Google has been running into conflicts with multiple regulators in countries across the globe (EU, UK, South Korea and India) regarding the compulsory usage of In-app billing from Play store vs. giving an option to app developers for an alternate payment system (loosely termed as "user-choice billing"). For context, Android has 97% market share amongst smartphone users in India.

Major gripe (amongst other reasons) from some of the big Indian developers against Android has been the 15% (sub-1Mn USD tier) and 30% (1Mn+ USD tier) commissions collected by Google as service fees, as part of developers using the in-app payment system.

Even with the user-choice billing, developers will only be charged 4% less than the original service fee. However, while implementing this, developers have to adhere to a set of Android guidelines, which specify the UX (UI, copy, trigger points for showing the screen) to be displayed to users on these apps.

These guidelines are most likely going to lead to:
☠ User annoyance: Displaying the information screen (once-per-user) at the start of the journey once a user initiates purchase (e.g. clicking on a CTA like 'Buy' on a product page)

❌ Purchase abandons due to FUD: Mandatory text such as "Only purchases through Google Play are secured by Google..", which are very likely to lead users to have doubts or hesitation creeping in

⚔ App updates getting delayed: Many more design & copy specifics are there, which will show app update approval process for Android developers, who implement this user-choice billing system.

Begs the question, if the incremental gains (4% reduction in services fees) is worth the potential loss in sales & delays in app updates due to introducing an alternate payment method in the Android app.