Is it a revolt against the app store fee, or against new privacy and security rules, which demand that they change their target SDK level to something modern which doesn't allow as much data collection?
They haven't left the Play Store and started providing a sideloaded APK. Instead they've stopped using the Play Store API for in-app purchases and have built a custom flow.
Apple does not require that subscription fees be paid through in app purchases.
You have always been able to collect subscription fees on your own website and distribute your app for free.
>TechCrunch learned this week that Netflix is testing a payment method that bypasses iTunes in 33 countries. Until Sept. 30, new or lapsed users in select European, Latin American and Asian markets will be unable to pay using iTunes. Instead -- like with Spotify -- they will be redirected to Netflix's website to enter payment details directly with the video streaming service. In May, Netflix made a similar move prohibiting new subscribers from paying via Google Play.
>> 2.3.2. If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
Your app will be booted off the App Store if you try to redirect users from your app to an out-of-app purchase system
Netflix and Spotify do not actively redirect users to their own payment systems (in the U.S., at least). They do not provide any links, nor do they offer any instructions on how to sign up outside the app. They just say this:
Netflix: "You can't sign up for Netflix in the app. We know it's a hassle. Join and come back to start watching TV shows and movies."
Spotify: "You can't upgrade to Premium in the app. We know, it's not ideal."
The user is left completely on their own to figure out the subscription process. Netflix and Spotify are apparently big enough, and have enough consumer awareness of their services, that users will put in the effort to go sign up. For your app, this is almost certainly not the case.
This is not true; at least, you cannot redirect within the app. Spotify had its updates rejected when it had a flow that ended all IAPs, and redirected people to a web browser.
The kindle app offers no way to purchase for this reason.
Yet and still there are dozens of apps that force subscriptions outside of the store. Why can I never find a documented case of Apple banning apps that require subscriptions outside of the App Store?
I'm not sure you read the previous comments - Apple in fact forces you to use their in app payment system for subscription fees and pay them a cut, or be left with no in app payment system at all.
That’s not true. I have used plenty of apps that have subscriptions but don’t use in app subscriptions including Sling, DirecTVNow, Linux Academy and Spotify.
But the IAP rule for Apple only applies to purely digital goods. If Tinder also sends you a condom with your profile upgrade, they don’t have to pay Apple anything. (This is why Amazon’s main app lets you buy real-world goods)
The key thing is that you can set up a separate website for payments with iOS devices, but you can't embed or link to that website within your iOS app. I've seen apps rejected because their technical support website was linked from the app and the header of that website got you to the payment website after like 10 clicks.
I have worked for a major music streaming service for a long time and publishing the app on iOS has been a constant pain.
Sometimes the app was not updated for months because apple would not validate it.
Each time the source of contention was that you could subscribe without using apple solutions (paying them) and that the subscriptions covered all platforms.
> (I think even 2-3% fee is too much for doing basically nothing, but that is another discussion).
My guess is that the play store fee works more like a tax on a closed ecosystem than a price for a service. For example, when the government needs to pay for a more expansive healthcare bill, they may decide it makes more economic sense (or is more politically viable) to raise the additional funding through a tax that doesn't go back to most of the people who receive the benefits. So maybe they raise capital gains taxes, etc.
Likewise, while Google is an ads company, and running Android does benefit them some in that regard (e.g. ecosystem lockin), they're not running it as a charity. Android being given away for free, and many phones being subsidized, both benefit a lot of people, and because Google has more or less complete control of the market, they've decided the best way to pay for it is to tax the Play store, instead of charging those people for the benefit.
They important thing I'm trying to point out here is that they could do it differently - they could charge for Android, or require subscriptions to use more of their services, but they've decided the best way to monetize is through the store. In this case, the question of whether the fee is "reasonable" for what Google provides to app developers isn't quite as significant as it would be were Google simply providing a product on the free market.
But in this case I suspect you're both right, anyway, and this likely has more to do with data collection.
It's not a closed ecosystem anyway, I think. As far as I can tell, all the devices that officially have Google Play, also allow other applications to install APKs; now in a very fine-grained and straightforward way (as of Android 9).
Google certainly aren't doing nothing - 30% includes hosting, bandwidth, patching, some amount of marketing, payments, fraud. Whether it's worth 30% is a different discussion, but to say they provide no value is just sily.
Agree on everything except patching? What does Google patch on say a netflix app?
30% is ridiculous for Apple and Google. It's an arbitrary number that they could get away with when the Appstore came out nine years ago and everyone ran with it ever since.
I don't know what a fair amount is. But I doubt it's in the two digits.
Fair is probably less than credit card co’s for base payment functionality, i.e. < 2.5%, plus some for editorial, autoupdates, decent admin UI, review.
You're forgetting that these stores act as merchants of record. They are not just payment processors. They handle VAT internationally. They do all the billing and compliance for you.
You just have one large customer in one country instead of thousands/millions in many different jurisdictions each with its own tax and consumer protection laws. That's worth more than 2.5% but it's not worth 30%.
I would say fair is somewhere between 5% and 10%, considering they also provide some distribution infrastructure on top of payments, billing, taxes and compliance.
No the stores were run by the carriers. Sprint and Verizon had an App Store before the iPhone was introduced where they sold a third party J2ME apps. Those carriers took a 70% cut.
I suppose it might have been regional, but that was never the case here. You would just download the jars (or cabs) directly from the developer. The only cut would have been the ~2% credit card processing fee.
The source being the carriers shop and scummy online shops listed on newspapers getting paid via SMS codes, which one would need to pitch before they would even consider taking their royalties.
Well, the install base is way bigger for Android, and the general state of patching in 2019 is far more frequent than it was when older platforms were operating.
However they spend a considerable amount of money trying to stop those. It's fairly irrelevant to the preceding poster's point whether they succeed or not.
No, how much money or effort Google spends is irrelevant to the value they provide.
If Google came up with a magical technique to get rid of all malware on their app store that didn't cost them a dime, you could still argue that they're adding value to justify the 30% cut.
If Google spends a billion dollars to get rid of all the malware on their app store, and it doesn't work, and using the app store is not significantly less dangerous than sideloading apps, then they're not adding any value to justify the 30% cut.
Note that I don't think Google's efforts are completely fruitless. At the very least, they seem to help with taking down duplicate apps, and that's something. But whether or not moderation is valuable only depends on whether they succeed or not -- their effort is irrelevant.
It seems like an incumbent app should would likely want app stores to suffer from a lack of policing and degradation, whether they are paying 3%, 5%, or 30%. The less app stores are trusted for safety, the lower the friction there is to just use the established Netflix, Tinder, or Spotify app.
2019 - big Korean publisher is caught red handed engaging in click fraud in background. Apple never noticed this, it was detected by researchers analyzing their Android apps.
2% would likely not cover credit card transaction fees let alone their other costs. Even low transaction fees generally look like 2% + 10c. Making the situation even worse for 1$ apps. On top of that they need to pay for development, hosting, fraud detection etc.
The ecosystem may be better off with something like 20c + 20% transaction fees. But, a flat percentage needs to be surprisingly high just to breakeven.
Don't know why you're being downvoted: Google had immense bargaining power with Visa (and the others). It might be a stretch to say they aren't paying 2%, but it's unlikely they're paying 3-5% + $0.30 flat per transaction (typical fees for small merchants going through a merchant bank payment processor, PayPal, etc.)
I doubt they have any negotiating power. Negotiations are always based on leverage, and second-best option. They have none of those. What can they theaten? To not take Visa or Mastercard in the Play Store? That they'll only take checks my mail?
Interchange fees in Europe are capped to 1.15% online and 0.2% on payment terminals, and I'm sure Google, Amazon, and other big companies are able to negociate better fees
There are a lot of credit cards that offer cashback rates between 1-2%. I'm certain Visa is not eating that so Google (and other merchants) must be paying.
And don't forget foreign exchange fees, which add at least another 2% to purchases in foreign currencies. (One bank used to charge me a ridiculous fee of 8% just for currency conversion from USD to EUR)
Handling publication, payments, giving exposure and direct access via the play store, approving the apps, rejecting impersonations, the play store platform actually does a lot of stuff.
I agree that a 30% fee is a lot and probably way too much, but claiming that they do nothing is just ridiculous.
For example the support you contact to get your money back if the app doesn't work. I did that and support did return my money. It was a long time ago, maybe now that's automatic with refunds within 15 mins or what it is.
One example that is easy to explain is the runtime permission system.
IIRC this change was introduced in API 23 (marshmallow), now a while ago.
Before that Android version, permissions (such as accessing your contacts or your calendar, using the camera sensor, etc) where requested and given at installation time.
23 introduced runtime permission : now you don't get the permissions at install time but at runtime : while the app run it incrementally asks to access your contacts, camera, or whatever else it needs.
But there is an issue : how to handle all the existing apps ?
What happens is that apps declare which sdk version they are targetting when they are compiled. If that version is 23 or higher, they get the new behavior.
For apps targeting 22 or less though, the system fallbacks to the previous behavior.
This way apps don't suddenly break when you update your phone and apps already published on the play store don't have to handle this change right away.
Most apps, especially popular ones have been pretty quick to follow these new targets.
However, some apps (cough like snapchat cough) have seen a loophole there and have been keeping their target sdk very low so they don't have to follow new behaviors.
So a couple of years ago Google decided to address that : now if you want to publish a new app, you have to target an android version that is at most one year old. App updates have the same rule, although IIRC the period is a little bit longer.
So it is no longer possible to game a system that is only there to gracefully handle old apps.
I have mentioned runtime permission because it is one change that is easy to explain, but each Android version has several behavior/security changes like this one, so enforcing this rule is definitely for the best.
2nd paragraph:
> The online dating site launched a new default payment process that skips Google Play and forces users to enter their credit card details straight into Tinder’s app, according to new research by Macquarie analyst Ben Schachter.
