Reading this, it’s my understanding this ruling says Google must host rival “app store” apps in Google play store and must provide them with a copy of all apps on the playstore for them to distribute. Developers do not opt in to the new app-stores, but they can opt out.
If it’s an app, Google. If it’s an app store, presumably there would be no charge unless you downloaded another app from that app store, in which case the alt store would presumably apply the same BS fees Google does.
If you mean who gets the money from app purchases etc.; The ruling also says Google play billing cannot be required,
so each app/developer can use whatever payment processor they want
I’m confused about this.
You can already run third party sourced apps on android so what are they fighting about?
I’m assuming it has something to do with the payment processor?
Reading this, it’s my understanding this ruling says Google must host rival “app store” apps in Google play store and must provide them with a copy of all apps on the playstore for them to distribute. Developers do not opt in to the new app-stores, but they can opt out.
So who gets the money for that?
If it’s an app, Google. If it’s an app store, presumably there would be no charge unless you downloaded another app from that app store, in which case the alt store would presumably apply the same BS fees Google does.
If you mean who gets the money from app purchases etc.; The ruling also says Google play billing cannot be required, so each app/developer can use whatever payment processor they want
Yes, the article explains that.