Google creates payment system for digital content in response to Apple

Barely has a day gone by since Apple launched their App Store subscription services and after the potential anti-trust violations Google has decided to get in on the market too. Google's version of a digital subscription plan is aimed to be more open, friendlier for publishers, and not locked to a single type of device, as blogged about today by Lee Shirani of Google.

Apple's version of in-app subscriptions, if using the company's own transaction methods, charges 30% of the overall cost with only 70% of capital heading toward the developer. Google's service, called Google One Pass allows subscriptions of any length, including auto-renew subscriptions and allows publishers to set their own price and only keeps 10% of the transaction versus Apple's 30%.

The ability to customize how and when content charged is quite limitless. Google One Pass allows publishers to experiment on just what business model works best for them offering "subscriptions, metered access, "freemium" content or even single articles for sale from their websites or mobile apps. The service also lets publishers give existing print subscribers free (or discounted) access to digital content."

Google One Pass payments will be handled through Google Checkout, and instead of content being limited to a few apps on a few devices, One Pass allows users to access their subscriptions from virtually anywhere by making it website-based. Purchases will be linked to a single email address and password which will allow the user to log in through virtually any device that includes a browser. This is done so that subscriptions are kept on the cloud and are all linked to one account which can easily be accessed from anywhere instead of having to "re-subscribe in order to access their content on new devices."

 

Google One Pass is currently available to publishers in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and US. It also appears that only publishers, not users at this time may sign up likely to get a good variety of content available before unleashing it onto the masses.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sony releases piracy statement saying they will ban all hackers

Next Story

Dell is working on a Windows 8 tablet for Q1 2012

31 Comments

View more comments

excalpius said,
Capitalism at work.

Although two or three monopolies slugging it out is hardly in the true spirit of the free market. 8P


Oh, please. . .

PotatoJ said,
More open, more friendly ... awesome!

And More willing to sell your details off.

Please get real with this no evil stuff.

Lucas said,
Boring, Apple did it first.

Yes, because we all know since someone else did it first, everyone else doing it is boring. If that was the case, then most of what Apple has done is boring. They have taken a lot of existing concepts and improved upon it. Think they were the first MP3 player? Think they had the first tablet system? No, they improved upon those things and considering their sales, are not boring at all.

Lucas said,
Boring, Apple did it first.
but Google made it better.

Apple cultist while of course pay any kind of money but those who do not believe in Steve's higher power generally prefer to spend less money and have a choice

Apple's version of in-app subscriptions, if using the company's own transaction methods, charges 30% of the overall cost with only 70% of capital heading toward the developer.

70% at best! In the case of Rhapsody (for instance) they still have to pay the music labels their cut as well.

If Apple gets busted for unfair business practices with this whole in-app requirement, then I can see them competing and going for the 10%. But so long as the in-app purchasing is a requirement on iOS devices (and therefore much easier to use) they will no doubt keep their 30%. This whole thing is ridiculous! Apple has basically made it so that competition for in-app purchases must present the user with a more complex procedure as a matter of policy. It isn't that Apple has some big breakthrough technology that makes in-app purchasing easier and it is some great trade secret, its that they are being a bully about it.

My preference would be to not use Apple or Google but rather go directly to the source (if the source has their own shop setup like Kindle and Zinio).

mentas said,
Google is like a cancer. Copy 'Em All.

MS copies Apple, Apple copies MS...everyone copies everyone these days so I guess cancer is running rampant.

techbeck said,

MS copies Apple, Apple copies MS...everyone copies everyone these days so I guess cancer is running rampant.

Bing copies Google, Google copies Bing, Google cries.

techbeck said,

MS copies Apple, Apple copies MS...everyone copies everyone these days so I guess cancer is running rampant.

I get annoyed when people try to say that ms stole the gui from apple when both companies stole the gui from Xerox.

I'm surprised at the hostility on this thread towards this.

Company A announces a product that is convenient for the customers who own Company A's device. However it is quite (for lack of a better word) greedy and only works on said companies device.

Company B, who has also been working on a similar product, then announces their intention to launch. Giving CUSTOMERS the choice between A and B. B will be less greedy and allow it to be used cross-platform.

Most people would admit that Company B's offering is, if not better in itself anyway, better for the consumers because we now have choice.

But no - swap A and B with Apple / Google and everyone starts bitching. Ridiculous.

andrew_f said,
I'm surprised at the hostility on this thread towards this.

Company A announces a product that is convenient for the customers who own Company A's device. However it is quite (for lack of a better word) greedy and only works on said companies device.

Company B, who has also been working on a similar product, then announces their intention to launch. Giving CUSTOMERS the choice between A and B. B will be less greedy and allow it to be used cross-platform.

Most people would admit that Company B's offering is, if not better in itself anyway, better for the consumers because we now have choice.

But no - swap A and B with Apple / Google and everyone starts bitching. Ridiculous.


Thats Neowin. If it ain't MicroSoft, they hate it.

Subject Delta said,
I don't have a problem with this. I wouldn't have a problem with Apple's model either, if it wasn't enforced upon devs that use iOS to distribute their apps. A lot of people will nag Google off for this, but the difference is that this will not be enforced upon users of Android phones in the same way Apple are doing.

Creating a content distribution platform, and charging publishers a reasonable fee for utilising it is one matter. Creating one, forcing them to use it to stay on the platform, and charging them an extortionate fee is quite another

They are able to offer their own payment systems aswell.

evo_spook said,

They are able to offer their own payment systems aswell.

I am pretty sure part of the stipulation that the iTunes option was to be set as the default.

Subject Delta said,

I am pretty sure part of the stipulation that the iTunes option was to be set as the default.

got any evidence of that? All I've heard is that if they take payments they must also offer itunes as a choice aswell

Publishers and developers, it's simple... Use APPLE'S equipment and services (content management, payment management, legal protection) and pay APPLE'S %30 tax to maintain said equipment and service and quality. It's amazing how many think hosting should be free. Some one has to pay to keep the cloud a float. HOSTING is not free! Quit whining!

I'd like to add and am unable to "EDIT" existing post do to neowin's M$ love... If you don't like it go to another ecosystem, platform, whatever... Apple isn't bullying anybody to stay.

Commenting is disabled on this article.