.
This split is yawningly normal in retail. What's not normal is the huge numbers of "one-person" wholesalers... who have very little in the way of business experience and see that split as a "tax" rather than payment for a service.
If you think otherwise, well, there's a market full of screaming developers with little business experience, and this is the 'home of startups' - there's a startup idea to capitalise on.
---- I don't like Apple's business practises and never have, but this 70/30 split furore is hilarious to someone who has worked in retail and supply before. It is entirely normal for a retailer (apple) to take this kind of split in the retail price and the supplier/wholesaler to take 70%. In the retail industry I worked in, the retailer took a 35-40% portion.
This split is yawningly normal in retail. What's not normal is the huge numbers of "one-person" wholesalers... who have very little in the way of business experience and see that split as a "tax" rather than payment for a service.
Apple and Google may mark their apps up less than the average department store or grocery store, but it marks them up a hell of a lot more than most highly-efficient retail operations. Walmart marks up around 20%, and Costco never marks its products up more than 14%. And actual retail stores need to pay for their property, their employees, transportation, and utilities to keep their stores running. Apple and Google have none of these expenses. Additionally, both Apple and Google only operate app stores as side businesses to help sell their high margin hardware or get people to look at ads.
>Apple and Google may mark their apps up less than the average department store or grocery store
I'm pretty sure grocery store markups are more like 5% to 10%.
I'm pretty sure grocery store markups are more like 5% to 10%.
A lot of grocery stores get charge money for shelf space, though, which brings in guaranteed revenue in exchange for more expensive products.
Oh wait, you were agreeing with me. Sorry.
Oh wait, you were agreeing with me. Sorry.
And don't Walmart and Costco have an excellent reputation for quality!
And actual retail stores need to pay for their property, their employees, transportation, and utilities to keep their stores running.
I thought someone would say this - as if developing the infrastructure and maintaining it is extremely low cost. Development of enterprise level software is expensive. Having individual reviews of every app is expensive.
This is just apologism for people trying to get out of the rather humdrum retailer/wholesaler relationship.
And actual retail stores need to pay for their property, their employees, transportation, and utilities to keep their stores running.
I thought someone would say this - as if developing the infrastructure and maintaining it is extremely low cost. Development of enterprise level software is expensive. Having individual reviews of every app is expensive.
This is just apologism for people trying to get out of the rather humdrum retailer/wholesaler relationship.
But to play devil's advocate; it's not the same as retail - Apple don't buy stock and sell it on.
Apple (and Google) provide a space to sell Apps. They operate more like a department store which rents space to individual concessions.
I don't think a department store would necessarily take 30% of all sales made within it.
Apple (and Google) provide a space to sell Apps. They operate more like a department store which rents space to individual concessions.
I don't think a department store would necessarily take 30% of all sales made within it.
Apple don't buy stock and sell it on.
Sure they do - they just buy it in a JIT fashion. Someone orders the app, Apple supplies them a copy. The 'stock bought' is the payment to the wholesaler.
If you buy ten shirts from a wholesaler, they get paid for ten shirts. If you buy ten apps from a wholesaler, they get paid for ten apps.
I don't think a department store would necessarily take 30% of all sales made within it.
A department store has different expenses, but yes, a good quality department store will take that cut and higher.
Apple and Google are not just providing market space. They also provide quality review and payment processing. It's not like your Sunday market where you pay a fixed price, take a fixed amount of stock, and then spend your own time hawking your wares and dealing with payment. Instead it's a market where you supply your stock once and take royalties on it. Apple/Google take over some of the advertising and all of the payment processing. You don't have to worry about bad credit cards. Or making the payroll. Or keeping the servers up.
In fact, that's the better way to look at it - rather than a bricks-and-mortar store comparison, apps are more like music or prose. You do the work once. You can rerelease the work if you like. It's in your own interest to help market the work, but you don't have to. But once the work's done, you can just sit back and let someone else deal with making money for you if you like. That sounds more like royalty-based industries than brick-and-mortar shops.
And compared to other royalty-based industries, in this case it's the artists taking the corps to the cleaners!
Seriously though - they've sunk heavy investment into the product, why should they go for cut-throat margins in a booming industry? Besides, it comes off as whining for suppliers to have to pay a very normal fee for services supplied
Sure they do - they just buy it in a JIT fashion. Someone orders the app, Apple supplies them a copy. The 'stock bought' is the payment to the wholesaler.
If you buy ten shirts from a wholesaler, they get paid for ten shirts. If you buy ten apps from a wholesaler, they get paid for ten apps.
I don't think a department store would necessarily take 30% of all sales made within it.
A department store has different expenses, but yes, a good quality department store will take that cut and higher.
Apple and Google are not just providing market space. They also provide quality review and payment processing. It's not like your Sunday market where you pay a fixed price, take a fixed amount of stock, and then spend your own time hawking your wares and dealing with payment. Instead it's a market where you supply your stock once and take royalties on it. Apple/Google take over some of the advertising and all of the payment processing. You don't have to worry about bad credit cards. Or making the payroll. Or keeping the servers up.
In fact, that's the better way to look at it - rather than a bricks-and-mortar store comparison, apps are more like music or prose. You do the work once. You can rerelease the work if you like. It's in your own interest to help market the work, but you don't have to. But once the work's done, you can just sit back and let someone else deal with making money for you if you like. That sounds more like royalty-based industries than brick-and-mortar shops.
And compared to other royalty-based industries, in this case it's the artists taking the corps to the cleaners!
Seriously though - they've sunk heavy investment into the product, why should they go for cut-throat margins in a booming industry? Besides, it comes off as whining for suppliers to have to pay a very normal fee for services supplied
>>Apple don't buy stock and sell it on.
>Sure they do - they just buy it in a JIT fashion. Someone orders the app, Apple supplies them a copy. The 'stock bought' is the payment to the wholesaler.
That's not a valid comparison. The retailer's markup includes the risk that they won't be able to sell the product.
(OK, OK, unless the product is books.)
>Sure they do - they just buy it in a JIT fashion. Someone orders the app, Apple supplies them a copy. The 'stock bought' is the payment to the wholesaler.
That's not a valid comparison. The retailer's markup includes the risk that they won't be able to sell the product.
(OK, OK, unless the product is books.)
Anyone who's incensed at a 30% cut for Apple/Google, when they offer a turn-key merchant solution and a huge potential sales base, has probably never heard of the publishing arrangements on other console platforms, like Sony Playstation (or Xbox or...). Small devs get absolutely raked over the coals by the high costs associated with getting a game pressed onto discs and onto a store shelf. 30% is a laugh.
It would be fairer to make a comparison with a purely online gaming distribution model like Steam.
Apple and Google don't have as many realworld costs once their infrastructure is working and is in place.
Apple and Google don't have as many realworld costs once their infrastructure is working and is in place.
Steam doesn't manufacture or support the hardware its clients use, though. Steam targets computers, not consoles or console-like devices.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. The manufacture of hardware is entirely separate to the operation of a software marketplace.
Steam doesn't have the overhead of creating, advancing, and supporting an entire hardware infrastructure. Which means less costs relative to Apple. So no kidding they take a smaller cut.
Any corporation is a very large organisation, the people who design the phones aren't working two jobs .. there are different departments which create and depend upon different revenue streams. In any case, the hardware is SOLD to the consumer, not given away. I don't understand your point.
I was simply stating stream would make a better comparison than a console manufacturer selling games on physical media.
I was simply stating stream would make a better comparison than a console manufacturer selling games on physical media.
Your original reply to me had two parts.
Part 1: "It would be fairer to make a comparison with a purely online gaming distribution model like Steam."
It would not be fair to make that comparison since the two models have fundamentally different underlying fixed and marginal costs.
Part 2: "Apple and Google don't have as many realworld costs once their infrastructure is working and is in place."
Apple indeed has other significant "realworld costs", especially the development, maintenance, and future research to extend their hardware platform. Steam does not have those kinds of costs, and therefore does not need to build in those costs into their margins.
Part 1: "It would be fairer to make a comparison with a purely online gaming distribution model like Steam."
It would not be fair to make that comparison since the two models have fundamentally different underlying fixed and marginal costs.
Part 2: "Apple and Google don't have as many realworld costs once their infrastructure is working and is in place."
Apple indeed has other significant "realworld costs", especially the development, maintenance, and future research to extend their hardware platform. Steam does not have those kinds of costs, and therefore does not need to build in those costs into their margins.
Are you serious?
Sony and Nintendo burn and load their software onto cartridges or discs .. they create stock, they package stock, they store stock, they move stock - they sell stock. These are real world (physical) costs associated with production and distribution.
Comparing Apple or Google to one of these suppliers is ridiculous because Apple don't use physical media for their software.
You made this comparison - I told you that steam would be a better (not perfect) comparison - because, like Apple and Google .. they sell via a download mechanism.
Sony and Nintendo burn and load their software onto cartridges or discs .. they create stock, they package stock, they store stock, they move stock - they sell stock. These are real world (physical) costs associated with production and distribution.
Comparing Apple or Google to one of these suppliers is ridiculous because Apple don't use physical media for their software.
You made this comparison - I told you that steam would be a better (not perfect) comparison - because, like Apple and Google .. they sell via a download mechanism.
Developers are charged for disc production. Not to mention the huge fees to get titles passed Sony/Nintendo/MS/etc QA. (TCR/TRC checklists, anyone?) Don't kid yourself... developers get squeezed dry on consoles.
Apple/Google don't use physical media, like Steam, sure... but that single similarity is not sufficient to prove Steam is a "better comparison". So, again, Apple/Google are much more like console manufacturers than Steam, and their deal is comparatively better than PS/Xbox/Wii developers get.
Apple/Google don't use physical media, like Steam, sure... but that single similarity is not sufficient to prove Steam is a "better comparison". So, again, Apple/Google are much more like console manufacturers than Steam, and their deal is comparatively better than PS/Xbox/Wii developers get.
I don't think we're going to be able to agree - but I think you're comparing Apples with Oranges.
Steam sell IP through digital channels .. Apple/Google sell IP digitally. Console manufacturers (historically) sell IP on physical media. Both involve markedly different business models - a comparison is ridiculous.
Steam sell IP through digital channels .. Apple/Google sell IP digitally. Console manufacturers (historically) sell IP on physical media. Both involve markedly different business models - a comparison is ridiculous.
I expected to see Apple/Google conflated in the reaction to this point of the list, but for me it's a different thing.
(Disclaimer: I'm an Android/webos guy)
Apple adds
- A serious review of all submitted apps (Like it not..)
- A support procedure for problems with the app store (which I cannot judge, being on the other side)
- Market penetration in lots of/most countries.
What's the equivalent of the android market place? If there's none, why pay the same and compare those things as equals? It seems on the one side there's an army of people working on quality and support (with varying results), while on the other side there's a large void and the "See, this is the marketplace, submit stuff. I'm off" attitude.
The former seems to be far more expensive to me. If that's sustainable with ~30% of the sales, why - again - does the approach that seems less involved need the same?
(Disclaimer: I'm an Android/webos guy)
Apple adds
- A serious review of all submitted apps (Like it not..)
- A support procedure for problems with the app store (which I cannot judge, being on the other side)
- Market penetration in lots of/most countries.
What's the equivalent of the android market place? If there's none, why pay the same and compare those things as equals? It seems on the one side there's an army of people working on quality and support (with varying results), while on the other side there's a large void and the "See, this is the marketplace, submit stuff. I'm off" attitude.
The former seems to be far more expensive to me. If that's sustainable with ~30% of the sales, why - again - does the approach that seems less involved need the same?
They offer similar services: a centralised place that people come to in order to buy a variety of products. It's good for your software to be on it. The differences are minor, it's the merchant solution that is significantly the same.
At least with the Android marketplace, if you don't like that 30% cut, you're free to separately market and take payment for your application. The principal part of both is this 'centralised store' approach, combined with dealing with the payment system.
The other thing is good old capitalism. Apple and Google aren't social services, so why should they operate on razor-thin margins? They have desirable products, and are charging normal retail overheads for what is, essentially, a royalty-based industry. 30% is fine, and 'what do you get for it'? The ability to hawk your wares and not have to worry about bad debts or if it's worth taking a 99c sale.
At least with the Android marketplace, if you don't like that 30% cut, you're free to separately market and take payment for your application. The principal part of both is this 'centralised store' approach, combined with dealing with the payment system.
The other thing is good old capitalism. Apple and Google aren't social services, so why should they operate on razor-thin margins? They have desirable products, and are charging normal retail overheads for what is, essentially, a royalty-based industry. 30% is fine, and 'what do you get for it'? The ability to hawk your wares and not have to worry about bad debts or if it's worth taking a 99c sale.
Regarding item #4: Increased Payment Options
When the official Android market went live, you can now buy apps over the browser, then even download to your phone...so this is a bit out of date.
When the official Android market went live, you can now buy apps over the browser, then even download to your phone...so this is a bit out of date.
He may be referring to more payment options - like PayPal. I get emails all the time from people asking if they can pay with PayPal.
EDIT: And until you've sold apps in the Android Market, you don't know the pain that is the infamous RED "Payment Declined" message in Google Checkout.
EDIT: And until you've sold apps in the Android Market, you don't know the pain that is the infamous RED "Payment Declined" message in Google Checkout.
I probably know the pain. I've been putting food on my table since 2009 solely from Android app development. And not for contracts either, just me vs. the market.
It's ironic that when I click to expand some of the demands, Chrome 11.x consistently crashes and shows the "Aw Snap!" message. It's almost like they intended to hide the truth from me.
Why 32% and not 30%? Is there an extra fee I'm not seeing? I have one paid app in the Market (9 sales so far!), and I'm pretty sure I got exactly 70% of the sales.
Where is the request for allowing worldwide developers to sell apps ?
Is there a union for iPhone developers too?
Pretty much every one of those points are applicable to Apple. However, I don't think it's a problem as long as most iOS developers are making a lot more money on iOS than Android.
Not like anything's going to come of this lame petition anyway. If you're not making money as an Android dev, stop developing on Android. Online petitions are great for making people feel like they've actually done something, without actually making them put in any more effort than a button click.
Not like anything's going to come of this lame petition anyway. If you're not making money as an Android dev, stop developing on Android. Online petitions are great for making people feel like they've actually done something, without actually making them put in any more effort than a button click.
"Pretty much every one of those points are applicable to Apple. However, I don't think it's a problem as long as most iOS developers are making a lot more money on iOS than Android."
Even so, there's not a cat in hell's chance than Apple would ever submit to 'union' pressure. I don't think Google can realistically be expected behave differently.
Even so, there's not a cat in hell's chance than Apple would ever submit to 'union' pressure. I don't think Google can realistically be expected behave differently.
Of course this is a silly statement. If 100% of Apple developers decided to join a union in an attempt to collectively bargain, of course Apple would negotiate. If 1% join, of course they won't. Where the tipping point lies is an open question. It's fairly unlikely that enough people would ever get on board to find out, though, given the way things have played out thus far and the existing community.
When the original iPhone came out, the only way to deliver apps was via the web. Developers wanted an iPhone SDK, and that's exactly what they got in subsequent versions, which led to the App Store's success.
When Apple came out with the "no non-Objective-C" clause aka section 3.3.1 lots of people demanded that it be changed. Apple eventually relented too.
So... Apple does respond to feedback.
When Apple came out with the "no non-Objective-C" clause aka section 3.3.1 lots of people demanded that it be changed. Apple eventually relented too.
So... Apple does respond to feedback.
The clause was not simply "no non-Objective-C". It allowed for C/C++/Obj-C development as long as Xcode was the tool used to produce the binary.
If they had banned C and C++, a lot of games would have had to disappear, considering how many games use external libraries. Not to mention a lot of non-game apps, like those that use the SQLite package (raw, not via Core Data).
If they had banned C and C++, a lot of games would have had to disappear, considering how many games use external libraries. Not to mention a lot of non-game apps, like those that use the SQLite package (raw, not via Core Data).
A lot of games would have been banned either way e.g. use of Lua scripting or any 3rd party framework for cross-platform dev.
Right, but that was because of a kind of prohibition on embedded scripting runtimes in general, and has nothing to do with C or C++ specifically.
[deleted]
If there was, I expect its website would be nicer to look at...
Are there any online petitions that have actually worked?
> The current Market provides only very vague guidelines about what is and isn't acceptable content on the market. Many developers have had their applications removed without warning, without notice and without explanation. These rejections have come with no method of appeal.
> We demand that Google strictly codify the rules of the Market, and that any removals must be accompanied with a complete explanation and reference to the specific rules violated, and with a formal method for appeal.
Hmm, where have I heard this before?
> We demand that Google strictly codify the rules of the Market, and that any removals must be accompanied with a complete explanation and reference to the specific rules violated, and with a formal method for appeal.
Hmm, where have I heard this before?
I generally don't have a problem with developers having conversations with companies running platforms they're building on, but come on. The sense of entitlement is sickening.
Could android do things better? Sure. But to act as if Google has a responsibility to the developers is a little bit far fetched, IMHO.
Could android do things better? Sure. But to act as if Google has a responsibility to the developers is a little bit far fetched, IMHO.
Whether or not Google has a responsibility isn't really the question. The fact is that developers care about two things when they decide which platforms to make apps on. 1) Where is the money, and 2) How easy is it to create apps on that platform.
Just recently there was a blog post about a developer complaining about how hard it was to make apps on the new Blackberry tablet.
So, in my mind, no Google doesn't really have a responsibility to make developers happy. But, yes they have good business reasons to: more and more people flock to the OS's with the best apps. As for whether or not these exact demands are fair or not I can't comment because I don't develop for Android, but I can definitively say Google should take heed and make sure they can continue to be seen as a developer-friendly OS.
Edit: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2263882 <- the HN link to the aforementioned blog post.
Just recently there was a blog post about a developer complaining about how hard it was to make apps on the new Blackberry tablet.
So, in my mind, no Google doesn't really have a responsibility to make developers happy. But, yes they have good business reasons to: more and more people flock to the OS's with the best apps. As for whether or not these exact demands are fair or not I can't comment because I don't develop for Android, but I can definitively say Google should take heed and make sure they can continue to be seen as a developer-friendly OS.
Edit: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2263882 <- the HN link to the aforementioned blog post.
I think all of these corporations do have a responsibility to create reasonable conditions for developers - but I agree, these demands are quite unrealistic.
Are there any other marketplaces which already grant what's being asked for?
Are there any other marketplaces which already grant what's being asked for?
Could you elaborate upon which demands are unrealistic?
There are other marketplaces with better conditions - however, these do not come installed with any devices, rendering them fairly useless in terms of profitability.
There are other marketplaces with better conditions - however, these do not come installed with any devices, rendering them fairly useless in terms of profitability.
I think some of these demands might make operating a competitive market difficult for Google - particularly open-sourcing their market's code and implementation (Algorithmic Transparency).
Perhaps Google should be encouraged to create a marketplace which provides a better user experience for customers?
In terms of other marketplaces - I strongly believe that the creation of alternatives will lead to major gains for Android as a platform.
If conditions are made more favourable for developers (e.g. lower commission) due to competition, and a choice of marketplaces are provided to customers (with better UX) .. all markets (including Apple's) will eventually need to come into line.
I think it's good you're making your voice heard though.
Perhaps Google should be encouraged to create a marketplace which provides a better user experience for customers?
In terms of other marketplaces - I strongly believe that the creation of alternatives will lead to major gains for Android as a platform.
If conditions are made more favourable for developers (e.g. lower commission) due to competition, and a choice of marketplaces are provided to customers (with better UX) .. all markets (including Apple's) will eventually need to come into line.
I think it's good you're making your voice heard though.
To clarify - the demand is not the market be open sourced (I too think that is unreasonable at this point) - simply that the bug tracking be done in public.
I don't know if you're an Android user/dev, but the market is AWFUL, and I receive numerous emails PER DAY from customers who have been unable to download because of technical fault in the client or server.
I agree with all of your other comments! A better UX for the customers is a better experience for us developers!
I don't know if you're an Android user/dev, but the market is AWFUL, and I receive numerous emails PER DAY from customers who have been unable to download because of technical fault in the client or server.
I agree with all of your other comments! A better UX for the customers is a better experience for us developers!
Agreed, literally changing the text from "demand" to "ask" helps it come across a lot better in my opinion.
I think it really is an ask. It was just framed so that it is consistent with the union theme that the group is following. Otherwise, what "right" do they have to demand anything from Google? It's not like Google entered into some contract with them.
I agree the developers aren't entitled to these improvements from Google, but if I were Google I'd be doing everything I can to pacify developers.
Oh, I absolutely agree. It's in Google's interest to keep developers happy, for sure. As a developer, though, the idea that I have "rights" of any kind (past what's specified in a contract) is hilarious.
So don't use the Market?
Android developers actually have a choice (unlike iPhone developers) - multiple markets exist. Competition between markets could plausibly create better conditions for developers.
EDIT: eg. Verizon's Android Market (V CAST) and Amazon's upcoming marketplace.
EDIT: eg. Verizon's Android Market (V CAST) and Amazon's upcoming marketplace.
I feel like this would be theoretically better for middleman publishers but much worse for non-technical end users. I have to change a setting then download an app and set up an Amazon account just so I can download another app? Too confusing.
Also, the Amazon store has, as I recall, the interesting caveat of the prices all being set by Amazon in the first place. You don't even get to decide what your app is worth, which a lot of developers wouldn't care for I suspect.
Also, the Amazon store has, as I recall, the interesting caveat of the prices all being set by Amazon in the first place. You don't even get to decide what your app is worth, which a lot of developers wouldn't care for I suspect.
after looking at the site, i wondered where the 'made on a mac' footer was. interesting timing, considering the recent stories about the iAppstore. smells like personaware to me.
That is what they're threatening:
>If our demands are not met, we will move our applications to alternative marketplaces or the web, cease Android development in favor of other more open platforms, we will dissuade other developers from developing Android projects, and we will work tirelessly to counter any of Google's hypocritical claims about Openness in the media.
>If our demands are not met, we will move our applications to alternative marketplaces or the web, cease Android development in favor of other more open platforms, we will dissuade other developers from developing Android projects, and we will work tirelessly to counter any of Google's hypocritical claims about Openness in the media.
This is just a waste of time, ughh. If you don't like the market - don't use it. There are other markets, or you could create your own.
The sense of entitlement is astounding. They don't force you to use the market, give you tools and everything for free. It's unbelievable. Yes, the markets not perfect, but imho stuff like this is worse and just creates meaningless controversy and wastes everyones time.
The sense of entitlement is astounding. They don't force you to use the market, give you tools and everything for free. It's unbelievable. Yes, the markets not perfect, but imho stuff like this is worse and just creates meaningless controversy and wastes everyones time.
I don't think it does any harm - people need an opportunity to voice their opinion and to be heard. But I think in this case, some of the demands are pretty unrealistic.
I think that's the whole point - they're essentially threatening that without these fixes to make developing and marketing easier, they'll go and find a different platform that will meet their needs.
Never let another company step in between you and your customers. American manufacturers learned this and now software development has moved in the same direction. Oh well. There are still plenty of opportunities. We laugh at the demanding tone of this "union," now but I suspect there will be a time when we wish something like this took off.
What is market curation exactly?
This guy should be banned from the Market simply so Google doesn't have to waste oxygen looking at his support requests.
Anyone who takes the time to put together a list of hard-hitting business requests like 'algorithmic transparency' is going to ever, ever, ever have a hit consumer application. The linked list isn't about making more money, it's about ideological purity.
Anyone who takes the time to put together a list of hard-hitting business requests like 'algorithmic transparency' is going to ever, ever, ever have a hit consumer application. The linked list isn't about making more money, it's about ideological purity.
OP is responsible for top 5 level apps in several paid categories.
More importantly, one of the grievances is that Google doesn't look at support requests. Like, at all.
More importantly, one of the grievances is that Google doesn't look at support requests. Like, at all.
This is not exactly new behavior for them; it's just a new platform. Gmail and Apps users have dealt with this for years.
Customer service and support continues to be the single biggest thing that Google gets wrong. And I say this as an unabashed Google fanboy in most other respects, at least compared to my immediate colleagues.
Customer service and support continues to be the single biggest thing that Google gets wrong. And I say this as an unabashed Google fanboy in most other respects, at least compared to my immediate colleagues.
Without wanting to get political - I do believe sometimes capitalism does need reigning in. Not everything has to be about making money.
In any case, some of the requests relate directly to customer (developer) support - positive gains here should definitely affect profitability.
In any case, some of the requests relate directly to customer (developer) support - positive gains here should definitely affect profitability.
What's missing from this post is the better Android Market app and ecosystem he designed and developed.. The only limiting factor is his willingness to educate himself.
I don't see much of a problem with the Market. Sure it could be better, but it could be a lot worse. I'd rather have them continue to spend developers' time and energy making Android competitive so we have a market to sell our apps, instead of catering to our every need.
I can't believe I still can't purchase apps in the Android app store.. I only use ad-supported apps or free ones.
I would love to spend money on android apps.
But, I live in Iceland. Welcome to 2011.
I would love to spend money on android apps.
But, I live in Iceland. Welcome to 2011.
It's interesting to me how many of the folks here on Hacker News disparage the developer and back the big corporation. Yay, solidarity!
People defend Apple too. There's a strong free market mindset behind this. We do have choices or at least the ability to influence the market by our own choices. I don't see any problem with these folks raising some valid issues, even if they do it in less than tactful fashion, but ultimately they are fighting a losing battle. Android, in its most accessible form, is not going to be the open platform some people envisioned. Google is not going to magically become as adept as Apple at selling things. Google isn't doing these things because they want to piss off developers and neither is Apple. They're doing it because they either just don't get it or they are putting their own best interests first. I think most of us relate to this because it's the same basic choice individuals make managing their own personal/financial affairs. I'm not going to hold Google or Apple to a higher standard but I will be happy to vote with my dollars if they challenge my best interests or if some new player happens to do it better.
I was thinking the same thing but knew how bad the karma police would punish me for saying it.
Yeah, I guess it's not perceived as adding anything to the conversation by pointing out that people are acting against their own self interest.
I'd just be happy if the market numbers updated more frequently than every couple days. My ad impression stats update in realtime. Why can't my downloads and error stats do the same?
Even updating at the same time every day would be nice; then I could add the developer's console to the list of links I read every morning.
"our demands are not met, cease Android development in favor of other more open platforms,"
To other more open, like .... iOS, Windows mobile?? And, please don't say Symbian and Maemo..
To other more open, like .... iOS, Windows mobile?? And, please don't say Symbian and Maemo..
iOS is more open than Android from where I stand. I live in India. A few months ago, I couldn't purchase Android applications. As of now, I can purchase applications but not sell them.
> We demand that Google renegotiate this rate, either to a much lower percentage (preferably, no percentage) or give us some value for our money in terms of Market curation and support.
So either lower the price or add multi week review process followed by arbitrary denials?
So either lower the price or add multi week review process followed by arbitrary denials?
What about letting people from more countries sell applications on the Market?
I know a couple of folks -- long time Mac users and developers who did not want to develop for iOS on moral grounds -- who built some breathtakingly beautiful apps for Android. Simple apps. Prototypes, meant to test the Androidian waters. Beautiful nonetheless. They are currently thinking of moving to iOS because Indian developers can't sell apps on the Market.
I also know people who make spacecargoloads of money selling iOS apps from India. An organization I visited last week wants to build a few iOS applications. They already have a developer license. They considered Android ... for about 30 seconds. They quickly scraped all their Android plans the moment I told them they couldn't sell applications from India.
I see that as a loss for Google.
I know a couple of folks -- long time Mac users and developers who did not want to develop for iOS on moral grounds -- who built some breathtakingly beautiful apps for Android. Simple apps. Prototypes, meant to test the Androidian waters. Beautiful nonetheless. They are currently thinking of moving to iOS because Indian developers can't sell apps on the Market.
I also know people who make spacecargoloads of money selling iOS apps from India. An organization I visited last week wants to build a few iOS applications. They already have a developer license. They considered Android ... for about 30 seconds. They quickly scraped all their Android plans the moment I told them they couldn't sell applications from India.
I see that as a loss for Google.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Oh come on guys! I thought HN is better then saying 'If you don't like it then don't use it'.
Do you really think that this has any value? I don't want to be harsh but since when is this constructive criticism?
If you don't like this post please say WHY you don't like it and give some feedback HOW it would be better.
And now some Feedback to this website. I think it's fair to mention that Developers have to pay 30% of their earnings and getting nearly nothing for it. I mean I'm thanking Google that they are hosting the Android Market but taking 30% for just hosting something isn't fair anyway. They should lower the rate or give some more support to developers.
I really welcome criticism to any platform cause you can grow with it BUT without it you don't know what you are doing wrong, right?
To be honest I'm mostly an iOS developer but I developed already a Android App and successfully put into the Android Market for free.
If you don't like this post please say WHY you don't like it and give some feedback HOW it would be better.
And now some Feedback to this website. I think it's fair to mention that Developers have to pay 30% of their earnings and getting nearly nothing for it. I mean I'm thanking Google that they are hosting the Android Market but taking 30% for just hosting something isn't fair anyway. They should lower the rate or give some more support to developers.
I really welcome criticism to any platform cause you can grow with it BUT without it you don't know what you are doing wrong, right?
To be honest I'm mostly an iOS developer but I developed already a Android App and successfully put into the Android Market for free.
> And now some Feedback to this website. I think it's fair
to mention that Developers have to pay 30% of their
earnings and getting nearly nothing for it.
They avoid having to pay credit card processing fees, which on a cheap app probably eat most of the 30%. They don't have to write their own payment handling code. They don't have to write and host their own download servers. They don't need to worry about things like re-authenticating downloads for users upgrading to a new device. They get their apps listed on the Market and thus have their app be discoverable in the place where most Android users will look for apps. They get access to the other Market infrastructure like in-app purchases and the licensing server.
You think that's not providing any value? Then it seems pretty reasonable to suggest that you switch to the alternative that you think provides better value. After all, Android does allow for alternative app stores and for side loading of apps.
> I mean I'm thanking Google that they are hosting the Android Market but taking 30% for just hosting something isn't fair anyway.
That's a strange definition of "fair" you have there.
They avoid having to pay credit card processing fees, which on a cheap app probably eat most of the 30%. They don't have to write their own payment handling code. They don't have to write and host their own download servers. They don't need to worry about things like re-authenticating downloads for users upgrading to a new device. They get their apps listed on the Market and thus have their app be discoverable in the place where most Android users will look for apps. They get access to the other Market infrastructure like in-app purchases and the licensing server.
You think that's not providing any value? Then it seems pretty reasonable to suggest that you switch to the alternative that you think provides better value. After all, Android does allow for alternative app stores and for side loading of apps.
> I mean I'm thanking Google that they are hosting the Android Market but taking 30% for just hosting something isn't fair anyway.
That's a strange definition of "fair" you have there.
The site frames the google-developers as a conflict between enemies, like unions usually do. Neither Apple or Google are getting unreasonable profits from their 30%share as they reinvest more than 90% of this money in infrastructure, as Apple had clarified a lot of times.
If you make a great app, your users win,you win, and Google wins too. I bet they are too much wins for the site creator prejudices and believes. He has the mentality that for someone to win someone has to lose, the "survival" or "fight" mentality.
If you sell a software application over traditional channels like retail expect getting less than 10%, as every intermediary layer doubles the price, e.g that was what the game "Commandos behind the enemy lines" got when Pyro studios gave us a talk. Steam, Amazon, Apple, O'Reilly or Google are very good opportunities for direct sales today.
I'm not going to talk about the entitlement tone because other people had done already, but the "demands" I see are not the main problems Android has today, for example I don't see "Adding support for more countries in the world, like Apple does". He is focused on getting more share of the cake instead of making a bigger one, IMHO this is a bad strategy.