Google permanently bans popular application from Play for not using IAP | Hacker News Reader

Google permanently bans popular application from Play for not using IAP

plus.google.com

693 pointschrisacky264 comments

I know Google's policy on this, but I completely understand where the developer is coming from.

Google has been taking a collective shit on every developer out of its list of seller countries[0], which is ridiculously short and hasn't been expanded in god knows how long, and even then, there were only a handful of countries added.

On Google's page about seller countries they say: "We're working hard to add more countries, but we're unable to provide any guidance on timelines."

No, you're fucking not working hard, you added the last ones a year and a half ago. EU countries are missing, for fucks sake. These are countries where Android has 70, 80% of the market, and you're killing any sensible chance of developers making a living on mobile. And you're not allowing any other payment option, because hey, fuck the developers, they don't need to make a living.

And then you send me fucking developer feedback polls year after year, which you seemingly throw in the trash, because every single Android dev I know tells you the same damn thing, let us sell apps, everything else is irrelevant.

Wake the fuck up Google.

[0]https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

ps. sorry for the language, this has been boiling for more than two years now...

Well I can tell you there's at least one country that has paid apps and isn't in that list, so maybe that list isn't updated either. I think you're right about them not moving fast enough with this, though. They've been historically slow with this since the Android Market days.

It also hurt them big time that their own payment option in the early days wasn't popular. Things could've been very different for Android revenue, if they wouldn't have forgotten about Google Checkout for virtually its entire life since they started it. They had to invent a whole new payment system (Wallet) to deal with Android payments, after they almost let Paypal be their default payment solution for the store, because their payment system situation was so incredibly pathetic at the time.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-13/paypal-said-to-be-i...

http://www.androidguys.com/2011/11/02/signs-of-paypal-found-...

> Google has been taking a collective shit

The biggest issue with anything Google related is absolute lack of communication/transparency. They have been baning web pages from Google AdSense and never told the owners why, without any way to appeal decision. The oracle has spoken, You are not worthy. Take this automatic reply message based on some words from your email.

> They have been baning web pages from Google AdSense and never told the owners why, without any way to appeal decision.

This is actually a huge problem. But google does not care about the supply side, they have plenty of inventory, they only care about the demand side.

In the suspension notice I received I had a way to appeal it.

Did it work?

In my experience, I fixed the problem they reported, but then they still refused to reinstate the site. I was left playing 20 questions, trying to guess which other policy I might have violated.

I didn't bother - it would've taken me over a year to reach the payout threshold.

I received a notification in adsense that I was in violation of a policy and clicked the "ok", or "fixed" button when I removed the page. They don't just ban people and walk away unless you plain didn't read the TOS and are breaking big rules like clicking your own ads, doing shady stuff, etc.

But they do, you simply haven't experienced the scenario yet.

"They don't just ban people and walk away unless you plain didn't read the TOS and are breaking big rules like clicking your own ads, doing shady stuff, etc."

Simply not true. I was banned from adsense for "manipulating ads" or some such thing. I of course had never done this, and had actually put a LOT of effort into making sure that there was no way I could be flagged for click fraud. I actively told any family or friends that knew about my project to NEVER click on an ad on my site. It just wasn't worth the risk of getting banned from adsense, since most other networks pay significantly less for significantly more headaches. I had a high traffic site that was bringing in a lot of money without any need to cheat (so why risk everything for a few bucks?).

Well I ended up getting banned regardless for who knows why, maybe someone had it out for me and committed click fraud on the site through a bunch of proxy servers, I have no idea. Google refused to give me any information whatsoever. They did allow me to "appeal" to them, but it was clear in their automated response that no human read my appeal.

Anyways, I'll never trust Google again for anything business critical. By which I mean any project that relies heavily on Google in some way is very high risk. If something goes wrong (ie they shut down a service you rely on etc) they won't care to work with you in the slightest (unless you already have SV connections like rap genius).

On a side note, I did have a Google sales team reach out and contact me about a year later asking if I wanted to get involved in some new ad product they were working on. It was quite a slap in the face when I had to tell them that I was actually banned from adsense. Of course they responded by telling me there was nothing they could do to help overturn my ban. I guess even people who work at Google can't get actual feedback from Google.

I was banned for invalid click activity. I NEVER clicked any of my ads intentionally and never asked anyone else to either. One time I misclicked and hit an ad and immediately looked up whether I needed to report it and found a page saying that an accidental click was fine and didn't need to be reported. I mentioned this in my appeal after getting banned and got a nonanswer that they couldn't help me and I would stay banned.

You get one single appeal, and in my experience they don't give you any additional information on what you may have done to get banned and just tell you you're going to stay banned.

> Take this automatic reply message based on some words from your email.

And hopefully you didn't make the mistake of publishing things with your personal google/gmail username, because that might get permanently closed with no recourse.

> We're working hard to add more countries

I hate this bullshit, they've said exactly the same about my country for 3 years before actually adding seller support. They were about 3 years slower than Microsoft and Apple.

Also, Windows Phone seems to be the only one to allow IAPs without needing to pay the 30% cut.

See section 2.1.2 in http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsphone/develop...

They lay out rules like clarity in showing the product and the payment processor and having PCI-DSS which are good things to protect users.

However, this doesn't imply that they won't give in to greed and change the rules midway like Google did if Windows Phone becomes more popular.

They had to though. You can't come in to an entrenched marketplace and play by the same rules as everyone else when you have 0 traction. They're trying to get any and all developers to start adding to the Windows Phone offerings.

> No, you're fucking not working hard, you added the last ones a year and a half ago.

I'm not even a Google fanboy, but what do you know about the challenges that Google might be facing? It's a really strong accusation to say that a company is not working hard just because you can't have exactly what you want.

Last I checked, neither Google nor Apple make guarantees about how much of a living a developer is going to make from their platforms. You're not getting shit on; you're getting impatient because the gravy train that you're banking on hasn't poured itself all over you. If you want to make money, stop waiting for other people to do the dirty work for you.

Anecdotes like this one do indeed suggest they're not trying as hard as they can:

>I hate this bullshit, they've said exactly the same about my country for 3 years before actually adding seller support. They were about 3 years slower than Microsoft and Apple.

I actually am a Google fanboy for the record. But it does seem like they just don't care about this.

Yes, but Microsoft and Apple have the advantage of having physical products, stores, agreements, etc. in the international market already.

Google seems really flakey. It's a bamboo platform. Discontinued services... a road-map that focusses on creepy glasses, self-driving cars and ditches Motorola for Nest.

This isn't a factor. Apple has no offices in South Africa - all retail sales, support, etc are handled through a distributor, Core Group - but local devs can still sell paid apps through the App Store. Google, despite actually having a large-ish local presence, didn't allow the same thing for years. The local office only handled ad sales, it seems.

To be fair, the developer did do the dirty work themselves - They implemented their own payment method using PayPal and then got banned for it.

I was more thinking along the lines of making a web app instead of a native app; IMO Google's implication is that, if you're not doing business in one of the supported countries, you're not allowed to conduct commercial transactions through your app. I'm guessing that this is more a legal issue than anything else (not to mention the developer getting around the kickback Google should be getting); I can imagine it sucking for Google to have accounts frozen because some auditor found out that Google was indirectly doing business in an unauthorized country. There could be tax issues, compliance issues, issues with trade agreements -- there are a TON of things to think about.

Each one of those ton of things have been solved by Apple, Samsung and BlackBerry in many of the countries Google doesn't support. They can copy what any one of these 3 did if they really wanted to help developers.

Can they? What if the process is patented?

By 3 different corporations?

licensing.

Then they can do the same thing. It's a non-argument, my favorite of the HN tropes.

Obviously PayPal, which is way smaller than Google, was able to pay to this developer.

You can't patent "compliance with the law", and you can't pass a law that requires licensing of a patent to be in compliance. So no, the "process" of being legally allowed to sell items in a country is not and cannot be patented.

> I'm not even a Google fanboy, but what do you know about the challenges that Google might be facing? It's a really strong accusation to say that a company is not working hard just because you can't have exactly what you want.

This argument works only because companies like Google prefer no communication with their user/developer base. If they took the time and posted a short note explaining which challenges Google faces in a specific country, this discussion would not take place.

I think it's time we stopped defending silent companies by hypothesizing scenarios where they are hard-working but can't tell us.

perfect

>If they took the time and posted a short note explaining which challenges Google faces in a specific country, this discussion would not take place.

If only Google had some kind of social media website or something where they could communicate en masse to their developers, like Orkut, but updated. Or even a website that could host a blog, like Blogger. If only...

It's a lose-lose situation for Google to do such a thing. They're not making an argument; they're making policy. I'm under the impression that the policy isn't up for discussion, in which case it's wise for Google not to pay people to reiterate what we already know.

Why should moderate disclosure be a lose-lose situation? If Google has a problem with entering a country that is dependent on the country's laws or policies, explaining the problem to the local citizens could lead to public discourse about the laws and, eventually, change.

Zero disclosure is a winning strategy only because people will use their imaginations and think there are valid reasons for the progress being so slow. The people will argue that the reason Google is not telling us is the policy and not the fact that they don't have a good reason.

---

This discussion reminds me of the famous quote from Eric Schmidt:

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

Does that rule apply to Google disclosures as well?

In context, it was clear that Schmidt was referring to doing "it" using Google services, since Google is subject to the Patriot act, etc.

The point is, if a company wants the public to forgive them for terrible outcomes, they should have to give the public the evidence that they deserve forgiveness instead of having random people shill for everything they do on spec. It is possible for corporations to make mistakes, or to do bad things, and it's perfectly legitimate to call them out when that appears to be the case.

(I also think Google has long past squandered any right to the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see the need to get into that right now)

I can assume what challenges Google is facing based on how successful other companies in the space are in providing the same service, namely Microsoft and Apple.

Google: 32 countries Apple: 90 countries (probably more now, info from 2012) Microsoft: 127 countries

Yes, Microsoft and Apple had a head start, but the difference is just way too big, and Google hasn't moved that number in a year and a half.

I don't want Google to do the dirty work for me. They should just let me do the dirty work, and let me implement other payment methods. Don't you see how saying "You can only use our payment processor on Google Play" and immediately following it up with "Our payment processor is not available in your country" is rage-inducing?

Do you think that's good for users though? Especially with Google's lax oversight of the marketplace? If the developer using their own payment method changed their PayPal redirect to a phishing site, would users notice? What if you implemented your own credit card payment? Where's the guarantee that you're PCI compliant? I can tell you that 99% of your users won't know what PCI compliance is. If Google allows users to become accustomed to entering their credit card info to each individual app, there could be major liability issues that I'm sure Google doesn't want to deal with.

On that basis maybe Google should stop Chrome allowing credit card form submissions.

But instead of doing that, they now offer to remember your credit card numbers in the browser. That's a big no thank you from me.

Reeaally?

So, is Chrome now filtering the internet to catch you entering your CC number to some vague service online? Because that's what we're talking about. Shopping (for an in app purchase, but still) online, in a browser. I wonder how Google checked if Amazon is PCI compliant..

If you're entering your CC everywhere that's not something Google can (or should - no need for a nanny..) fix. There's no way in my world that Google _could_ be liable for these kind of things.

You're trying to understand their motivation for banning alternative payment methods. We both have a theory. Mine is 'greed', yours is 'protecting the user and protecting the company against evil worldwide'.

I really think you're giving them too much credit here.

There's a very clear difference between native apps and web apps in my mind.

EDIT: I should make very clear to non-developers out there that, with a native app, you're able to display a web browser without a URL bar or any other UI, which makes it exceedingly easy to trick people into thinking that they're at an official PayPal site or other shenanigans that the unscrupulous dev wants to try.

More information: https://developer.android.com/reference/android/webkit/WebVi...

> EDIT: I should make very clear to non-developers out there that, with a native app, you're able to display a web browser without a URL bar or any other UI, which makes it exceedingly easy to trick people into thinking that they're at an official PayPal site or other shenanigans that the unscrupulous dev wants to try.

Nothing's stopping a non-standard browser (Opera, Firefox, etc.) from doing that, and they're permitted on Android. Hell, you could do it on iOS, too.

are you trying to miss the point?

Are you? A custom browser can be designed to quietly send people accessing PayPal off to a phishing site just as easily as an app integrating a PayPal payment method. If Google's going to use that sort of attack as a reason to prevent non-IAP payments, they should be banning non-Google browsers too.

So where does that leave your "do the dirty work yourself" argument? Apparently you don't want developers to do the dirty payment systems work themselves. Neither does Google.

So I suggest you reconsider your rather hostile attitude towards the developer who complained about Google's inactivity.

Wait, now I'm the hostile one? lol ok.

> Google: 32 countries Apple: 90 countries (probably more now, info from 2012) Microsoft: 127 countries

Or the 196(?) countries the Amazon Appstore supports.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...

(* It appears that apps for China and, for whatever reason, Germany must go through amazon.cn and .de, respectively, instead of .com)

EDIT: I count 155 countries supported by the iTunes App Store, according to

http://support.apple.com/kb/ts3599

> Google: 32 countries

Where did you get this info? I'm not doubting you; I just find it crazy that they have offices in over 40 countries[1], but only allow app submissions from developers in 32 countries.

[1]:http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations

The list of all supported seller countries according to Google: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

It is crazy.

Edit: To be clear, this is a list of countries which can publish paid apps in the Play Store. The list of countries which can publish free apps is of course significantly larger.

Sligthly related to the part you find crazy, Google has their main European HQ in Ireland, basically because of the very low corporate taxes here, but guess what? It's impossible to buy a Nexus on Google Play from Ireland. If you try you get this message:

-- Sorry! Devices on Google Play is not available in your country yet. We're working to bring devices to more countries as quickly as possible. Please check back again soon. --

They say they're working on it. But that's just a lie. This message has been there for at least the last two years (probably a lot more) and nothing has changed. And we're not talking about a small country in the middle of nowhere. Ireland is part of the the European Union. And they not only have offices here but their main European HQ. They just don't care at all.

Tell me about it. Or they do silly things like release sub-par Chromebooks to the Canadian market every other release, with the Canadian multilingual keyboard layouts nobody likes (because of the short enter key), and I have to ship and forward US models to get decent devices with the non-standard yet US english layout I want. (I say non-standard because they already changed the control key and caps lock, so they could care about localizing the keyboard improvements to other layouts, but they don't. Apple does.) Of course, I suppose I've the "advantage" of living so close to the US (2 hours drive) that I can go and pick up the latest devices from a US shipping address. But I shouldn't have to.

Here in South Africa for example, it has been possible for at least 3 years to sell apps on iTunes, on Samsung Apps, and BlackBerry Apps world. So there's most probably not some major stumbling block that prevents it, as these other companies overcame it.

>If you want to make money, stop waiting for other people to do the dirty work for you.

The dirty work developers like us have been doing up to now was to implement an alternative mechanism for receiving payments, like the developer in the article. When Google bans that, there simply is no other way to receive payments. Or are you able to come up with an alternative way for developers to do the dirty work themselves? I know I'm very keen to know of one, as are many other Android developers in South Africa, Kenia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, etc.

Considering Apple allows developers from all countries supported by itunes to sell their apps in the App Store, I too keep wondering if Google is actually working to add more countries to their developer program.

There are many app developers from my country (Indonesia) that sell apps in Apple App Store, but none of them can sell their apps in Google Play store.

IOS marketshare in Indonesia is less than 3%, while Android's marketshare is more than 40% [source](http://www.ibtimes.com/android-vs-ios-whats-most-popular-mob...). Also, Indonesia has 285.0m mobile subscriptions (US 345.2m subscriptions). On the other hand, Brazil (268.4m subscriptions) is already in the list of supported nations for publishing paid app. [source](http://mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile...). Yes, Indonesia's GDP per capita is really low, but so is India. Yet, India is in the list too.

There are no challenges, they are either lazy or doing this on purpose. I have AdSense for a couple of my websites and receiving payments monthly from it, so obviously sending payments from Google to my country is not a problem. Why can't the Play Store earnings be delivered the same way?

From the colour of your post i can tell that a lot of people disagree with you. I know you are just trying to give everyone google's prespective, but you should reconsider. You raise the point that maybe there are legal issues, or trade laws etc that prevent google's growth to other economic markets. Well there are workarounds, if google bothers looking for them.

For example, they find that the economic service they are using to pay devs, is not available in country X. they do a little research and find that skrill (formerly moneybookers) is available in country X, and it is also available in their country. They get in touch with skrill and work something out to be able to pay in country X. I cant imagine a law that says they cant contact services which are legally allowed to do transactions from your country to country X. Yes, i buy the reason that google itself may not be allowed, but it certainly can employ other services to do that for them. That's what channels are for!

PS: having EU HQ in ireland and not being legally allowed to pay people in ireland? that makes zero sense

I couldn't have said it any better myself. In this instance, swearing is not only warranted: it's needed. I feel exactly the same way and have a friend who was burned by this exact policy all due to Google's inability to get off their billion dollar asses and make someone fix the problem.

An expansion may never come. When they created their new policy requiring use of Google Play for all IAP, they could have easily carved out an exception for app teams not based in countries served by their payment system. Anyone bright enough to be hired by Google to write app store policies would have been smart enough to anticipate this scenario.

Since Google doesn't make glaring mistakes like this, it was intentional. The only logical conclusion is that Google wants all Android development outside of the countries it has named to cease immediately.

> The only logical conclusion is that Google wants all Android development outside of the countries it has named to cease immediately.

What would be the motive? More likely they didn't want to risk carving an exception (leading to e.g. scammers taking advantage of the loophole, breaking users' payment expectations, etc.) .

Restricting third-party payment methods within a curated store is related to but distinct from the issue at hand: the limited number of countries supported by Google Wallet. For that, lack of experience and/or lethargy is a simpler and sufficient explanation. No need to invent a more complicated theory.

To clarify, if it was allowed, all someone would have to do is register their app in a country that didn't require Google's IAP, then they wouldn't have to pay Google's 30% cut.

I have no idea what the motive would be. But I do know that without financial incentive, it is difficult to believe that Android development will continue outside of Wallet-supported countries. They could still use in-app banners, but those revenues tend to be abysmally low vs. IAP and in many cases will destroy the user experience. There may be a few people that code them for pleasure or practice in these countries, but if there is no money in it, people will find better things to do.

I had one of the first 100 apps ever published on Google Play (then called Android Market). After a few months being live, I eventually implemented my own in app purchases using PayPal. Back then Google had no support for any kind of paid apps (only free apps were allowed), and Apple hadn't introduced IAPs. Still, Google removed my app 3 times before I gave up republishing it. Also, in the classic Google style, when I tried to reason with them, I was simply ignored.

PS: my country still isn't allowed to sell apps, although it's an EU country.

EDIT: I want to add a clarification: Google always had this thing put in Google Play's terms and conditions. It was there when Android Market was unveiled, although another year and a half passed until they slowly started allowing people to sell apps. And they did it knowingly, just to push free apps which have ads as the only way of monetizing. Google IS an advertising company after all (98% of their revenue, right?)

Obvious question: which country?

Unsupported EU countries:

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Estonia

Greece

Hungary

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Romania.

It's not a coincidence that so many apps are iOS only. For example (I guess that) the recent success app Horizon is iOS only because the developers cannot sell from Greece through the Play store. The same happens for many apps from many countries.

I can understand your frustration. I am in a country from which you couldn't sell for a long time (but now can).

The thing that irked me was, when I signed up for an Android Market developer account there was no indication given to me that I won't be able to sell apps! I spent about two years developing an app and when it was time to publish the paid version, I discovered that I couldn't! That was one hell of a shocker! That was the first time I hated Google.

But not the last, I'll wager.

It's interesting seeing Google as a grown up company, with many of the flaws they acquired early on still intact and at Google scale. You can be spending $100ks per monthon adwords and still not have a competent person to call when you need help. EVen if you do, they don't know much and can't do much. Realistically, it's not much better than an outsourced call centre and much worse than the far less profitable Big Ads platform.

When the Nexus 4 went live, they didn't have anywhere near the stock needed to match demand. If you now want to buy a current nexus phone or tablet, you have to be in a country where they allow purchase. They would deliver a much better customer experience (and sell many more phones) if they just let Amazon handle selling them. They even redirect you away to a sorry page and don't let you see the product page. It all feels very non-native to the internet experience and oddly insulting.

Google Wave, Hangouts, Play store (webapps, chrome apps, plugins & android apps) all have bad branding/clarity problems. People just don't understand what these things are, even when they really try. WTF is a hangout? Why does it want to have my SMSs go through it. What is a chrome app? I've heard salespeople in gadget shops assure buyers that any app on their android phone will also be available for their Chromebook. Google don't know how to create the necessary nouns and verbs people can use to understand what these things are. They have a serious tendency towards zombocoms.

This is just one more example.

This. Google needs one Jobsian hard-ass in charge of product marketing/quality to keep this swarm of ADD mayhem under control and set priorities.

Around Android 2.3 I was a huge fanboy because the platform had so much potential. Now? The platform still has so much potential, and I'm only a fan because it's an open-source platform with real consumer adoption - not because I think it's actually good. Microsoft shoveled a bunch of cash into the furnace and went from nothing to better in that time.

That isn't the Google way. The need someone tapping the right data on audience feedback, with the right internal priority to execute on solutions.

Because failing your customers is basically evil. We already have enough faceless companies.

Hanlon's Razor applies: it's not evil, it's incompetence. Specifically, it's lack of competence to apply discipline and make their hobby (Android) a reality.

It could be that they're afraid that mobile will subsume all other things at Google (look at how it's dominating at Apple), and make the company substantially different.

Just take away the ball pits, then they may get something done.

The impression I get is that they did get somebody in charge of strategy a few years ago; unfortunately the strategy he came up with was this daft nonsense about chasing Facebook of all things, which might explain why big chunks of their actual business are still floundering.

As much as I love Google, they still try to act like are in the startup phase.

> If you now want to buy a current nexus phone or tablet, you have to be in a country where they allow purchase. They would deliver a much better customer experience (and sell many more phones) if they just let Amazon handle selling them.

Disclaimer: I'm lucky to be in a country (UK) with good Google coverage. That said, their customer experience for buying a phone online (nexus 4) is superb and far above amazons. Their website is clean, fast, and usable, and I've had no problems through it, whilst cancelling and re-ordering, tracking my orders etc. Friends who have used it have all had great experiences too.

The availability/country thing is an issue, and lack of phone support etc., but their online presence is fantastic.

They're following a 80/20 (or maybe 50/50) rule of thumb. If they can serve you easily they do. Otherwise, they can live without your purchase. They didn't have that much stock anyway. That makes sense in one way, but it feels disrespectful in other ways. If you live in Ireland (where Google's non US headquarters is and where the damn phones ship from), they give you an error message.

It's just one example though. In my opinion it's an example of below average competence. Equivalent to a bank website going down because of a traffic surge and taking 16 hours to come back. There are certain things that mature companies draw a line under. They don't just say 'we're not good at that.'

>You can be spending $100ks per monthon adwords and still not have a competent person to call when you need help.

We just got bit by this recently. One day our organic referrals just took a nosedive (4000 -> 1000 clicks/day overnight). We got in touch with our Adwords contact, who said they'd look into it, then ... left. No longer with the team. Now we have no contact and no way to figure out what went wrong and how we can fix it.

It didn't have a huge impact on us, but it did cost us ~$3k/month, which isn't negligible. The worst part is that there's seemingly no way for us to address this, despite spending a pretty significant amount of money on Adwords every month.

There is a very easy way to get support: https://support.google.com/adwords/

Theres a link to contact directly on this page.

Thanks for the link, but their response was to "check the product forums". I understand that they don't want to field calls from millions of site owners asking why they aren't ranked higher, but we spend probably $25k/month on Adwords. It'd be nice if they could give us a pointer to an actual person who could help us figure out what went wrong.

That was the response from the support line?

Also, you can always try the community

https://www.en.adwords-community.com/

Again, I appreciate your help. Yes, the Adwords rep I talked to on the phone said there was nobody who could help me figure out why our organic results tanked overnight, but that I could ask on the forums. I'm not prepared to do that at this time.

There were two changes that happened on the same day, at least one of which I'm sure is the cause: we pushed out a ton of pages we had generated from old data, and we had a regression whereby our international sites lost their canonical tags on links. It's pretty clearly our fault, but it would be nice to have someone spend 30s saying, "this is what triggered the issue; don't do this" rather than, "no we can't help you, maybe some random person on the Internet can".

I can't speak to their corporate support but as a consumer I've had issues with two Nexus devices and called them for support. The first was fixed by a factory reset and the second meant I needed a RMA. Both times the person on the other end of the line somewhat immediately recognized that I didn't need to be instructed to "plug it in." They asked me what I'd done already and moved forwards from there without making me (pretend to) re-do steps I'd already taken. While it's pretty crappy that I've had issues out of the box with 2 out of my 4 Google devices, the tech support has been great.

Get an account in one of the supported countries?

TLDR: Application banned for not using a Google-blessed payment option which Google has not enabled for the country in which the developer actually lives.

In that case I guess the only other option is going completely free? How many developers will be willing to accept that position?

Do Google really think they can create a thriving ecosystem and market if they start throwing around inconsistent and conflicting rules and enforcement around apps?

Yes, inconsistent enforcement sort of worked for Apple, but they at least had a coherent platform. The things they required developers to use were actually available to the them.

Google asking developers to use things they wont enable for them is just a symbol of how Google has grown to such a size that the left hand no longer knows what the right hand is doing.

This is like watching Microsoft all over again.

"This is like watching Microsoft all over again."

Doing what, specifically?

It's hard to pinpoint exactly, but there was a time when it became clear that Microsoft's actions as a whole were increasingly getting less and less coordinated. They could say one thing on one event, and another division could say something completely conflicting a week or two later.

Their execution strategy and ability to put the entire company behind it has been sorely lacking for many years, something even Ballmer recognized before announcing he was stepping down.

This is ofcourse 100% subjective and not very scientific, but IMO we are seeing the same trends with Google. They have different divisions saying and doing different things (like here). They have no clear strategy or message about where they're going next.

You have the smudge of partially or completely overlapping platforms like Chrome, ChromeOS and Android. For ages you've had Google talk (IM), Google Voice (and or regular SMS depending on geographic region) and G+. Now they've started looking into consolidation, but it took them years.

Google is fragmenting at their seams with a myriad of platforms and services, and their attempts at putting things back together seems mostly driven by the G+ initiate, a initiate which has faced massive user-criticism due to the way it is being executed.

This feedback, had it been taken to heart, would have led to changes around G+ but so far we've seen none. This is like Microsoft and the whole Metro/Win8 fiasco. They think they're too big to fail and just keep on pushing.

All in all, all those small pieces start to add up. A lot of the things we saw with Microsoft, we're seeing again with Google.

The main problem with Google is their lack of customer care. I had my Adsense account rejected a few years back for no reason (there was no bad activity) and when I appealed, their response was the same "We have reviewed your appeal and can't do anything about it."

Lol.. Adsense. Don't get started. You probably never had an actually living human being reviewing your appeal. They love programming at Google.

It happened to me. I try to forget it to avoid uncovering the rage buried deep my brain :)

I had successfully forgot about them doing it to me, but I get reminded every time they pull stunts like this. Which seems to be almost constantly now that they touch so much of the tech industry yet have refused to improve this aspect of their company.

Same. The closest to any sort of answer I was able to get was something suggesting the clicks from my site's visitors weren't profitable enough for them therefore I'm permanently banned from ever putting AdSense ads on that or any other site I may make in the future.

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%.

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.

And the author was willing to push a mandatory update that disabled the PayPal IAP.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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-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.

I would have to think South Korea is a whole different ball game.

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.

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?

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_...

Oh, that's really expensive. I guess it's ok for small amounts though but for large amounts 25% is way overkill.

Credit/Debit cards incur a fixed charge of say (max) £1.50 so that would mean that if you're paying more than £6 you're better off with the card.

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.

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.

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.

If Skype sold credits in-app they would have to follow the same rules.

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).

It's sad to see them go from "Do no Evil" to "Pray we don't alter the deal any further" in just a few short years.

Dude, it you check out http://www.google.com/ideas/, they are looking a bit like a defence contractor these days.

You weren't kidding. That reminds me of Palantir a bit.

OCP?

http://robocop.wikia.com/wiki/Omni_Consumer_Products

Well, they did by Boston Dynamics, so they actually are a defense contractor now.

And people claim the world is flat. It is not for us that need to jump through hoops just to be on the same 'playing level' with our compatriots overseas.

As a Nigerian, you cannot dare build any SaaS application because gateways that support recurring billing do not support Nigeria (and of course many other countries)

Basically, the fellow with this problem cannot build an Angry Birds without moving countries or jumping through hoops.

This kind of stuff makes me really mad. As an entrepreneur, you just have to keep fighting the obstacles and solve your problems.

For my new project, we have had to register a company in the US just so we can use Stripe. We still have more hoops to jump before we are ready to collect money.

If I were competing with some other folk, he would be already one moth ahead without having to spend a lot of money and time.

It's really fucked up.

Offtopic: Isn't 2checkout & its recurring module avilable for Nigerian merchants?

The one that Nigerians started using recently is Avangate. Just have a look at the pricing. 2CO looks interesting. thanks! I will let my friends have a look.

[1] http://www.avangate.com/pricing/

That is absolutely ridiculous pricing! I guess there is one gateway anyone can use regardless of country is: http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/whatwedo/payment_pro... Ofcourse it does not have a transparent pricing or subscription module, but you could overcome that by integrating with any third party app spreedly, chargebee etc

I feel it's an obvious problem that apps that allow IAP are listed as free. Has google or apple fixed this yet?

When browsing for apps there you may see a top app being free and another costing $1. You pick the "free" one and it turns out it is useless without an IAP whereas the $1 app perhaps would not. It turns out the free app costs $2 in order to function as well as the $1 app.

The consumer friendly thing to do would be to list any app that has any IAP enabled to be listed as non free, either using some special labeling (category "freemium" rather than "free"), or by listing the price as an interval rather than as the minimum.

It's come to the point where I really miss the time when many apps existed in two separate versions, a free and a premium version. Would that not have been the solution to this problem?

Apple has a small note saying "Offer In App Purchases" below "Free" button. Though you have to view the app page for that.

In iTunes & Web, there's a section for popular IAP under the app icon.

Google has that too on the app page, right below the download button.

As far as I can tell though, there's no way to tell what the IAP are on Android. And because most of them involve buying "gems", I just don't bother with free any more.

It also shows up as a small + symbol below the installation in the app page and the search page. Anywhere you see a price, you can also see if it has IAP.

The two version solution (free/premium) doesn't allow sharing ratings. Developers don't like that, because they want their free uptake to give higher rating to their premium option. Splitting the options up would make perfect sense if the two apps are grouped up in some way.

I can see that from the developers' perspective the two app solution is bad (also from a maintenance perspective etc.)

For users it's also bad because if upgrading is switching you are likely to lose the data (settings, game progress), but since I'd rather do that it feels like the freemium thing must be horribly broken.

The two app solution doesn't require losing data. I don't know how they do it, but plenty of Android apps have a paid version that only "unlocks" the paid capabilities of the free version. That way, you clearly see in the Store that it has a free and paid version, but you don't lose anything when upgrading.

As a developer I feel this pain as well. On the WinRT platform you actually have the "trial version"-flag which allows the user to test it before they pay. This feature is useless in the same sense as paid app is, since everyone is going for the freemium model anyway to conceal the cost of the app.

"You pick the "free" one and it turns out it is useless without an IAP whereas the $1 app perhaps would not. It turns out the free app costs $2 in order to function as well as the $1 app."

So uninstall it and shell out the $1 for the other one. FFS, why is this hard?

Well, when there are 1000 apps to choose from, you can install/uninstall a lot of apps before you find the one that's actually the best value for money.

The OP is essentially complaining about a lack of price transparency. And he's 100% correct.

It isn't hard, it's annoying. It's such a simple fix. I don't mind the freemium model but I do mind the bait-and-switch freemium model where you get the reputation and feature listing of a paid app, but list the price of a free app.

I'm an Android user who has had a problem with the google app market since I got my first Android phone 2.5 yrs ago. Since they transitioned to Google Play, I haven't even agreed to the new terms of service! Of course, this means I don't get apps through the play store.

Instead, I get apps through either F-Droid (https://f-droid.org/) or Aptoide (http://www.aptoide.com/). F-Droid is only for free and open source apps; although I have upgraded to paid versions from restricted apps I found via F-Droid, so don't completely rule it out. Frankly, I don't understand why more developers don't use services like Aptoide.

The only negative is that I also like knowing that an application is "the application" it claims to be (not a name-the-same app). So I will normally find a developer's page, then follow their provided link to their Aptoide or F-Droid entry.

So quit complaining about google's restrictions and post your apps where people like me can pay you good money for them! If enough developers and consumers go this route then the new g-men will have to adapt to market forces.

Official app stores are quasi-monopolies and need government control. Think about all the time and work the developer has invested. And can't be possible for google to effectively keep him from selling the app just because they feel like it. If they have an app distribution monopoly, developers have a right to publish their app there. It is not a favor google grants. This is something laws have to enforce as companies like google demonstrably harm this right on their own. It's either this or opening up the app store concept.

>> "Official app stores are quasi-monopolies and need government control."

They aren't and they don't. They are a store like any other and the store owner can decide not to sell your products without a good reason if they want to. On Android there are several alternative stores (most notably Amazon) not to mention apps can be installed directly by downloading the APK without any device modification.

>> "Think about all the time and work the developer has invested."

The developer made this business decision knowing fully the risks involved.

>> "And can't be possible for google to effectively keep him from selling the app just because they feel like it. If they have an app distribution monopoly, developers have a right to publish their app there. It is not a favor google grants."

See my first point. Google is a store and can reject you for no reason. There are several alternatives to selling through their store. It is a favour Google grants and you have no right to be there.

>> "This is something laws have to enforce as companies like google demonstrably harm this right on their own. It's either this or opening up the app store concept."

Again it is not a right and the app store 'concept' is open as anyone can create their own store and several have. You can also distribute without a store through your own website. Or you can create a web app. There are plenty of ways for consumers to get your product that do not require Google.

>> They aren't and they don't. They are a store like any other and the store owner can decide not to sell your products without a good reason if they want to. On Android there are several alternative stores (most notably Amazon) not to mention apps can be installed directly by downloading the APK without any device modification.

It's the same as with internet explorer on windows back in the day. google play is preinstalled so that is what the majority of users use. it IS a quasi-monopoly. and with this, googles freedom to choose not to sell a particular app is gone.

The Internet Explorer bundling was only illegal because Microsoft was abusing one monopoly (Windows) to kill the competition in another market (Browsers).

Android doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market, so they are far from having a monopoly on App Stores. A developer has alternatives to publish his or her apps.

You are right, but whatever the details, Google behaviour is unfair both to its customers and to its suppliers. They (together with Apple) are using their dominant position to control this marketplace, to the detriment of everyone but themselves.

Full credit to them for creating these markets in the first place. They deserve to be rewarded. However, there is a line (however fuzzy) that they should not cross. If they start abusing their position, then regulation is needed to ensure a level playing field.

"Regulation" is a general term, and meaningless in this case. What rules exactly would you like to see imposed? Should Google have to allow every payment processor? What if some are scammers? Is Google responsible to blocking them? What oversight should exist to ensure they don't "unfairly" block some?

I'm not fundamentally opposed to regulations, but I really dislike it when people throw around the term as if it was pixie dust that solves anything. Creating good and fair regulations is not simple nor easy, and bad ones do more damage than the lack of thereof.

And in the end, they're freakin' apps, not medical devices. Just let people make their own damn decisions.

I'm not really prescribing a solution, just identifying a class of problem. However, that said, here's an idea:

I'd like to see Google forced to provide a minimum level of support to their customers and suppliers. For example, if they decide to cut someone off (as in this case) then they must explain their decision with a certain minimum level of detail. I'd also like to see a formal appeals system, possibly with an independent ombudsman as a court of final appeal.

This kind of enforced service level is common in the UK. Banks, utilities, insurance companies, etc. all have similar conflict resolution regimes. Usually paid for by the industry itself, via (mandatory) fees.

Obviously in Google's case, their profit per customer can be very low, so I think if would be reasonable to expect complainants pay for the cost of failed appeals. That would keep a tight lid on frivolous complaints, but provide a fair avenue for more serious grievances to be resolved.

Far more importantly, it would encourage Google to pay closer attention to their day-to-day automated communications, which currently feel like half-finished student projects. I'm pretty sure that with the right incentives, Google could resolve 99% of the ill-feeling against them by simply putting more effort into this part of their business.

I'm not really prescribing a solution, just identifying a class of problem.

When you say that regulation is needed, you are prescribing a solution.

WRT to your proposal, how would that help in this case? The developer would just pay the fee, and Google would tell them "you broke the 'Google Play Developer Program Policies' agreement, which says you can't use third-party payment providers".

In fact, the developer says Google gave the official reason, so what would be the purpose of paying to get the same answer?

Nitpicking about details is not an argument.

The idea that the actual rules are just an implementation detail is why you end up with legislation written by lobbyists and designed to further entrench the incumbents against competition. Say that one of the rules is that you create a list of mandatory payment providers that the"monopolists" must accept; such list shall be regularly updated, and so a board must be created, possibly composed of the industry players. How likely would it then be that a new startup could enter the market?

This is what's happening everywhere, and it's the result of the irrational reaction that we must have some regulation, without really thinking about what and how.

"[...] is why you end up with legislation written by lobbyists" no, it is not. Stating "uh the details of this are complicated, lets not do this" gets us nowhere. Following that logic you cannot have any laws at all. " Say that one of the rules is [...]" Strawman.

>>far from having a monopoly on App Stores Google has a (quasi-) monopoly on android app stores. Overall marketshare of android is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant. It's not illegal to have a monopoly. It's only illegal to try to kill the competition in another market by abusing that monopoly, which is what Microsoft did, and Google is not doing.

>>No, it's not irrelevant. Yes it is. >> It's only illegal [...] It is illegal to abuse the monopoly position. Which IS what google is doing. Googles app store is NOT just another store. Monoplies need special regulation and special oversight.

Did you know that only Walmart is allowed to build stores on Walmart-owned land? And that they pick and choose what products are sold on that land? That's clearly an abuse of their monopoly on stores built on their land!

Well... if walmart was by vast majority the only store present in any town and the vast majority of people are only able to shop there, it would of course be a problem too and would need regulation just the same.

Google's app store is NOT comparable to "just any other store" because it is a quasi monopoly, which was my point in the first place. Therefore different rules (should) apply. How are you not getting this?

>> "google play is preinstalled"

Device manufactures can choose to install or not install it. e.g. Kindle Fire comes with the Amazon App Store, not the Play Store. Therefore consumers can choose a device with or without the Google Play Store.

>> "google play is preinstalled" on the majority of devices. my point still stands.

They are a store like any other and the store owner can decide not to sell your products without a good reason if they want to.

Regardless of if you're OK with this practice or not, it's quite dishonest not to acknowledge their strong vertical integration makes them not at all "a store like any other."

> Official app stores are quasi-monopolies and need government control.

I highly doubt that the government that might address it (the US government) would take a stand that would protect a Nigerian developer. Government regulation isn't the answer to everything. Extra app stores are.

Extra app stores are the answer to everything? Wow ;) I never said that gov. regulation is the answer to everything. But in this case it is. That the US gov might act wrong in this case is a completely different issue.

There go my idea for profitability out of the window.

I am from Brazil, here the only way to pay for Google play stuff is with international credit card, that is quite uncommon here, the result is that here in Brazil I have the highest downloads, but still one of the last places in gross income, the conversion ratio is terrible because people don't figure how to pay. With Google forcing devs to use its billing system, mean the situation is unfixable :(

I am from India and credit cards are still not that mainstream here. And it is same situation. Everyone has a debit card but Apple and Google both refuse to accept them for their stores (last time I checked, same with Windows Phone, though Microsoft at least accepts them for Windows, Office and Skydrive stuff!)

Are you sure about that? Are the debit cards issued by Visa or Mastercard? Where I'm (EU), both Apple and Google do accept debit cards.

Where I am (EU) Google does not, last time I checked.

Debit Card from Visa or Mastercard? Why.. would you do that? The debit card I know (and I assume that's what the GP talks about) is from your bank. Works fine everywhere in the EU, breaks for crappy online services/US centric payment solutions.

Heck, Paypal uses my account just fine and doesn't require a CC.

Google accepts my UK debit card, and I've never had problems using it online.

> Debit Card from Visa or Mastercard? Why.. would you do that?

What do you mean? The bank-issued debit cards you are talking about may also be Visa or Mastercard debit cards.

Hmm.. Interesting. After years of having a 'Maestro' supported card I learned _now_ that this is handled by Mastercard. But .. usually that's still not accepted online.

My latest card (got it for 2 month or so) lists VPay (aka Visa) now. That said, before I got the card I haven't seen VPay anywhere, at all - and I still don't know why I'd want that, if I care and if THAT now works online, in a decent way.

So I guess all my cards so far were technically Mastercard backed - but still utterly useless online.

"Credit cards" are also issued by banks. Visa and Mastercard are just brands and payment networks, not financial institutions themselves.

For a long time now (better part of 20 years?) US banks have commonly issued debit cards that can also be used as if they were Visa- or Mastercard-branded credit cards. They come out of the same number space and have little Visa or Mastercard logos on them. The transactions pass through the same networks using the same infrastructure, it's just that when they land at your bank, the number being adjusted is the balance on your checking account, rather than the balance on a revolving line of credit.

Thanks for the explanation.

The debit cards I know list your account number (local to the bank) and certainly doesn't follow the format of CC numbers. You can see a very real example on the Maestro page of Wikipedia [1]. I'm with a related bank, my card is very similar to that one.

Over here the debit card is usually called 'EC card' (see the logo on the image, plus [2]) and you can pay with it ~everywhere~ (stores, restaurants, parking spots - whereever you expect to pay with a card 90% of the time that's working with these. The 10% are crap, newish and .. want a cc).

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maestro_(debit_card) 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cash

Same here. My VISA (DEBIT) works for iOS purchases. I've used it on different European stores and on the US store too (long ago though).

Yes. Debit cards are issued by Mastercard. Though I can't completely blame Google or Apple since our government is a bit protective and requires some extra paperwork. Still, accepting Debit cards would help reducing piracy. A friend wanted to buy some apps for Windows Phone but he recently switched to Android because you can pirate and Windows Phone store didn't accept debit card!

>> "Everyone has a debit card but Apple and Google both refuse to accept them for their stores"

I use debit cards with both stores and have for years. I used to use Maestro (which is being fazed out but still accepted) and now I use Visa Debit.

Maestro isn't an accepted form of payment for iTunes Store http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5552?viewlocale=en_US&locale=e...

Has to run over Visa/MasterCard/Amex

They must have changed that. I used it from around 2008-2010. May depend on your location though.

Your own link states (copy/pasted..)

>>> You may be able to use other payment types in your country, like debit and Maestro cards. Too see all accepted payment methods, follow these steps:

(Sidenote: "Too see"? I mean.. Shouldn't text be proof-read for these kind of sites?)

Are you in India?

Because last time I tried, Debit card didn't work for Google Apps (can't say about Android as I don't have a device myself. But several friends have Android and they didn't have any success with debit cards, though they have "free" apps now, thanks to piracy!) and Apple has never accepted it.

In fact, last time I called bank to tell that my card was not working for international payments, they plainly said that they don't support Paypal or international payments. To this day, when I try to pay via my debit card, international websites don't accept it! Though I think government/reserve bank has some role in it. In 2009 or 2010, they reduced Paypal to fraction of its usage.

Same for Georgia (Europe).

I have to have credit card solely for google play purchases. It is ridiculous.

Well Bitcoin et al were supposed to "solve" all that, yet here we are 5 years later..

Seriously Google, it's time for you to acquire actual customer support!

Like with Coinbase, Hacker News is not supposed to be the only place in the fucking world where you get heard as a small fish (Reddit aside)...

Adding payment countries probably requires someone from Google to talk to someone. Google is not good at talking to people.

I don't mean that as a troll but an observation - you see this over and over with Google: if the problem requires someone other than a shut-in with tremendous technical talent, they do a poor job of it (customer service, enterprise, support, ...)

Google is not good at talking to people.

It goes further than that: Google does not want to be good at talking to people.

Whether that is a good decision or not isn't clearcut. Google's position (I think) is that technical competence trumps all, and that end of the day, no matter how much some people whine, most people will go with the better solution whenever it is (a) free, or (b) makes them more money (AdWords).

An alternate theory is that Google considers "talking to people" to be legacy baggage from when "normals" reigned supreme, and that the world being (re-)built now is being built, mostly, by and for people who are much more Aspie-like than the general population.

To these people, the need to not have to talk to people to get something fixed, or to buy something, or to get from A to B is a feature, not a bug. That's the world they want to live in, and unlike normals (who already have what they want), these people are working their asses off to make it so.

It'll be interesting to see how things play out in the long run.

Dare I say it but when a company has a certain level of dominance in a "channel" then they need be subject to regulation.

A channel might be any means of reaching customers whether a telecomms provider, a form of media, or in this case, a device app store.

The total control a gate-keeper has on the survival of tangentially related companies by eliminating their access to customers is simply not right. They should be held accountable for their incompetence or ill-will.

Yeah none of that has to do with android. You can easily install third party apps or entire other marketplaces.

IOS on the other hand does have that issue.

What is the market penetration through other stores compared to the pre-installed Play store? - 1:10, more? The total control of Apple is an obvious problem but in practice, dominance despite an 'open market' can be just as problematic.

I do believe that success breeds responsibility.

It is frustrating how few Android developers make their .apk files available directly. I don't use the Google play store, and I often have to hunt around to find .apks on "dodgy" download sites, when the author clearly wants to give the app away.

"Thank you for your note. We have reviewed your appeal and will not be reinstating your app. This decision is final and we will not be responding to any additional emails regarding this removal."

So that whole "don't be evil" thing was just a crock of shit? Good to know. Thanks, Google.

This is a business opportunity for those, who live in supported countries. Sell apps on Google Play for people living in unsupported countries, and agree that you take some % of payments, i.e. act as a distributor.

I believe it should not be difficult to formulate such relationship that it will be legal, transparent and reliable for both parties.

I had to search through the comments for the word 'opportunity' to find this comment. I share exactly the same thought. It's a relatively straightforward model, and it should be easy enough to advertise for it too.

>Thank you for your note. We have reviewed your appeal and will not be reinstating your app. This decision is final and we will not be responding to any additional emails regarding this removal

Sounds familiar. I got a similar response years back when I emailed them after they decided that I had committed click fraud (I hadn't) and closed my AdSense account, taking all of my ad revenue with it.

Good to hear that Google still hasn't learned how to treat people.

At least when you deal with Apple they don't dress it up, they make it abundantly clear that they'll shaft you if you try and step around the rules, Google danced around it with the rally cry of 'open!' a lot more.

Android does allow alternate app markets to be installed or applications to be installed directly. You would never get the reach of the PlayStore, but still this would offer a way around this.

Google was fine for some time, but their recent (last 2-3 years?) actions and policy have left me completely stunned. Maybe has to do with the influence they have on the Web but it's infuriating to see a self-proclaimed innovation giant to make efforts in drowning the business.

The relevant part of the Developer Distribution Agreement appears to be 3.3:

"Such free trials for Products are encouraged. However, if you want to collect fees after the free trial expires, you must collect all fees for the full version of the Product through the Payment Processor on the Market."

http://play.google.com/about/developer-distribution-agreemen...

The point is, that the developer can't use the Payment Processor on the Market, because Google will not allow him to use it (he is from the "wrong country").

Shouldn't the developer have known this through reading the rules of the store BEFORE he/she developer the app? If you can't be bothered to do due diligence before making such a big business decision you aren't equipped to run a business.

As the article pointed out, Google currently features a free app that offers IAP using PayPal.

Perhaps the developer did do their due dilligence and saw that Google is (supposedly) OK with it.

>> "What was most confusing to me is that a similar buying process"

He mentions it's a 'similar' process. Maybe there is a crucial difference in the way they are handling things. Hard to tell though as he doesn't mention what the other app is. Still my point stands. If you are breaking a rule because someone else has got away with it you are taking a big risk.

Oh come on, Developer wants to build Android app, developer builds Android app, developer puts faith in Google that Google will make it possible for app to get paid.

This is exactly the process Google implicitly wants to have happen, its what we all want to have happen. Google just fumbled

>> "developer puts faith in Google that Google will make it possible for app to get paid"

And when you're running a business that's an incredibly stupid thing to do.

yup. and thousands do it. Zynga I think valued at a billion dollars based on faith

You're being downvoted, but you're right, when you publish an app on the store you legally sign a contract, and the contract specifies what you can and cannot do.

Don't like the rules? Don't publish on the play store and let people download the app from you website. It's perfectly doable.

Moreover, an official warning was issued more than an year ago reminding play store developers that all IAP should go thought the play store AND more recently, another famous app with more than 150000 users was removed for using PayPal for payment.

Edit: copying a comment from reddit: Go to a store and put your homemade apple pies on their shelves with a PayPal QR code and see if that store too becomes "unfair".

Google isn't a store though. They are a distribution channel, who happened to build their own self-checkout lanes after several checkout lanes were already installed, then put caution tape up in front of the other ones. Google needs developers, just like developers need Google (if you're developing for Android and don't mind making waaaaaayyyy less than if you were developing for iOS :p).

I didn't downvote you, but these are the facts:

1)The "Play Store" is, like the name says, a store, just like every single store is a distribution channel.

2)While I understand that for some it may look unfair, a contract is a contract, you cannot sign and then ignore the rules of a contract because it's "unfair". You just don't sign it.

3)On iOS the app will not have been accepted in the first place and maybe (I'm just supposing) the developer didn't want to buy a mac, buy an iPhone, learn objective c and pay 100$ a year to make the app for iOS. :P

There are people who had paypal options before google wallet/IAP even existed.

Who is downvoting a comment which merely points to a fact?

A fact which completely misses the point... maybe it's time to re-read the fine article.

So you don't like that fact. But it is still a fact - don't shoot the messenger :)

I would understand this if they wouldn't allow completely free applications in the app store. But as it is, remove something just because it uses another form of monetization? Why not remove free apps that have non-google ads in them?

Don't give them ideas, now.

Upvote. Sadly seems like the only chance this guy has.

It's sad to see Google go from "Do no Evil" to "Pray we don't alter the deal any further" in just a few short years.

To be fair, Google's stance was "Get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.", not "Do no evil."

While Apple wouldn't even accept it in the first place if they used Paypal instead of their IAP.

Isn't that better than working for three years and then getting app removed?

But Google usually uses "Android is more open then Apple" as a slogan to attract people, while Apple doesn't says they are open.

It used to be true but the situation is degrading rapidly.

Android is more open than iOS.

You're conflating Android with the Google Play Store. With Android, you can install apps from more than one store.

You are always free to publish your own Android app from your website, implement any and every payment method you like, and get filthy rich from it. You don't have to give Google 30%. That's only if you want to get marketed on their app store.

Compare to Apple, where there is no choice but sell through the app store. Side-loading is cryptographically prevented. App store or nothing.

I'd say Android is more open.

>Compare to Apple, where there is no choice but sell through the app store. Side-loading is cryptographically prevented. App store or nothing.

Sigh…

This is just simply not true. Using a Corporate Developer account ($300/yr) you can create applications to distribute amongst users of your origination without the need to list the application in the app store.

The problem with "Android is more open" is that "Android" is increasingly a bit like London.

There's a huge sprawling millions-of-people place that gets referred to as "London", but none of it is actually the city named "London". The city, legally, speaking, is about half a square meter of a broom closet somewhere.

Similarly, the thing that is actually "Android" and which is alleged to be "open" is an increasingly tiny fraction of the thing referred to as "Android".

Apple, on the other hand, supports his country just fine. So no need for having to do it with Paypal.

He would then update the app and resubmit. It is way better then what google did in this case. Especially considering that google does not support his country at all.

I'm confused. Lets say I have a web app where users are billed monthly through PayPal. Now I want to release an Android version of my app that has a 'Login' button but not a 'Sign Up' button (that is, sign up can only be done through the website). Can I keep PayPal as my sole billing mechanism?

Yes, if payments are done through the website and not with the paypal android sdk.

With Google, I fear that depends upon the day of the week and the wind direction.

A common theme that has been appearing is how hard it is to actually speak to somebody about stuff (Apple, Google, Twitter, etc...) when shit hits the fan.

I earn most of my income via Apple & Google, but if I want support from Apple, it takes 2-3 days for a response (I've made them 5 figures in revenue in the past year alone).

There isn't even a method that I could find for me to contact Google if I have a legitimate seller issue (which I've had, but just give up on), despite earning for them also.

The recent story about @N losing his Twitter handle highlighted there's nobody to contact when this stuff goes wrong.

It's easy to say the big tech companies can't possibly deal with the sheer number of users they have and the amount of support they would have if it were easy to contact them, but then isn't that the price they should have to pay if they want to earn $Billions?

I'm surprised you would say it's hard to speak to someone at Apple. When I call their developer support number they usually pick up right away, and if needed they will escalate any issue to the level needed. And then there are the two free DTS incidents you get with membership, those are gold if you ever need them.

+1 408-974-4897 (800) 633-2152

Sorry, I should have been more clear: when submitting an issue in iTunes Connect.

If I were him and the application was worthwhile. I'd open a shell company in another country that is Google approved, then release the application under a new name, under that company.

Sure it means jumping through a few hoops to satisfy Google, but it's certainly doable.

Can anyone provide tips on how to best do this? Are there countries with lightweight bureucracy that let you do this over the web and without spending much money up front?

There might be a niche for a publisher company here.

Here in Portugal, you can't open a company remotely, but the bureaucracy is light enough that you can do it in person in one day. After opening the company you have to get a bank account, and for that you need a permanent national address. It'll take a couple of weeks for the bank to issue debit cards and online banking credentials. Two weeks and one trip here and you should be all set up.

(for EU citizens; non-EU owners incur extra bureaucracy, namely on the banking part of the process)

UK Companies house has a pretty good web form: https://ewf.companieshouse.gov.uk//runpage?page=welcome ; there's a £15 annual accounts filing fee and extremely minimal bureaucracy.

Getting a UK business bank account might be harder. I've heard of people having trouble with this even within the UK.

Small consolation for this developer, but at least you can still have your app get side installed into an Android phone. Something not possible on any other of the other two big platforms (iOS and Windows Phone). I know being out of Google Play means downloads drop to near 0, maybe someone just needs to compete with Google on the App Store. Someone other than Amazon because they have their own IAP policy.

Don't be evil guys , Google is watching you .

This makes a strong case for simply never submitting apps to Google Play. It's easy enough to release them directly and explain to users how to disable Android's default security restrictions. If an app is of sufficient reputation and quality, this won't be a major stumbling block to obtaining installs.

There should be an app market with bitcoin support finally.

I just hate this part of Google. I once had my merchant wallet account blocked and they just don't care to give me a reason why it was blocked. I got fed up trying to reach them and finally implemented in app payment using Stripe. This was for Chrome Webstore App.

I for one am eagerly waiting for a Cyanogen Store.

Just a one more example of how these so called smartphones made the world a little worse than it actually was. It is not a smartphones fault, it just to few people had any influence.

If you think about it, when computers appeared, a people built them in the garages, so literally anyone could make a difference. Phones didn't have this stage and went straight to business, big business. So here you have it, couple big brands providing their rules and that's all you have. Even rest of the big players fail to do a significant influence on established brands.

There is an exemption according to the terms [1]:

" ..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)."

[1] http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html

So I guess why apps like whatsapp/skype still alive since they allow you to use them outside of the android app.

Idea: enable extra options for registered users with a "gold" account. Make a simple website where users can create an account and pay for the extra options.

This is a de facto trade barrier. If you live in a country that can't sell apps, consider asking your country to apply diplomatic pressure through WTO or EU.

It's google's turf. They can screw everyone including themselves and enjoy through the whole process.

Either submit yourself to Google's rules or move on to another platform where someone else will eventually and likely will screw you up too.

So use other man's platform for what's it good for. Even better - build the better platform yourself and become the king of a game.

Until then - you're the little servant in someone else's kingdom.

Bitching is futile.

Yea but Apple is always the bad one and Google never does 'evil'. Hope people start realizing they're all the same.

Boycott. Don't develop for closed gardens!

To be honest, it's a little understandable. Unlike on the iPhone, you can get your software from anywhere you want. You are not obligated to use the Play store to get this app.

That being said, would any store allow you to display your product in their vitrine, yet not get a cut when you they sell it for you? Do you think Steam would allow this?

Well, there is that store at Redmond where they seem to be willing to pay to get any dev's products in their vitrin :]. They might still get a cut though.

I keep wondering why indie app publishing services haven't popped up to handle this. Publish your app to Google's store through them, under their label(s) and they push 70-95% of the sales revenue back to the developer. Sure it's not a great deal for the developer, but it's a way around the country limits.

I thought about this for a moment, but... suppose your company accidentally publishes one app that Google decides is a bad app. It doesn't even have to be "really" bad, Google just has to decide it is. What are the odds they just thwack your entire account and destroy your entire business in one fell swoop?

Perhaps some people have a risk threshold that would accept this, but I'm pretty sure this creates a situation in which you are going to be inevitably explaining to quite a few angry customers why you can't do anything to help them. Pass.

According to a comment on the page, the app is now back in the store. No more details as to how or why, but it would appear to be another case of "appeal by (social) media outcry".

So to be clear, you are not allowed any form of payment except Google own payment method? Is that how it is?

Or is a developer allowed to combine Google's payment method with Bitcoin, Paypal etc. ?

You are not allowed any other form of payment for apps in the Play Store. The issue here is that the developer cannot create a Google merchant account from his country, so basically he has to give away stuff for free or leave the Android development. Or start a company in the US.

Another issue is that Google has worked out payments worldwide for say AdSense, but for some unknown reason this cannot be applied to Android market.

Well that's their way of saying that "We can do whatever shit we want, you don't have any power here". They did the same by blocking my Adsense.

we'd love to have you in the Windows Phone store. you don't need to use our in-app purchase mechanism if PayPal works better for you.

If everyone on here set duckduckgo.com as their browser homepage, you might (that's a big might) get their attention.

Am I the only one who almost never even visits their homepage? My browser's homepage functionality could be removed and I have no idea how long it would take me to notice. Even then, it isn't currently set to Google.

Haha ok you make a good point. I guess people need to set their default search engine then...

That's more pertinent to me. However, that would require me to find another search engine as good as (or better than) Google.

Linkbaiting title. "Google removes application from Play store for using out-of-app Payment instead of IAP"

Wow, this is crazy. So if your country is not on the list, can you still have ad supported income?

Does Amazon's android app market have broader more EU friendly rules?

I'd shut it down and give the products back to the engineers.

How do Asian countries deal with this?

Perhaps try porting your app to Sailfish (essentially Linux + QT5) and try the Jolla shop :)

Yeah, all three Jolla users will be joyed. /s

The Jolla store doesn't even seem to support paid applications right now.

walled gardens, amiright?

As soon as Firefox OS stabilizes, I am moving.

Yes, your echo system depends on Google and now you noticed.

Do no Evil?

At least on android he has the ability to sell directly the apk file and be done with it. While sideloading increases a bit the barrier to entry it is not impossible.

I do not support google in that case though, but those mini breakdowns of the system are inevitable in the new corporate overlord based world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com