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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.