> At least in this context play store terms is not more developer friendly than app store in ios.
I'm not aware of any instances where google forced a developer to monetize an app.
Indeed, unlike apple, google is fine with you using a 3rd party payment provider (i.e. not paying the 30% cut) if the product purchased can be used outside the app (which is clearly the case for a domain name.)
>> Payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g. songs that can be played on other music players). [0]
>Google has relatively few ways to actually give them money directly for software and media.
Doesn't Google sell music, e-books, and movies/TV through Google Play? They also have Google Play Music as a subscription service. I was counting the Play Store as buying applications from Google, although it isn't Google's first-party software.
> the only argument that could be made in the benefit for Google is that it is possible to install Apps from other sources.
That's already a pretty big difference by itself, but in addition to that the Play Store is much more permissive about use of third party payment providers. So e.g. Apple can (and does) sell Apple Music subscriptions on Android without a 30% tax. The converse is not possible.
> And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still requires apps to use its billing system.
Can someone explain this line? If you publish an app on an alternative app store and someone downloads it on their de-googled phone, how in the world would Google prevent it from making a few API calls to Paypal?
> Google Play In-app Billing does not support donations [1], so open source developers should be allowed to link to their own donation pages.
Ok, I had to stop there. They have no claim to this as long as they distribute within the store. It would be nice if google allowed this, but there is no obligation. App Stores are monopolies and should be regulated to allow open distribution.
> and Google doesn't ban use of other payment processors
They certainly do on the Play Store. Developers have until September of this year to comply with Google's rule to take 30% of sales and use its payment system[1] in their apps.
It's clearly more price fixing on the part of the Apple and Google mobile app distribution and payments cartel.
> But for Android, I thought it is trivial for end users to avoid the Play store for any software they want? If so, I would not describe that as a monopoly.
It's possible but not trivial. In particular, the stores have a network effect where users won't install them if they've never heard of them (remember you have to give your payment info to a store), and developers have no use for a store without users. Google also makes a lot of features dependent on Google Play, which makes it hard for OEMs not to include it with their phone, which might otherwise have allowed the store they did include to reach a critical mass. So Google Play still has >90% market share on Android, even if the alternatives aren't explicitly prohibited.
> Manufacturers should be able to get only the Google Play store.
Why? Google is a for-profit company that puts time and effort into developing the store. The play store may not actually be self-sustaining in terms of revenue. Perhaps it is paid for by things like Maps and YouTube.
Shouldn't Google be able to specify the terms of use for its closed-source products? It seems sane that those terms might specify a package deal with other products.
By mandating that companies should be able to only get the Play Store, you're asking that Google work for free for others, and that doesn't seem fair.
> because Google is extremely lax with what kinds of things they allow on the Play Store
Not really. They are pretty strict, actually.
> The difference between Android and iOS is that Apple actually has rules that are strict enough to motivate the likes of Facebook to actively encourage people to side load if given the chance
I doubt it. Especially after Apple will have submitted to the rest of the DMA.
> Similarly, Google is converging on the same anticompetitive practices with the Play Store.
What do you mean? Google has been making things easier for third-party app stores over time, not converging to Apple's model. (Most recently in adding the auto-update permission in Android 12.)
> For Google, though, the "pull factor" is because you literally cannot sell directly to users through the Play Store.
Couldn't you replace "Google" and "Play Store" with "Spotify"?
You can "sell" your app directly to users through your own site (see Fortnite) or dubious sites like https://en.uptodown.com/android/general-android but you have the same "pull factor" with the Play Store that you do with Spotify (the user base).
The Google + Play Store and Spotify (company) + Spotify (platforms) situations don't seem fundamentally different to me, just different by degrees. Google's monopoly on Android app distribution is unparalleled.
> on Google, where other app stores are allowed but the vast majority of people just use Google... no one would ever force you to use another app store.
Google implemented several hurdles to drive users away from competitive app stores. They're all but forcing people to use the Play Store.
> Androids Play store (pending some anti-trust issues, ironically) still has the majority of apps there and it'd be doubtful that any android alternative store can steal that mindshare away.
If so, why did Google feel the need to bribe developers to keep their apps on the Play store?
I'm not aware of any instances where google forced a developer to monetize an app.
Indeed, unlike apple, google is fine with you using a 3rd party payment provider (i.e. not paying the 30% cut) if the product purchased can be used outside the app (which is clearly the case for a domain name.)
>> Payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g. songs that can be played on other music players). [0]
[0] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
reply