16 ms·

Google Play permitting alternative billing systems for users in South Korea

211 points by cmdr2 5y ago

forgotmyoldacc 5y ago
Am I reading this correctly? > We recognize, however, that developers will incur costs to support their billing system, so when a user selects alternative billing, we will reduce the developer’s service fee by 4%. For example, for the vast majority of developers who pay 15% for transactions through Google Play's billing system, their service fee for transactions through the alternate billing system would be 11%. You have to pay a 11% fee for using someone else's billing system when buying an in-app purchase, if that app was downloaded from the Play store?
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  It's actually worse, it's 26% for the larger businesses subject to the 30% rate which make up 99% of Google's revenue, when using their own billing system. It's a farce and Google knows it. (Similarly bull----, Apple claims their existing practices already comply with South Korea's new laws... which they definitely do not.) The penalty for noncompliance is so low because the money is so huge, and nobody will go to jail, that they are going to pull every stunt in the book until someone has the guts to start shutting these companies down. By claiming they are complying technically, while obviously not, they force the government to follow up the legislation with a regulatory action, which then they can tie up in the courts for years. If they complied with the law properly now, other countries would quickly follow suit. But if they can tie up the attempt for a number of years, they can all pad out their retirement funds before all the litigation is over and duck out before the stocks crash.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    OK, let's imagine South Korea "shuts Google and Apple down" (kicks them out of the country, I guess, and then bans anybody from importing their products). Now what? Seems like they just don't have smart phones and torched a pretty productive part of their economy (i.e., producing Android phones), and it's not clear where independent app developers are supposed to be developing their stuff anymore.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Or this could force phone companies to create alternative, more open forks of the supposedly Open Source Android. It's not like we don't know how to do this stuff, we just don't invest enough in it.
      - izacus 5y ago
        South Korean company tried to do just that - they built an OS called "Tizen" which withered and died because without user-facing software, it was a horrible user experience and people were seriously annoyed that they couldn't use the software they actually care about. Instead, they went and bought Google/Apple devices instead. Another USA company tried to do that as well. They called their OS "Windows Phone" and it withered and died because a fractured support for software people care about doesn't make a useful device. A Chinese company tried to do that as well. They now again ship Google Services next to their own Huawei services in Europe because without software support, their smart devices weren't useful to users either.
        oblio 5y ago
        You're almost there, but you didn't go all the way. South Korea is a small market. The US company is famous for mismanaging its mobile operating systems for more than 2 decades. The Chinese company didn't "try" to do that, it was forced to. But guess what, in China, where most external apps are banned, there's an entire, completely separate ecosystem. You do need a combination of skill and critical mass. I don't expect South Korea to achieve this, but for example if there's a bigger alliance of say, South Korea, the EU, etc., where they put resources into encouraging an OS based on open standards, that starts to look feasible. App developers will need support, but they can port their apps. Especially since this OS doesn't need to start from scratch, it can be based on AOSP. That's probably the biggest thing Google/Apple are afraid of this point, that a fully open/interoperable mobile OS is somehow enforced. They either have to open up their OSes to be in key markets or they're forced to let someone else create that OS.
        emodendroket 5y ago
  - dwaite 5y ago
    I have not found an English translation of the South Korean regulations - do you know what clause(s) Apple does not comply with?
- ehsankia 5y ago
  Right, the fee isn't the using Google's payment system, the fee is for using Play Store. Or rather, 11% of it the 15% is.
  - knubie 5y ago
    If that is the case then why is the fee taken as a percentage of payments made within the app as opposed to number of downloads, or just a straight up monthly or annual fee?
    - judge2020 5y ago
      I don't see how any developer nor consumer would benefit from "pay your monthly play store fee to access the store". Imagine if credit cards also worked this way.
    - ehsankia 5y ago
      From a conceptual level, it makes sense to monetize a platform based only on the people making money. Like how game engines are generally free to use for games that make little or not money. On the more practical side, it's kinda hard to make yours work. You probably don't want to charge a popular free app like Wikipedia the same as an app like Netflix.
  - ihsw 5y ago
    I think you mean 73% of the 15% fee is for using Play Store (and AOSP, and proprietary add-ons (eg: firmware, drivers, etc), and [...]).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bubblethink 5y ago
  That's because the law was stupid and apparently everybody who cheered for it missed a business 101 class. Why do people expect google or apple to roll over and die when faced with half assed laws ? They way SK or any country can meaningfully change the balance is by attacking the source of the problem. Google prohibits vendors from bundling other stores, which is the first issue. Second, robust privacy laws should prohibit google from being privy to any transaction data between the user and a vendor. So google doesn't get to intercept what the payment amount should be. Third, even if alternative stores are allowed, they still won't be popular. So for that, the government can heavily tax play store etc. to level the playing field with alternate local stores.
  - smegger001 5y ago
    >Google prohibits vendors from bundling other stores, they do? then why does my phone have a uninstallable 'galaxy store' app that Samsung decide to fill my limited storage with.
    - cryptonym 5y ago
      This still is a walled garden. Store from os or manufacturer. If you try to install a third-party you may end up with poor user experience from the os. Time to split app distribution from OS. Making it mandatory to allow other stores, with first class user experience, and not set their as default one.
      - smegger001 5y ago
        I installed the amazon app store on my android phone and it worked fine same with installing FDroid. all i had to do was check a box when prompted.
        cryptonym 5y ago
        Sure but it's only you, already knowing about alternative stores, and with your specific device.
    - 5y ago
- jfrunyon 5y ago
  "Sure, you can use an alternate billing system. But here's all the reasons we're great. Oh, your billing system wants more than 4% just like we did/do? Well shoot... Guess you're stuck with us, huh?"
  - jeltz 5y ago
    What billing systems want more than 4%? Credit card transactions usually cost less than 2%.
    - shagie 5y ago
      Microtransactions are typically higher. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees#statement-11 https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees#statemen... In the US, PayPal is a 4.99% + fixed (US: $0.09).
    - jfrunyon 5y ago
      "Less than 2%" plus an additional constant-ish fee, sure. The typical cost of a CC transaction is significantly more than 2% at small amounts (like many in-app purchases).
- cyral 5y ago
  I love how this makes them admit that an average payment processing fee is only 4% (Less in the US actually, not sure about SK)
  - wmf 5y ago
    This has been part of Apple's argument all along. The 30% was never for payment processing but for the overall "ecosystem".
    - oblio 5y ago
      > The 30% was never for payment processing but for the overall "ecosystem". Yup, ecosystem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital For those that don't understand what that is, Apple's products, especially the App Store, have insane profit margins. Apple's profits are so high that they don't know what to do with the money so they started their own investment fund. > In October 2012, CNET reported that Braeburn had US$117.2 billion under management, making it "the world's biggest hedge fund." That was in 2012. Since then they've almost tripled the amount of Apple money that they manage.
      - joshuaissac 5y ago
        Minor nitpick. Wikipedia, CNET and Zero Hedge are wrong about Braeburn Capital being the largest hedge fund. A hedge fund employs "alternative" investment strategies to traditional investment funds. If we loosen the definition to include Braeburn Capital, then it would also cover BlackRock, which has almost $10 trillion in AUM.
        oblio 5y ago
        Well, I'd say that your comment probably provides the biggest bang for the buck, educationally, if you edit the Wikipedia page :-)
      - judge2020 5y ago
        > Apple's profits are so high that they don't know what to do with the money so they started their own investment fund. So we should expect companies to only profit to a point of net-zero? Or can you call out a percentage of revenue that is acceptable?
- xenadu02 5y ago
  Everyone keeps repeating this assumed idea that it's "just" a payment processing fee which is simply not true and never has been. The fee is for: - access to install base and customer relationship - funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools - funds development of the store - funds operation of the store - profit for the company - last and least: payment processing Could those things be funded differently? Yes... but it would require a radical restructuring of the way mobile platforms work that would not be favorable to startups or independents. It would also lead to massive fracturing of the customer relationship, lower trust, and ultimately shrink the total dollars spent on software (though the big players would make more money). People trust Apple or Google with their credit card. They know the platform requires all subscriptions show up in one place and they don't need to call and argue with a sales rep to cancel. Be prepared for all of that to disappear when it becomes a free-for-all. Stop pretending this kind of "freedom" is completely free of consequences even for those who don't take advantage of that "freedom".
  - varenc 5y ago
    The article actually enumerates what else the fee is used for. In Google’s words its: """ Android & the Google Play Store: The free Android operating system enables hardware manufacturers to build a wide range of devices at different price points that gives users unprecedented choice. And the Google Play Store delivers the world's largest selection of apps and games, available in over 190 countries with personalized recommendations and easy discovery of high-quality apps. New Android platforms: We build platforms for new form factors such as Auto and TV to help developers increase their reach in new ways. Security: Consumers trust Android and Google Play because of its security, the reviews of apps to ensure they comply with policies around safety and privacy, and with automated security of Google Play Protect that scans over 100 billion apps per day. App distribution: Developers can instantly reach over three billion Android users with the ability to optimize delivery by device and functionality and provide ongoing updates. Developer tools: Developers can run experiments, beta test, optimize store listings, analyze performance, and more. """
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > access to install base and customer relationship This is the rent seeking that everybody is objecting to. > funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools The platform is open source. So if you want to use someone else's tools then you shouldn't have to pay this part, right? > funds development of the store - funds operation of the store The cost of providing this is negligible. Many alternative stores and repositories do it for free. It accounts for zero percent of the cost of anything. > profit for the company Profit isn't a separate thing. The cost of payment processing already includes the profit of the payment processor etc. > last and least: payment processing Which is the only thing left, so if you're using someone else as payment processor... It's the "access to install base and customer relationship" that they're really sticking it to you for, and that's the illegitimate one.
- numpad0 5y ago
  What’s the credit card processing fee in Korea? I believe it’s generally around 3% worldwide.
  - foepys 5y ago
    In the EU it's capped at 0.3%.
    - 1023bytes 5y ago
      That's only a part of the fee, in the end it's about 1%
- fy20 5y ago
  This year the EU overhauled VAT regulations for purchases from outside the EU. First of all it is now possible to make tax declarations yourself without going through a customs agent. Previously if you bought something like a dashcam from AliExpress you'd need to pay VAT and a "processing fee" to the agent (i.e. the post office) which in total would come to around the same price as you paid the seller. It's still somewhat complicated to do yourself, but the post office here introduced their own electronic declaration system. If you choose to use their system it's €3, but if you choose to do it yourself you need to pay a "parcel handling fee" of €3. Additionally the regulations require sellers sending goods to the EU to charge VAT at the time of purchase. So everything you buy from AliExpress now is sold with VAT (but prices are still shown without). The post office also introduced a €1 handling fee for these parcels - that they don't need to do anything with other than deliver them.
dfabulich 5y ago
This post is from Nov 4. (The dateline is written in Korean.) The big surprise here is/was that Google intends to charge a "service fee" to developers who use an alternative billing system. > We recognize, however, that developers will incur costs to support their billing system, so when a user selects alternative billing, we will reduce the developer’s service fee by 4%. For example, for the vast majority of developers who pay 15% for transactions through Google Play's billing system, their service fee for transactions through the alternate billing system would be 11%. I was hoping that at some point in the weeks to follow, they'd clarify how this is supposed to work. Presumably Google will require me to send them a report of how much money I'd made? And then I guess I'd write Google a check for 11% of my earnings…?? Quarterly? Monthly? What happens if I miss a payment?
- jbigelow76 5y ago
  Presumably Google will require me to send them a report of how much money I'd made? And then I guess I'd write Google a check for 11% of my earnings…?? Quarterly? Monthly? What happens if I miss a payment? There has to be some sort of callback into the app on successful payment so that the purchased functionality can be unlocked. Seems like Google would be able to inspect the combination of the app purchase metadata and the callback activity to come up with their vig. Just my guess though.
- nodamage 5y ago
  > Presumably Google will require me to send them a report of how much money I'd made? This isn't particularly uncommon for revenue based licensing agreements. For example, Epic requires you to file a quarterly report once you commercially release a product based on the Unreal Engine. (https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/release https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/release)
- Aissen 5y ago
  I'm guessing, based on the screenshot, that you'll only be able to use a third party payment system if you use a special API that will let Google know of every transaction. I'm also guessing that this means that third party payment processors will have to register to be available on this new API.
schleck8 5y ago
I remember the cynical Reddit comments warning of Google leaving the Korean market before allowing for third party payments.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  If I had a penny for every time someone was threatening to leave a market and forgo millions of customers, I would be threatening to leave a market myself!
TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
@dang @mods Present title: Google Play permitting alternative billing systems for users in South Korea The title is editorialised and reads like this is something Google is doing of their own volition, whereas they’re merely complying with (new) law.
DeathArrow 5y ago
Time for open source alternatives to Google Play services to appear? So developers can use other stores or no store at all?
- wanderingmind 5y ago
  There is F-Droid that people can try and it has many nice open source applications.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  It's pretty straightforward on Android phones to install an alternate app store; you just have to enable sideloading.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    It is anything but straightforward (unless you're the type of nerd who browses hacker news). If you sell an app on an alternative store, how do you get the average person to install it? Adjust your marketing materials to teach them how to find the hidden "allow unknown sources" toggle on their phone, and then say something like: "Just ignore the many scary warning messages telling you that you're about to get a virus, and implying that we're malicious. Also, don't let it scan us for malware, not because we're malware, but because Play Protect may end up accidentally blocking us, and we have no idea how to get that reversed". And even if you do that and manage to get enough customers to qualify as a potential competitive threat, Google will put together a task force[1] to destroy you. 1: https://www.androidcentral.com/google-fortnite-task-force https://www.androidcentral.com/google-fortnite-task-force
    - dwaite 5y ago
      > If you sell an app on an alternative store, how do you get the average person to install it? Usually a button next to the "Google Play Store" and "Apple App Store" buttons? If the developer feels they have to support some store's users themselves with installation and troubleshooting, they should just get their own app side loaded and maintain a direct relationship. I wouldn't expect Microsoft to give me directions to a Best Buy to pick up Office 365.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Remember, people: the real lock-in with Android is not the Google Play. It is the push notification services that are bundled with it. The Android OS is intentionally crippled to work only with Google Play push notifications, and there are no 'stock' ways to use an alternative without modifying the OS. The best alternative is to do it via persistently running app, which is less reliable and bad for UX. This notifications problem also applies to iOS: even if users will be eventually allowed to install apps bypassing the AppStore, these apps would just sit idly until opened by a user, which is unacceptable for a very wide range of communication apps. However, there is a difference with Android: iOS was crippled from the start, but first iterations of Android were relatively open, apps could run in the background without much issues. But then Google started tightening the grip, so Android now closely resembles iOS in this regard.
- anthropodie 5y ago
  That persistent notification for application running in background is the worst. Back in the day, applications on Symbian devices could run in background without any indication. Some would argue that's a risk but then we have been using our PCs like that since forever. Even if you want users to give indication of something running in background there are far less intrusive ways to achieve that. But if you can't come up with those ways and persistent notification is the best you could come up with then at least give the user the ability to turn it off without turning off background process? They know the tendency of people to clear notifications as they clutter the phone and they use this small knowledge to push their own Software. At least follow same practice for Google apps but no because then that notification area would be complete mess.
  - easytiger 5y ago
    > Back in the day, applications on Symbian devices could run in background without any indication. Someone would argue that's a risk but then we have been using our PCs like that since forever. I still think my Sony Ericson p910i the best smartphone. Multiple human interfaces (the multi directional wheel is the greatest invention to be abandoned) in particular and a near fully functional OS that could do anything my computer could do
radley 5y ago
Curious how this will get resolved when a service like Netflix uses their own billing system and is forced to pay 26% access fee to Google and 30% to Apple. Will Netflix have to raise their subscription rate by 120% or more?
- oblio 5y ago
  Netflix just raised their subscription fees a lot recently, on an unrelated note :-))
- arlcode 5y ago
  I'm sure Google and Apple would be in tears if all those users would migrate to their streaming services.
collaborative 5y ago
When I was in college and threw parties I used to justify keeping all the money by saying it was for "the house". Not one of the people involved (bartender, bouncer, etc) got penny and I consistently made lots of money Google now says the fee is for the "ecosystem". They are taking people for fools and hiding the real story: they are a monopoly and they only do this because they are forced by the people of South Korea
christrowe 5y ago
The fee is quite big, I do think that they should reduce it a little bit.
dartharva 5y ago
Good. I'm sure their billing and payments scam won't see light in many other countries as well. Devs in India have "until March 31, 2022 to comply"? LOL, let's see how that turns out. It'll be amusing to see another instance of Google getting shown their place by responsible competition regulators, especially in one of their most valuable markets.

211 points by cmdr2 5y ago

Am I reading this correctly? > We recognize, however, that developers will incur costs to support their billing system, so when a user selects alternative billing, we will reduce the developer’s service fee by 4%. For example, for the vast majority of developers who pay 15% for transactions through Google Play's billing system, their service fee for transactions through the alternate billing system would be 11%. You have to pay a 11% fee for using someone else's billing system when buying an in-app purchase, if that app was downloaded from the Play store?

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
It's actually worse, it's 26% for the larger businesses subject to the 30% rate which make up 99% of Google's revenue, when using their own billing system. It's a farce and Google knows it. (Similarly bull----, Apple claims their existing practices already comply with South Korea's new laws... which they definitely do not.) The penalty for noncompliance is so low because the money is so huge, and nobody will go to jail, that they are going to pull every stunt in the book until someone has the guts to start shutting these companies down. By claiming they are complying technically, while obviously not, they force the government to follow up the legislation with a regulatory action, which then they can tie up in the courts for years. If they complied with the law properly now, other countries would quickly follow suit. But if they can tie up the attempt for a number of years, they can all pad out their retirement funds before all the litigation is over and duck out before the stocks crash.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  OK, let's imagine South Korea "shuts Google and Apple down" (kicks them out of the country, I guess, and then bans anybody from importing their products). Now what? Seems like they just don't have smart phones and torched a pretty productive part of their economy (i.e., producing Android phones), and it's not clear where independent app developers are supposed to be developing their stuff anymore.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Or this could force phone companies to create alternative, more open forks of the supposedly Open Source Android. It's not like we don't know how to do this stuff, we just don't invest enough in it.
    - izacus 5y ago
      South Korean company tried to do just that - they built an OS called "Tizen" which withered and died because without user-facing software, it was a horrible user experience and people were seriously annoyed that they couldn't use the software they actually care about. Instead, they went and bought Google/Apple devices instead. Another USA company tried to do that as well. They called their OS "Windows Phone" and it withered and died because a fractured support for software people care about doesn't make a useful device. A Chinese company tried to do that as well. They now again ship Google Services next to their own Huawei services in Europe because without software support, their smart devices weren't useful to users either.
      - oblio 5y ago
        You're almost there, but you didn't go all the way. South Korea is a small market. The US company is famous for mismanaging its mobile operating systems for more than 2 decades. The Chinese company didn't "try" to do that, it was forced to. But guess what, in China, where most external apps are banned, there's an entire, completely separate ecosystem. You do need a combination of skill and critical mass. I don't expect South Korea to achieve this, but for example if there's a bigger alliance of say, South Korea, the EU, etc., where they put resources into encouraging an OS based on open standards, that starts to look feasible. App developers will need support, but they can port their apps. Especially since this OS doesn't need to start from scratch, it can be based on AOSP. That's probably the biggest thing Google/Apple are afraid of this point, that a fully open/interoperable mobile OS is somehow enforced. They either have to open up their OSes to be in key markets or they're forced to let someone else create that OS.
        emodendroket 5y ago
- dwaite 5y ago
  I have not found an English translation of the South Korean regulations - do you know what clause(s) Apple does not comply with?
ehsankia 5y ago
Right, the fee isn't the using Google's payment system, the fee is for using Play Store. Or rather, 11% of it the 15% is.
- knubie 5y ago
  If that is the case then why is the fee taken as a percentage of payments made within the app as opposed to number of downloads, or just a straight up monthly or annual fee?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    I don't see how any developer nor consumer would benefit from "pay your monthly play store fee to access the store". Imagine if credit cards also worked this way.
  - ehsankia 5y ago
    From a conceptual level, it makes sense to monetize a platform based only on the people making money. Like how game engines are generally free to use for games that make little or not money. On the more practical side, it's kinda hard to make yours work. You probably don't want to charge a popular free app like Wikipedia the same as an app like Netflix.
- ihsw 5y ago
  I think you mean 73% of the 15% fee is for using Play Store (and AOSP, and proprietary add-ons (eg: firmware, drivers, etc), and [...]).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bubblethink 5y ago
That's because the law was stupid and apparently everybody who cheered for it missed a business 101 class. Why do people expect google or apple to roll over and die when faced with half assed laws ? They way SK or any country can meaningfully change the balance is by attacking the source of the problem. Google prohibits vendors from bundling other stores, which is the first issue. Second, robust privacy laws should prohibit google from being privy to any transaction data between the user and a vendor. So google doesn't get to intercept what the payment amount should be. Third, even if alternative stores are allowed, they still won't be popular. So for that, the government can heavily tax play store etc. to level the playing field with alternate local stores.
- smegger001 5y ago
  >Google prohibits vendors from bundling other stores, they do? then why does my phone have a uninstallable 'galaxy store' app that Samsung decide to fill my limited storage with.
  - cryptonym 5y ago
    This still is a walled garden. Store from os or manufacturer. If you try to install a third-party you may end up with poor user experience from the os. Time to split app distribution from OS. Making it mandatory to allow other stores, with first class user experience, and not set their as default one.
    - smegger001 5y ago
      I installed the amazon app store on my android phone and it worked fine same with installing FDroid. all i had to do was check a box when prompted.
      - cryptonym 5y ago
        Sure but it's only you, already knowing about alternative stores, and with your specific device.
  - 5y ago
jfrunyon 5y ago
"Sure, you can use an alternate billing system. But here's all the reasons we're great. Oh, your billing system wants more than 4% just like we did/do? Well shoot... Guess you're stuck with us, huh?"
- jeltz 5y ago
  What billing systems want more than 4%? Credit card transactions usually cost less than 2%.
  - shagie 5y ago
    Microtransactions are typically higher. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees#statement-11 https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees#statemen... In the US, PayPal is a 4.99% + fixed (US: $0.09).
  - jfrunyon 5y ago
    "Less than 2%" plus an additional constant-ish fee, sure. The typical cost of a CC transaction is significantly more than 2% at small amounts (like many in-app purchases).
cyral 5y ago
I love how this makes them admit that an average payment processing fee is only 4% (Less in the US actually, not sure about SK)
- wmf 5y ago
  This has been part of Apple's argument all along. The 30% was never for payment processing but for the overall "ecosystem".
  - oblio 5y ago
    > The 30% was never for payment processing but for the overall "ecosystem". Yup, ecosystem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braeburn_Capital For those that don't understand what that is, Apple's products, especially the App Store, have insane profit margins. Apple's profits are so high that they don't know what to do with the money so they started their own investment fund. > In October 2012, CNET reported that Braeburn had US$117.2 billion under management, making it "the world's biggest hedge fund." That was in 2012. Since then they've almost tripled the amount of Apple money that they manage.
    - joshuaissac 5y ago
      Minor nitpick. Wikipedia, CNET and Zero Hedge are wrong about Braeburn Capital being the largest hedge fund. A hedge fund employs "alternative" investment strategies to traditional investment funds. If we loosen the definition to include Braeburn Capital, then it would also cover BlackRock, which has almost $10 trillion in AUM.
      - oblio 5y ago
        Well, I'd say that your comment probably provides the biggest bang for the buck, educationally, if you edit the Wikipedia page :-)
    - judge2020 5y ago
      > Apple's profits are so high that they don't know what to do with the money so they started their own investment fund. So we should expect companies to only profit to a point of net-zero? Or can you call out a percentage of revenue that is acceptable?
xenadu02 5y ago
Everyone keeps repeating this assumed idea that it's "just" a payment processing fee which is simply not true and never has been. The fee is for: - access to install base and customer relationship - funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools - funds development of the store - funds operation of the store - profit for the company - last and least: payment processing Could those things be funded differently? Yes... but it would require a radical restructuring of the way mobile platforms work that would not be favorable to startups or independents. It would also lead to massive fracturing of the customer relationship, lower trust, and ultimately shrink the total dollars spent on software (though the big players would make more money). People trust Apple or Google with their credit card. They know the platform requires all subscriptions show up in one place and they don't need to call and argue with a sales rep to cancel. Be prepared for all of that to disappear when it becomes a free-for-all. Stop pretending this kind of "freedom" is completely free of consequences even for those who don't take advantage of that "freedom".
- varenc 5y ago
  The article actually enumerates what else the fee is used for. In Google’s words its: """ Android & the Google Play Store: The free Android operating system enables hardware manufacturers to build a wide range of devices at different price points that gives users unprecedented choice. And the Google Play Store delivers the world's largest selection of apps and games, available in over 190 countries with personalized recommendations and easy discovery of high-quality apps. New Android platforms: We build platforms for new form factors such as Auto and TV to help developers increase their reach in new ways. Security: Consumers trust Android and Google Play because of its security, the reviews of apps to ensure they comply with policies around safety and privacy, and with automated security of Google Play Protect that scans over 100 billion apps per day. App distribution: Developers can instantly reach over three billion Android users with the ability to optimize delivery by device and functionality and provide ongoing updates. Developer tools: Developers can run experiments, beta test, optimize store listings, analyze performance, and more. """
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > access to install base and customer relationship This is the rent seeking that everybody is objecting to. > funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools The platform is open source. So if you want to use someone else's tools then you shouldn't have to pay this part, right? > funds development of the store - funds operation of the store The cost of providing this is negligible. Many alternative stores and repositories do it for free. It accounts for zero percent of the cost of anything. > profit for the company Profit isn't a separate thing. The cost of payment processing already includes the profit of the payment processor etc. > last and least: payment processing Which is the only thing left, so if you're using someone else as payment processor... It's the "access to install base and customer relationship" that they're really sticking it to you for, and that's the illegitimate one.
numpad0 5y ago
What’s the credit card processing fee in Korea? I believe it’s generally around 3% worldwide.
- foepys 5y ago
  In the EU it's capped at 0.3%.
  - 1023bytes 5y ago
    That's only a part of the fee, in the end it's about 1%
fy20 5y ago
This year the EU overhauled VAT regulations for purchases from outside the EU. First of all it is now possible to make tax declarations yourself without going through a customs agent. Previously if you bought something like a dashcam from AliExpress you'd need to pay VAT and a "processing fee" to the agent (i.e. the post office) which in total would come to around the same price as you paid the seller. It's still somewhat complicated to do yourself, but the post office here introduced their own electronic declaration system. If you choose to use their system it's €3, but if you choose to do it yourself you need to pay a "parcel handling fee" of €3. Additionally the regulations require sellers sending goods to the EU to charge VAT at the time of purchase. So everything you buy from AliExpress now is sold with VAT (but prices are still shown without). The post office also introduced a €1 handling fee for these parcels - that they don't need to do anything with other than deliver them.

dfabulich 5y ago

This post is from Nov 4. (The dateline is written in Korean.) The big surprise here is/was that Google intends to charge a "service fee" to developers who use an alternative billing system. > We recognize, however, that developers will incur costs to support their billing system, so when a user selects alternative billing, we will reduce the developer’s service fee by 4%. For example, for the vast majority of developers who pay 15% for transactions through Google Play's billing system, their service fee for transactions through the alternate billing system would be 11%. I was hoping that at some point in the weeks to follow, they'd clarify how this is supposed to work. Presumably Google will require me to send them a report of how much money I'd made? And then I guess I'd write Google a check for 11% of my earnings…?? Quarterly? Monthly? What happens if I miss a payment?

jbigelow76 5y ago
Presumably Google will require me to send them a report of how much money I'd made? And then I guess I'd write Google a check for 11% of my earnings…?? Quarterly? Monthly? What happens if I miss a payment? There has to be some sort of callback into the app on successful payment so that the purchased functionality can be unlocked. Seems like Google would be able to inspect the combination of the app purchase metadata and the callback activity to come up with their vig. Just my guess though.
nodamage 5y ago
> Presumably Google will require me to send them a report of how much money I'd made? This isn't particularly uncommon for revenue based licensing agreements. For example, Epic requires you to file a quarterly report once you commercially release a product based on the Unreal Engine. (https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/release https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/release)
Aissen 5y ago
I'm guessing, based on the screenshot, that you'll only be able to use a third party payment system if you use a special API that will let Google know of every transaction. I'm also guessing that this means that third party payment processors will have to register to be available on this new API.

schleck8 5y ago

I remember the cynical Reddit comments warning of Google leaving the Korean market before allowing for third party payments.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
If I had a penny for every time someone was threatening to leave a market and forgo millions of customers, I would be threatening to leave a market myself!

TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago

@dang @mods Present title: Google Play permitting alternative billing systems for users in South Korea The title is editorialised and reads like this is something Google is doing of their own volition, whereas they’re merely complying with (new) law.

DeathArrow 5y ago

Time for open source alternatives to Google Play services to appear? So developers can use other stores or no store at all?

wanderingmind 5y ago
There is F-Droid that people can try and it has many nice open source applications.
emodendroket 5y ago
It's pretty straightforward on Android phones to install an alternate app store; you just have to enable sideloading.
- bogwog 5y ago
  It is anything but straightforward (unless you're the type of nerd who browses hacker news). If you sell an app on an alternative store, how do you get the average person to install it? Adjust your marketing materials to teach them how to find the hidden "allow unknown sources" toggle on their phone, and then say something like: "Just ignore the many scary warning messages telling you that you're about to get a virus, and implying that we're malicious. Also, don't let it scan us for malware, not because we're malware, but because Play Protect may end up accidentally blocking us, and we have no idea how to get that reversed". And even if you do that and manage to get enough customers to qualify as a potential competitive threat, Google will put together a task force[1] to destroy you. 1: https://www.androidcentral.com/google-fortnite-task-force https://www.androidcentral.com/google-fortnite-task-force
  - dwaite 5y ago
    > If you sell an app on an alternative store, how do you get the average person to install it? Usually a button next to the "Google Play Store" and "Apple App Store" buttons? If the developer feels they have to support some store's users themselves with installation and troubleshooting, they should just get their own app side loaded and maintain a direct relationship. I wouldn't expect Microsoft to give me directions to a Best Buy to pick up Office 365.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

Remember, people: the real lock-in with Android is not the Google Play. It is the push notification services that are bundled with it. The Android OS is intentionally crippled to work only with Google Play push notifications, and there are no 'stock' ways to use an alternative without modifying the OS. The best alternative is to do it via persistently running app, which is less reliable and bad for UX. This notifications problem also applies to iOS: even if users will be eventually allowed to install apps bypassing the AppStore, these apps would just sit idly until opened by a user, which is unacceptable for a very wide range of communication apps. However, there is a difference with Android: iOS was crippled from the start, but first iterations of Android were relatively open, apps could run in the background without much issues. But then Google started tightening the grip, so Android now closely resembles iOS in this regard.

anthropodie 5y ago
That persistent notification for application running in background is the worst. Back in the day, applications on Symbian devices could run in background without any indication. Some would argue that's a risk but then we have been using our PCs like that since forever. Even if you want users to give indication of something running in background there are far less intrusive ways to achieve that. But if you can't come up with those ways and persistent notification is the best you could come up with then at least give the user the ability to turn it off without turning off background process? They know the tendency of people to clear notifications as they clutter the phone and they use this small knowledge to push their own Software. At least follow same practice for Google apps but no because then that notification area would be complete mess.
- easytiger 5y ago
  > Back in the day, applications on Symbian devices could run in background without any indication. Someone would argue that's a risk but then we have been using our PCs like that since forever. I still think my Sony Ericson p910i the best smartphone. Multiple human interfaces (the multi directional wheel is the greatest invention to be abandoned) in particular and a near fully functional OS that could do anything my computer could do

radley 5y ago

Curious how this will get resolved when a service like Netflix uses their own billing system and is forced to pay 26% access fee to Google and 30% to Apple. Will Netflix have to raise their subscription rate by 120% or more?

oblio 5y ago
Netflix just raised their subscription fees a lot recently, on an unrelated note :-))
arlcode 5y ago
I'm sure Google and Apple would be in tears if all those users would migrate to their streaming services.

collaborative 5y ago

When I was in college and threw parties I used to justify keeping all the money by saying it was for "the house". Not one of the people involved (bartender, bouncer, etc) got penny and I consistently made lots of money Google now says the fee is for the "ecosystem". They are taking people for fools and hiding the real story: they are a monopoly and they only do this because they are forced by the people of South Korea

christrowe 5y ago

The fee is quite big, I do think that they should reduce it a little bit.

dartharva 5y ago

Good. I'm sure their billing and payments scam won't see light in many other countries as well. Devs in India have "until March 31, 2022 to comply"? LOL, let's see how that turns out. It'll be amusing to see another instance of Google getting shown their place by responsible competition regulators, especially in one of their most valuable markets.