3 ms·

Android Market rule prohibits use of third-party in-app payment services

43 points by GreekOphion 15y ago

zrgiu_ 15y ago
ok, I understand that they want to streamline the payments process, but what about those that Google didn't yet embrace into their "accepted sellers" exclusive club ? I am from Romania, and citizens of my country, as many others, cannot sell apps on the Android Market, Google's motivation being "legal complications". How come Apple found a way where Google can't ?
- 2muchcoffeeman 15y ago
  Remember that Apple has been at this since the beginning of the iTunes Music Store. They have a massive head start. You can always sell on a different market place.
  - zrgiu_ 15y ago
    it's still been 3.5 years since the Android Market went live for the first time. It's certainly enough time for any decent company (not to mention Google) to handle these kinds of things. Edit: google has Google Adsense, which can send payments to pretty much anywhere in the world
Revisor 15y ago
Is Google heading the dreaded Microsoft naming way? Google Play Store. Windows Live Search, eh I mean Windows Live Search Center. Games For Windows? Surely you mean Games for Windows - Live. Or Xbox Marketplace? Also Google Wallet is unavailable in many countries as others have noted. Oh well, I was hoping that someone would give Apple a run for money.
- LiroXIV 15y ago
  No, its Xbox Live on Windows now
fpgeek 15y ago
The rule is not new. Everyone claiming (or suggesting) that this rule is new is being lazy and sloppy (at best). Here's a copy of the Android developer agreement from 2008: http://web.archive.org/web/20081219010834/http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html http://web.archive.org/web/20081219010834/http://www.android... Take a look at the definition of "Payment Processor" and section 3.3. That's the same rule we're talking about today. The effort put into enforcement may have changed, but the rule itself hasn't.
- kamjam 15y ago
  That's a good find. The cynical side of me however thinks that this may have been Google's plan all along - get a big enough user base and then enforce the rule. It's a good way to recoup some money for the cost of developing the Android OS.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    Not really. IIRC, they pay all of the "Payment Processor" money beyond their costs back to the carriers (though I'm not sure what happens with WiFi-only devices). I suspect, but can't prove that they're acting out of ecosystem concerns like uniformity and conversion rates. Even now, the enforcement is pretty lax. I've been looking at some random apps and it surprised me how many asked for off-market donations and the like. Perhaps donations that don't unlock features fall under the same exception that permits third-party payment for physical goods and digital goods [i.e. music or ebooks] (what I've thought of as the Amazon exception).
avstraliitski 15y ago
Having designed and implemented mobile operator / credit card hybrid payment services for both GSM and wifi connectivity for a high profile pre-installed application on a major series of devices from a major manufacturer, I can tell you that it's a PITA. It's great that there's payment services to do it for you. It's sad that most of them suck. However, this move by Google could really mean "we want to manage directly any and all GSM operator connectivity" (ie. we want to pull strings with operators like Apple does). In addition, it doesn't bode well at all for potential innovation such as the use of Bitcoin or other alternate settlement systems and services. It should be antitrust investigated.

43 points by GreekOphion 15y ago

ok, I understand that they want to streamline the payments process, but what about those that Google didn't yet embrace into their "accepted sellers" exclusive club ? I am from Romania, and citizens of my country, as many others, cannot sell apps on the Android Market, Google's motivation being "legal complications". How come Apple found a way where Google can't ?

2muchcoffeeman 15y ago
Remember that Apple has been at this since the beginning of the iTunes Music Store. They have a massive head start. You can always sell on a different market place.
- zrgiu_ 15y ago
  it's still been 3.5 years since the Android Market went live for the first time. It's certainly enough time for any decent company (not to mention Google) to handle these kinds of things. Edit: google has Google Adsense, which can send payments to pretty much anywhere in the world

Revisor 15y ago

Is Google heading the dreaded Microsoft naming way? Google Play Store. Windows Live Search, eh I mean Windows Live Search Center. Games For Windows? Surely you mean Games for Windows - Live. Or Xbox Marketplace? Also Google Wallet is unavailable in many countries as others have noted. Oh well, I was hoping that someone would give Apple a run for money.

LiroXIV 15y ago
No, its Xbox Live on Windows now

fpgeek 15y ago

The rule is not new. Everyone claiming (or suggesting) that this rule is new is being lazy and sloppy (at best). Here's a copy of the Android developer agreement from 2008: http://web.archive.org/web/20081219010834/http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html http://web.archive.org/web/20081219010834/http://www.android... Take a look at the definition of "Payment Processor" and section 3.3. That's the same rule we're talking about today. The effort put into enforcement may have changed, but the rule itself hasn't.

kamjam 15y ago
That's a good find. The cynical side of me however thinks that this may have been Google's plan all along - get a big enough user base and then enforce the rule. It's a good way to recoup some money for the cost of developing the Android OS.
- fpgeek 15y ago
  Not really. IIRC, they pay all of the "Payment Processor" money beyond their costs back to the carriers (though I'm not sure what happens with WiFi-only devices). I suspect, but can't prove that they're acting out of ecosystem concerns like uniformity and conversion rates. Even now, the enforcement is pretty lax. I've been looking at some random apps and it surprised me how many asked for off-market donations and the like. Perhaps donations that don't unlock features fall under the same exception that permits third-party payment for physical goods and digital goods [i.e. music or ebooks] (what I've thought of as the Amazon exception).

avstraliitski 15y ago

Having designed and implemented mobile operator / credit card hybrid payment services for both GSM and wifi connectivity for a high profile pre-installed application on a major series of devices from a major manufacturer, I can tell you that it's a PITA. It's great that there's payment services to do it for you. It's sad that most of them suck. However, this move by Google could really mean "we want to manage directly any and all GSM operator connectivity" (ie. we want to pull strings with operators like Apple does). In addition, it doesn't bode well at all for potential innovation such as the use of Bitcoin or other alternate settlement systems and services. It should be antitrust investigated.