4 ms·

The problem of donation links from Google's perspective is that they are not getting their 30% cut. You might think that this is unfair, but the app is using th

The problem of donation links from Google's perspective is that they are not getting their 30% cut. You might think that this is unfair, but the app is using their distribution platform. It's possible to make open source applications and still ask for payment on Google Play, either as the asking price, subscription or by adding in-app payments for donations. This is the right way to do it, and will probably also have a much better return since the payment workflow is much easier.

blauditore 7y ago
Donations through the Play store's payment platform are prohibited, since all purchases need to give an additional value in return. The only reliable way to get donations in a compliant way is by linking to a website from the app and have a donation button there.
- VMG 7y ago
  how long until that is prohibited though..
  - adev_ 7y ago
    It's already forbidden for Apple /iOS... https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/06/apple-extends-deadline-for-new-html5-app-store-guidelines-to-march-2020/ https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/06/apple-extends-deadline-for-ne...
black_puppydog 7y ago
I can even go along your last point. But it's a different argument to say "going through google is more efficient" or to say "you can't not go through google". Frankly, they're using their market dominant position to force free developers into a distribution model that serves them as the payment processor. I'd not go so far as to argue those are separate businesses, but it's really a blatant abuse of their power. Arguing that this is somehow related to software quality, safety or whatever is pure BS> There is simply no other explanation for this than "it will make us money and we can get away with it."
- Spivak 7y ago
  Why is it an abuse of their power? Google and Apple are essentially saying that if you use their store as a sales funnel then they take a 30% cut, and they enforce that by being the sole payment processor on the store. Basically Google and Apple both know that people will make more money by listing in their stores and taking a 30% cut than not listing at all.
  - bpfrh 7y ago
    For the same reason microsoft had to give you an option for the preinstalled browser. As soon as you get a certain threeshold you become a monopoly, which essentialy means you controll who does business in that sector. It should never be allowed to be a distributor as well as the owner of a marketplace. It's the same problem with amazon marketplace and other similar things. EDIT: Formatting
    - wickedsickeune 7y ago
      Not exactly. Being a monopoly is fine. Google is a monopoly in search for example. It's not fine when you use that monopoly power to either stifle competition (like what MS did), or to demonstrably harm the consumer (very hard to prove). Just because Google Play is a monopoly, it doesn't mean that it's illegal or should be fined. Especially since there are other options, like amazon's app store, or manual installation of apps. Especially compared to iOS, Android is a paradise of freedom.
      - black_puppydog 7y ago
        A monopoly is not defined as a 100% market share though. I'd argue the playstore is the way to distribute apps on android, and realistically a monopoly. Wether or not the "software distribution" and "payments processing" aspects of the playstore are separate markets/products is (in my mind) up for debate. If they were then google would be using it's distribution market penetration to push its payment processing business. Then there's the argument that the way they selectively seem to cut off smalltime donation-based software does harm users overall, although it is a systemic harm, not individual, or at least that would be (as you said) very hard to prove.
fwn 7y ago
> This is the right way to do it Might be convenient and great for Googles revenue, but it's the wrong way to do it if your priorities are to reduce the projects platform-dependence and to support the project with your full donation. Usually, once I decide to contribute money to a project I want them to be as free as possible and I want them to get as much of that money as possible. Independent from the specific app store I pulled it from. I think it's wrong that the Google Play Store treats donations like purchases.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
gowthamgts12 7y ago
Going by your point, shouldn't Amazon be blocked since they are collecting the payment info and charging without any interference from Google? How are donation links being considered to be in violation? Just wondering!
- monocularvision 7y ago
  Both stores require payment through their app stores for digital goods. Neither require it for physical goods (Amazon). The donation is for the software itself and so requires payment via Apple/Google.
- dkyc 7y ago
  The “30% cut” only applies to digital goods like apps, software or music. Physical goods like a book ordered from Amazon (or an Uber ride, for example) are exempt. Amazon-owned properties that sell digital goods are subject to the rule though. That’s for example why you can’t buy Audible audiobooks from within the app.

blauditore 7y ago

Donations through the Play store's payment platform are prohibited, since all purchases need to give an additional value in return. The only reliable way to get donations in a compliant way is by linking to a website from the app and have a donation button there.

VMG 7y ago
how long until that is prohibited though..
- adev_ 7y ago
  It's already forbidden for Apple /iOS... https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/06/apple-extends-deadline-for-new-html5-app-store-guidelines-to-march-2020/ https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/06/apple-extends-deadline-for-ne...

black_puppydog 7y ago

I can even go along your last point. But it's a different argument to say "going through google is more efficient" or to say "you can't not go through google". Frankly, they're using their market dominant position to force free developers into a distribution model that serves them as the payment processor. I'd not go so far as to argue those are separate businesses, but it's really a blatant abuse of their power. Arguing that this is somehow related to software quality, safety or whatever is pure BS> There is simply no other explanation for this than "it will make us money and we can get away with it."

Spivak 7y ago
Why is it an abuse of their power? Google and Apple are essentially saying that if you use their store as a sales funnel then they take a 30% cut, and they enforce that by being the sole payment processor on the store. Basically Google and Apple both know that people will make more money by listing in their stores and taking a 30% cut than not listing at all.
- bpfrh 7y ago
  For the same reason microsoft had to give you an option for the preinstalled browser. As soon as you get a certain threeshold you become a monopoly, which essentialy means you controll who does business in that sector. It should never be allowed to be a distributor as well as the owner of a marketplace. It's the same problem with amazon marketplace and other similar things. EDIT: Formatting
  - wickedsickeune 7y ago
    Not exactly. Being a monopoly is fine. Google is a monopoly in search for example. It's not fine when you use that monopoly power to either stifle competition (like what MS did), or to demonstrably harm the consumer (very hard to prove). Just because Google Play is a monopoly, it doesn't mean that it's illegal or should be fined. Especially since there are other options, like amazon's app store, or manual installation of apps. Especially compared to iOS, Android is a paradise of freedom.
    - black_puppydog 7y ago
      A monopoly is not defined as a 100% market share though. I'd argue the playstore is the way to distribute apps on android, and realistically a monopoly. Wether or not the "software distribution" and "payments processing" aspects of the playstore are separate markets/products is (in my mind) up for debate. If they were then google would be using it's distribution market penetration to push its payment processing business. Then there's the argument that the way they selectively seem to cut off smalltime donation-based software does harm users overall, although it is a systemic harm, not individual, or at least that would be (as you said) very hard to prove.

fwn 7y ago

> This is the right way to do it Might be convenient and great for Googles revenue, but it's the wrong way to do it if your priorities are to reduce the projects platform-dependence and to support the project with your full donation. Usually, once I decide to contribute money to a project I want them to be as free as possible and I want them to get as much of that money as possible. Independent from the specific app store I pulled it from. I think it's wrong that the Google Play Store treats donations like purchases.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

gowthamgts12 7y ago

Going by your point, shouldn't Amazon be blocked since they are collecting the payment info and charging without any interference from Google? How are donation links being considered to be in violation? Just wondering!

monocularvision 7y ago
Both stores require payment through their app stores for digital goods. Neither require it for physical goods (Amazon). The donation is for the software itself and so requires payment via Apple/Google.
dkyc 7y ago
The “30% cut” only applies to digital goods like apps, software or music. Physical goods like a book ordered from Amazon (or an Uber ride, for example) are exempt. Amazon-owned properties that sell digital goods are subject to the rule though. That’s for example why you can’t buy Audible audiobooks from within the app.