© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Google is extending the deadline for Indian app developers to adopt the Play billing system to October 2022. The earlier deadline was March 31, 2022. The extension is only for the Indian market; for the rest of the world, the deadline remains the same.
The adoption of the Play billing system remains a controversial move by Google, and Indian app developers have been insisting that this will negatively impact them because it would require that they pay 30 per cent commission to the search giant for each transaction that takes place via the app.
“We recognize the unique needs of the developer ecosystem in India and remain committed to partnering with developers in India on their growth journey. In October 2020, we had announced 31st March 2022 as the timeline for developers in India to integrate with Play’s billing system. We are extending this to 31st October 2022 to provide developers in India the required product support for recurring payments through convenient user payment systems, including UPI and wallets, and also provide them more time in light of the changes to India’s recurring digital payments guidelines,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement.
Meanwhile, reacting to the announcement, industry body Alliance of Digital India Foundation said the decision was welcome and while it will certainly give short-term relief to developers, the main issues are yet to be resolved. “The reality is that app owners have been in a very tough spot as they are unsure if they should unwillingly comply with Google’s new policies and be hopeful of a CCI’s intervention on the interim relief petition for maintaining the status quo. Google’s deadline extension certainly gives them more time but doesn’t take away their uncertainty.” Sijo Kuruvilla George, Executive Director, ADIF said in a statement.
In the past, Google has said that the service fee only applies to developers who sell digital content via the Play Store, which impacts around 3 per cent of developers on the platform. Further, Google has maintained that the service fee helps it support “continued investments across Android and Google Play, allowing for a range of distribution, development, and security services.”
Previously, Google has announced reductions in the service fee for different categories of developers. In March, Google had announced it was reducing service fee to 15 per cent for the first one million (USD) of revenue. For developers who make more than this amount, the service fee will be at 30 percent.
According to Google, of the 3 per cent of developers who are required to pay a fee, nearly 99 per cent of the developers globally qualify for a service fee of just 15 per cent or less.
As app developers in India have said in the past, the 30 per cent commission would make the business unsustainable for many of them. This is a complaint developers have against both Apple and Google. Both players charge a commission of 15-30 per cent for in-app purchases, subscriptions, and other transactions, and developers are no longer willing to pay this tax. While Apple and Google have made some concessions in recent times, developers argue that the system needs to go.
In order to ensure that apps cannot bypass the commission, both insist that apps use only their approved billing systems. Apps that do not comply are usually banned or removed from the App Store or Play Store. In India, Apple is also facing an anti-competitive case over the issue which was filed by Rajasthan-based NGO ‘Together we fight society’. Apple also faces a challenge in the US where Epic Games is leading the charge against the in-app payment rules.
For app developers, the issue is that they are captive to the policies of both Google and Apple, and that’s an idea that is being challenged across the world. In fact, South Korea passed a law earlier this year, where is essentially banned Google and Apple from forcing app developers to use their in-app payments systems. The South Korean ‘anti-Google’ law, in particular, is being seen as an important precedent.
