7 ms·

The app in question was using Paypal. Right or wrong, there is no way Google is going to let developers use Paypal instead of their own Google billing, for whi

The app in question was using Paypal. Right or wrong, there is no way Google is going to let developers use Paypal instead of their own Google billing, for which they keep 30%.

darklajid 13y ago
I think you're missing the point where - Google wouldn't even accept the developer into their own 'Take 30% of my income' program - Other popular apps get away with that (using Paypal) just fine So.. arbitrary, idiotic and no way to talk to a human. There's no way to justify that.
- FedRegister 13y ago
  And the author was willing to push a mandatory update that disabled the PayPal IAP.
- poopsintub 13y ago
  I think you're missing the point. Google is god. You either follow the TOS or get booted eventually, if or when they find out.
- mjmahone17 13y ago
  The other crappy thing is, even if the developer has a working version on another app store, there's no way (under the terms) to say "Sorry, you can't do that here, but here's a link to a version of the app that does allow it". I think even mentioning Amazon's app store ("you can also download this app in the Amazon app store", for instance) would be enough to get you banned.
furyofantares 13y ago
Unless they've recently renegotiated, Google only gets 5% and the other 25% goes to the carrier. I'm not sure why the carriers in the counties where Play doesn't support payments haven't been able to get Google to implement support though.
- lokedhs 13y ago
  That sounds very suspicious. Do you have a source for this? Remember that you don't even need a carrier to be able to use the app store. Who takes the 25% from the payments done from my wlan-only tablet?
  - furyofantares 13y ago
    Here's a story about them trying to negotiate an increase in their cut with carriers in South Korea: http://www.androidauthority.com/google-share-play-store-android-app-revenue-236966/ http://www.androidauthority.com/google-share-play-store-andr... I don't know what happens for carrier-less devices. I had actually thought OEMs had a slice in the pie too but couldn't find any evidence of that as so didn't mention it earlier.
    - poopsintub 13y ago
      I would have to think South Korea is a whole different ball game.
      - lokedhs 13y ago
        Yes. In South Korea you can't just put a SIM card in a device and use it like you can in the rest of the world. The phones have to be activated with the carrier. I don't know of any other place where this happens.
- Fuxy 13y ago
  Let me get this straight. If i happen to purchase an app on goggle play and say I'm using my home wifi to install it since I value my bandwidth their still getting 25%? I get goggle making money but a carrier who doesn't do jack making money? In what world does that make sense?
  - DominikR 13y ago
    It's not about bandwidth used, it's about the billing service (charging via the customers carrier contract) 25% is a low rate for that, carriers usually charge 40-60% of the total amount, which seems totally insane to me considering that a carrier has much lower fraud risks than some web service because they usually have established billing relationships with they customers. Edit: Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_payment#Direct_operator_billing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_payment#Direct_operator_...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Grue3 13y ago
If the developer was able to use Paypal to receive money in his country, why isn't it possible for Google to do the same? It just shows that Google isn't really trying to make its payment system truly global.
xioxox 13y ago
I wonder why they allow skype? As far as I know skype use their own billing for credit. This isn't a physical product, so I can't see why this shouldn't be disallowed by the terms of service.
- Joeri 13y ago
  In a negotiation if one party is prepared to walk away and take a huge loss and the other is not, the party that is prepared to walk away will win the negotiations. Apple historically has been willing to cut into their own flesh to get big developers to obey the rules (if you will remember the amazon kindle in-app purchasing debacle). They would be willing to ban an app like Skype to make them comply. Google and microsoft have less resolve, they're not willing to ban a "must have" app for TOS violations, so that implicitly means those apps can ignore the TOS.
- spacemanmatt 13y ago
  If Skype sold credits in-app they would have to follow the same rules.
- DominikR 13y ago
  Because Skype allows you to use the digital content that you buy outside of the Android app. (Desktop, Web and so on) Apple has a similar rule. (We have an iOS App in the App Store that uses Paypal) Edit: Here's the relevant part from the TOS: Developers ... must use Google Play's in-app billing service as the method of payment, except: ... ... where payment is for digital content or goods that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g., buying songs that can be played on other music players).

The app in question was using Paypal. Right or wrong, there is no way Google is going to let developers use Paypal instead of their own Google billing, for which they keep 30%.

darklajid 13y ago

I think you're missing the point where - Google wouldn't even accept the developer into their own 'Take 30% of my income' program - Other popular apps get away with that (using Paypal) just fine So.. arbitrary, idiotic and no way to talk to a human. There's no way to justify that.

FedRegister 13y ago
And the author was willing to push a mandatory update that disabled the PayPal IAP.
poopsintub 13y ago
I think you're missing the point. Google is god. You either follow the TOS or get booted eventually, if or when they find out.
mjmahone17 13y ago
The other crappy thing is, even if the developer has a working version on another app store, there's no way (under the terms) to say "Sorry, you can't do that here, but here's a link to a version of the app that does allow it". I think even mentioning Amazon's app store ("you can also download this app in the Amazon app store", for instance) would be enough to get you banned.

furyofantares 13y ago

Unless they've recently renegotiated, Google only gets 5% and the other 25% goes to the carrier. I'm not sure why the carriers in the counties where Play doesn't support payments haven't been able to get Google to implement support though.

lokedhs 13y ago
That sounds very suspicious. Do you have a source for this? Remember that you don't even need a carrier to be able to use the app store. Who takes the 25% from the payments done from my wlan-only tablet?
- furyofantares 13y ago
  Here's a story about them trying to negotiate an increase in their cut with carriers in South Korea: http://www.androidauthority.com/google-share-play-store-android-app-revenue-236966/ http://www.androidauthority.com/google-share-play-store-andr... I don't know what happens for carrier-less devices. I had actually thought OEMs had a slice in the pie too but couldn't find any evidence of that as so didn't mention it earlier.
  - poopsintub 13y ago
    I would have to think South Korea is a whole different ball game.
    - lokedhs 13y ago
      Yes. In South Korea you can't just put a SIM card in a device and use it like you can in the rest of the world. The phones have to be activated with the carrier. I don't know of any other place where this happens.
Fuxy 13y ago
Let me get this straight. If i happen to purchase an app on goggle play and say I'm using my home wifi to install it since I value my bandwidth their still getting 25%? I get goggle making money but a carrier who doesn't do jack making money? In what world does that make sense?
- DominikR 13y ago
  It's not about bandwidth used, it's about the billing service (charging via the customers carrier contract) 25% is a low rate for that, carriers usually charge 40-60% of the total amount, which seems totally insane to me considering that a carrier has much lower fraud risks than some web service because they usually have established billing relationships with they customers. Edit: Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_payment#Direct_operator_billing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_payment#Direct_operator_...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Grue3 13y ago

If the developer was able to use Paypal to receive money in his country, why isn't it possible for Google to do the same? It just shows that Google isn't really trying to make its payment system truly global.

xioxox 13y ago

I wonder why they allow skype? As far as I know skype use their own billing for credit. This isn't a physical product, so I can't see why this shouldn't be disallowed by the terms of service.

Joeri 13y ago
In a negotiation if one party is prepared to walk away and take a huge loss and the other is not, the party that is prepared to walk away will win the negotiations. Apple historically has been willing to cut into their own flesh to get big developers to obey the rules (if you will remember the amazon kindle in-app purchasing debacle). They would be willing to ban an app like Skype to make them comply. Google and microsoft have less resolve, they're not willing to ban a "must have" app for TOS violations, so that implicitly means those apps can ignore the TOS.
spacemanmatt 13y ago
If Skype sold credits in-app they would have to follow the same rules.
DominikR 13y ago
Because Skype allows you to use the digital content that you buy outside of the Android app. (Desktop, Web and so on) Apple has a similar rule. (We have an iOS App in the App Store that uses Paypal) Edit: Here's the relevant part from the TOS: Developers ... must use Google Play's in-app billing service as the method of payment, except: ... ... where payment is for digital content or goods that may be consumed outside of the app itself (e.g., buying songs that can be played on other music players).