
Google permanently bans popular application from Play for not using IAP - chrisacky
https://plus.google.com/109338406398631174189/posts/NFZAm8MDpjz
======
napoleoncomplex
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...](https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-
developer/answer/150324?hl=en)

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

~~~
rmrfrmrf
> _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.

~~~
napoleoncomplex
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?

~~~
rmrfrmrf
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.

~~~
darklajid
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.

~~~
rmrfrmrf
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...](https://developer.android.com/reference/android/webkit/WebView.html)

~~~
ceejayoz
> 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.

~~~
rmrfrmrf
are you _trying_ to miss the point?

~~~
ceejayoz
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.

------
josteink
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.

~~~
NickSharp
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%.

~~~
darklajid
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.

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

------
OoTheNigerian
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.

~~~
mastersk3
Offtopic: Isn't 2checkout & its recurring module avilable for Nigerian
merchants?

~~~
OoTheNigerian
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/](http://www.avangate.com/pricing/)

~~~
mastersk3
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...](http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/whatwedo/payment_processing.html)
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

------
alkonaut
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?

~~~
al2o3cr
"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?

~~~
alextingle
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.

------
yaddayadda
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/](https://f-droid.org/)) or Aptoide
([http://www.aptoide.com/](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.

------
st0neage
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.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "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.

~~~
st0neage
>> 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.

~~~
icebraining
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.

~~~
alextingle
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.

~~~
icebraining
"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.

~~~
alextingle
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.

~~~
icebraining
_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?

------
speeder
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 :(

~~~
ishansharma
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!)

~~~
vetinari
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.

~~~
darklajid
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.

~~~
nknighthb
"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.

~~~
darklajid
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)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maestro_\(debit_card\))
2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cash)

------
mschuster91
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)...

------
outside1234
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, ...)

~~~
erichocean
_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.

------
duncanawoods
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.

~~~
parfe
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.

~~~
alextingle
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.

------
booruguru
"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.

------
avodonosov
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.

~~~
kokey
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.

------
mistercow
>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.

------
nicholassmith
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.

~~~
xanderdimitrov
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.

------
lucaspiller
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...](http://play.google.com/about/developer-distribution-
agreement.html)

~~~
vetinari
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").

~~~
k-mcgrady
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.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
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

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "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.

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

------
rplnt
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?

~~~
alextingle
Don't give them ideas, now.

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

------
alextingle
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.

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

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

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

~~~
beaumartinez
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.

~~~
spacemanmatt
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.

~~~
RKearney
>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.

------
MarkMc
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?

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

------
qzervaas
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?

~~~
natch
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

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

------
jpswade
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.

~~~
fulafel
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.

~~~
pjc50
UK Companies house has a pretty good web form:
[https://ewf.companieshouse.gov.uk//runpage?page=welcome](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.

------
leobelle
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.

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

------
downandout
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.

------
viach
There should be an app market with bitcoin support finally.

------
anilshanbhag
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.

------
hrjet
I for one am eagerly waiting for a Cyanogen Store.

------
gdrulia
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.

------
tszming
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](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.

------
The_Double
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.

------
im3w1l
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.

------
gesman
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.

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

------
etanazir
Boycott. Don't develop for closed gardens!

------
Simp
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?

~~~
johnchristopher
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.

------
ja27
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.

~~~
jerf
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.

------
e12e
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".

------
neals
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. ?

~~~
babuskov
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.

------
scottydelta
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.

------
outside1234
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.

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

~~~
BlackDeath3
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.

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

~~~
BlackDeath3
That's more pertinent to me. However, that would require me to find another
search engine as good as (or better than) Google.

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

------
squigs25
Wow, this is crazy. So if your country is not on the list, can you still have
ad supported income?

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

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

------
wehadfun
How do Asian countries deal with this?

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

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

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

------
hardwaresofton
walled gardens, amiright?

As soon as Firefox OS stabilizes, I am moving.

------
puppetmaster3
Yes, your echo system depends on Google and now you noticed.

------
kelvin0
Do no Evil?

------
venomsnake
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.

