In your defense, the first paragraph of the article was confusing
Despite initial opposition from Apple and Google, the Epic Games Store plans to broaden its digital marketplace to iOS and Android platforms later this year. The company has started discussions about the upcoming launch of it’s new third-party store for mobile devices, although the platform will only be available in the EU thanks to the DMA, until Apple enables third party app stores in other areas.
It says Google opposed it, but the third party store thing is specific to Apple
That’s because there’s more to the DMA than the 3rd party app stores. It also means that Google/Apple are not allowed to charge their 30% if an app developer uses their own payment platform.
Today a company like Spotify has to pay 30% of its subscription models to Google/Apple, it it’s bought through the app - same with Epic if the launched an app store for its games.
This is very predatory and monopolistic behavior, and that’s why it’s not illegal to do in the EU anymore. And Google opposed this because it was their biggest cash cow on Android.
Please provide a source on third party stores having been required to give Google a cut. Since threads like this suggest that it was not the case with Amazon providing apks that weren’t published through the Google Play store that had no purchasing restrictions like the Kindle Google play version.
Yes, since Android 12 app updates doesn’t require user confirmation for updates through the store which installed an app originally. This came at a similar time as the Epic lawsuits, so it might be a concession to prevent losing a lawsuit about their anti-competetive behaviour.
Google did pay manufacturers to not include third-party app stores [1], but I they can’t force other stores to pay them any fees. It’s bonkers to me that Apple wants to charge other app stores for providing apps to their consumers, who paid Apple to own their device.
Yeah paying to not have third party stores come pre-installed is the only thing I can recall for Google, which I never did have an issue with due to the worst thing about Android phones being the uninstallable bloatware installed on a system level that only lets you disable it and comes back after updates. If I want a third party store I prefer that I be the one to install it than the manufacturer forcing it on me, which has been the pro for Apple phones. But, then inability to side load like Android was a huge con.
Pixels and Oneplus hit the nice middle of ground being pretty clean and not having bunch of random third party stores like Samsung, but not being locked down like Apple.
That’s because there’s more to the DMA than the 3rd party app stores. It also means that Google/Apple are not allowed to charge their 30% if an app developer uses their own payment platform.
Today a company like Spotify has to pay 30% of its subscription models to Google/Apple, it it’s bought through the app - same with Epic if the launched an app store for its games.
This is very predatory and monopolistic behavior, and that’s why it’s not illegal to do in the EU anymore. And Google opposed this because it was their biggest cash cow on Android.
Are you saying Amazon app store sideloaded on Android or Galaxy store was required to pay Google 30%? I was under the impression that only applied to apps on the Google Play store.
Why when the Amazon app store is a third party installed apk. Can you find a me a source that Google takes a cut of the Apps sold through the Amazon app store, since I’ve been having trouble finding a source.
Or examples of how Amazon gets around Google taking a cut of digital sales by blocking it from the Google Play version, but making it possible on Amazon provided apk
Based on this it seems like Android has already had the ability for independent app stores to be run that don’t need to pay Google a cut of sales for years.
Yes, third party app stores were a pain for a long time, until Google allowed other stores to update apps unattended. A user having to comfirm each individual update was a terrible user experience.
Google and other pre-installed app stores circumvented the issue by being installed with system privileges to install any app unattended.
Any third-party store who’d want to do the same would either have to pay other manufacturers to be pre-installed, or require their users to root their phone. Or they were annoyed by updates and use the Play Store instead.
Does this mean we’ll be able to buy books in the Kindle app again if Google has to allow 3rd party stores?
Google already allows third party stores
You’re right, I was confusing this with another issue. I humbly accept my downvotes.
In your defense, the first paragraph of the article was confusing
It says Google opposed it, but the third party store thing is specific to Apple
That’s because there’s more to the DMA than the 3rd party app stores. It also means that Google/Apple are not allowed to charge their 30% if an app developer uses their own payment platform.
Today a company like Spotify has to pay 30% of its subscription models to Google/Apple, it it’s bought through the app - same with Epic if the launched an app store for its games.
This is very predatory and monopolistic behavior, and that’s why it’s not illegal to do in the EU anymore. And Google opposed this because it was their biggest cash cow on Android.
Please provide a source on third party stores having been required to give Google a cut. Since threads like this suggest that it was not the case with Amazon providing apks that weren’t published through the Google Play store that had no purchasing restrictions like the Kindle Google play version.
https://www.reddit.com/r/kindle/comments/v3skd9/how_to_buy_books_from_kindle_on_android/
Only complaints I could recall over the years was that updates weren’t an convient with it requiring manual approval for apps for third party stores.
Yes, since Android 12 app updates doesn’t require user confirmation for updates through the store which installed an app originally. This came at a similar time as the Epic lawsuits, so it might be a concession to prevent losing a lawsuit about their anti-competetive behaviour.
Google did pay manufacturers to not include third-party app stores [1], but I they can’t force other stores to pay them any fees. It’s bonkers to me that Apple wants to charge other app stores for providing apps to their consumers, who paid Apple to own their device.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632806/google-epic-premier-device-program-lg-motorola-hmd
Yeah paying to not have third party stores come pre-installed is the only thing I can recall for Google, which I never did have an issue with due to the worst thing about Android phones being the uninstallable bloatware installed on a system level that only lets you disable it and comes back after updates. If I want a third party store I prefer that I be the one to install it than the manufacturer forcing it on me, which has been the pro for Apple phones. But, then inability to side load like Android was a huge con.
Pixels and Oneplus hit the nice middle of ground being pretty clean and not having bunch of random third party stores like Samsung, but not being locked down like Apple.
3rd party stores have been on Android for decades, Epic included. Don’t know what this author is on about.
That’s because there’s more to the DMA than the 3rd party app stores. It also means that Google/Apple are not allowed to charge their 30% if an app developer uses their own payment platform.
Today a company like Spotify has to pay 30% of its subscription models to Google/Apple, it it’s bought through the app - same with Epic if the launched an app store for its games.
This is very predatory and monopolistic behavior, and that’s why it’s not illegal to do in the EU anymore. And Google opposed this because it was their biggest cash cow on Android.
Are you saying Amazon app store sideloaded on Android or Galaxy store was required to pay Google 30%? I was under the impression that only applied to apps on the Google Play store.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m not sure about the Galaxy store though, as it’s only available on their own hardware.
Why when the Amazon app store is a third party installed apk. Can you find a me a source that Google takes a cut of the Apps sold through the Amazon app store, since I’ve been having trouble finding a source.
I only come across articles on Amazon app’s dev revenue cut https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/17/amazons-appstore-lowers-its-cut-of-developer-revenue-for-small-businesses-adds-aws-credits/
Or examples of how Amazon gets around Google taking a cut of digital sales by blocking it from the Google Play version, but making it possible on Amazon provided apk
https://www.reddit.com/r/kindle/comments/v3skd9/how_to_buy_books_from_kindle_on_android/
Based on this it seems like Android has already had the ability for independent app stores to be run that don’t need to pay Google a cut of sales for years.
Yes, third party app stores were a pain for a long time, until Google allowed other stores to update apps unattended. A user having to comfirm each individual update was a terrible user experience.
Google and other pre-installed app stores circumvented the issue by being installed with system privileges to install any app unattended.
Any third-party store who’d want to do the same would either have to pay other manufacturers to be pre-installed, or require their users to root their phone. Or they were annoyed by updates and use the Play Store instead.
That’s true and I agree but it doesn’t mean they have to pay Google
You are confused. They only have to pay that if they download the app from the Play Store and use Google Pay.
You already could if you were willing to side load Amazon provided apk https://www.reddit.com/r/kindle/comments/v3skd9/how_to_buy_books_from_kindle_on_android/
This thread is from two years ago. So gives you an idea of how long this has been possible before any type of rulings.