That two parties have settled their differences is usually a cause for celebration, but in this case they win and we lose. The details are unclear as yet so perhaps this is too strong a way to put things, but it doesn't look good for the independent Android developer.

When Tim Sweeny, boss of Epic games, decided to take both Google and Apple to court over the right to make in-app purchases outside of the app stores. It was easy to cast Epic, and Sweeny in particular, in the role of white knight come to save us all from the evil empires. However, this is most certainly an error on our part as, of course, Sweeny is simply defending his company's right to make money, which of course had the spin-off of allowing the rest of us to make money. 

From a casual view point it looked as if Epic had won everything it wanted. Google was about to be forced to allow third party stores access to Android on a more-or-less level playing field with the Play store. But having your own app store isn't the same as getting users to buy apps from it. Most users don't look beyond the confines of the Play store and so the reward of having your own app store isn't as great as you might expect.

The proposed settlement doesn't so much open up the way for third party app stores as make it possible for developers to use the Play store as their own app store. However, the agreement is complex and there is a lot of room for interpretation. It appears that we will be allowed to add alternative payment systems alongside Google Play Billing and we can set different prices for such alternate billing systems. 

Alternative app stores will be able to register with Google and will appear on install screens with "neutral" language, hence ending the current defensive scare screens that appear when a user selects an alternative store. The important clause is:

9. For a period beginning on the later of (i) December 3, 2025, and (ii) 21 days after the Effective Date through June 30, 2032, Google will permit apps installed/updated by the Google Play store to show alternative payment options for digital transactions via external transaction web links and/or alternative in-app payment options. Alternative payment options shall be shown side-by-side along with Google Play Billing, and developers may show different prices and benefits for digital transactions processed using alternative payment options. Google may not (1) prohibit a developer from communicating with users about the availability of such alternative payment methods, (2) require a developer to set a price based on whether Google Play Billing is used, or (3) discriminate against any developer based on whether the developer offers alternative in-app payment options or external purchasing links.

That all seems good and a sub-clause even promises that Google will not try to put user off. Another sub-clause basically says that Google can keep track of what is going on, but not use the info for advertising. There is also the strange contradiction of Google allowing devs to communicate with users about alternative apps stores and prices, but not being required to allow a link to said store in the app.

Then there is a very confusing part about Google being allowed to charge 20% for in-app purchases if they are substantial upgrades and only 9% for lesser upgrades such as unlocking new levels.

Given the move by Google to effectively close Android to unregistered developers, see Join The Protest Against The Closing Of Android, there are a few paragraphs that are very confusing. It seems that external app stores can register with Google and then be included in Android on equal footing with the Play store. The key sentence is:

"This will also grant the permission to the store to install apps."

What is not clear is if these apps will have to be signed by programmers registered with Google. 

"..and will continue to permit the direct downloading of apps from developer websites and third-party stores without any fees being imposed for those downloads unless the downloads originate from linkouts from apps installed/updated by Google Play (excluding web browsers)."

It is possible that part of the verification process for app stores will be the inception of a mechanism to make sure that these third party apps stores cannot install unsigned and unverified apps. If this is the case, it would give Google some additional control over Android development, but I cannot see how it provides any additional profit to Google. 

Is it possible that, with the rise of third party websites, Google might not have a reason to resort to controlling who can create an app for Android. 

What is clear is that this settlement, if accepted, gives Epic Games everything it could possibly want while leaving the rest of us out in the cold. For the average Android programmer, very little has changed and selling through the Play store is really the only option. 

More Information

Modified Epic v. Google Injunction

Related Articles

Join The Protest Against The Closing Of Android

Google Defends Developer Verification

Google Demands Dev Identity For All Android Apps

Court Rejects Google's Appeal - An Epic Win

Jury Decides Play Store Is A Monopoly

Epic Games V Apple & Google - Smash The App Stores

Google To Pay $90 Million To Devs - But It's Not Enough

Google Matches Apple's App Store Cut

To be informed about new articles on I Programmer, sign up for our weekly newsletter, subscribe to the RSS feed and follow us on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin.

Comments

Make a Comment or View Existing Comments Using Disqus

or email your comment to: comments@i-programmer.info