[ForkMeOnTinder]

> And although Google permits third-party app distribution platforms, it still requires apps to use its billing system.

Can someone explain this line? If you publish an app on an alternative app store and someone downloads it on their de-googled phone, how in the world would Google prevent it from making a few API calls to Paypal?

[strombofulous]

This is incorrect, if you distribute an app outside the play store you do not need to use their payment system, even by the letter of the law. The rule specifically applies to play store apps. It's common for developers of more technical apps (like VPN apps) to publish two nearly identical versions - one to the play store that doesn't support iap and one to f-droid/their website that takes payment via credit card.

It's possible the people writing this complaint may be referring to the fact that you can't link to or reference those options from the play store edition of the app, but I think they might just be misinformed.

[jdiff]

There is a compounding effect of this though, the fact that the Play Store doesn't allow this greatly dampens development of libraries that would make it much easier for developers to add this functionality to their apps, making people more likely to rely on the Google's payments and just dealing with its cut.

[admp]

This appears to be factually incorrect both for apps installed from third-party app stores and from Google Play itself.

See "Alternative billing systems for users" on https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/11174377?hl=en-...

[derefr]

I would assume that it means that if you're publishing an app on both the Play Store and alternative stores, and your alternative-store versions of the app offer alternative payment methods, then Google will shut down Play Store distribution of your app as punishment for that.

Apple (briefly) tried to do something like this previously, where they tried to force apps that offered no free-to-paid conversion through the mobile app, only through the web, to pay the "Apple tax" on the subscriptions made through the web, because they were for a backing service that had value for customers almost exclusively due to its use through the mobile app. Nobody was willing to put up with this, though, and they quickly walked it back.

[mmahemoff]

It’s a commercial/legal requirement imposed on developers, not directly enforced through the technology. It comes down to the review process in practice. At some point a human reviewer will need to detect the app is allowing the user to pay with PayPal and therefore block it from distribution.

They’ll probably have some technology to help prioritise apps for review if they’re likely to be violating (by scanning the APK statically for PayPal SDKs or running robot scripts to see if they can be presented with a PayPal form).

[spogbiper]

> At some point a human reviewer will need to detect the app is allowing the user to pay with PayPal and therefore block it from distribution.

But on Android I can just release the .apk or publish to Fdroid app store, etc. I don't think Google would be reviewing the app at all.

[johnnyanmac]

I took it to be a subtle (but important) grammatical error. I figure it meant "although you CAN use another store on Google, if you use Google play you need to use it's billing system".

But maybe Google has something much more insidious than I expected

[internetter]

No, you are correct