Google updates Play policies to require games to use its in-app billing service | Hacker News Reader

Google updates Play policies to require games to use its in-app billing service

thenextweb.com

64 pointsTomAnthony44 comments

The Play store is a cesspool of dodgy apps with even dodgier advertising and permission practices.

8 out of 10 games I download have this weird splash screen pop up advertising another game or trying to peddle me something.

It's gotten to the point where I don't even download any apps anymore. Too much crap out there and these practices seem completely legal according to Google TOS.

Is it so hard to just pay 5$ for a game, and leave me the fuck alone? Why do devs bombard me with upsells every loading screen after every level?

I haven't used an iOS product for about 3 years, but I don't remember it ever having this particular problem.

Freemium type games are all the rage on both iOS and Android -- there is no difference there (I remember the nonsense when the Dead Trigger publishers went freemium on Android, claiming that enormous piracy force their hand. A week later they quietly went freemium on iOS as well. Their real reason is that getting suckers to buy ammo packs turns out to be much more lucrative).

Is it so hard to just pay 5$ for a game, and leave me the fuck alone? Why do devs bombard me with upsells every loading screen after every level?

What game did you pay $5 for? Examples? Most people refuse to pay $1.99, much less $0.99, leading to the current situation. Again, this is the same on both platforms.

I own a child game company, thus we avoid.IAP.

We have in total, summing iOS and Android, about 500.000 downloads, but only about 2000 was paid... So far this is not much profitable.

So it's all free to download, then ads?

I'd argue most people would be right in not wanting to pay $0.99 for most apps. Most (the vast majority) turn out to be incomprehensibly bad, and I truly feel bad for paying for some.

IMO what we really need is a short, free (optional) trial period for many apps. You really really need to get past the "but what if it's shit?" perfectly-rational reflex when someone sees a non-free app.

There is a short, free mandatory trial period on every app in the play store.

The first time you purchase an app you have 15 minutes, during which time you can go back to the store and hit "refund" to reverse the charge and uninstall the app.

Yes, but 15 minutes is not enough time for me to evaluate an app. 48 hours would be nice. Best of all would be if the store allowed the app developer to specify how long refunds were permitted for (and displayed that information at purchase time). I think the better developers would compete to offer their customers flexibility, confident that their products would prove their worth.

I might be alone, but I think I'd refund every app I purchased if I could within 48 hours. Even 24 would be too short for me.

I'd be able to pick up new games every week for my weekly commute and never have to pay for them.

So you use most of your games for less than 48 hours each? I'd say you're getting very little use out of them! But that's why I'd actually prefer that the developer got to choose the length of time that refunds were allowed. Then the person selling the quick game with a 20 min play time could allow only 5 min for refunds, while the to-do list application could have several weeks.

Windows Phone has this option. Apps have a 'Try' and 'Buy' option. Using 'Try' gets you some form of free trial and users can then upgrade to 'Buy'. This avoids the need to have 'Free' and 'Paid' versions of apps.

> Is it so hard to just pay 5$ for a game, and leave me the fuck alone?

Yes, actually, it is. It's clearly a lot hard than you realize.

> Why do devs bombard me with upsells every loading screen after every level?

They want to get paid. Not specific to your description, but they are optimizing to get the most money from their players.

> I haven't used an iOS product for about 3 years, but I don't remember it ever having this particular problem.

Making you aware of IAP? They do. PvZ2 has this. It's constantly making you aware that IAPs are right there, quick and easy to purchase, throughout the game. And it does feel like every new level had some in-game way of sharing this information with you.

When using Apps, developers are upselling premium features everywhere and nobody cares. If that same principle is applied to games (which can still be played for free) people start to complain while its essentially the same thing.

Three years in the mobile space is roughly equal to fifty years anywhere else. The experience on iOS has changes a lot in that time and is just as awful.

It still happens in the iOS world. I bought RAD Soldiers and it hounds me via notification to play it every few days. No way to disable it except to disable all notifications from the game completely.

Did you buy it? I checked and it's free now, but maybe it wasn't before.

If you really did pay money for it, there's no excuse for it to annoy you in that way.

This is a much needed change from Google and best thing to have happened to Android EcoSystem.

Last several months almost every week you hear a new ad company that is based on Notification Ads, Icon Ads. These guys are in for Quick Money with no regard to developer or end user. (I am restraining my self from talking about how developers have been abusing notification ads in order not to spread the spam techniques).

And what about users from countries where Google's billing is not available (for example Serbia) ?

People reported it long time ago, but Google hasn't updated that issue since February 2013, and it was reported on February 2012 !

http://d.pr/i/VIPN

https://support.google.com/googleplay/known-issues/1319135?h...

For end users there are several updates that are welcomed, such as apps not being allowed to show ads thru notifications, or that apps cannot add shortcuts that are ads.

Google's Admob is shutting off Paypal as a payment option a month from now. It is already shut off for new Admob customers.

https://support.google.com/admob/v2/answer/2772061?hl=en

We need a distributed third-party platform that is technologically unable to force a single payment portal. I don't know what that would look like technologically but I'd like to have it.

Now that Google insists on a payment method all of the sudden "we need" third-party solutions?! no one had objections about Apple and Amazon doing so, at least Google allows third-party app stores and sideloading.

What makes you think that "no one had objections about Apple and Amazon doing so"? Lots of people did. Lots of people have been quite vocal in their dislike of the so-called "walled garden" practices of various organizations.

Google and Android have generally provided a relatively open third-party alternative to what Apple and others are offering. If the degree of openness is changing, however, then I can see people speaking out against them, too, and possibly looking for alternatives.

Damn right we need third-party solutions. Everbody has been complaining about lock-in... ever since it was invented.

I do object to Apple on this issue, but it is a very hard problem to allow 3rd party payments. It creates support issues and we are talking about a consumer device. I think it is a problem they should have solved, but greed is fun.

I am especially dismayed because Apple is forcing app developers to sell app with no upgrades except in-app purchases. When a new version comes out, the consumer either gets it free or at full price. Apple can do this because they don't really care about customer loyalty on that level. As an app developer, you can sell "feature packs", but that is really confusing and a burden.

You can still make Android apps that don't use Google's billing service. You just can't sell them on the Play Store. There are alternative app stores. I think Amazon's is the most popular.

That platform already exists. It's the "platform" that naturally happens when there aren't any "app stores" or "app marketplaces", and when devices aren't artificially crippled to prevent users from freely installing software.

It's a bunch of people and organizations around the world offering their software for download over the Internet. It's other people who then possibly pay for and download those apps.

It's distributed, it can optionally include compensation, and how that compensation is delivered is up to the app creator and purchaser.

It may not be as pretty or convenient as what Apple or Google offer, but at least it has the freedom that's desired.

Of course, a package system like dpkg or pkgsrc can be used to help make it far more convenient to find and install software. And websites offering a directory of available software can help with this, too.

All of this already exists. I think that a lot of people have just forgotten about it within the past five or six years.

No I mean the platforms from Apple and Google are too convenient to ignore, which causes a feedback loop that is good for individuals but bad for the group.

I agree that download over the internet is better as in more libre, but then developers and users lose the convenience of having a simple way to pay and a simple CDN and update system that developers don't need to deal with. The users buy less and it makes less sense for developers to distribute software that way.

There are many alternative app stores. I don't think Google is forcing this as much as Apple either.

is there any article/research about market shares of alternative app stores? or, seen from a dev point of view, revenues on alternative app store?

I suspect they are both negligible..

I am not aware of any statistics, but Amazon is a fairly well known alternative that's on every Kindle Fire as far as I am aware.

Since it is directed at the typical person, it would seem a better solution would be for an app store to certify different 3rd party payment providers and lock out the rest. It would also be helpful if a person could select the payment providers they trust and be warned about apps that use someone else.

You mean like Bitcoins? US government is not amused. Power relies on control.

So it' only games that have to use Google's billing? Not the Amazon Kindle app? Or music distribution apps?

Yes, only games, from the text of the change. This hints that perhaps the change is aimed at their attempts to implement parental controls and push into the child / family-friendly market? If using Google's system then they can enforce the controls on in-app billing set at the device level.

Of course, it is also possible that they recognize there is a lot of revenue flowing now from games through in-app purchases and have decided just to be anti-competitive assholes. But I would have to say, that has not been their form to date.

"Games of skill" can't offer cash prizes. If I made a math tutor app that dolled out real money would this be covered?

What if I ran a coding challenge on an app that had prizes?

Strikes me that this one will be a hard line to draw and apply consistently.

I hope this means Google Wallet will be able to do what Google Checkout couldn't - finally take on Paypal. But before it does that, it needs to be ubiquitous on Android devices at least, and used by hundreds of millions of people, globally. Then maybe a day will come when you can withdraw the money out of your Google Wallet, in your own country, just like with Paypal.

Let's replace our reliance on one terrible company with another!

And let's go from a non-enforced dejure wretchedness to a defacto enforced wretchedness!

The only 3rd party non-Google app/package manager I know of being used on Android is Debian, and it definitely doesn't have an app store or payment gateway for in app. Kindle of course is their own bag, and B&N is around too; it seems like there's got to be some place to start to begin to set both app-makers and app-users going.

So will Google cover anti-fraud and chargebacks, if I'm not allowed to do that myself using strong tools?

So... does this mean I can no longer shop in the Kindle store directly from my Nexus?

This is an update to the policies of the Play store. Kindle Store != Play Store. So no, you can still do whatever Amazon deems OK on their Kindle playground on your Nexus.

Right, so... I still don't understand exactly what you mean.

On an iPad, Apple does not allow Amazon to sell things directly in the Kindle app -- because it's an "in app purchase", and Apple wants their 30%.

Google does allow this currently. The Kindle app on Nexus, downloaded from the Play store, embeds a complete store within it that does not use Play to do purchases. It uses the standard Amazon "one click" purchase mechanism.

The question is: is this changing so Amazon can no longer sell directly within the Kindle application when downloaded from the Play store?

[Edit]: I am not talking about the sideloaded Amazon App store in this case. The straight up kindle app from the Play store.

Interesting. That's a good question... I suppose we can wait and see? Though Amazon's success may not be a real sign that app-store-apps are exempt, given their size.

from the google play developer guidelines:

"Developers offering additional content, services or functionality within another category of app downloaded from Google Play 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 application itself (e.g. buying songs that can be played on other music players)."

the kindle store is kind of straddling the line between affected and unaffected. if reading a kindle book on an e-ink kindle device counts as outside the app, they're fine. I'm guessing google will give amazon a pass here, the regulation is clearly meant to stop games with scammy IAP, not ebookstores.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com