(author here)<p>I thought I would answer to some of the comments here.<p>> It's their place, their rules<p>Definitely true. And I am not going to try to go against those rules. But I believe I am allowed to voice my opinion about them.<p>> Use in-app purchases instead<p>This is definitely a valid option, but that requires diving into Google Pay, which from what I understand is not the easiest API to work with. It also means I have to maintain additional code for Google Play. More not-so-fun work to do for a side project.<p>> Make it a paid game<p>Another valid option, but given how everybody is used to free games on Android, I doubt it would get much success. It also does not help that Google Play disallows switching a published app from free to paid and vice-versa: it's a one-way decision.<p>I might end up going that way though, because it has the advantage of not having to write store-specific code. Pixel Wheels is not Android only: it also works on Linux, Windows and macOS, so not having to deal with store-specific requirements gives me more time to work on the game itself. The game would still be available for free on F-Droid and for pay-what-you-want on itch.io.<p>I also happen to run other open-source projects, and my goal with donations is to get people to support this open-source work, not just my work on this particular project. I don't expect to ever live from this: in my wildest dreams donations would let me spend a work-day per week or every two weeks to work on open-source projects.
I recently implemented Google Play billing in my app (after doing Stripe and Apple App Store) and Stripe was by far the easiest to implement/test/maintain. Google and Apple not only take their 15/30% cut, their payment systems add a very non trivial amount of work (cost) to implement and maintain while offering none of the (automated) testing capabilities of Stripe. Work that I'm forced to do, even though I had already implemented Stripe. All because they have a monopoly on their platform.<p>For something as critical as payment processing, both Apple and Google make it an arcane journey into API documentation and stack overflow questions.
Hoping to write a blog post detailing all of this in the near future.
Many comments here confuse paid apps or in-app purchases with donations. In fact, donations are sort of a blind spot on Google Play: They're forbidden through the platform's payment system (because it would be a price charged without service in direct return), but donation buttons are also forbidden. Since both are forbidden, it's not (just) commercial optimization by Google, but that just makes it weirder IMO.<p>As a rule of thumb, don't include a direct link to PayPal, Patreon or similar, but create a dedicated page on your website listing those and link that page.
Google/Apple should be regulated and forced to drop their anticompetitive clauses concerning third-party payment systems.<p>They should also forced to fully allow third-party apps installation, including independent push notification services.<p>Currently, both Android and iOS severely restrict background app running, and developers are forced to depend on push notifications services provided by google and apple. This effectively locks in users, who can't empoy full capabilities of the device if they do not use Google/Apple services.
"Play-distributed apps must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment if they require or accept payment for access to features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods"<p><a href="https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...</a><p>I think this is an algorithm mistake on Google's part. Their policy is clear that this scenario is okay. I wonder how they will respond?<p>On a tangent, if I were to release a paid app to third-party stores. I would have a base price then add the third-party fees on top.<p>A gripe would be that I don't see these stores allowing for a clear break down of fees. So I can't educate my users. And if a user is unaware of the added fees they can't take it into account on their next phone purchase.<p>Beyond that, given that there are only two choices seems to imply high barriers of entry into the phone OS game. And that does imply free market issues. But nothing a bit of waiting might not fix?<p>Well given the state of desktop market which has been around for decades there may be room for intervention, haha. Like grants/tax incentives for consumer apps selling on open source operating systems... idk
I mean, it sounds fairly obvious that this isn't allowed. It is well known that Google (and Apple) do not allow you to have links in your app to payments outside of the ecosystem.
> Yes. I confess it. I added a link to my donation page within the game, depriving Google of some precious money it totally cannot survive without! How dare I?!? I am such a bad person.<p>He seems squarely in the wrong here. Google provides a service, and they have rules that are intended to make sure they get paid for providing that service; while, at the same time, still allowing people to offer things without paying (ie, free apps). Using the service but deciding you don't want to pay because "Google has lots of money" doesn't make Google the unreasonable party.<p>By the same logic, I should be able to walk into a store and just take anything I want because I'm using it to make items I sell "for donations". Obviously, that's ridiculous.
I have a lot of sympathy for the dev, but it also seems really naive to expect something different from a company trying to operate a service at scale.<p>Simplest example, if Google allowed this benign thing, how do they protect from opening the floodgates to scams being run on their platform under the guise of donation pages etc?<p>Basically if you are relying on a broad policy, any one-off exceptions are either very costly in validation or they undermine the policy.
Free open source software funded by donations is evil because it undermines Google’s ads business. Free must be free with ads, not free with donations. Richard Stallman was right. :^)
This is "technically" circumventing the protections they have in place for users not getting scammed out of their money.
As with all things at scale they have to turn you down unfortunately so they can have a specific stance with no wriggle room
Hey, I know this game but from F-Droid! Played it a couple times when it was new on there. Fun game, and for being on touchscreen I found the input to work quite reasonably (which is an achievement! Without any tactile feedback it's very hard to get something workable for someone without a lot of practice).<p>What I'm a bit missing from the article is what Google requires, though. Do they want you to offer a Google pay option on the donation page and then it's fine, or are you (like with Apple) not to link or even mention any other donation methods at all?<p>Frankly I find the whole thing weird. You pay to be on the store, and now they want you to also give them a cut of donations? I'm surprised you're not just pulling it and "updating" the game to be a link to F-Droid for the remainder of your play store subscription.
<i>I recently updated Pixel Wheels banner image on Google Play. That triggered a review of the game: shortly after the update I received a message telling me Pixel Wheels was "not compliant with Google Play Policies". What nefarious activity does the game engage in? Sneak on users? Mine bitcoins?</i><p>This paragraph threw me off. I thought Google is offering some sort of carousel banner advertising thing for their Pixel phones. Figured out it's the name of your game.<p>On topic, app store providers are super sensitive when it comes to anything related to payments. That's probably the first step in their review algorithm/process.
Conflicted thoughts on this. On the one hand Google has this defined policy, which developers should be aware of. In this case they seemed to have generously explained the reason (must be the season for miracles). On the other, tarring all apps with the same brush and forbidding donation links looks excessive and predatory.<p>Oh, and Bad Google.
Google is so very clearly correct to engage in corrective enforcement is the point. Clearly stated rules clearly enforced with algorithmic efficiency likely detected by automated play store screening algorithms.<p>Centralized digital mediation eliminates froth; no more can we let things slide; we don't bend rules in the way that happen constantly in person to person interactions.<p>Where to go from here; Perhaps social trust tokens to provide some flex on rules where people have built some levels of trust. I.e if not a game dev farm obfuscating bad things ... Where below certain thresholds have no play store fees for Indy devs? I think Google has some such initiatives. Certainty unity had a progressive license structure that was great for both sides.
I don't see what google did wrong here. The op is calling it a donation when in actually it is a tip. i.e income skirting around by calling it donation doesn't change the fact the the op is trying to make money using google services without paying google its cut. Now we can argue about google cut being too high though they have changed it to less for apps making less than a million. But that's not the argument here. I am wondering do all the developers working on so called donations declare their income to the tax department as I believe it is income just like it is for restaurant staff.
End app stores.<p>The megamonopolies have no right to have their hands in so many cookie jars, yet have the back breaking ability to take our 30% and shut us down. They control too much, and only got there through monopoly forces.<p>The Internet was not supposed to evolve in this direction. 1990 - 2007 was full of hope and dreams for an open ecosystem, then this app cancer showed up.<p>Windows lets you install anything without central control. This is how it should be.<p>Take the app stores down. Rip them out.<p>Take away Google's ability to run a browser too. They shouldn't be able to set web standards and shape what we can see.<p>Please, DOJ. You're our only hope.
Google is making sure you can't have a backdoor "pay what you want" app in their store, and there's no way to distinguish between that and donations intended to be donations.
I know they won't do it, but imagine if the Play Store had a built-in button to donate/support/tip a developer. Like the member feature of YouTube.<p>Small developers will have access to donations without doing anything, no more 'normal/donation' dual apps, no need to add 10MB of unused code to apps just to implement the payments api, probably more and better free apps...
A developer can dream.
Nah, play by the rules or stop suing their service. They funnel users to your app, for free. Just use their payment processing service for donations.<p>Donations make sense in open-source software, if you're making a game it's best to straight up charge for it or if you're starting to build your audience you can do in-app purchases for special things
I recently received an email from them saying that they are now helping small developers, cutting back their cut on the each game you sell. Seems pretty decent of them.<p>Maybe publish you game (supported by donations) on platforms that encourage such practices, such as itch.io or outpan.
I remember a time where Google was much more permissive than Apple - then I guess Google saw that being draconian about your app store made more money so they stopped being so nice (and why wouldn't they if you can get away with it).
It's their platform. They can set the rules as they like. If you don't like it, just make your own os, sell billions of cellphones, then distribute your app on your own play store. They are not obligated to host you.
If this is not a free game as in FOSS, I'm not highly sympathetic.<p>Basically, this sort of thing is a way of collecting money outside of the store. Bad agents can disguise "in-app purchases" by handling them via a "donations" page.<p>It could easily be that donations are actually payments, because users who donate have some sort of preferential treatment in the software.<p>If you run an operation like the Google Play Store, you cannot investigate everything into that level of detail.<p>Next time, try having an unobtrusive link to a general website, without insinuating that it's a page where you pay.
well yeah breach of contract is breach of contract no matter how draconian the contract is. you agreed to it, because you wanted the google play store eyeballs, then decided it was not enough, and tried to sidestep their share for the eyeball providing services.<p>and that makes <i>you</i> the greedy one in the relationship.
imho, the author should stop making apps for Google and iOS and start making them for the linux phones. "but so few people have a linux phone" you will argue.<p>Well, one of the reasons for that is that good hardworking app developers are still naively giving away their time to the large corps that make the rules. Want to live outside the rules? Support an echo system that has less of them. Until then, complaining is just a waste of your time and everyone else.<p>Google will only change when their pockets dictate it, no sooner.
There are many simps who would defend the Google-or-Apple's right to get a fixed cut from a 3rd party's work while also denying any other ways for that 3rd party to profit from its own work at the same time.<p>Don't be that guy. Please. I don't like state capitalism. I genuinely hate digital monopoly capitalism.<p>I do love free market capitalism btw.
I don't understand why Google (and Apple) at all are allowed to deny apps on their own.
This is self-administered justice!
They are monopols.
If they say "there are alternatives, just go to Apple/Google/China/F-Droid" that's just a farce that should be punished hard.