Google Adds New Developer Fees As Part of Play Store's DMA Compliance Plan

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Google today is sharing more details about the fees that will accompany its plan to comply with Europe's new Digital Markets Act (DMA), the new regulation aimed at increasing competition across the app store ecosystem. While Google yesterday pointed to ways it already complied with the DMA -- by allowing sideloading of apps, for example -- it hadn't yet shared specifics about the fees that would apply to developers, noting that further details would come out this week. That time is now, as it turns out.

Today, Google shared that there will be two fees that apply to its External offers program, also announced yesterday. This new program allows Play Store developers to lead their users in the EEA outside their app, including to promote offers. With these fees, Google is going the route of Apple, which reduced its App Store commissions in the EU to comply with the DMA but implemented a new Core Technology Fee that required developers to pay 0.50 euros for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold for apps distributed outside the App Store. Apple justified the fee by explaining that the services it provides developers extend beyond payment processing and include the work it does to support app creation and discovery, craft APIs, frameworks and tools to support developers' app creation work, fight fraud and more.

Google is taking a similar tactic, saying today that "Google Play's service fee has never been simply a fee for payment processing -- it reflects the value provided by Android and Play and supports our continued investments across Android and Google Play, allowing for the user and developer features that people count on," a blog post states. It says there will now be two fees that accompany External Offers program transactions:

- An initial acquisition fee, which is 10% for in-app purchases or 5% for subscriptions for two years. Google says this fee represents the value that Play provided in facilitating the initial user acquisition through the Play Store.
- An ongoing services fee, which is 17% for in-app purchases or 7% for subscriptions. This reflects the "broader value Play provides users and developers, including ongoing services such as parental controls, security scanning, fraud prevention, and continuous app updates," writes Google.

Of note, a developer can opt out of the ongoing services and corresponding fees, if the user agrees, after two years. Users who initially installed the app believe they'll have services like parental controls, security scanning, fraud prevention and continuous app updates, which is why opting out requires user consent. Although Google allows the developer to terminate this fee, those ongoing services will no longer apply either. Developers, however, will still be responsible for reporting transactions involving those users who are continuing to receive Play Store services.

Google's not wrong

[Powercntrl]

If you're a developer who is absolutely hell-bent on not doing business with Google's Play Store, unlike with Apple you are completely free to tell users to sideload your APK from your own website. Yes, you'll lose the exposure that the Play Store provides, but that's why Google charges those developer fees in the first place.

So while it may seem on the surface that Apple and Google are taking similar approaches in regards to their app marketplaces, it's an important distinction that a developer can completely opt out on Android while still continuing to offer their app for the platform, whereas on iOS, disagreeing to Apple's terms prevents you from distrubuting your app to their platform entirely.

Re:

[Tough Love]

Both Apple and Google are waving a red cape at the EU antitrust bull, with "a new Core Technology Fee that required developers to pay 0.50 euros for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold for apps distributed outside the App Store". This is clearly an abuse of market control, Apple's lame excuse notwithstanding. Pretty safe to predict more multi-billion dollar fines coming down the pipe for both recidivist scofflaws.

Re:

[Xenx]

Both Apple and Google are waving a red cape at the EU antitrust bull, with "a new Core Technology Fee that required developers to pay 0.50 euros for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold for apps distributed outside the App Store"

I fear you might be misreading what is being said, as the article didn't write this bit well. The article is likening Google's fees to Apple's core technology fee. Google isn't charging a core technology fee. The bit later in the summary, about the two sets of fees are the two fees Google is charging.

I think their point of the article likening Google's fees to Apple's fees was more about how they're still expecting apps that move to external payment to pay Google for having access to Play Services.

Re:

[Tough Love]

likening Google's fees to Apple's fees was more about how they're still expecting apps that move to external payment to pay Google for having access to Play Services

I feel that Google will still run afoul of EU antitrust there. Developers can credibly argue that the value they add to Google's platform is more than the cost of whatever services Google provides them, and that they are therefore being extorted via market power into paying extra feeds. In the alternative, developers can argue that the cost to Google of providing those services is vastly less, pro rata, than the fees they charge, which amounts to the same thing.

Re:

[Xenx]

I would only counter that those app developers have the choice whether to stay on the play store, or go to/start an alternative store. More so than with the tighter restrictions Apple is placing on the process. As such, it arguably becomes a choice whether it's worth paying the cut to Google or not. I won't be surprised, whichever way it ends up going.

Re:

[Tough Love]

those app developers have the choice whether to stay on the play store, or go to/start an alternative store

Or to paraphase, they have the choice to stay in the play store and pay exorbitant fees, or go start their own store and lose users because of the additional barriers and the issue of trust. That is a clear example of market control, and that is why we have antitrust laws.

Re:

[Xenx]

I said arguably for a reason.

Re:

[Tough Love]

No argument there.

Re:

[Powercntrl]

This is clearly an abuse of market control

A handful of established players with a critical mass of customers controlling most of the market share? Odd, that never happens under capitalism. /s

Re:

[Luthair]

Given that Google also charges for promotion within the Google Play store I would say they're double dipping if that is their argument. The service that Google (and Apple) is really providing is distribution.

Hey that is not what we wanted!!!

[Ossifer]

The DMA was written to take money from Apple and Google and hand it to Daniel Ek. Unfair that he will not just get free money!

Re:double dipping?

[ceoyoyo]

Both Apple and Google are still reviewing the apps. That's what they're charging for.

Google has a "you're totally on your own, good luck" channel called "sideloading" that they do not charge for.

Re:

[sg_oneill]

The reviewing is pretty much 5 minutes of a guy tapping some buttons, and then an automated script running some basic static analysis looking for forbidden APIs. A dollar of expenditure at the most, and a hell of a lot less than the $100+ a year Apple developers are paying for it.

None of it justifies billing silly money fees for in app purchases.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Sure, that's an opinion. Although your local government might disapprove of you paying somebody less than a dollar for 5 minutes of tapping some buttons.

Re:

[vbdasc]

The reviewing is pretty much 5 minutes of a guy tapping some buttons, and then an automated script running some basic static analysis looking for forbidden APIs. .

This raises the question why the forbidden API exists, in the first place.

Re:

[NewtonsLaw]

And the legal liabilities associated with any bad-apps that get through the testing and impose harm or loss on the user.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Both Apple and Google are still reviewing the apps. That's what they're charging for.

Google has a "you're totally on your own, good luck" channel called "sideloading" that they do not charge for.

Apple isn't reviewing apps for the third party apps stores. Apple has said third party app stores are free to set their own policies regarding apps - this can include pornography and emulators as two examples Apple has said are allowed under the program.

The only thing Apple is doing is requiring all apps be signed,

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

process where an app will be scanned via automated processes and signed.

Apple will not check it for more than basic API usage and known malware.

So review. Not the full review they do for their own app store, but still a review service.

Basically Apple is holding third party app stores to some pretty onerous things - they must proactively check for malware or disable apps that contain malware, they must handle refunds and other things.

This is onerous? Seems like about the minimum if you want to operate an app

F-Droid

[bill_mcgonigle]

I just found Trail Sense on F-Droid the other day.

Check it out if you go out and about in the outdoors.