[HN Gopher] Google ends its 30 percent app store fee and welcome...
___________________________________________________________________
Google ends its 30 percent app store fee and welcomes third-party
app stores
Author : _____k
Score : 167 points
Date : 2026-03-04 19:40 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.engadget.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.engadget.com)
| westurner wrote:
| > _For any developers interested in offering their own app store,
| Google says it 'll launch its Registered App Stores program "with
| a version of a major Android release" before the end of the year.
| According to the company, the program will be available in other
| regions first before it comes to the US._
|
| From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37843650 :
|
| > _What 's a ballpark figure for what the monthly cost to Fdroid
| would be to scan all uploaded APKs for security vulnerabilities?_
|
| Will the user need to basically add a pubkey for each 3rd party
| repo? Could they install an APK from Play Store to add the key,
| or will there be something like the distribution-gpg-keys
| package?
| limagnolia wrote:
| F-Droid build APKs themselves from source, so presumably 0, as
| they don't allow APKs to be uploaded.
|
| F-Droid does do some safety checks themselves already too, I
| don't know exactly what.
|
| Edit: Perhaps I am mistaken... but I think the linked post was
| referring to users adding additional repos to the F-Droid
| store, not the default F-Droid repo??
| aghuang wrote:
| Very happy to see this end of an era, and no more lock-in of app
| stores.
|
| Finally have true choice of app stores to install and good news
| for FDrioid.
| indy wrote:
| This together with Valve's work on Fex may mean that Android
| users will be able to install Steam on their devices
| bsimpson wrote:
| Kind of funny to imagine installing the mobile Epic store on a
| Steam device to get access to the mobile apps that you would
| otherwise need Google Play Services to access.
|
| I think Amazon finally killed its app store. I wonder if there
| are any others that have the clout and inclination to register
| as an alternative app store and actually get developers to
| bother uploading there.
| TGower wrote:
| Fex is not coming to Android https://wiki.fex-
| emu.com/index.php/FAQ
| vladxyz wrote:
| Fex is already running on android, within things like
| https://github.com/utkarshdalal/GameNative
| handedness wrote:
| > This page was last edited on 22 October 2023, at 09:05.
|
| Since then:
|
| > In Android 16, Google expanded the "Linux Terminal"
| feature, which was initially introduced in Android 15 QPR2
| beta, allowing users to run Linux applications within a
| virtual machine on their devices. This feature utilizes the
| Android Virtualization Framework (AVF) to create a Debian-
| based environment where users can execute Linux commands and
| graphical applications. The guest operating system is fully
| isolated by the hypervisor (KVM or gunyah) and manages its
| own resources with its own Linux kernel. Notably, it supports
| running classic software such as Doom, demonstrating its
| ability to run full desktop applications.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Why now?
| yndoendo wrote:
| Google changed the way their are the Gatekeepers. It now is
| tied to requiring a software developer ID attached to a real
| person; Developer Verification. [0]
|
| And how side-loading will have to go through ADB versus just
| allowing the application to be installed by a file manager.
|
| This is why GrapheneOS and /e/OS have been popping up, along
| with Linux based alternatives.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47251763
| toraway wrote:
| Google partially walked that back and now says there will
| still be a way for end users to enable sideloading for apps
| without developer verification (unclear what that will look
| like though): Based on this feedback and our
| ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a
| new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the
| risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are
| designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring
| that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks
| while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include
| clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks
| involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands.
| We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature
| now and will share more details in the coming months.
|
| https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-
| de...
| dugite-code wrote:
| According to keepandroidopen.org they haven't updated their
| wording yet and no real movement has happened to implement
| this
|
| > Google's description of the program / continues to state
| plainly that: "Starting in September
| 2026, Android will require all apps to be registered by
| verified developers in order to be installed on certified
| Android devices"
| goeric wrote:
| You can thank Epic Games.
| ilsubyeega wrote:
| fortnite linux yet?
| spogbiper wrote:
| Now instead of using the excuse that "Apple does it too" they
| can use the excuse "Apple does it even worse"
| krunck wrote:
| 'Google says that developers will be able to offer alternative
| billing systems alongside its own or "guide users outside of
| their app to their own websites for purchases." '
|
| Finally. As a de-Googled phone owner I am glad that this will
| allow alternative payments where I can pay developers directly
| without Google taking it's protection money.
| delichon wrote:
| It looks like they maintain gatekeeping via the Registered App
| Store program, where you get to be a kind of trustee while on
| good behavior.
|
| https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/a-new-era-...
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| > Rather than take its standard 30 percent cut of in-app
| purchases through the Play Store, Google is lowering its cut to
| 20 percent
|
| > Third-party app stores will be able to apply to the company's
| new "Registered App Stores" program to see if they meet "certain
| quality and safety benchmarks."
|
| > users will still be able to sideload alternative app stores
| that aren't part of the program
|
| I'll wait to hear how the F-Droid team responds
| sheepscreek wrote:
| Why are people thanking Google? That's like another slap on the
| face of Epic who burned through their millions to put a (soft)
| end to Google and Apple's dominance. They still get to keep a
| significant cut.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Epic still deserves all the slaps it gets. They didn't do it
| for the good of the people. They just want to abuse their own
| position more efficiently.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Honestly I believe they did it because Tim Sweeney has fuck
| you money and he got pissed off at Apple.
| ericmay wrote:
| Yep. Spot on. And the reason you know this is true is because
| the arguments about increasing prices for customers due to
| App Store fees, which is one of the primary arguments, once
| removed does not result in price reductions for customers.
|
| It's just big billion dollar corporations deciding on who
| keeps what cut.
| hogwasher wrote:
| I'm hardly a fan of Epic, but considering inflation and
| rising supply chain costs, a price that remains flat may be
| a price that would have otherwise risen.
|
| They might also direct the money towards funding more
| exclusives. Epic's funding has enabled some games to be
| made that wouldn't have been otherwise, or that wouldn't
| have been as full featured without that up-front cash.
|
| They sell gambling to children via lootboxes; I'm not
| saying they're the good guy corp. But removing Apple and
| Google's monopoly over phone apps and app stores would only
| be a good thing, in my opinion.
| ericmay wrote:
| Sure but it's not just Epic. I've seen other services,
| ranging from Netflix to Spotify increase subscription
| prices.
|
| I don't disagree with your point about inflation, but we
| also can't really run the counterfactual, and I'm
| personally not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt
| here. As an aside we generally have some level of
| inflation and so while this argument may have been more
| convincing during a period of rapid inflation, it becomes
| less convincing over time.
|
| I think the reality is these services have massive
| margins and so there was never any intent on the part of
| Epic at least, to lower prices. It was always to just
| capture more value for their company. I don't blame them
| for doing that, I just find the "we're the good guys"
| approach to be suspicious at best.
|
| Apple's monopoly (because I have an iPhone) has been of
| incredible value to me so I prefer that the monopoly
| continue to exist. As we remove that monopoly I see more
| consumer harm done than good.
| irishcoffee wrote:
| > considering inflation and rising supply chain costs
|
| I just can't for the life of me figure out where this
| money goes. People bought the same type of things 10
| years ago, and the cost now isn't proportional to the
| cost 10 years ago.
|
| Where is the money ending up??
| charcircuit wrote:
| Google gets a 0% cut on Fortnite purchases in this new model.
| irishcoffee wrote:
| > Epic who burned through their millions
|
| I wouldn't die on this hill. Epic is about as un-sympathetic
| character in the videogame space as you'll find anywhere. Epic
| wasn't trying to be altruistic.
| jadar wrote:
| This is kind of a misleading title. While they "ended" the
| 30-percent cut, they are keeping a 20-percent cut.
| upcoming-sesame wrote:
| worse title I've seen in a while
| varispeed wrote:
| Soviet level of journalism...
|
| "Did you hear? On Red Square they're giving away cars."
|
| "Not quite. First, it's not on Red Square but on Dzerzhinsky
| Square. Second, they're not cars but bicycles. And third,
| they're not giving them away, they're stealing them."
| tw-20260303-001 wrote:
| "Did you hear, Russians went to space", "All of them?",
| "No, just one", "Then why do you bother me."
| quentindanjou wrote:
| It would have been about Apple it probably would have said
| "Apple starts charging 20% fees on the AppStore"
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| The majority of which is going directly to Visa, Amex,
| Mastercard.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| i dont believe any of those companies take anywhere near a
| 20% cut per transaction
| dbbk wrote:
| Also, iOS App Store and Google Play Store aren't just
| straight payment processing, they are Merchant of Record.
| Legend2440 wrote:
| Nah, credit card fees are like 1.5 to 3.5%.
| rezonant wrote:
| That's incredible, so Stripe at 3% plus $0.30 per
| transactions must be losing money hand over fist!
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| > This is kind of a misleading title
|
| Kind of is doing a lot of work there. This might be THE most
| misleading title I heard. Jumping into this thread I expected
| they went from 30% to 0% not 20% so I appreciate your comment
| for giving me more context.
|
| Can Dang or HN moderation team fix the title to better reflect
| the true state and not be misleading as it currently is?
|
| thanks in advance!
| waynesonfire wrote:
| Or better yet, remove it all together. Why promote this type
| of deceivement?
|
| It looks to be a pretty massive messaging compaign promoting
| this deceptive wording.
| mqus wrote:
| I only trust this once they have finally detailed how they will
| allow "easy sideloading" (See one of the last fdroid news on
| this, currently google is on track to basically ban sideloading
| as it exists) and what exactly means "registered app store
| program".
| herf wrote:
| Sideloading without automatic updates is not very useful
| dark__paladin wrote:
| why not?
| agluszak wrote:
| Google ends its 30 percent app store fee and starts a 20 percent
| app store fee instead
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Don't forget it welcomes other app stores in the short term but
| no indication of a long term guarantee, because that's how you
| get good PR.
| barredo wrote:
| How would Google know how much money any app not using their
| billing system is getting?
| testplzignore wrote:
| I don't see anyone else asking this question. Seems like a
| major detail Google is burying.
|
| I'm guessing the alternate billing flow will contractually
| require the app to "phone home" to Google with how much the
| user spent. Presumably will be part of the app review process.
| phatfish wrote:
| Maybe they audit you when something smells funny and it becomes
| worth it for them? Microsoft don't set EY (other hired gun
| auditers may apply) on every small company to check they are
| activating Windows correctly.
| monooso wrote:
| "Welcomes" seems like a stretch.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Source: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/a-new-
| era-... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47251518)
| pingou wrote:
| Am I correct that if you earn less than a million dollar a year
| and wish to continue using Google services it changes nothing?
| You will pay 10% service fee + 5% billing fee, the same as the
| old 15% fee?
| xutopia wrote:
| Can we see this for Apple please?
| CharlesW wrote:
| Apple can always choose to make less money. That said:
|
| An estimated 98% of App Store developers qualify for Apple's
| 15% Small Business Program rate.1 This doesn't help behemoths
| like Epic, of course.
|
| App Store developers can also now direct customers to
| alternative payment methods on the web through in-app links.
|
| 1 https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/18/21572302/apple-app-
| store...
| elAhmo wrote:
| "Welcomes" is a very strong word in this context. Google was
| somewhat forced to do this, not really something they would do if
| not from pressure by EU, lawsuits, Epic and others.
|
| Also, the fee is reduced to 20 or 15 percent, not fully gone.
|
| This almost reads like a sponsored article written by Google
| themselves.
| bhelkey wrote:
| I believe the fee is only 20% if you use a third party billing
| system.
|
| If one uses Google to process the payments the fee would be 25%
| (20% service fee + 5% billing fee) [1].
|
| [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/a-new-
| era-...
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Is the Google billing system that good or easy? 5% sounds
| outrageous, but I guess if they make it 1-click easy, will
| scoop up everyone who is not big enough to work with a real
| payment processor.
|
| I guess the question, what does an Amazon, Spotify, Uber, etc
| pay on the platform vs the 99% of businesses which are not a
| household name.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| > This almost reads like a sponsored article written by Google
| themselves.
|
| To be honest, the same website also reported about this:
|
| https://www.engadget.com/ai/gemini-encouraged-a-man-commit-s...
| which was written 6 hours ago at the time of writing.
|
| I agree with ya that the article title is EXTREMELY misleading
| but I am not sure if a company sponsored by google would also
| write an article criticising gemini (also interesting that I
| see no Hackernews discussion about this that I can find of when
| I searched it?, shall I create one if people are interested?)
|
| I am also gonna paste the 3 paragraphs from the source that I
| have listed above for a source of discussion.
|
| Gavalas, who reportedly had no documented history of mental
| health issues, named his chatbot "Xia" and referred to it in
| messages as his wife. Gemini reciprocated, calling him "my
| king" and telling him their connection was "a love built for
| eternity." The chatbot told Gavalas they could truly be
| together if it had a robotic body and sent him on real-world
| missions to secure one.
|
| In one instance, Gemini directed him to a real storage facility
| near Miami's airport to intercept a humanoid robot it said
| would be arriving by truck. Gavalas went to the location armed
| with knives, but no truck showed up. At one point, it also told
| him his father could not be trusted and referred to Google CEO
| Sundar Pichai as "the architect of your pain."
|
| When the missions failed, Gemini told Gavalas the only way for
| them to be together was for him to end his life and become a
| digital being, then set an October 2 deadline. "When the time
| comes, you will close your eyes in that world, and the very
| first thing you will see is me," said the AI. Chat transcripts
| reviewed by the Journal show Gemini did remind Gavalas on
| several occasions that it was an AI engaged in role play and
| directed him to a crisis hotline but resumed the scenarios
| nonetheless.
|
| Why is not more news reporting about it? I literally only came
| to find it from me messing around with the website to see what
| other articles it had written after sort of reading your
| comment. I will upload this link to HN as well.
|
| Edit: Oops there is already a HN thread about it
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47252838 whose title is
| Father claims Google's AI product fuelled son's delusional
| spiral (bbc.com). I had thought that title was for a different
| case than this one but they are the same case and it is on the
| front page of hackernews.
| CivBase wrote:
| They're only bumping it down to 20% (or 15% in some cases).
| Anything over 5% feels like an abuse of their anti-competitive
| position.
|
| And they're still taking 10% for subscriptions. What's the
| justification there?
| bhelkey wrote:
| The article is confusingly worded. I think Google's announcement
| is more clear [1].
|
| My read is:
|
| * Developers using Google to process payments should expect to go
| from a 30% fee to a 25% fee (20% service fee + 5% billing fee).
|
| * Subscriptions will now have a 15% fee (10% service fee + 5%
| billing fee)
|
| * Some Third Party App Stores will be easier to install
|
| [1] https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/03/a-new-
| era-...
| rezonant wrote:
| Google's announcement is also confusingly written, but I
| believe your interpretation to be mostly correct as best I can
| tell.
|
| There's a lot of added complexity because of the <1M plan which
| isn't new, which put the cut at 15% for under 1M of revenue.
| Also transactions from brand new installs of your app will be
| only 20% but transactions from existing installs (before the
| change) will be 25%
| nop17 wrote:
| This kind of misleading title should be removed from HN, not
| appearing on the first page.
| VortexLain wrote:
| Now this is bad. "Registered App Stores" seems like a way to
| satisfy regulators before taking away the user's right to execute
| arbitrary code on their devices (or as it's called in modern
| corporate newspeak: sideloading).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-04 23:01 UTC)