Android Developers Have One Year to Switch to Google Billing

Posted on September 28, 2020 by Paul Thurrott in Android, Dev, Mobile with 42 Comments

Google confirmed that it will begin enforcing the use of its own payment system in the Play Store, but it’s giving developers one year to make the switch.

“We’ve always required developers who distribute their apps on Play to use Google Play’s billing system if they offer in-app purchases of digital goods, and pay a service fee from a percentage of the purchase,” Google writes in its Android Developer blog, noting that it has not enforced this policy to date. “We want to be sure our policies are clear and up to date so they can be applied consistently and fairly to all developers, and so we have clarified the language in our Payments Policy to be more explicit that all developers selling digital goods in their apps are required to use Google Play’s billing system.”

News of this change was leaked last week by Bloomberg, and while most would agree that 30 percent fees in an app store are disproportionately high, we can at least give Google some credit for not being as terrible as Apple: The firm doesn’t prevent app developers from communicating with its own customers, it supports the use of rival, third-party app stores on its mobile platform, and it won’t block game-streaming apps.

“Developers have told us it is very important to be able to speak directly with their customers without significant restrictions,” the firm notes of the first condition. “As app developers ourselves, we agree wholeheartedly and our policies have always allowed this.”

As for third-party app stores, Google believes that developers should have a choice in how they distribute their apps, and that any app stores on Android should be able to compete fairly for the consumer’s and the developer’s businesses.

“Android has always allowed people to get apps from multiple app stores,” Google explains. “In fact, most Android devices ship with at least two app stores preinstalled, and consumers are able to install additional app stores … we will be making changes in Android 12 (next year’s Android release) to make it even easier for people to use other app stores on their devices while being careful not to compromise the safety measures Android has in place. We are designing all this now and look forward to sharing more in the future.”

That’s all very nice, but the central issue, here, of course, is the 30 percent fee that Google, like Apple, charges through its own store. And Google, like Apple, will soon enforce the use of its own in-app payment system in its store, ensuring that it gets its cut of any transactions on digital goods that occur through apps downloaded from the Google Play Store.

Interestingly, Google says that this requirement will not impact 97 percent of the apps in the store. “Less than 3 percent of developers with apps on Play sold digital goods over the last 12 months, and of this 3 percent, the vast majority (nearly 97 percent) already use Google Play’s billing,” the firm explains.

Of course, some of the mobile app world’s heaviest hitters—companies like Epic Games, Netflix, and Spotify—are among those 3 percent. And that’s why Google is clarifying its rules: It wants to make sure that some of the biggest revenue-generators in the store are contributing their 30 percent fees.

A related developer FAQ also addresses some other issues that have come to a head in recent days. For example, Google does and will continue to allow cloud-based game streaming apps in its store, unlike Apple. And any app can be consumption-only, even if it is part of a paid service, again unlike Apple. “For example, a user could login when the app opens and the user could access content paid for somewhere else,” the FAQ says.

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (47)

47 responses to “Android Developers Have One Year to Switch to Google Billing”

  1. IanYates82

    Being able to tell the users there's an alternative goes a good way to mitigate the issues Apple has with the vig. Being able to tell users there's even a vig at all is good compared to Apple (ie, even Facebook had to remove its note to users indicating this)


    Google needs to allow a third party non-OEM store to install apps with fewer, if any, security prompts though. That's what caused them to bring fortnight into the play store after having their own Launcher/store for it previously, right?

  2. codymesh

    People (rightly) do not accept this on PC, but when it comes to mobile, people toss their brains away.

    • bkkcanuck

      In reply to codymesh:

      I prefer security over having my phone dial some Caribbean toll line and getting a bill at the end of the month for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars and no one being responsible but you because you were responsible to make sure your phone was not infected by malware ...


      The majority of people only care about... does this device do what I want it, will it install apps that I paid for and can I get the apps that do what I want. That is it, the rest tend to be excuses (after the fact) about why you like one device over another.


      If the PC was originally designed as a console, most people would not have an issue, but you cannot turn something into a console when it was not originally designed as a console (because people would be losing the apps they paid for). Game consoles were always consoles so it is accepted, the iPhone (and Android clones) were designed as consoles from the beginning - so you are not having anything taken from you.


      If people were worried about the minutia of things like control etc. Facebook would not exist... everyone that uses it sells their life away for being able to use something like a $10 app for free.


      With me, I don't really care about the contracts on the back end. As I am not a large developer so 30% for worldwide distribution and hosting with payment processing is not of any concern. The iPhone does everything I need, it is not as though I am worried about having my UNIX shell on the phone, or anything like that so I am fine with the console model.


      As far as Android - a company could implement it without Google Play store (fork it) -- you would of course lose other Google Apps in the process. Given the option myself, I would prefer apps hosted on the app store even if given the choice (I have 35 apps on the Mac App Store - some I could have bought out of it). I prefer a centralized app store when it comes to simplicity of installation etc. Installation of my apps on a clean install is a breeze. If you want to make Android a free-for-all everyone has their own app store system ... I say - go ahead, break it up... but it is not for me.


      I actually think Epic has a better case with Google since Google interfered with 3rd companies installing an Epic Store on the devices - and that could be problematic.

  3. joferm

    I think it's more comparable to MS charging companies that use it's installation services for Windows.

    Imagine a future where the two mobile systems have taken over the desktop: Will the developers of company software - GL, CAD etc. - have to pay 30% of it's licencing fees to Apple/Google ?

    We have to imagine a reasonable model and then get lawmakers to legislate.

    My ideas would be:

    - a requirement that more than one app-store is allowed

    - several available payment options for developers to use that app stores can choose to enable: free, fixed fee per download, percentage of price of purchase, percentage of advertising earnings

    - No charges on subscriptions allowed

    - No charges on services that do not utilize the app-store allowed

  4. shawnthebeachy

    "And any app can be consumption-only, even if it is part of a paid service, again unlike Apple."


    This is the second time I've heard this. Can you please clarify? This seems incorrect to me, since you can subscribe to, say, YouTube Premium or Spotify or Netflix outside the iOS apps and then access the content in-app.

    • Paul Thurrott

      Sure. Apple is now targeting app makers that have a subscription service but don't mention that in the app. In those cases, it demands that the app makers advertise this fact and use its in-app payment system so it can get a cut. On Android, Google doesn't do this: You can simply have an app and a subscription service, but not mention that in the app and not have to pay Google or use its IAP system.
  5. waethorn

    Question for the masses:


    Does Microsoft charge a vig for micro-transactions in Xbox games?

  6. crunchyfrog

    I like the line, "we have clarified the language in our Payments Policy to be more explicit that all developers selling digital goods in their apps are required to use Google Play’s billing system.”


    Makes it sound like a mob run entity; "You're gonna use our f**king billing system or we'll break your f**king legs! How's that for explicit language."

  7. crunchyfrog

    Hmm, wonder what would happen if the courts forced Apple to allow third party app stores...

  8. wright_is

    In reply to lvthunder:

    Yes, but Best Buy actually has to stock the stuff, have space to store it, pay staff to move and sell the products.

    With Google and Apple, you don't have people running to the warehouse to get a wheelbarrow full of virtual in-game coins to pour down the internet connection to your device. You just need a transaction token, the same as with the credit card company directly.

    • Greg Green

      In reply to wright_is:

      From court testimony, Mark Graf: “Apple tells me that so far this calendar year, they have processed 4,013,571 apps. In the last twelve months alone, they have terminated 48,297 developer accounts for what they call “Bait & Switch / Illicit Concept Changes”; terminated 54,805 accounts for “Hidden features / Code Obfuscation / Facilitating downloading/installing of executable code, etc.”; and terminated 1,197 accounts for “introducing a non-IAP payment method”.”


      ”...I was glad to learn from the material Apple provided that ‘[a]ll apps are installed on actual devices and reviewed by a person.’ This mix of automated and human review is the best approach for identifying security risks with candidate apps.”


      Those walled gardens don’t maintain themselves. Somebody’s got to be in there weeding and watering. That’s

      14,000 apps processed per day (that’s 10 a minute),

      132 bait and switch termination investigations per day,

      150 hidden features termination investigation per day,

      and 3 non IAP payment method termination investigations per day.


      • Paul Thurrott

        Yeah, let's all light a candle for poor Apple having to maintain an ecosystem for devices that deliver 40 percent margins and have made it the wealthiest company on earth. They must lose so much money doing this. So much. /s Come on.
        • hellcatm

          In reply to paul-thurrott: I see it this way. apple isn't #1 in anything, they don't have the #1 computer or phone in the world, they don't have the #1 OS on the computer or phone. They don't have any #1 piece of software on any device. The only way they became the richest company in the world is by screwing over their customers and the companies that work with them. That to me isn't good business practice or something to be happy for.


          • Paul Thurrott

            Well. :) Apple makes ungodly margins on hardware, something no other device maker can seem to duplicate. It makes excellent hardware and good-enough software (and so far middling services, but that will improve). It has a very loyal user base, many of whom are affluent or at least not afraid of routinely pulling out the credit card. But sure. Today's Apple is a logistics success story because of Tim Cook, and it's given up on the rapid innovation of the Jobs era because its leader is just so different now. But whatever. Few Apple customers would think they're being screwed over. That's probably Apple's biggest success when you think about it.
            • Oreo

              In reply to paul-thurrott:

              Google is making the same ungodly margins with its ad sales. The money is not the primary issue. Even if you forced Apple and Google to go from 30 % to 1 %, in my opinion you wouldn’t solve the issues with app stores. The issue is what business models should developers be able to have on their app store. And whether some or all of them are in the customers’s interests.


              The “Apple’s loyal user base” explanation is about 15 years past its expiration date. That may have been what Apple tided over in 1995–2003, but really, that was almost 20 years ago. Any company > 1 billion customers can’t rely on that. And I think it would lead to incorrect choices when trying to fix app stores.


              The assumption is that customers are being screwed over by app stores per se, i. e. by treating smartphones like game consoles. I don’t think this is true and even if you explained all the pros and cons to them, I’m quite sure many of them would still prefer the console-style app store model, especially Apple’s app store model, which has a better track record when it comes to banning apps that violate users’s privacy.

              • Paul Thurrott

                That's true about Google's ad business. And that it is the only reason Google can even offer all these technology products and services. But there is a real direct relation on the Apple side between the devices it sells and the products and services that make up that ecosystem. On the Google side, there's little direct relation for consumers. There being ads on Android doesn't mean anything to consumers, etc.
                • Oreo

                  In reply to paul-thurrott:

                  There is also a “real direct relation” between Android handset sales and Google’s business, just that Apple’s customers (= device owners) aren’t Google’s customers (= advertisers). But Google relies on its Android ecosystem to keep people using Google services. To finish your thought, “there being ads on Android doesn’t mean anything to consumers”, but it means *everything* to Google’s actual customers (that, and data collection on user behavior). What Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook share is the desire to be used by as many people as possible, albeit in each case for different reasons and with different means.


                  I think Google is helpful to understand what bad regulation could look like: Android allows sideloading, and Epic offered Fortnight as a sideloaded app with none of the restrictions of Google’s Playstore. Apparently, nobody was using it, not least because sideloading on Android — while technically possible — sounds a little confusing and complicated for the average user. So if regulators forced Apple to allow sideloading, for example, this indicates it wouldn’t necessarily change the situation for end users.

      • Paul Thurrott

        Put another way, every time you buy an iPhone or other Apple hardware, YOU paid to maintain the App Store and much, much more. You should be getting that service "for free" (meaning, as part of the price you paid and the crazy profits Apple made). Please, people. You gotta think a bit and not just blindly support a company that is running roughshod over an industry.
    • Oreo

      In reply to wright_is:

      Although I think the story is way more complicated than that. Apple and Google make most of their money through other means and products. I don't think the issue is about payment processors or whether 15 % or 30 % are adequate to too much for their services.


      IMHO the starting point should be what makes for better products with consumers. Right now Apple's app store rules make some apps worse. Take Amazon's Kindle app. Every time I have to remind myself that I can't just browse Amazon's catalog on my iOS device and buy an ebook from within the app. On the other hand, you have tons of virtual casino apps that make a staggering amount of money on the basis of the same kind of “addiction engineering” that FaceBook makes a living off of. There are also tons of scammy copy cat apps, which rip off customers (e. g. for Widgetsmith). I know that Apple is doing a better job at combating this, but (1) it isn't good enough and (2) big companies are treated way differently. (Again, think of what Facebook did with their VPN app.)


      Google has its own problems with scam apps and apps that violate users's privacy.


      Plus, all game consoles have apps stores with similar and/or stricter rules.


      Rather than make lex Apple or lex Google, I think we need to think more holistically: according to what principle do we want to design regulations that protect consumers (monetarily, their privacy, etc.), improve the experience of users and that allow developers to flourish? If you have to prioritize these points, what is their order?

  9. MutualCore

    To basically Google is doubling down on Be Evil.

  10. Cdorf

    Seems like Google is missing a huge opportunity to be the good guy here, and show up Apple. Oh wait Google being the good guy?

  11. nbplopes

    It's the same. They haven't just enforced their policies. These services should be regulated across the board. Without regulation there is nothing that can keep Google doing the same has Apple and many others. Closing the world from an independent market place.


    I solute them all for trying their way.


    The advent of the Internet and as payment tech evolves along with hosting opens the possibility for direct sales to everyone ... very simple. So much so it becomes a commodity. Still there is an issue of security, virus, malware, privacy etc ...


    These stores in principle do provide a value added service to customers in this context ... assurances on security & privacy (admitting that they test apps for those), curation and conveniency,. This is great. So great that for transparency sake the cost of these value added services should be on top of the product price (a service fee if you will).


    For the sake of competition, protecting customers against abuse, there should be garantes of other ways to install the apps outside of these stores. The only company operating in the area of general computing devices does not do it is Apple. But still regulators should call for that,


    Having this legal platform to work with instead of total anarchy, I for one would not mind paying 30% more for an app say in an App Store, Google Play or whatever. . Say an app costs $10, +$3 does not make much of a dent to me for the assurance. Better than dealing with AntiVirus, Spyware etc, but it's a choice that should be given standard to buyers of any device.


    But the way its being done is $10, $3 to the store and $8 to de dev., Even if dev can post it cheaper elsewhere is then pursued .. so on an so forth. These tactics are contrary to the value these stores deliver to the user because the pricing structure imposed means that it runs on the back of the devs, not on the value added service the store provided to the end user. Its cheating the market.

  12. illuminated

    More dictatorship from more places. No compromise. My way or highway. Somehow I am not surprised.

  13. bkkcanuck

    The hearing today Epic v Apple did not start out well for Epic. No decisions on the injunction yet, estimated trial date is July 2021 (judge prefers it be a jury trial).


    CNN Headline - Judge in Apple 'Fortnight' case slams Epic's tactics, hints at July trial date.


    snippit from article.


    But there is no tying going on with Apple's in-app payment system, [Judge] Gonzalez Rogers observed.


    "I'm not particularly persuaded," she said of the in-app payment mechanism. "I just don't see this as a separate and distinct product."

    Nor did the judge buy Epic's argument that Apple has harmed the distribution of Fortnite because of Apple's exclusive control of the iOS App Store. Fortnite players on iOS have a variety of choices to access the game even if it is no longer available on iOS, she said.

    • Greg Green

      In reply to bkkcanuck:

      From Fosspatents: “Interestingly, Judge Gonzalez Rogers was wondering whether Epic was the best plaintiff to bring this challenge, given that iOS is just one of several platforms for games, while there may be other types of apps that are more dependent on access to Apple's customer base. What must have made that remark particularly discouraging for Epic is that it suggests the court isn't--at least for now--inclined to agree with Epic on market definition (treating the iOS app distribution market as the relevant market for antitrust purposes, as opposed to a wider games distribution market).”

  14. martinusv2

    Does that also kill the Samsung Store?


  15. stevehaney

    In reply to lvthunder:

    Sure you do. It's call mark-up, which in retail is traditionally 100%. Or if you look at it as margin, it's 50%, which is 20 points higher than the 30% most app stores (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Google, etc.) charge. And in many cases, that margin goes much lower depending upon the developer's performance and status in any given app store.


    Software developers are getting a way better deal than in the old days when software was sold at a Best Buy on a physical disk.

    • wright_is

      In reply to stevehaney:

      Yes, but in that case, I can choose to buy direct from the manufacturer and bypass that mark-up. Apple won't let you do that at all and Google won't let you do it in-place, going forward, even though buying direct from the app developer in their app doesn't need to go through the store.

      • bkkcanuck

        In reply to wright_is:

        I think you are looking at it with rose coloured glasses. When it use to be on a physical disk - and you bought them at stores - there was often a distribution network inbetween and each of those distributors would hold the distribution rights for different regions - which would mean that not only was their additional hands in this but they would also have signed exclusive deals for different regions. Maybe being located in the US you would not have to deal with this, but the rest of the world typically did and it often meant the price in the rest of the world would be considerably higher than the US. Also these agreements would preclude the manufacturer from selling direct.

  16. wright_is

    I assume Amazon's Audible falls in the 3% as well? So, I guess, that buying new audio books will follow the iPhone route?

  17. nbplopes

    In reply to lvthunder:


    This is not a store. It’s a device to install apps on the users device. Best Buy does not operate like that either.


    Also Best Buy does not sell Items it does not provide on shelves. namely videos, books, training sessions, so on and so forth. In the App Store, if an app sells math lessons, yoga, books or whatever, not in the App Store, are treated as being in store shelf’s , which is absurd and abusive.


    Again the idea that if a store provides a device, namely an app, therefore it provides everything it is for and through the device does not happen in Best Buy either.


    Also if Best Buy sells you say a TV it does not cut it off from their customers houses because it does not like what you might watch through it or say the supplier. This is power was used against Epic.


    Superficial comparisons if not silly. No analog store operate like these “stores”.


    Now selling goods and services it’s more than a millennia of practice. It can take many shaped and forms.


    Different things, different regulations.


    PS: Do you know that Best Buy in many cases pay for the goods upfront? Well that does not happen in the App Store either.

    • bkkcanuck

      In reply to nbplopes:

      I think if you are going to argue it is not a store - you should give your definition for a store. Are you arguing that any online store where the goods are not physical in nature is not a store? Personally arguing it is not a store as a basis of your argument - is a 'jumping the shark' moment. There are two models for making models from retail, the wholesale model and the agency model (akin to the selling on consignment).


      Addendum (above was edited): So Best Buy does not sell services? They don't sell extended warranties? They don't sell training? They don't sell insurance? They don't sell gift cards?


      In the end it is all about selling products - and whether that product is virtual or real -- it has value.

      • nbplopes

        In reply to bkkcanuck:


        I think if you going to argue that that an App Store is like an analog store, case in case like Best Buy, therefore a practice is transferable, then the case the case for all practices to be transferable makes sense no? You basically cherry picking and arguing extremely abstract semantics.


        PS: Show me definition of a store please. The most basic is a place to store things, for commercial purposes or something else. Where does the App Store, keeps the Netflix videos or Epics avatar configs/designs? It just keeps the Apps, not what they serve.

        • bkkcanuck

          In reply to nbplopes:

          A lot of physical stores do not store all what is available for sale - especially slow moving items - where they might have one item for display purposes but allow you to buy products for delivery in a few days (which they fill by ordering from a regional distributor).


          I use to also be able to buy from catalogue and those might or might not be available in store, they might or might not be in inventory, or they could be ordered as necessary from the distributor once the order is received.


          I think you are trying to jump through hoops to make the 'app store' not a store for argument sake so you can treat them differently. This unnecessarily restricts the ability of organizations to redefine or reinvent existing models for new realities. To me a store is just a retail establishment (establishment being a company - does not have to have a physical building for the 'store') where you can buy products or services.


          If regulations need to be modernized for a new reality - then so be it - but it should be done holistically - and for all - not because of bias based on you want it as it was 100 years ago. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.


          • nbplopes

            In reply to bkkcanuck:


            True. But you don't go to Apple house / app to buy an Apple TV and then be charged by Best Buy for the sale. This is what happens in iOS, you go to the Netflix house / app and then you are charged by Apple for the pleasure.


            Man, the way its is setup up this is a tax over the use of the technology both by the customer and the supplier after they payed for the tech, case in case, after buying the iPhone or iPad.


            If it was about the service, this would not happen. They would only charge for what they store or sell directly. Not for the services sold in app by other businesses that they do not store or sell directly.


            So again, this is not a store.

            • bkkcanuck

              In reply to nbplopes:

              It is not tax, it is commission based selling - or an agency model not a wholesale model.


              Two other examples a 'travel agency shop' was considered a store. It is not selling a product that it holds in stock, it is selling what basically is future service.


              And of course a realtor (in the old days) use to have 'shops' where you could walk into and they would show a folder of properties - and then book time with an agent to see and potentially buy and rent.


              Both these in the old days would be considered stores -- until someone trying to make an argument that modern equivalents are no longer stores because they don't have stock in-house.

              • nbplopes

                In reply to bkkcanuck:


                First it was just like Best Buy, now it's an Agency following an Agency model. Or heck, why not a mix right? You seam a bit lost in business model jargon.


                You seam to refuse to understand what it is even though I've explained it pretty well I think.

                As I've said. They don't sell for instance the books for Kobo yet because Kobo has an app they charge for the sale in app (no other forms of payment). Second, they are forced by policy to provide in app payments for whatever its is served in-app is it can be bought outside (even though they don't enforce this rule consistently). This nothing like the Agency Model works.


                Agency model is based on lead generation to sell a specific good or service. Agencies go and get potential customers for you and give you leads and once you convert to a sale or contract then they charge their commission. This does not happen in the App Store, check the Kobo example, no lead was generated to buy a specific book or Epic custom avatar. Customer are already in the "home/site/app" of the business, its their sale 100%. Kobo is just an example. Finally, if you don't want to work with the Agency you can, it's not dependent on any device, much less on a device that 50% of you mobile customers use in the US.


                Another example is if you Google for an app or service, you get to the web site, click on a link and the App Store launches and to get it you pay to Apple. Why? Because its the only way to install an app. Again no lead is being generated here, just the use of the technology host, install the app.


                There is nothing like the App Store in the market. At the surface may seam to share some similarities, but deep down is way different. Way more invasive than any other model you may have seen in the wild. The closest might be XBOX and PS stores, yet even those you can buy the games elsewhere provide code or put in the BR. Furthermore the producers can communicate freely with the user, including offering them promotions not available in these store ...


                So succinctly :


                1) Like Best Buy / Analog Shops / Store: How if they don't need to host or list the products they are supposed to be selling? Secondly, they don't even need to compete with pricing on the products they host, apps.


                2) Like Agency Model: How if they don't even need to generate the lead to charge a commission of the sale?


                3) Like XBOX and PS: How if no one else can serve the iOS app market and compete, say download code sold elsewhere ... nothing ... neither you can offer the code promotion.


                4) Finally as competitive technical infrastructure provider to sell digital goods in terms of pricing: How, if they don't have no one else to compare with? Everything is leveraged on the device people bought, competition move in that space not in the store space.


                On 4, a similar technical infrastructure to what they provide, outside the iOS runs at 3%-5% of of the cost of sale, not at 30%,


                So putting it all together ... you are the product, not the lead ... nothing else. If digital businesses want to sell to you in iOS, they need to go around it or otherwise pay 30% tax.


                No wonder is collecting billions ... by dipping into the leads generated by the businesses themselves, one way or another. That in turn helps them sell more devices ... or do you think say Facebook, Instagram and many other stuff does not help sell smartphones?


                Cheers.

                • bkkcanuck

                  In reply to nbplopes:

                  I never said it was like Best Buy, my issue is your resistance to recognize it as a store.


                  I have always indicated it was an Agency model...


                  Agency model is simply that the manufacturer sets the retail price and Apple then gets a share of the sale/subscription (in this case 70/30).


                  A wholesale model is where the manufacturer sets the price they want to receive for the product and then the retailer adds their margin on top.


                  Nothing more complicated than that.

                • nbplopes

                  In reply to bkkcanuck:


                  I have said that is not a Store and gave a specific example that was not disputed. Kobo has an app that sells books yet Apple gets a cut of the sale even though it was not actually the App Store that sold the product or even generated the lead.


                  This is not standard procedure in either in wholesale or agency models.


                  Kobo is forced to relinquish the in app payment processing of their sale to Apple even though the second does next to nothing for the sale to go through prior to processing the payment. Gave examples of that. The App Store does not sell, provides or distributed Kobo books.


                  The same thing with the latest Epic case. And that is why Game streaming was blocked ... requiring the listing of the games that aren’t provided in the form of apps. Just to make it look more like it’s selling the games.


                  It’s a qui pro quo driven by a forced payment processing mechanism that invades the third party apps in many cases.


                  Many non Store businesses follow the agency model. It’s worth it only when the service generates many many leads. Otherwise wholesale is preferable. Which I gave examples of practice that leads aren’t even being generated in store, but either in the Internet, in the business website itself or in app ... a third party device sold, case in case an app, was never considered part of a Store before.


                  Honestly the biggest value of the App Store is access to you, driven by a closed and tight market policy around a device. How else can users install the apps they want to use and communicate with businesses they want? If you call this a store fine. For me this is qui pro quo. Given the practice it looks a lot more like VAT charged following an agency model as you put it to make it look like a store sale.


                  30% looks reasonable given the qui pro quo. Yet if you look at the practice it just that Apple values it’s technology at 30% of the global digital business revenues. This alone is absurd at many levels The market share to them is irrelevant, they could be at 99% and they would still value themselves at 30% of everyone business. It’s not even taxed as Value Added service but as an agency, further enforcing their view of worth.


                  Digital services don’t have much of a choice when one in two of their customers uses iOS for mobile computing. That includes as per example Kobo (Kobo represents all digital businesses that don’t sell apps per si, but a service for which the app is just a console, a point of service if you will).


                  This service charges 30% commission of the value generated by the conversation between agents in iOS devices (buyers, sellers, service supplier and users). Products and services are whatever, most of them does even provide the infrastructure to sell apart from payment a d hosting the apps for installation and update. The devices where these conversation occurs aren’t not even owned buy them to begin with.


                  This is not a store!!!!!! The reality distortion field driven by marketing starting with the name, App Store, is incredibly powerful .


                  It’s private sub market used by one in two Americans that think it’s a Store, so do their suppliers, while giving their own devices for the market owner to make money with.


                  Cheers.



  18. faustxd9

    If MS was interested, they could open up an App store in Android and allow more choices for App makers. However, I am not sure if their MS app store rates are any better than 30%.

Leave a Reply