Is there a way around it? I have a website where you can buy a subscription through Stripe. Can I just redirect to this page from the Android app so they could pay through the web and that would automatically enable their subscription on the app as well?
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en
Notably you can check out their list of gatekeeper services
How is Android any different?
https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en
In there you will find pdfs for each entity with not only the qualifiers/assessments, but also the counter arguments they presented.
For example, here is one from Alphabet that also brings up your point in the counter argument
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/digital_markets_act/cases/2...
It's bad for the developer, sure, but what exactly is "insane" or "illegal" about it? They have created a product marketplace, and they let you sell there, and you must abide by their rules.
If you want to sell on Gumroad or similar services you also need to use their payment processor of choice, and give them a cut. If you want to sell on Ebay, you also need to use their payment processors of choice (and originally, iirc, you only had the option to use PayPal) and give them a cut.
And of course check the rules for selling your console game. They are 10x more restrive, and have been since forever. Not only you have to use the console markers marketplace, billing system, and pay a cut, for many wont even be able to do that, unless they accept your game.
The thing is, you don't "have" to sell in Play Market - even if it was the only marketplace for Android, it would still not be some basic necessity of life that you sell apps for Android. You could always find another trade, or sell PC software, or whatever. In other words, a marketplace for a mobile OS is not exactly a public utility.
Anti-trust made it pretty clear you can't be the railroad company and the oil company that uses the railroad to harm competition.
Play store is the rail road, apps are the oil.
> The thing is, you don't "have" to sell in Play Market - even if it was the only marketplace for Android, it would still not be some basic necessity of life that you sell apps for Android. You could always find another trade, or sell PC software, or whatever. In other words, a marketplace for a mobile OS is not exactly a public utility.
1. The Play Stores's massive user base makes it a crucial marketplace for developers wanting to reach the widest Android audience, and opting out will limit market exposure and revenue significantly.
2. Mobile app development requires distinct skills, tools, and strategies compared to PC software, making transitioning between these fields challenging and resource-intensive.
3. While the Play Market isn't a basic life necessity, its dominance in the app economy raises significant concerns about market fairness and competition, as it acts as a gatekeeper to digital distribution. You're essentially arguing the same shit that we would hear in the 90s "you don't need a refrigerator", sure you don't but life sure sucks without it...
Your analogy is flawed.
This is a private railroad company, who built their own private national railroad system, saying that if you want to use their railroads, you have to use their infrastruture (signals, switching, yards, etc.) and to do that, you have to pay a per-trip fee.
Your argument really is, “How is it legal that I am not allowed to use their private railroad track system unless I also use their switches/signals/yards/etc. that carry fees?”
No, but you can own the railroad and dictate that anybody putting their trains there and selling tickets have to do it by your rules and pay you a cut.
Some jurisdictions would disagree on that, most notably the EU.
You accidentally a word.
I.e. it's not that people are choosing only 2 app stores because they've got the best policies they are stuck with whatever policies the 2 app stores give them until some separation between device and marketplace is made. Going between Ebay and Etsy is easy, everyone has to go to the URL bar and choose to type "Ebay" or "Etsy". If every browser shipped with the starting page of Ebay, browser integrations into Ebay, and popup warnings about using Etsy then I'd bet the same problem would exist there.
The situation on consoles is no better but that's not reasoning the situation everywhere else should be like consoles it's a reason console rules probably need to be updated these days too.
They're bundling with their own OS, though.
Not to mention Android already supports sideloading and other marketplaces.
Well, they did create their own phone platform (OS, libs for app creation and so on), not some public open infrastructure.
(Full disclosure: I moved my apps off the Apple App Store/Google Play Store earlier this year. I wasn't seeing any value with distributing on them. After leaving, I've had better interactions with my users and almost all of the folks who discover my apps end up upgrading to the paid version. While my installs are lower, my conversion rate has never been higher.)
Yes, because as you said, there are knock-on effects.
With a first-party app store, I know I can easily cancel subscriptions, and from a single place; that the payment option isn’t going to be some no-name payment processor or that I’m not going to told it was one price on the screen and then charged another price in the backend; that at least one third party has done at least some minimum level of verification that it’s not malicious; that it isn’t circumventing privacy controls; that app updates occur in one place instead of having to individually launch and update each app (e.g., Sparkle); that, while app review has non-trivial flaws, it does catch certain kinds and amounts of crapplications, and tends to have a second-order consequence of improving platform consistency.
So while I may pay more and/or the developer might earn less, installing apps the old-fashioned way carries way more risk. The days of implicit trust that someone random Joe’s apps will behave themselves and act like good platform citizens are over.
I don't see why it should be illegal to have fees and terms of use on your platform. Don't like it? Don't use the platform. You're not entitled to others' work.
Many users don't even know that's possible, because all they've ever known is Google Play and it comes pre-installed on the majority of the devices, without a clear way to get something else.
Even their own store explicitly disallows other store apps: https://play.google.com/intl/ALL_uk/about/developer-distribu...
> 4.5 You may not use Google Play to distribute or make available any Product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of software applications and games for use on Android devices outside of Google Play.
This leads to the second point: developers will essentially be locked into using Google Play because trying to opt for any other platform that doesn't have many users is pretty much killing their own business. Unless you are explicitly targeting a demographic in an area where Google's service is unavailable, if you like putting food on the table then you basically don't have a choice.
It feels like a monopoly due to the network effect, especially with how third party APKs will throw warnings on Android by default.
I was talking about the developer. Don't use the platform if you don't like its terms of use.
Sure, of course a platform forbids you from using it to promote its competition. What's weird about it?
Users often have the alternative stores pre-installed. Or you can use your marketing to promote your app through other channels.
> It feels like a monopoly due to the network effect, especially with how third party APKs will throw warnings on Android by default.
Well, there's a good reason for the warning.
Take Google or Apple Photos, for example. Due to this 30% cut, they always have an unfair advantage when it comes to pricing.
In the case of Apple Services, we don't know if, under the hood, they are using undocumented APIs or whitelisting internal apps to provide a better experience when it comes to background work. (Context: Apple claims that the iPhone performs backups and a bunch of other tasks during the night while the phone is charging. Personally, I haven't seen any app perform these long-running backups as smoothly as their in-house apps.)
This is not true? Huawei uses android but is banned from the US so Google can't take their money. Guess what... you don't need Google Play to distribute apps.
Of course that could also just mean that the market agrees that Google's store is just the absolute best, and paying Google 30% (or 0% if you're really cool) is a steal – we just don't know since we haven't ran that particular experiment anywhere in the world.
We are probably about to, in the EU, though.
I still think it'd be good to de-bundle distribution fees from payment channels though.
For an app seller that needs revenue, the Play Store is the only practical option. Otherwise, they'd have to convince the user to tap the screen a half dozen more times, and that is too big of an ask. It'd ultimately hurt revenue more than the 30% tax.
Except if you're too big for them to lose your business since it would make their store look bad as a platform, or too small for them to bother, or they are distracted by some other shiny trinket on that particular day.
In most cases they allow users also to purchase subscriptions outside their app store, but you can't link directly to those purchases from within the app.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23969690/google-spotify-...
But apparently not all developers/anpp publishers are treated the same. Another example of that: https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/20/google-admits-spotify-pays...
There are plenty of alternatives to the play store. They just don’t get the same amount of eyeballs or require slightly more technical users.
It’s not just payment processing.
Fair fees for the exchange of value they provide is perfectly valid and fair in capitalistic societies. The percentage number is up for discussion, but “charging for value” by the platform vendors who built the thing and provide the platform itself is a valid point.
Raising prices usually feels happier than reducing costs and half the customers at twice the price will probably reduce support costs as a side effect.
Good luck.
Also App Store review is waaaaaay quicker than Play Store review. I often get apps reviewed in 24 hours on Apple but Google can be literally weeks.
