5 ms·

The strangest fact is, those donation pages only have some links, there is no in-app payment. I don't understand what Google is thinking about when they banned

The strangest fact is, those donation pages only have some links, there is no in-app payment. I don't understand what Google is thinking about when they banned donations... Wait. I suddenly understand something I've seen previously... There is a workaround! You simply upload two versions of the app, the free edition and the supporter edition. The support's edition is a paid app. You can ask the users who want to support you to install the paid app in your free app. The program itself is still 100% free and open source, there is no functionality restrictions in the free app, the donation notice can be turned off - just as a way to encourage donations. And it's nothing against the rules of the store.

ekianjo 7y ago
A paid app means Google gets to claim some revenues out of it.
missosoup 7y ago
> I don't understand what Google is thinking about when they banned donations. They're thinking that they're a monopoly and can do whatever the hell they want without needing to justify themselves?
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago
  As far as I can tell, probably!
- nyolfen 7y ago
  hazarding a guess, i’m assuming people tried using off-platform payments described as donations to sidestep play store payments
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - segfaultbuserr 7y ago
    Yes. This is what I suspect. But knocking out all donations using a big ban hammer is not acceptable here, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For example, a standard I can think of, is distinguishing donations and payments that influence the functionality of the application/service, and those that have no effect.
    - kllrnohj 7y ago
      > But knocking out all donations using a big ban hammer is not acceptable here To be fair they didn't. You can accept donations if you're an actual charity (like Wikipedia is). The line they drew isn't perfectly fair, no, but it's not a full ban hammer, either.
Vogtinator 7y ago
That way google gets a cut of the donation.
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago
  Oops, it's not a good idea! I now see the motivation behind it!
  - toxik 7y ago
    This is the reason Apple started doing this way back. Sad to see Google follow suit. I guess the bottom line is the bottom line...
    - manojlds 7y ago
      I thought this was a Apple only thing and Google doesn't do this. For example, you cannot buy Audible books frim iOS apuo but can from the Android app.
      - anchpop 7y ago
        You can, but I don't think you're supposed to direct your users to put their credit card info in, that all needs to be handled somewhere outside the app (with a message like please sign in on our website). Which seems very blatantly anticompetitive to me. Now that I think of it, Uber has you put your credit card in. I'm not sure why that's allowed
        themacguffinman 7y ago
        It's allowed because Play Store in-app billing is only required for digital goods & services fulfilled by the app, not physical goods & services fulfilled outside your device. Uber isn't selling you app functionality, they're selling you the physical service of transportation, so they're exempt. Quote from policy [1]: Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment, except for the following cases: - Payment is solely for physical products - 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). [1] https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/
goldenkey 7y ago
So Google can make the donation go through them, cripple the normal version, and take a 20% processing fee?
- heavyset_go 7y ago
  30%
pkilgore 7y ago
And then Google gets ~30% of your donations.
- sunstone 7y ago
  For sure Google would reimburse that rake off since they have been prodigious beneficiaries.
malka 7y ago
So Google get what they want. The sweet 30pc cut on donations
leni536 7y ago
That's what PPSSPP already does. AFAIK PPSSPP Gold only differs in price and the icon.

ekianjo 7y ago

A paid app means Google gets to claim some revenues out of it.

missosoup 7y ago

> I don't understand what Google is thinking about when they banned donations. They're thinking that they're a monopoly and can do whatever the hell they want without needing to justify themselves?

segfaultbuserr 7y ago
As far as I can tell, probably!
nyolfen 7y ago
hazarding a guess, i’m assuming people tried using off-platform payments described as donations to sidestep play store payments
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago
  Yes. This is what I suspect. But knocking out all donations using a big ban hammer is not acceptable here, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For example, a standard I can think of, is distinguishing donations and payments that influence the functionality of the application/service, and those that have no effect.
  - kllrnohj 7y ago
    > But knocking out all donations using a big ban hammer is not acceptable here To be fair they didn't. You can accept donations if you're an actual charity (like Wikipedia is). The line they drew isn't perfectly fair, no, but it's not a full ban hammer, either.

Vogtinator 7y ago

That way google gets a cut of the donation.

segfaultbuserr 7y ago
Oops, it's not a good idea! I now see the motivation behind it!
- toxik 7y ago
  This is the reason Apple started doing this way back. Sad to see Google follow suit. I guess the bottom line is the bottom line...
  - manojlds 7y ago
    I thought this was a Apple only thing and Google doesn't do this. For example, you cannot buy Audible books frim iOS apuo but can from the Android app.
    - anchpop 7y ago
      You can, but I don't think you're supposed to direct your users to put their credit card info in, that all needs to be handled somewhere outside the app (with a message like please sign in on our website). Which seems very blatantly anticompetitive to me. Now that I think of it, Uber has you put your credit card in. I'm not sure why that's allowed
      - themacguffinman 7y ago
        It's allowed because Play Store in-app billing is only required for digital goods & services fulfilled by the app, not physical goods & services fulfilled outside your device. Uber isn't selling you app functionality, they're selling you the physical service of transportation, so they're exempt. Quote from policy [1]: Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment, except for the following cases: - Payment is solely for physical products - 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). [1] https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/

goldenkey 7y ago

So Google can make the donation go through them, cripple the normal version, and take a 20% processing fee?

heavyset_go 7y ago
30%

pkilgore 7y ago

And then Google gets ~30% of your donations.

sunstone 7y ago
For sure Google would reimburse that rake off since they have been prodigious beneficiaries.

malka 7y ago

So Google get what they want. The sweet 30pc cut on donations

leni536 7y ago

That's what PPSSPP already does. AFAIK PPSSPP Gold only differs in price and the icon.