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.
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".
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.
>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.
