<story><title>Google Play permitting alternative billing systems for users in South Korea</title><url>https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-alternative-billing-in-korea-en.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>xenadu02</author><text>Everyone keeps repeating this assumed idea that it&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; a payment processing fee which is simply not true and never has been.&lt;p&gt;The fee is for:
- access to install base and customer relationship
- funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools
- funds development of the store
- funds operation of the store
- profit for the company
- last and least: payment processing&lt;p&gt;Could those things be funded differently? Yes... but it would require a radical restructuring of the way mobile platforms work that would not be favorable to startups or independents. It would also lead to massive fracturing of the customer relationship, lower trust, and ultimately shrink the total dollars spent on software (though the big players would make more money). People trust Apple or Google with their credit card. They know the platform requires all subscriptions show up in one place and they don&amp;#x27;t need to call and argue with a sales rep to cancel. Be prepared for all of that to disappear when it becomes a free-for-all. Stop pretending this kind of &amp;quot;freedom&amp;quot; is completely free of consequences even for those who don&amp;#x27;t take advantage of that &amp;quot;freedom&amp;quot;.</text></item><item><author>forgotmyoldacc</author><text>Am I reading this correctly?&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; We recognize, however, that developers will incur costs to support their billing system, so when a user selects alternative billing, we will reduce the developer’s service fee by 4%. For example, for the vast majority of developers who pay 15% for transactions through Google Play&amp;#x27;s billing system, their service fee for transactions through the alternate billing system would be 11%.&lt;p&gt;You have to pay a 11% fee for using someone else&amp;#x27;s billing system when buying an in-app purchase,  if that app was downloaded from the Play store?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>greatgib</author><text>Each time someone use the straw man argument that they have costs to cover and that they still need to do a profit, just go back looking at facts:&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;&amp;lt;Google Play Had a Profit of $8.5 Billion in 2019 With Margins of 62 Percent. According to court filings unsealed&amp;gt;&amp;gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thurrott.com&amp;#x2F;mobile&amp;#x2F;android&amp;#x2F;254978&amp;#x2F;google-play-had-a-profit-of-8-5-billion-in-2019-with-margins-of-62-percent&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thurrott.com&amp;#x2F;mobile&amp;#x2F;android&amp;#x2F;254978&amp;#x2F;google-play-h...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, no, with indecent margins like that, you can&amp;#x27;t justify them using their monopoly to racket app developers with fees that are unrelated to the usage of the service.&lt;p&gt;Imagine if everyone was doing the same in real life, that would look absurd:&lt;p&gt;- your power utility provider requiring that you pay to them 10% of your business income because you use electricity somehow and they have costs and need to do profit&lt;p&gt;- the postal service requiring you to pay 15% of the bills you send by email through their online service or 10% of the bills you send by any other provider just because you benefit from receiving standard letters in your home mailbox. Just because they have costs and they need to do fat profits.&lt;p&gt;- Ikea forcing you to give them 11% on your business incomes because you use a desk 
and a chair that you bought there in your office. For the same reasons...</text></comment>
<story><title>Google Play permitting alternative billing systems for users in South Korea</title><url>https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-alternative-billing-in-korea-en.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>xenadu02</author><text>Everyone keeps repeating this assumed idea that it&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;just&amp;quot; a payment processing fee which is simply not true and never has been.&lt;p&gt;The fee is for:
- access to install base and customer relationship
- funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools
- funds development of the store
- funds operation of the store
- profit for the company
- last and least: payment processing&lt;p&gt;Could those things be funded differently? Yes... but it would require a radical restructuring of the way mobile platforms work that would not be favorable to startups or independents. It would also lead to massive fracturing of the customer relationship, lower trust, and ultimately shrink the total dollars spent on software (though the big players would make more money). People trust Apple or Google with their credit card. They know the platform requires all subscriptions show up in one place and they don&amp;#x27;t need to call and argue with a sales rep to cancel. Be prepared for all of that to disappear when it becomes a free-for-all. Stop pretending this kind of &amp;quot;freedom&amp;quot; is completely free of consequences even for those who don&amp;#x27;t take advantage of that &amp;quot;freedom&amp;quot;.</text></item><item><author>forgotmyoldacc</author><text>Am I reading this correctly?&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; We recognize, however, that developers will incur costs to support their billing system, so when a user selects alternative billing, we will reduce the developer’s service fee by 4%. For example, for the vast majority of developers who pay 15% for transactions through Google Play&amp;#x27;s billing system, their service fee for transactions through the alternate billing system would be 11%.&lt;p&gt;You have to pay a 11% fee for using someone else&amp;#x27;s billing system when buying an in-app purchase,  if that app was downloaded from the Play store?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>AnthonyMouse</author><text>&amp;gt; access to install base and customer relationship&lt;p&gt;This is the rent seeking that everybody is objecting to.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; funds development of the platform, SDK, and tools&lt;p&gt;The platform is open source. So if you want to use someone else&amp;#x27;s tools then you shouldn&amp;#x27;t have to pay this part, right?&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; funds development of the store - funds operation of the store&lt;p&gt;The cost of providing this is negligible. Many alternative stores and repositories do it for free. It accounts for zero percent of the cost of anything.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; profit for the company&lt;p&gt;Profit isn&amp;#x27;t a separate thing. The cost of payment processing already includes the profit of the payment processor etc.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; last and least: payment processing&lt;p&gt;Which is the only thing left, so if you&amp;#x27;re using someone else as payment processor...&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s the &amp;quot;access to install base and customer relationship&amp;quot; that they&amp;#x27;re really sticking it to you for, and that&amp;#x27;s the illegitimate one.</text></comment>