Google Now Lets Apps Use Third-Party Billing in EU, Apple Yet to Announce Plans

[MacRumors]

In response to the Digital Markets Act receiving final approval from the Council of the European Union this week, Google today announced that it now allows developers of non-gaming apps to offer alternative billing systems to users in the European Economic Area (EEA), including countries in the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.

Google will reduce its commission by 3% for in-app purchases made through an alternative billing system in the EEA. Google says this policy means 99% of developers will be charged a fee of 12% when a customer completes a transaction through a third-party payment processor, compared to 15% through Google Play's billing system. Google said this reduced fee supports the company's investments in Google Play and Android.

Google said it expects to expand its alternative billing system program to developers of gaming apps for users in the EEA in advance of the Digital Markets Act's effective date, which is at least six months away, according to the European Council.

Google Play's billing system will continue to be required for all apps distributed through the store in all other countries, including the United States.

Developers must complete a declaration form to offer alternative billing systems in the EEA. Starting August 1, 2022, developers will be required to report to Google Play the amount of all paid transactions from the alternative billing system.

Developers interested in learning more about the program and signing up can visit this support document on Google's website. Google said additional program requirements and safety measures will be shared in the coming weeks.

Apple has yet to announce any plans to allow App Store apps to offer alternative billing systems to users throughout the EEA. To comply with regulations in the Netherlands, Apple allows dating apps to offer alternative billing systems in that country, with Apple reducing its commission by 3% for transactions. Last month, Apple also started allowing developers in South Korea to offer alternative billing systems to users in that country.

Article Link: Google Now Lets Apps Use Third-Party Billing in EU, Apple Yet to Announce Plans

 

[icanhazmac]

Great, there is your choice!

Want alt-stores and alt-payment processors, go Google. Leave us alone.

 

[erikkfi]

All of Apple's plans for the Digital Markets Act will be announced through court filings.

 

[scheinderrob]

bring on the regulation, slam down that hammer down on apple without mercy.

 

[d686546s]

Great, there is your choice!

Want alt-stores and alt-payment processors, go Google. Leave us alone.

That's not really how laws work. My takeaway from this is that Google, which could even point to the existence of third-party-stores, still proactively complies with the DMA.

Unlikely that Apple won't.

 

[Michael Scrip]

As a consumer... what difference does it make if an app uses a different payment processor?

Will I have a choice between two or more payment processors when I make an in-app purchase?

In the physical space... I've never once considered the payment processor Walgreens uses. Or McDonalds.

So I'm just wondering how this will affect consumers in the app space.

🤔

 

[MuppetGate]

As a consumer... what difference does it make if an app uses a different payment processor?

Will I have a choice between two or more payment processors when I make an in-app purchase?

In the physical space... I've never once considered the payment processor Walgreens uses. Or McDonalds.

So I'm just wondering how this will affect consumers in the app space.

🤔

Good question.

I think you’ll only see a real difference when you try to get a refund.

 

[icanhazmac]

As a consumer... what difference does it make if an app uses a different payment processor?

In the physical space... I've never once considered the payment processor Walgreens uses. Or McDonalds.

IMHO it is a numbers game, the more entities that have your payment information the more chances exist for your CC to be compromised. When I pay via the Apple App store today I use a single payment processor regardless of how many apps I buy. If every app can have a different processor then my payment information is given to all of those different processors and I am now open to more opportunities for fraud.

 

[Michael Scrip]

IMHO it is a numbers game, the more entities that have your payment information the more chances exist for your CC to be compromised. When I pay via the Apple App store today I use a single payment processor regardless of how many apps I buy. If every app can have a different processor then my payment information is given to all of those different processors

Hmmm... so it sounds like a disadvantage to have multiple payment processors in apps.

Thoughts?

🤔

 

[dguisinger]

Sigh... the point of this, especially with in-app subscriptions is that the store (Google/Apple) shouldn't be skimming off the customer/developer relationship. Knocking off the 3% was never the point, and they will only force new regulations.

The reason Apple already has so many carveouts is they know they can't justify it... they would have no streaming service apps if they were forced to pay 30%. No one says "Oh, I stumbled across Netflix on the App Store, I guess I will subscribe". Many of these companies have brand recognition, and can find their own customers. No body stumbles across Uber and thinks huh, i'll use that. No, they go looking for Uber because Uber has a brand. They would have no physical product apps for ordering products at stores or food from restaurants.

Apple and Google are so full of themselves to think they have a right to 30% of the revenue from companies that aren't these massive companies who were able to negotiate carveouts.

 

[icanhazmac]

Hmmm... so it sounds like a disadvantage to have multiple payment processors for apps.

Thoughts?

🤔

That is my personal feeling. I like and purposefully bought into the "walled garden" Apple ecosystem and really don't want it to be legislated into extinction.

I also find it amusing when others claim that alt-stores and alt-payment processors will benefit consumers by way of less expensive apps, it won't happen.

And I also agree with @MuppetGate , have fun trying to get a refund when your infant accidentally makes $1000 in IAP if Apple is no longer the payment processor.

 

[Havoc035]

Sigh... the point of this, especially with in-app subscriptions is that the store (Google/Apple) shouldn't be skimming off the customer/developer relationship. Knocking off the 3% was never the point, and they will only force new regulations.

The reason Apple already has so many carveouts is they know they can't justify it... they would have no streaming service apps if they were forced to pay 30%. No one says "Oh, I stumbled across Netflix on the App Store, I guess I will subscribe". Many of these companies have brand recognition, and can find their own customers. No body stumbles across Uber and thinks huh, i'll use that. No, they go looking for Uber because Uber has a brand. They would have no physical product apps for ordering products at stores or food from restaurants.

Apple and Google are so full of themselves to think they have a right to 30% of the revenue from companies that aren't these massive companies who were able to negotiate carveouts.

You're making it sound like all developers get for that 30% is the payment system. It's far more than that so a 3% cut is fair.

 

[JGIGS]

As a consumer... what difference does it make if an app uses a different payment processor?

Will I have a choice between two or more payment processors when I make an in-app purchase?

In the physical space... I've never once considered the payment processor Walgreens uses. Or McDonalds.

So I'm just wondering how this will affect consumers in the app space.

🤔

Without knowing the %'s that McDonalds and other retailers pay per transaction I'm sure it's a lot less then what Apple charges which I think is around 30%?

Again not sure the exact % but a lot less. In theory developers could charge less and or be more profitable with a third party payment system.

Apple cares way more about the money grabbing aspects of their ecosystem then privacy. Trust me.

 

[mansplains]

As a consumer... what difference does it make if an app uses a different payment processor?

Will I have a choice between two or more payment processors when I make an in-app purchase?

My thought would be the app offering payment with a processor that yields them a better cut, and offering more with the purchase as an incentive;

Choose Apple Pay and get 200 gems for $10 or choose Super Best Pay and get 250 gems for $10

 

[gaximus]

As a consumer... what difference does it make if an app uses a different payment processor?

Will I have a choice between two or more payment processors when I make an in-app purchase?

In the physical space... I've never once considered the payment processor Walgreens uses. Or McDonalds.

So I'm just wondering how this will affect consumers in the app space.

🤔

You most likely won't have a choice, you'll just have to use whatever payment method the developer wants to use, no matter how sketchy it is.

 

[Vjosullivan]

As a consumer... what difference does it make if an app uses a different payment processor?

🤔

It's a bit like the company that builds the road not only charging you a toll for using it but permitting only their own brand of car to use it. If it's just one backroad then it's a minor problem but if the company happens to build half the roads in the country then it does become a major problem.

And then, to compound the problem, they insist on charging you for using third party fuel.

 

[ACHD]

Without knowing the %'s that McDonalds and other retailers pay per transaction I'm sure it's a lot less then what Apple charges which I think is around 30%?

Again not sure the exact % but a lot less. In theory developers could charge less and or be more profitable with a third party payment system.

Apple cares way more about the money grabbing aspects of their ecosystem then privacy. Trust me.

Food and service type orders kind of bypass that and you can input your card info directly.

Like its funny. They complain about how unsafe it would be but there are apps LITERALLY where you put your info in RIGHT NOW on the app store that bill outside of apples system lol. People forget about it

 

[Michael Scrip]

It's a bit like the company that builds the road not only charging you a toll for using it but permitting only their own brand of car to use it. If it's just one backroad then it's a minor problem but if the company happens to build half the roads in the country then it does become a major problem.

Cool. But you didn't answer my question.

What difference does it make to me if an app uses one payment processor versus another?

 

[JGIGS]

That is my personal feeling. I like and purposefully bought into the "walled garden" Apple ecosystem and really don't want it to be legislated into extinction.

I also find it amusing when others claim that alt-stores and alt-payment processors will benefit consumers by way of less expensive apps, it won't happen.

And I also agree with @MuppetGate , have fun trying to get a refund when your infant accidentally makes $1000 in IAP if Apple is no longer the payment processor.

Why would it be legislated into extinction? Alt stores and payments doesn't mean the app store goes away? Of course alt services would have to be less expensive then the app store or people would just continue in app/ app purchases in the Apple app store.

There are ways prevent your infant from making $1000 IAP purchases and who's to say a 3rd party app store or the app developer wouldn't allow you to reverse it and simply take what you bought away from the acct again?

I think the best credit I can give Apple is there ability to brainwash.

 

[Havoc035]

My thought would be the app offering payment with a processor that yields them a better cut, and offering more with the purchase as an incentive;

Choose Apple Pay and get 200 gems for $10 or choose Super Best Pay and get 250 gems for $10

I wouldn't be surprised if that won't be allowed.

 

[JGIGS]

Food and service type orders kind of bypass that and you can input your card info directly.

Like its funny. They complain about how unsafe it would be but there are apps LITERALLY where you put your info in RIGHT NOW on the app store that bill outside of apples system lol. People forget about it

McDonalds still has to pay a fee to the bank that provides the transactions. In this example I'm using them to represent a developer having to pay apple on the app store for each transaction. Not the person buying the big mac or in app payment.

Apple users are just brainwashed thinking Apple's privacy is impenetrable. Fantastic marketing but unrealistic.

 

[mansplains]

I wouldn't be surprised if that won't be allowed.

I don't see devs providing a benefit necessarily either. They could offer the same 200 gems for $10 and one processor gives them $9 and the other $7. Several companies have proven that people will pay the same amount for less, especially lately. But it depends on how the user-facing end would look. Don't forget about thoughtful interface choices on the web to steer users into clicking what the company wants.

 

[gaximus]

Apple cares way more about the money grabbing aspects of their ecosystem then privacy. Trust me.

Yes and no, They stand on the principle of privacy, if that fails, then they won't be able to make money. So privacy is more important to them, as without it they don't have a platform to sell from.

 

[Villarrealadrian]

So it begins…

 

[LeeW]

Great, there is your choice!

Want alt-stores and alt-payment processors, go Google. Leave us alone.

Or Apple can do it also, you will have the choice, not to use another payment processor.