FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website
github.com
github.com
They have an ongoing investigation into Google and Apple's practices with regards to app stores (and mobile platforms in general) [1], and have been looking for evidence on the topic of competition in app stores, and dominance.
While the UK is just one country, the CMA has a wide mandate to act on competition matters and has announced their preliminary findings on the merger of Facebook and Giphy, which (in short) recommend a forced sale of Giphy to prevent potential future anticompetitive moves, such as through terms of service. They have a particular current interest in digital markets, and are forming a new unit specifically to deal with tech antitrust issues (the digital markets unit)
While the CMA public consultation on the Apple/Google mobile platforms work has closed, their investigation team can be contacted via the email inbox listed at [1]. When engaging with regulators like this (for anyone not familiar), it is helpful if you explain why a particular move has harmed you, and can give examples or any available evidence about it, and explain the impact that it has had on you, and the impact on the wider ecosystem as a result.
I'm sure other regulators are looking into this, but for those who are unhappy about this situation, I'd urge you to contact a regulator. If your own national regulator isn't looking into it, there's no reason not to contact the UK one (or indeed any other), and explain your concerns and help them with finding evidence - often for policy and enforcement teams, getting evidence together is the hard part of their job, and I can say from experience they do read their emails.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-ecosystems-market-study
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/facebook-s-takeover-of-gi...
The FTC has the Bureau of Competition[3].
Each individual state has an Attorney General office that will hear these types of complaints, and some of them have explicit antitrust divisions[4].
[1] https://www.justice.gov/atr
[2] https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations
[3] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competi...
At least skimming the termux issue here is that it was done for SELinux policy changes in trying to improve security of application running on Android. Is that correct? Then the app store is trying to enforce this newer policy via forced API upgrades.
As you said, you can at least still side load if you would like?
I'm not saying there aren't issues. I'm just saying that you can install and run from gplay.
Rather the general app sandbox has had tightened security, which affects api compatibility, thus play rejects it to make sure it’s future proofed by author. In the meantime, during phase-out, sideloading works so old versions of app suddenly don’t stop working, but eventually that call will stop working.
Whether apps should be allowed to download and execute code out of the apk bundle itself is of course another political topic.
From the Aurora Store FAQ:
What is the difference between Aurora Store and Google's Play store?
Unlike Google's Play Store, Aurora Store doesn't track your downloads or the apps you use. We respect your privacy. Aurora Store is also unaffected by Google marking your device as uncertified or lacking of necessary Google apps. Play Protect is not present, as this is a Play Store only feature.
Do I need Google Play Services to use Aurora Store?
No. Aurora Store was built to access the Google Play store without any kind of Google services. It doesn't matter if you use it with or without Google Play Services/MicroG.
Is it safe to use Aurora store?
Aurora Store is fully open-source and verified by F-Droid. If you're asking about the safety of the apps in the store, those are the exact same ones the Play Store would load and display. A lot of dangerous stuff seems to sneak past Google though, so as a rule of thumb, don't download anything which you're unsure about.
Google will always insist you meant <App> android and show you those results instead, which of course is the play store version if it exists.
https://i.imgur.com/3R6JzvB.png
The search results even gave me the correct name of the app in f-droid that is named differently. (firefox > fennec)
“Snapchat hdroid” also suggests “Snapchat Android” though, so it doesn’t seem targeted against f-droid specifically
Also, I want to tell you it gets better, I had problems getting sleep too for nearly a decade and it started really catching up with me as I entered my thirties (appetite, energy and cognitive issues for example). Turning screens off, limiting stimulants, not partying as much and keeping a regular wake up time _really_ helped me.
Best of luck to you.
>However, you may want to be careful as Google retains full rights to block any account under their Google Play Terms of Service §4 (opens new window), because using Aurora Store clearly violates their terms of services. Being banned means that the very Google account you used to sign in with will be blocked forever. It might be worth using a dummy account for that reason.
I don't know how often using aurora store has actually resulted in a ban though.
Here's the google play ToS:
https://play.google.com/intl/en-us_us/about/play-terms/index...
Am I reading this correctly in that, this seems to me like just telling people about something like Aurora is against the terms of services and can get you banned whether you use it or not?
As in, even the gp comment technically breaks that rule just by posting that Aurora FAQ?
That's fairly intense if so.
I've had many professional contracts with both private and commercial clients. In none of those cases was I ever allowed to provide a contract where I could just decide whatever I want, whenever I want and the customer is forced to agree otherwise...fuck them...and I still get paid.
Nobody wants to lose his milky cow.
Apple and Google have too much control.
House reps probably aren't setting their legislative agenda about monopolistic power based off of what the intelligence community would like the most.
"Why use another store, when Google and Apple are required by law to have all apps?"
They aren't going to force Google and Apple to have all apps?
Stopping the stores from demanding that all apps have no method of payment except via their payment services (and its 30% cut) would be good. It would solve the situation in TFA at least.
That isn’t at all what is being proposed
I will predict for you the future of that, based on the past.
The next people in line who control most devices are the carriers.
They will set up app stores that are required on their phones (since the laws will not prevent this).
Each will have exclusive apps that require their app store be installed (and will not be available on other phones).
Things will be a mishmash.
Nobody will be actually happy.
The carriers also have great lobbyists, and are really great at doing this kind of thing.
It will take a long time to undo it.
I’ve heard people say that about true compromise…
It seems like there are extremes, carriers were abusing their positions before Apple came up with iPhone and app store and wrangled power away from carriers. Now they have lived long enough to become the villain… it might be time to reset matrix again and work towards a better outcome.
I don't actually disagree with your assessment of what happened, but i don't have the hope people here do. I have watched the ebb and flow too many times, and lived in DC too long :)
I also think the hope is amazingly misplaced. Rarely, if ever, do complex systems like this change in the desired way as a result of trying to "fix them" directly. Sometimes they change, sometimes the inertia keeps them in the same state. But it rarely, if ever, does this kind of change have the intended effect.
They even teach this in complex system theory.
The Monkey's Paw, I take it.
Even if the horrors you suggest are true, consumers would have options to get around them, whilst right now, a single monopoly, Google, controls the entire playing field, and actively attacks anyone who tries to offer a path around (Epic, for instance).
The "ISP bogeyman" issue constantly feels hollow in tech circles considering there's a ton of actual competition in the provider space, and a complete and unassailable monopoly in the tech platform space.
Google has never restricted sideloading. Android 12 even enables sideloading further by allowing third party app stores to auto update.
AOSP exists. Third party roms exist. All of the devices sold by Google can be unlocked to install third party roms.
LineageOS doesn't exist because 'a complete and unassailable monopoly' allows them to.
AOSP is not meaningfully existing on any device sold today.
The fact you can hack your device doesn't change the monopoly Google operates that 99.9% of Android devices are trapped in.
It does prevent this. All apps and app stores included with the device must be disableable is in the language of the bill.
That won't get you the functionality!
My opinion is that Google, and Apple are Bundling/Tying at multiple levels, and using monopoly power in a way that stifles the market, and impedes innovation.
This is some good stuff on some of these issues https://www.justice.gov/atr/chapter-5-antitrust-issues-tying...
When was the last time they did anything good?
In the process they did lose me as a user of their free products though. And they lost me as a developer, I no longer opt for building with their tools, including Chrome, Android, Angular, GCloud, etc.
err, what? I still regularly get AMP links from news.google.com
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192685
I use the terminal theme in DDG, and it's become the canonical SERP in my mind. When I do !g every now and then, it feels like GSearch has become AltaVista with a dash of MySpace.
Oh I dunno... how about that time they solved protein folding?
like with WaveNet, it was easy to train but computationally infeasible to run the way they published the paper. then it turns out there's a trick that makes playing it forward far more efficient, which Google later acknowledged using internally, but didn't disclose.
But more often than not they release a lot of their weights and/or research code.
It's a building block that might pave the way for something else.
Large organizations can do both good and terrible things.
Google still serves are huge portion of search traffic which pretty clearly is a good thing. Youtube has an incredible wealth of tutorials & educational content. Deepmind is pushing the boundaries of what is possible. Various OSS projects continue to be pushed out. Gmail has been an amazing free resource for millions etc.
They are also doing terrible things as well.
All three have their problems (especially that third one) but they have done an incredible amount of Good in the world and they continue to do so every day.
As for YouTube, it is technically marvellous, but since they started censoring and silencing one side of a political spectrum, YT turned into a propaganda machine, no less.
It’s just not all black and white.
GP said: "without Google Maps it would not exist." It's not pedantry to note that's the opposite of the truth.
Like i said, i appreciated the comment, it was pedant for a very valid reason. Yours, less so.
Your dismissive tone all around is pretty jarring too.
You were factually, categorically wrong (twice now). That happens. You may want to accept it gracefully it and go on with your day.
You're not the person I was replying to, I don't have to justify myself to you. If you want me to be graceful, you can come watch me at the rink instead.
I just wanted to point out how wrong you were, and how petulant your reaction was when it was pointed out (several times), just in case it may help open your eyes. Obviously it didn't.
However, a nice and smooth client with drag and zoom was a rather obvious thing to do: a lot of computer games had maps in them as early as in late 1980s, like Sim City and many others, where you could zoom, drag along etc, and it wasn't done in OSM rigth from the start mostly due to pitiful state of web browsers and web standards of the time. So I think that even without Google Maps, OSM would have evolved to have great usability, just as it did in our timeline.
Hard disagree there, a single company dominating search is not a good thing.
The alternative isn't necessarily "there's five competing high quality google search competitors".
There were some nice unique things back then. It also sucked a lot. By the standards of back then we're living in pretty much a utopia. We have devices that Star Trek barely thought of. Seriously, I have a tablet that can speak to almost anyone anywhere in the world, instantaneously, translate into any language (imperfectly), look up any information, access to an encyclopedia tens of thousands of times larger than the most complete ones of just two decades ago, the ability to find free videos teaching me how to do anything, and that's all just the tip of the iceberg.
If I were to talk to someone in 2000 and list the shit we can do in just twenty years there is zero chance they would believe me. And it's not like the internet didn't exist back then. I was on it, as were many others on HN. Those who remember, remember that it mostly sucked.
What we have today sucks in different ways. But it's also accessible to billions of people, which is billions more than back then. That "nightmare" you're talking about is fixable, and it's certainly not fixable by "going back" to anything. You know there were also ads back then and they were just as awful as today, right? There were just less places where they could end up.
That's not to say it was a better time.
If you told me in 2000 about the things you listed I'd tell you you're a slowpoke, that's obviously coming and most things were actually already there like SIP, ICQ, IRC, translator software, browsers, etc. existed on the smartphones of the day. What wasn't there was the adoption by the masses, but the tech was there.
IMO it's a failing of society not so much google that they don't have serious competition in this space.
I hate to break this to you but google was born a villain. Nobody innately good has to remind themselves "Don't be evil". Imagine walking down the street and meeting a stranger constantly repeating "Don't be evil" to himself?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/app-store-competition-targeted-...
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/11/tech/apple-google-app-sto...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/11/22620454/apple-google-app...
For those of you who are old enough: Imagine if in 2000, Microsoft released "Windows Me" with something similar (for PC) to what Apple or Google are doing in the current dominant computing device form factor (Mobile). It just would not have been tolerated. Adobe, Netscape, Autodesk, Corel and others having to pay Microsoft a 15% cut for their software? Netscape? Opera? Apple having to pay 15% of the revenue from Apple Itunes? That's crazy...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....
As of September 2021, all apps distributed on the Play Store must use Google's billing method[1]. Apps listed on the Play Store cannot link to alternative payment or donation methods in the listing's description or in the app itself[1]. Google will take a 15% to 30% cut off all sales. These rules are similar to the rules on the App Store.
Google and Apple hold a duopoly in the mobile operating systems market and the mobile app distribution market. The move to enforce the adoption of Google's billing system seems like the mobile app distribution cartel is engaging in price fixing[2].
It also seems like Google and Apple have leveraged their duopolies in the mobile OS and app distribution markets to dominate the mobile app payments market, now, too.
[1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Also the way of OruxMaps is possible: one version published in the store and another published elsewhere:
«only donate version available in google play, because the free version "has been removed because it violates the payments policy"»
It's a shitty product developed by a shitty company.
It takes a mandatory 30% share of all of your payments for offering you a shitty service with no human support.
It has opaque and inconsistent removal practices completely managed by algorithms, and violating any of the many unwritten rules can result in the output of your hard work disappearing overnight, and what's worse is that often there's no human to validate these decisions and the reasons for removal aren't
F-Droid is the way to go if you build FOSS apps. Real humans are behind he keyboard to validate your app and answer your questions, the store sits completely outside of the money cycle, your source code is protected by the right licenses, and apps don't get banned just for linking a URL to their website.
This bullshit has to stop.
IIRC the main trigger was Windows 8 that back then had a strong push to only use Windows Store to install software.
Valve could not conceivably continue doing business if OS vendors took a cut of all purchases via their walled garden store, not to mention having the OS vendor limit what games they can distribute and how.
Steam has something like 100 million+ active monthly users. Certainly some are casual and wouldn't make the switch, but that's a lot of home desktop market share to lose even if only half made the switch initially, and there'd be a halo effect on it too, along with a much more motivated & active community dedicated to cross platform compatibility.
We'd probably see a lot of "linux first" applications (not just games) as well.
They have already signaled their willingness to add 3rd party stores with their partnership with Amazon for Android Apps.
Even if MS didn't demand a cut of the revenue, it would also probably mean Valve could no longer add whatever they wanted to Steam. If MS didn't impose some restrictions then Steam could completely allow circumvention of the MS store. Steam does sell some desktop products besides games, and presumably would want to keep that option open.
I could be wrong, but tying themselves so closely to MS would impose too many potential problems down the road and limit their ability to change or expand business models, too much risk to put their fate almost completely in Microsoft's hands.
Now, if MS purchased Valve, that might be different.
Once I realized there was little benefit to physical purchases anymore and the hassle of reinstalling games when I got a new machine I made the switch. But with GOG around I at least still get to mostly own the games available through them.
Definitely not as user friendly, but it does work. Alternatively you can use Game Conqueror, but it very basic compared to Cheat Engine.
(But I'll try your recipe, thanks!)
Steam machines failed because they tried to replace Windows with a worse user experience. In 2015, there were fewer native games and worse compatibility; nobody is going to just rise up and displace Microsoft from their entrenched throne as THE Desktop PC Gaming platform. Alternately, the Steam Deck is essentially inventing a whole new market; if players want a mobile, AAA game platform the only contender right now is a Nintendo Switch (which has an entirely different games library, with limited overlap mostly in "indie" game titles). So now instead of fighting Microsoft where they're strongest, they're fighting a console manufacturer in one place they can expect to be weaker.
Then once the Steam Deck is a widespread commercial success -- and from pre-orders, it looks like that's guaranteed -- Valve will have the foothold to push SteamOS as an equal games development space as Windows desktop. Coupled with the reports that Proton currently runs over 90% of the popular games which don't have a native client, this very well could introduce Linux (albeit indirectly) to the wider market in a way that could eventually challenge Microsoft's comfortable monopoly position.
All the predecessors (Nintendo DS, Playstation Vita, Nintendo Switch, etc.) have been regular consoles with heavy weight locked down walled garden, where all content had to pass a lot of byzantine review and respect least common denominator content rules and censorship.
With Steam deck there is finally a handheld platform where a much wider selection of games can be installed from itself that has much less insane content rules or totally separately directly from developers to users. Another community that has been mostly banned from consoles is moders - there are basically no games that support modding on consoles, yet its very popular in many games on PC. And finally, we have a handheld that can run games with mods!
So I would hope that this will turn out to be a big selling point of Steam Deck & that affected communities (independent content creators & modding community) would make sure they are not cut off again like they were on consoles.
While competition focuses on locking down, DRM, anti-piracy, etc, Valve just focuses on selling in-game hats.
In more seriousness: They also have good synergy with the Linux ecosystem, and locking out kind ends up working both ways.
windows is shit these days oh god.
If there was one thing that would push desktop linux into everyone's desktop in enterprise environments, it would be a move like this. And once that happens, similar to the initial home computing revolution, workers would bring it into their homes too.
As another comment mentioned, they'd almost certainly lose the desktop market among PC gamers when Valve & others refused to go along, and Valve's linux distro would be a very popular alternative.
The only issue companies have with getting their apps signed is managing the certificates.
Yes, getting their software into the MS store would be easy. Revenue and control aren't things they'd want to give up. Even if they simply raised their prices, at some point they'd say, "Hey, we can distribute this on Linux instead and keep the 5/10/30% cut MS is taking." (See Fortnite as an early example)
Even if they gave up no revenue, what company would say "Sure!" to MS saying, "Would you mind giving us tons of control over your software distribution?" I don't see what the companies would have to gain on that.
You can use my code however you like, but I still need money to pay rent.
If you pay me to write code, and you want to run it on your PC, there’s no reason we should be having to pay a third party to allow this.
You shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run any software on your own devices and especially you shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run software you or your friend made modifications to.
Apple already does this on macOS. macOS treats all un-Notarized apps as if they're radioactive, and leads users to believe the un-Notarized apps they choose to run are either broken or malicious. If you want to run them, you need to know how to perform a magic ritual with the UI and adjust arcane settings. Every Mac based on the M1 chipset and above will not run unsigned binaries, either.
With both Apple's Gatekeeper and Microsoft's Defender, developers must regularly buy certificates to sign their apps, and they must remain in good standing with each company if they want their apps to run without problems on macOS or Windows. Apple and Microsoft can revoke certificates whenever they want, for any reason they want, and macOS and Windows won't allow apps signed with the revoked certificates to run. Apple goes one step further and forces app developers to Notarize their apps, which involves uploading the app to Apple's servers so they can scan and approve of it. Un-Notarized apps are, again, treated as if they're radioactive.
If you use the Mac App Store or the Microsoft Store, your operating system won't trick you into believing that the apps you downloaded with them are malicious or broken. It's no coincidence that the happy path for app distribution on either system is the same one that generates the most revenue for either company and hands them the most control.
So this is different to Intel macs? You can’t just go to security and privacy and “allow”?
[1] http://www.rahulgaitonde.org/blog/2020/11/12/apple-m1-and-th...
Windows recently started blocking torrenting software due to being “malware”. Coincidence that it’s the main distribution mechanism for Linux distribution’s installation media?
(Even taking this precedent at face value, it could impact any app that prominently features links to websites where donations are asked for, which seems quite unreasonable.)
In the end, the people will speak out and respond to back-doors. In-fact we need FLOSS app stores right now (Similar to F-Droid[0], but baked in as the default store), and they need to be funded properly & they need sound economic incentives to continue. No more 'free' apps where you pay for them with your data. It's possible to have FLOSS apps that are not gratis where people pay for them with money, not their data.
(The reason I suggest we switch to FLOSS app stores is that the apps can easily be checked for back-doors or malicious code since the code is open source. It makes the apps readily available for audits too)
Oof. So the app didn't link to the donate page, and it was at least 1 click away (maybe 2) from the page it did link to.
Probably.
Do I think Google made that decision consciously and this is part of their scheme?
No, I think they screwed up the way that they do all the time, won't apologize for it, and if they decide to reverse themselves this time, they could still un-reverse their judgement after any future update, or just because Google is incompetent that way.
Their decisions are slow, arbitrary and often inconsistent. Regularly, they are not answering at all.
We are fighting with Google for 8 months already. Our app was suspended 5 times. We re-submitted 3 new apps in order to comply. They approved our appeals request, only to suspend the app one week later. A process error as admitted 3 months later by Google. Our app was even in quantum state once: both approved and suspended at the same time. The story still goes on ...
All other app stores, like Apple App Store, Huawei AppGallery, and Samsung Galaxy Store made a thorough check once, but all approved the app months ago.
When I started a startup, I was afraid of bureaucracy in Germany. Turns out that in fact the greatest threat is Google's (non existing) customer support.
To be clear, I don't blame the customer support itself. They are doing their best. It just seems that Google is seriously understaffed in this area. It's outrageous that the 30 percent fee is not invested in sufficient man power.
Also, consider hooking up with the Coalition for App Fairness, who may be able to help draw more visibility to your issue: https://appfairness.org/
The only solution to constant abuse by app market actors is legal action.
Don’t support this madness anymore. PWAs aren't as good but they are good enough for most use cases. Just refuse to make apps for these platforms anymore.
If every dev does it there will be overwhelming pressure for Apple and Google to improve PWA support. Just keep pushing back against this.
Personally, I think >90% of all apps I've used could be implemented as a PWA, as nothing they do really require native performance.
The main issues I see are
1. The DX needs some improvement
2. Apple are dragging their feet implementing new web tech on Safari, and are therefore holding everyone hostage since you cannot install any other browser on iOS.
For the record I'm also pro Apple implementing richer PWA support as I personally see both approaches coexisting.
The App stores have become a cartel and I'd love to see their unscrupulous behavior challenged in court. (Epic is doing that, but your case is easier to sympathize with).
First of all -- app stores need to make money or at least break even. They cost a lot of money to run. So app stores take a cut of all transactions. If they let developers implement their own payment mechanisms, either in-app or with a single link, then developers will make every app free, with a link to their own payment, and the app store now becomes unsustainable and we're back to the same malware problems that plagued early versions of Windows.
At the same, there are legitimate use cases where an app is just one facet of a whole service, and so the app store lets users consume content purchased elsewhere, just not buy it directly -- see e.g. Kindle, etc.
Now how is an app store going to draw the line? Well an easy rule is: prohibit any information about payment, and prohibit a link to any page that has a link to make a payment or talks about making payments.
It's a pretty reasonable rule. So in this case, the developer had a link to a page that at the bottom has a link to make a payment. Not allowed.
Sure the developer can argue the reviewer had to "scroll to the very bottom of the page" but it doesn't matter. It's on the page. And then they say the reviewer had to "click through twice to find a way to contribute funds" but that's false -- clicking through twice is just part of the payment process. The main page already has direct links to Patreon and for PayPal.
Would it be nice if Google could add a subrule that links are allowed if they're at the very bottom of the page? Well how do you even define that, what if the page is a single sentence and then payment options? Or a rule that "donations" are allowed? Well then you get "donations" that come with "bonus functionality" and so forth, and a new line has to be drawn.
So is this annoying for the creator? Absolutely. But is Google hugely in the wrong? It's not perfect, but they had to make some kind of rule and the one they've got is pretty decent. Can the creator do anything about it? Yeah -- they can just link to a page on their website that doesn't contain donate buttons. It's really easy. Or else allow donations in-app but allow the app store to take their cut, which goes towards hosting, distribution and discovery of the app anyways.
>Or a rule that "donations" are allowed? Well then you get "donations" that come with "bonus functionality" and so forth, and a new line has to be drawn.
There really isn't any ambiguity about what constitutes a donation. If you receive something in return, it isn't a donation.
I would argue that Google could easily permit donations of any kind at no detriment to themselves.
The service Google provides is the Play Store, and it'd be extremely reasonable for everyone to pay for it. We aren't entitled to that for free. On the other hand, a cut of all transactions? How about a flat baseline fee for platform development plus usage-based fees for everything else, from bandwidth to support?
But then they wouldn't be able to double dip on users and app developers... Plus, they so kindly give you so much exposure on a platform built themselves! You wouldn't expect to rent a place in Times Square and not pay for it with a percentage of your income, right?
> Would it be nice if Google could add a subrule that links are allowed if they're at the very bottom of the page? Well how do you even define that, what if the page is a single sentence and then payment options? Or a rule that "donations" are allowed? Well then you get "donations" that come with "bonus functionality" and so forth, and a new line has to be drawn.
You're leading yourself down a garden path here. To break even, an app store only needs to take in enough to cover its hosting and traffic costs. It doesn't have to take a cut of all transactions.
No, they don't. The moment google and apple designed their phone os to favor the official app store over 3rd party, they lost the ability to make this argument.
> They cost a lot of money to run. So app stores take a cut of all transactions. If they let developers implement their own payment mechanisms, either in-app or with a single link, then developers will make every app free, with a link to their own payment, and the app store now becomes unsustainable and we're back to the same malware problems that plagued early versions of Windows.
They could make the dev pay for this directly, rather then take a cut. cost per-download plus cost per-review and failed appeal could cut this down dramatically.
They also don't get to push their business decisions on to devs that want access to device users.
Google decided to make the phone favor their app store, google decided to drive more users to only use and trust their app store. Google decided to use restricted apis to do this. Google decided to have google play protect trigger virus warnings on any 3rd party installed app. They made the business decision to do those things to the phone OS to disfavor 3rd party app stores, and i think the moment they did so, they stopped having a right to run the play store at a profit or even at break even, and they definitely stopped having a right to demand a cut on all of an apps profits.
It's sad that a project like this has to suffer the bureaucracies of these awful gatekeepers. IIRC, he started teaching language for free in order to encourage understanding between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
Can you finally see that Google (YouTube), Apple, Microsoft and Facebook are NOT your friends?
But this is just a tip of an iceberg.
While sometimes Google does something to patch the issue, it can not on itself fix it. Because it is caused by a core flaw of the company business model.
It supports two competing platforms where only one earns money and gives control. It renders Google to be incapable of supporting both app creators and open web properly.
I wrote about it lately:
https://tomaszs2.medium.com/ups-we-broke-the-web-again-sorry...
Of course, there are other ways to use LT on your phone (download the files and play them with any audio player). But the app has a nice clean interface that reduces distractions, which is important because you need to tap 'pause' pretty often to get the best out of the experience.
For context, Zulip is a 100% open-source team chat project (in the same space as Slack/IRC/etc.). You can self-host Zulip, which we've put a lot of effort into making easy, or host it on Zulip Cloud (with both free and paid plans). There's no individual subscription option for the product at all -- just like with Slack -- so the app store policies to enforce their monopoly by requiring all individual purchases be taxed by Google/Apple shouldn't even apply to us.
But we've still had multiple rounds of rejections caused by aggressive enforcement of these policies:
* A couple years ago, Apple reviewers repeatedly rejected updates to the app because the privacy policy / terms of service pages linked from the app contained the zulip.com website footer, which in turn link to the pricing page for Zulip's paid offerings. This means our Privacy Policy could be a way to get people to buy something without paying the Apple tax! We "resolved" this, on the advice of their appeals expert, by passing a special parameter when loading these pages from the ToS/Privacy links in the mobile apps that hides the header/footer sections of the page :(.
* In May, Apple reviewers repeatedly rejected the Zulip mobile app for linking to its own source on GitHub. At first we thought the problem was that we had recently set up GitHub Sponsors [1]. Further correspondence determined that the problem was even more ridiculous: Any GitHub page has a tiny link in the https://github.com/zulip/zulip-mobile footer for GitHub's own pricing! We were able to convince them to approve it in the end, but we were close to giving up and removing the GitHub links. I'm still upset about the whole experience because it was a huge waste of energy.
It's not clear to me whether these rejections are what Apple's policies intended or just the policies being incorrectly applied. But it doesn't really matter: these appeal processes are opaque and scary and mostly consist of them repeating what you need to change with minimal explanation. If not for the entrenched monopoly, we'd be looking to switch to another vendor that wasn't so sloppy about something that's very important to us. I think the harm caused by sloppiness on the part of monopolies doesn't get enough attention.
[1] This would have been wrong too, though I do know some companies use a Patreon as the way to sell their product, and I can imagine that being a workaround that Apple would be on the lookout for. But it's easy to check that we're definitely not playing that game.
Aside from that, as an app developer, I'm really looking forward to that bill that will hopefully weaken app stores.
Additionally, my app currently has an if statement: if android, show patreon link. I thought they didn’t care! Goes they just haven’t noticed it yet.
Placing a link to a site which contains a link to another site with the actual donations links is fine...for now.
"Don't be evil"
You know something is not well
What misinformation?
What's linked is a clickbait article about how they moved the phase from the opening statement to the closing statement in the Code of Conduct. That says nothing at all about its use as a motto.
We've allowed AI systems unfettered, unrestricted access to our lives. AI is being deployed with absolutely no oversight (Apple's CSAM comes to mind), I'm not even sure there are any laws at all. How can apple just deploy a new system without having to first go through the courts? We all know at some point someone will lodge a suit against them for an inaccurate match...
Decisions like this must be deferred to a human, who creates a record and is capable in case anything untoward happens. AI seems exempt from any liability (this is probably why so many places are deploying such systems, as a society it seems we've decided that no matter what good or bad may happen "AI" gets a free pass and no human will likely go to jail, even if your self driving car kills you).
The fact you can be deprived due to a mistaken software error is one of the most awful things in our society, and this has happened far too many times for it to go ignored time and again.
But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time.
How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN before we DEMAND action be taken?
See you next month ;).
A developer has their app removed, perhaps their livelihood, and Google can't be fucked to sign off who made the decision?
If it was a human I expect to know who, and who I can write to so it can be reviewed, by another human. I want to know how I can contact a human for support and not some useless AI chat bot that seem to be all the rage these days (looking at you Amazon...)
But yes, it's happened so much by AI you just assume these days...like a YouTube takedown for example by a bot.
Is it because the payment is optional (and doesn't unlock new features) that make you think this should be except from Google's rules (and potentially taxes?)?
I don't think anyone is arguing for this app in particular to get an exception from the rules. People are arguing that this rule is ridiculous and that nobody should have to follow it as it's currently written.
The first is that it's a donation, not a purchase, and changes nothing about the app. The second is that there's no mention of donation anywhere in the app, and the website/about/more info link does go to a website with more info.
If you instead, like Google, decide that this still counts, you end up the in the (in my opinion, clearly wrong) situation where Google either controls what you put on your independent website, or Google disallows you from linking to your website/portfolio in the app you made.
That sounds quite draconian to me. I wonder if adding an in-app purchase that says "donate w/cut to Google" would appease them.
[1] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1474671/129396236-...
I disagree with you on the funding the app developer angle. If you seek funding in a way supported, even indirectly, by the app’s availability in the Play Store, Google wants its cut. If you don’t want that support, you’re free to go it alone without the store.
This clearly isn't Ubisoft.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
"Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment. Play-distributed apps must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment if they require or accept payment for access to features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods."
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Can you explain which of those categories this payment ("The app doesn't provide any special features to people who donate; it's just a way to help support the project.") falls under?
If I put an app up on the app store for free, then link to my site and ask for donations, I am effectively using the app store for free. The app in question is effectively setup to say "you don't need to pay for this app, but we would really like you too"... and then the payment is handled outside the play store. Arguing over whether it should be called payment or a donation doesn't really change the fact that is it the user giving money to the developer because of the app; the app they got on the play store. That's the behavior that the rule in intended to avoid.
Frankly it seems to me that the intent of the rules is to specifically allow asking for payment/"donation" outside of Play so long as nothing in your app is affected by it.
"Google Play's billing system must not be used in cases where:... payments include peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and tax exempt donations;"
That is, according to the screenshot in the GitHub PR, the app was removed for using the Google Play billing system when they shouldn't be using it. It was not removed for failing to use the Google Play Billing system when they should have been.
I have no idea how they might have been using Google Play billing. There is no billing code on GitHub that I see. Maybe they turned on billing on the Play Store accidentally, or maybe the screenshot has the wrong policy violation.
Imagine if you went into Walmart, bought an Android phone, and then when you turned the phone on Google wasn't allowed to show you any links in the Android OS to their support pages because technically you can navigate from the support pages to the online Google store and then buy another phone from them directly without giving Walmart a cut.
I don't think Google would call that a reasonable restriction, I think Google would call that anticompetitive.
No, imagine if you went into Walmart, picked up an item for free and then used PayPal to sidestep Walmarts margin. And then threw a giant fuss because Walmart stopped stocking that free item.
Google is listing the app as free. Separately, on a website via a page that is not linked from the main app in any location, you can donate to the developer. The developer is not linking to or steering the user towards that donation page in the app or in the app description, they're just linking to their code repository, which is clearly important for an Open Source app to do. If Walmart gave me a product for free, and separately I donated some money to the person who originally made that product, Walmart wouldn't really have much justification to complain.
The analogy you're proposing doesn't really make sense to me. Are you arguing that any method of donating to the developer at all outside of the Play Store is intrinsically stealing from Google? Are you arguing that the developer is stealing from Google by not hiding their donation pages on other platforms that exist outside of the app?
This is Google. At this point this is expected behaviour from one of the Big Tech Tyrants, Over [0] and over [1] and over [2] again [3] multiple [4] times [5]. Unless we seriously break it up, they will never change and the suspensions will continue.
Like Facebook, when you are banned by their AI moderation tools, there is little redemption and it's unlikely they will give the account back; since you don't even own it.
Once again, these tyrants are NOT your friends.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26488655
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693679
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22334537
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24984408
That old saying about patriots and tyrants comes to mind...
I completely agree with you, but do realize that the majority of hacker newses are coders (not even programmers) who would never take responsibility for their shoddy work. Heavens forbid they, or their management, be held personally liable for their mistakes. They won't even call defects, "defects"--they're just "bugs"! Whoopsies!
What could they be hiding in all that proprietary code--incompetence, malice, or both?
Edit: To be fair I can't imagine a situation where it would ever make sense. The link-depth in this case was 2. This is just bad behavior on the part of Google.
> That's right; someone at Google reviewed this app, visited the LT website, scrolled to the very bottom of the page, and clicked through twice to find a way to contribute funds to the project. Our app isn't allowed to link to the homepage of the project's own website unless we completely remove our users' ability to discover a way to give us money."
So that's the answer to your question. AI is irrelevant here because existing processes that are performed by humans are unaccountable or unjust, too.
(This is my problem with "AI foom" doomsaying, by the way: we've clearly gotten to a point without AI where groups of humans, acting in individually rational ways, have built a monstrous system that nobody can either understand in its entirety or effectively oppose. We got there centuries ago, for that matter, at least as far back as when the phrase "invisible hand" was invented. The problem here is not that we have moved accountability from a human to an AI, it's that we've moved accountability from a human to a corporation, and it is quite obviously unjust to hold the individual anonymous Google reviewer responsible for accurately following the instructions of their minimum-wage job, but we also have no way to find the PM or exec who wrote these policies and they probably don't even know what the impact of those policies is.)
> But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time.
HN has had tons of threads on these general topics. They are heavily discussed in this forum and spend plenty of time on the front page.
Maybe some such threads have been flagged—most likely that would be because users get tired of repetition. If you've developed the impression that the topic is somehow being suppressed, that's probably because you've overgeneralized from a few data points (or one) that you saw on some occasion(s).
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Since these payments are considered taxable income, I am not sure why they would think they could avoid Google's rules just because they are a "small one-man shop".
The simple solution here is to add in-app purchases like every other "small one-man shop" and not ask for noncompetitive advantages and accept Google's 15% cut [0].
[0] - https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2021/03/boosting-d...
Mincing words to make your argument is kinda frown upon here.
Besides, Google has to maintain the App Store to keep their OS afloat.
Google should have to compete on merit and if somebody doesn't want to give Google/Apple a cut, too bad.
These platforms should probably not be placed under the control of such large entities, Android/iOS should be split into their own organisation .
Google/Apple can then pick their OS or appstore, not both.
More like race to the bottom quality, security, spyware, malware, shitty ripoff of other people's work promoted over the original, fake bank apps, fake WhatsApp when you wanted the real one, etc.
Your Linux distro is not in a race to the bottom on any of these things. It works in a completely different way from an app marketplace on a money-handling device. And you know you are running Linux, you know what you're getting.
We should have multiple app stores. But don't be under any illusion that it can only turn out like Linux distros. I would expect some terrible "stores" just like there are some really dodgy apps, some of them installed on users' devices without their knowledge.
- on F-Droid, an app store dedicated for OSS software
- on Samsung Store, an app store preinstalled on most Android phones sold in US and other western world
- on Amazon store
- on Huawei app store
- on their own webpage as a downloadable APK
But what they really want is to use Googles distribution system while not paying the margin.
You're right, GP should have been more explicit: these aren't payments subject to Google Play's "us-only" policy.
Patently, yes:
-- "donation" means one can get the product independently of any money transfer;
-- «paying from work», «charging for apps», «require or accept payment for access to features or services», means that getting the product is conditional to money transfer.
"Donation" is not "payment".
In fact, I do not quite understand on which contractual reason the ban happened.
I don't think they are.
> If you load the website externally using the mobile browser it shouldn't be an issue.
The screenshots look like browser and not some in-app website view.
Most obvious indicator is the 40 other tabs they have open in their browser on the top right.