Seems like they still require Google Play billing as an option, so I wouldn't see any benefit here as I'd have to support all of the processors still.
Though if they're going to do that, at least let the devs show the prices to the user (e.g. I can charge ~12-27% less using Stripe). People can then "vote with their wallets" on which method is more convenient.
That's the thing: it would not be 12-27% less. Using another payment provider only chops off 4% points from Google's cut, the remaining 11-26% is considered a "service fee" unrelated to payments processing, and still has to be paid.
> Google Play’s service fee covers more than simply payment processing
According to Google's blog post, the "service" fee helps to pay for the whole Android ecosystem, including core Android development, developer tools, the Google Play store, etc..
It makes sense they'd tax IAP since so many mobile games are
"free to play" and otherwise Google would make much less money from Google Play (which is presumably its main revenue source for Android.)
It's similar to the "platform licensor" business model of game consoles, except that there are multiple hardware vendors.
Don't underestimate the value of having hundreds of millions of users using their apps and services for data collection/profiling purposes. Then there are the ads. And the constant nag screens/dialogs pushing their various paid services. I suspect they'd be doing just fine without the store revenue.
It's not like they got into the mobile business to collect fees from running an app store. That's just a nice bonus for them that's also been quite profitable.
Yes, google will charge a service fee for the use of their platform by taking a cut of every transaction, even ones not processed by them.
If we get a lawsuit that says “you can’t take a cut of every transaction” they’ll just charge a percentage of total revenue and audit developers, or find some other way of getting their cut. It is highly unlikely a path through lawmakers or courts is going to bring down apple and google’s cut. They’re running a platform and they’ve determined a price to be on that platform. They just happened to get that price through IAP, but they have many alternatives.
Laws can mandate a very rigid pricing structure for some services in many countries.
One example would be access to last mile internet cables and some insurances where profits are tightly regulated.
Lawmakers and regulartors could explicitly tell them what to charge (e.g. "at most x€ per gigabyte downloaded from the app store, at most x€ per store listing,..., No additional charges are allowed")
However, it's a very heavy handed measure and I'm not sure it will happen with mobile phone plattforms.
In my region last mile access for ADSL operators is enshrined in law, as well as how much the network owner can charge them for that last mile access, and in practice what they charge them is around 30%.
I am pessimistic of a legal path to reducing the 30% take. You would have to get a court or lawmaker agree it is onerous, and I think reasonable people can disagree on whether that cut is indeed onerous.
Apple explicitly refused to change their policy (with Tim Cook saying their board that Apple shouldn't lose out to the new law) and insisted that they're already complying the new law. Which is a blatant challenge to the government of course.
https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-altern...
It seems likely that Apple will apply a similar strategy.