[HN Gopher] FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to ...
___________________________________________________________________
FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's
website
Author : timothyaveni
Score : 559 points
Date : 2021-08-13 18:28 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| g_p wrote:
| I'd urge anyone who finds this behaviour unacceptable to contact
| the UK's CMA - the regulator responsible for competition.
|
| 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...
| _moof wrote:
| Every time I see a headline like this I think, "ok, let's dig
| deeper here and find out what _actually_ happened. " But no, in
| this case, this is actually what happened, and it's complete
| garbage. In fact it's even _worse_ than the headline.
| tomaszs wrote:
| There is an obvious internal conflict of interest in Google.
| Donation based app being banned are a result of that conflict of
| interest.
|
| 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...
| yorwba wrote:
| Is there a specific reason the app is not available via F-Droid?
| My guess is lack of time, but maybe it's something else?
| 1xdevnet wrote:
| As of last year[0] it looks like they were trying to make sure
| the app assets had clear licenses first.
|
| [0] https://github.com/language-transfer/lt-app/issues/24
| squarefoot wrote:
| Tell Google how you feel about that by searching "google app
| store alternatives", then installing Aurora Store.
|
| https://auroraoss.com/
|
| https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS
|
| 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.
| jcranberry wrote:
| This may also be relevant to those wishing to switch. In the
| part of the FAQ concerning using your own account to login.
|
| >However, you may want to be careful as Google retains full
| rights to block any account under their Google Play Terms of
| Service SS4 (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...
| BelenusMordred wrote:
| Always amuses me when using google to search for _< App>
| f-droid_.
|
| 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.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I searched for "ssh f-droid" and the top 4 results were
| f-droid SSH apps, then a link to a reddit post, and then a
| link to JuiceSSH on the Play store.
| techrat wrote:
| What you speak of does not appear to be the case.
|
| 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)
| SquareWheel wrote:
| Worked fine here.
|
| https://i.imgur.com/2vWBEG4.png
| josephcsible wrote:
| How does this help? The Aurora Store is just an alternative
| Play Store client. If Google removes an app from the Play
| Store, it'll be gone from this too.
| slim wrote:
| Aurora could add other sources in the future or simply run
| it's own store.
| squarefoot wrote:
| Aside from protection against profiling, it sends the message
| that users are aware of alternatives. Enough people doing
| that should in the long run discourage Google from bullying
| publishers that would have other means for distributing their
| software. I agree that it's not easy, and needs _a lot_ of
| people jumping to alternative app stores before something
| could change, but I don 't see other ways since it's clear
| that Google has no intention to listen to their users.
| gowld wrote:
| Aurora isn't an alternative App Store. It's an alternative
| Play Store _client_.
| bjarneh wrote:
| When a company has to remove the motto
|
| _" Don't be evil"_
|
| You know something is not well
| SquareWheel wrote:
| Please be mindful not to spread misinformation. The motto is
| still featured in their code of conduct as it always was.
|
| https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
| bjarneh wrote:
| > "Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code
| of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto.
|
| What misinformation?
|
| Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
| SquareWheel wrote:
| The article is wrong, and this is explained in the Talk
| page. There's no source for the claim that the motto has
| been removed.
|
| 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.
| itake wrote:
| The developer is asking people to optionally pay for his app.
| From a tax perspective, the dev would owe taxes on this income,
| since he is not a not-for-profit legal entity.
|
| 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...
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| I'd never heard of them, but judging by their website it looks
| like they produce apps for iOS, for Android and also have a
| webapp. Should they be required to remove an optional donation
| link from their website even though it might not have anything
| to do with Android at all? How does this involve Google
| exactly?
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| It sounds like they are asking for donations on their website,
| not through the app. Do the terms of service really extend past
| the app to the website for the project?
| oauea wrote:
| You do realize that Google is not the government? What do taxes
| have to do with anything?
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| People using "donations" to refer to tips on free services is
| an old practice and not one you should be arguing is the same
| as a non-profit.
|
| Mincing words to make your argument is kinda frown upon here.
| noasaservice wrote:
| Proof #32767 why monopolies are bad
| blacklight wrote:
| I have said it many times already: stop uploading your apps to
| the Play Store.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| whocares2345 wrote:
| Is there any particular reason the author paying rent via
| donations is different from any of us paying rent from our work?
| You decided to use Googles distribution platform and
| infrastructure while not sharing the revenue - fully knowing it
| is illegal in the Play Store to accept payments outside of the
| platform. Basically you attempted to steal the efforts Google
| invested in creating and promoting Android, it's development
| tools and infrastructure - and they banned you for it.
| Siira wrote:
| Donations are voluntary, in-app purchases unlock features
| (traditionally).
|
| Besides, Google has to maintain the App Store to keep their OS
| afloat.
| aboringusername wrote:
| Sorry but this is why we need regulation and fast. We need by
| default other app stores on all operating systems (similar to
| search engines Google were forced to advertise)
|
| 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.
| foota wrote:
| To play devil's advocate, competing app stores could just be
| a race to the bottom.
| danuker wrote:
| Excellent. The price for distributing software should be
| very small. My Linux distro gives me free gigabytes of
| updates every month.
| jlokier wrote:
| I don't think they mean a race to the bottom _price_ as
| the problem.
|
| 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.
| whocares2345 wrote:
| Agreed, software developers should be paid minimum wage -
| they're not really creating anything real right?......
| izacus wrote:
| There's absolutely nothing stopping the author from
| distributing his app in following ways:
|
| - 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.
| 0x426577617265 wrote:
| These aren't payments. The user isn't purchasing anything.
| EvanDotPro wrote:
| Only one of these two statements is true.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| "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."
|
| You're right, GP should have been more explicit: these
| aren't payments subject to Google Play's "us-only" policy.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _Is there any particular reason the author paying rent via
| donations is different from any of us paying rent from our
| work_
|
| 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.
| tnash wrote:
| Absolutely absurd take from Google here. What could they be
| thinking? It's like they want app store legislation.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Is the cost of losing not-quite exclusivity on Android worth
| the benefit of gaining a foothold in Apple land?
|
| 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.
| AJRF wrote:
| I'm an iOS developer but I would never ever start an iOS or
| Android app as a side project.
|
| 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.
| legrande wrote:
| Just so people know, the two dominating app stores are under
| scrutiny because of the monopoly they have on the market:
|
| 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...
| xtracto wrote:
| As they are, app stores are crap. They are a huge control
| mechanism to stiff competition.
|
| 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...
| ribosometronome wrote:
| A Microsoft operating system was on 97% of all computing
| devices in the year 2000, even higher if you narrow the
| definition to something like "home computer".
| tomnipotent wrote:
| Microsoft didn't a collect a tax on every dollar made from
| every business distributing on Windows.
| xtracto wrote:
| Well... they did have the "Windows Tax" ( https://en.wiki
| pedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows ).
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| Microsoft didn't block or remove apps from the internet.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| How can two app stores have a _mono_poly?
| ranger207 wrote:
| They have a monopoly in their markets, which is "on their
| OS". The exact definition of their markets, in particular if
| it's "on their OS" or "on phones in general", is one of the
| major points of contention in the case
| josephcsible wrote:
| Compare the situation to ISPs. There's Comcast, Cox, Charter,
| etc., but a given location is often only served by one of
| them, so they don't actually compete with each other.
| Similarly, nobody has a choice between those two app stores.
| iOS users can't use the Google Play Store, and Android users
| can't use the Apple App Store.
| tyingq wrote:
| _" 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."_
|
| 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.
| tabbott wrote:
| We've had similar problems with keeping Zulip in the Apple app
| store. It's incredibly unpleasant to deal with this aspect of
| publishing an open source application.
|
| 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.
| TrianguloY wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is written somewhere, but from personal
| experience: "you can't place a url whose content contains a
| direct link to a donation service (paypal, patreon, etc) nor in
| your app nor in the play store description".
|
| Placing a link to a site which contains a link to another site
| with the actual donations links is fine...for now.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| This is outrageous. Google _definitely_ lived long enough to
| become a villain. It is incredible how much goodwill they 've
| lost in the past decade.
|
| When was the last time they did anything _good_?
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| That is very black and white thinking.
|
| 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.
| scrollaway wrote:
| Yeah, google does awful shit every day but it's worth
| remembering that Maps, Search and YouTube are world-changing
| resources.
|
| 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.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| The world changing resource is OpenStreetMap. Google Maps
| is just an asset to better track users.
|
| 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.
| scrollaway wrote:
| I love OSM but without Google Maps it would not exist.
|
| It's just not all black and white.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| _Actually_ , OSM was launched before Google Maps, in
| August 2004, while Google Maps were launched only in
| February 2005, six months later.
| scrollaway wrote:
| I enjoyed your pedantry :) that's fair enough, but I
| maintain that without Maps it would not exist in its
| current state as a reliable alternative to it. Just like
| I maintain that without Google Search we would not have
| Bing.
| hundchenkatze wrote:
| > Google still serves are huge portion of search traffic
| which pretty clearly is a good thing.
|
| Hard disagree there, a single company dominating search is
| not a good thing.
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| It might be bad that it's a monopoly but that doesn't point
| to the value delivered by each search as negative.
|
| IMO it's a failing of society not so much google that they
| don't have serious competition in this space.
| scrollaway wrote:
| Some of us remember Lycos and AltaVista, you know.
|
| The alternative isn't necessarily "there's five competing
| high quality google search competitors".
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I think the web felt a lot larger and more reachable in
| the Lycos and AltaVista days, I'd be happy to go back
| there over the nightmare we have now.
| scrollaway wrote:
| You're wearing so many layers of rose-tinted glasses that
| you're probably Redshift-compatible.
|
| 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.
| dotcommand wrote:
| > Google definitely lived long enough to become a villain.
|
| 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?
| jonas21 wrote:
| > _When was the last time they did anything good?_
|
| Oh I dunno... how about that time they solved protein folding?
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4
| [deleted]
| martin1975 wrote:
| that's great. Whom has been impacted by this and how, in more
| detail? I would say Google Maps is far more impactful and
| good than any protein folding....
| nbardy wrote:
| Or the other reams of world class machine learning research
| and model weights they've released freely.
| rrobukef wrote:
| Mad science to prove the point.
| maxwell wrote:
| I was glad they walked back on Dragonfly and (effectively)
| killed AMP.
|
| 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.
| pengaru wrote:
| > and (effectively) killed AMP
|
| err, what? I still regularly get AMP links from
| news.google.com
| maxwell wrote:
| I was referring to https://plausible.io/blog/google-amp
|
| Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192685
| [deleted]
| tyingq wrote:
| The incentive to move to AMP is gone, since it's no longer
| needed to land in the carousel, but moving off of it is
| still a project/effort.
| sintaxi wrote:
| AMP failed.
| nanidin wrote:
| I switched to Duck Duck Go on mobile as a direct result of
| AMP. So not only did AMP fail, but Google lost most of the
| eyeball time they were getting from me and they're not
| getting it back any time soon.
| maxwell wrote:
| Yeah that was what made me switch to DDG from GSearch as
| well in late 2018.
|
| 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.
| legrande wrote:
| App ecosystems can't work properly if they're weakened by LEAs.
| People would just not use them if they know they're being
| watched. I'm not saying the majority would switch to Linux phones
| either (like Librem 5 & Pinephone), simply that the two
| dominating app-stores (Play & Apple Store) would be phased out
| and people would probably fund independent FLOSS app stores to
| replace them.
|
| 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)
|
| [0] https://f-droid.org/
| endisneigh wrote:
| why you should make your app a web app if technically possible,
| example #203942
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Google is cracking down on their Play Store and enforcing similar
| rules to the ones Apple enforces on their App Store.
|
| 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...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
| mdp2021 wrote:
| A rule like <<cannot link to [...] donation methods>> - surely
| arbitrary and unfair to some judgements - should move away
| developers.
|
| 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"_>>
| rkagerer wrote:
| Got a Donate link to contribute toward a lawsuit?
|
| 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).
| collaborative wrote:
| This is illegal and unethical. But if it were Apple you would get
| "I am glad Apple forces developers blablabla" responses. Now
| downvote and enjoy your iSpied device
| nousermane wrote:
| Another example of arbitrary playstore rules killing a FOSS app -
| playstore version of termux is stuck on a 2-year-old release
| (0.101) and can't run on Android 10 at all. If you install from
| F-Droid - latest version is available (0.117) and works on
| Android 10, too.
|
| https://github.com/termux/termux-app/issues/1072
|
| https://wiki.termux.com/wiki/Termux_Google_Play
| sgtfrankieboy wrote:
| I really hope Epic wins the lawsuit against Apple and that the
| laws being announced in the US Senate/House get passed. I also
| hope the EU start pushing against this kind of stuff more.
|
| Apple and Google have too much control.
| DannyBee wrote:
| Y'all are too optimistic.
|
| 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.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| > They will set up app stores that are required on their
| phones (since the laws will not prevent this).
|
| It does prevent this. All apps and app stores included with
| the device must be disableable is in the language of the
| bill.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| There are three major national carriers (a fourth launching
| soon), and an absolute glut of smaller MVNOs which offer
| devices on their own terms. Most of both the national
| carriers and the MVNOs will also allow you to bring your own
| device, which as long as isn't running Android, is probably
| not encumbered by malicious code.
|
| 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.
| techrat wrote:
| Nearly everything you've said was bullshit.
|
| 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.
| totetsu wrote:
| My Japanese work phone came bundled with "app pass" an app
| store with a monthly 350yen subscription cost. I didnt even
| know it existed till I saw some brief toast overlay about it
| updating successfully. https://kuronekoblog.com/6169/
| hypothesis wrote:
| > Nobody will be actually happy.
|
| 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.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| I hope Epic wins also.
|
| 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...
| Siira wrote:
| Which is why Apple's volunteered to run on-device surveillance
| programs. Between their lobbying power and the holy grail of
| utter surveillance, the governments will never stand for the
| basic rights of the people.
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| governments aren't monoliths, there are many players that are
| looking for different things.
|
| House reps probably aren't setting their legislative agenda
| about monopolistic power based off of what the intelligence
| community would like the most.
| ajklsdhfniuwehf wrote:
| there are, at most, two groups.
| young_unixer wrote:
| I can also see how legislation would worsen the situation by
| eliminating incentives for people to use alternative mobile
| stores and operating systems.
|
| "Why use another store, when Google and Apple are required by
| law to have all apps?"
| jjcon wrote:
| > Why use another store, when Google and Apple are required
| by law to have all apps
|
| That isn't at all what is being proposed
| sgtfrankieboy wrote:
| The laws are about being able to provide alternative payment
| methods and stores.
|
| They aren't going to force Google and Apple to have all apps?
| anonymousab wrote:
| I think there are a couple of different pieces of
| legislation, and the "allow multiple stores without
| discriminating" one is a bit more recent so they may not
| have seen that one yet.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Forcing the stores to have all the apps would be bad -
| swamped in shitty malware.
|
| 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.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| This is sad, but I do think I see the issue here. You are loading
| the website in your own app so it is considered part of the app
| experience. If you load the website externally using the mobile
| browser it shouldn't be an issue.
| [deleted]
| croes wrote:
| Nope, it's an external link and even it wasn't it would be a
| lame excuse. What if a webpage links to google.com, does that
| count as providing access to violence and pornography?
| Saris wrote:
| You can see from the screenshots that Google sent with the
| rejection that they have it loaded in Chrome.
|
| Most obvious indicator is the 40 other tabs they have open in
| their browser on the top right.
| timothyaveni wrote:
| Nope, we're not actually. On my device, anyway, the link opens
| in Chrome, not in an in-app browser.
| kklisura wrote:
| > You are loading the website in your own app
|
| 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.
| ThePhysicist wrote:
| Just wait 5-10 years and it will probably be the same way on
| Windows and MacOS. They will argue that installing arbitrary,
| unvetted software through the web is dangerous, so it's only
| reasonable for Microsoft and Apple to make this very difficult
| and instead promote installing all software through their app
| stores (which they already start doing). Once software is
| primarily distributed via these stores they will also start
| asking for a cut of any revenue that is made through that
| software. The reason it's not like that already isn't that
| they're very nice, it's just that historically computers were
| open platforms and it will take longer to convert them to the
| walled gardens that smartphones have been from the very beginning
| of their existence.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| 10 years sounds like a stretch.
|
| Windows recently started blocking torrenting software due to
| being "malware". Coincidence that it's the main distribution
| mechanism for Linux distribution's installation media?
| grishka wrote:
| Desktop OSes can't be fully locked down for the simple reason
| that people use them for programming and thus need to run
| unsigned arbitrary code.
| m4rtink wrote:
| The possibility of OS vendors forcing users to only install
| software from their walled gardens is the reason Valve started
| to support Linux, created their own Linux distro (Steam OS, now
| based on Arch Linux) and ultimately why Steam Deck was built.
|
| 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.
| ineedasername wrote:
| Yeah-- I thought SteamOS was mostly dead, sitting on a shelf
| "just in case". I was wrong, and it now appears that Valve is
| sending the message "we're ready to do this thing at any
| time".
|
| 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.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Anecdotally, but my windows machine's sole purpose is to
| run steam games (and associated utilities around it like
| discord that all seem to either be web apps, wrapped in
| electron or chrome). The only thing keeping me from
| installing Linux for everything is poor proton support on a
| handful of games.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| The only thing that keeps me on Windows is that because
| CheatEngine doesn't work on Linux. I like playing around
| with it to enhance my gaming experience (usually to boost
| enemies in late stages of CK2 / EU4).
| AKrumbach wrote:
| I wish I could take full credit for this, but I'm
| paraphrasing Andrew Plotkin (developer for the Inform text-
| adventure programming language):
|
| 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.
| leereeves wrote:
| That's why Microsoft won't do this. Steam users have a big
| investment in games on Steam, and are quite likely to
| switch to SteamOS, even if not every game works perfectly,
| rather than buying all those games again. And that would
| create a big Linux customer base that game studios and
| hardware makers would develop for, threatening Microsoft's
| monopoly on the desktop.
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| Amazing that Steam, so controversial for pushing it's
| locked ecosystem at the time, is now the one pushing
| Linux gaming forward and a driving force _away_ from
| windows.
| syshum wrote:
| More likely if Microsoft did it, they would integrate
| Steam into the store, or allow Steam to be installed via
| the store
|
| They have already signaled their willingness to add 3rd
| party stores with their partnership with Amazon for
| Android Apps.
| ineedasername wrote:
| That would still be problematic since Valve would be at
| the mercy of MS, hoping they didn't change their policies
| after a while the way other app stores have done. Steam
| could still roll out SteamOS then, but it would take
| time. Meanwhile games might start developing integrations
| (and DRM) in the combined MS/Steam platform in a way that
| made disentangling for Valve to go their own way much
| more difficult.
|
| 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.
| eugeniub wrote:
| I'm happy with what Valve is doing now, but as a whole, the
| fact that Steam OS is a Linux distro doesn't necessarily mean
| that Steam OS / Steam Deck won't become locked down in the
| same manner in the future. Android itself is open source and
| Linux-based.
| [deleted]
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| They have no reason to lock it down.
|
| 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.
| m4rtink wrote:
| One overlooked aspect of why Steam Desk is quite a game
| changer is the fat that it's the first actually open
| handheld gaming platforms.
|
| 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.
| zamalek wrote:
| Valve have been pretty good about sticking to their
| "hackable" guns _so far._ With exception to the Link,
| everything of theirs is abnormally tweakable. Newell also
| seems to understand how tenuous PC gamer loyalty can be
| (hell, it could be argued that he sowed the seeds of that
| mentality).
| ljm wrote:
| Valve can keep quiet about this until they're ready, too...
| because the steam store is essentially the de-facto online
| game store to the extent they could let their game studio
| heritage exist almost entirely on mythology (half life,
| portal, left 4 dead)
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _Just wait 5-10 years and it will probably be the same way on
| Windows and MacOS. They will argue that installing arbitrary,
| unvetted software through the web is dangerous, so it 's only
| reasonable for Microsoft and Apple to make this very difficult
| and instead promote installing all software through their app
| stores_
|
| 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.
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| > Every Mac based on the M1 chipset and above will not run
| unsigned binaries, either.
|
| So this is different to Intel macs? You can't just go to
| security and privacy and "allow"?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Yes, it's different. You can read more about it here[1].
| There's no option to run unsigned binaries on M1 Macs on
| macOS.
|
| [1]
| http://www.rahulgaitonde.org/blog/2020/11/12/apple-m1-and-
| th...
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| There is already a version of Windows 10 that works this way.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| It's ironic that Apple asks developers to pay 30% which is
| effectively 30% tax on developer revenue, while at the same
| time they dodge taxes like there is no tomorrow...
| proactivesvcs wrote:
| Microsoft are already inferring that arbitrary software is
| dangerous - SmartScreen's behaviour for unsigned code works
| against FOSS because a project (or person) has to pony up money
| to pay for a certificate.
| dylan604 wrote:
| maybe this is something that can be part of a give/take
| relationship. allow for FOSS to be part of the
| signing/notrization software as long as the FOSS is truly
| not-for-profit (no free software for install, but doesn't
| work without lots of in-app purchases, ads, etc). At least
| offer FOSS software devs a lower cost entry for dev
| accounts??
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| FOSS doesn't imply no-for-profit.
|
| You can use my code however you like, but I still need
| money to pay rent.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Right, so you gets to pay the dev fees to have your code
| signed. That's why I specifically stated not-for-profit
| could use "free" code signing. If you're making money off
| of the software, pay the fees required as part of the
| business.
| dheera wrote:
| Can one just make an app that doesn't show those links if the
| viewer is coming from a Google corporate IP?
| echelon wrote:
| We need to legislate requiring web installs of software for all
| computer and smartphone operating systems. Any device owner
| should be allowed to run their own software on their computer.
|
| This bullshit has to stop.
| grishka wrote:
| IMO it should be illegal for a company to make hardware,
| software, AND online services. Any two yes, but not all
| three. It should also be illegal to make any public keys and
| server hostnames unchangeable by the end user.
| ineedasername wrote:
| I could see that on Windows Home Edition, but I don't know how
| they would make that work for Enterprise Edition. I don't see
| companies like SAS or Oracle and many others being willing to
| pay a Microsoft tax to distribute client software or desktop
| apps for their products. Or IBM for applications like SPSS.
| SaaS may end up eating a lot of that sort of thing, and web
| clients would help mitigate the requirements, but I think there
| would just be too many that weren't.
|
| 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.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| If you had any idea of the amount of money companies are
| already spending on Microsoft licenses.. the cost of a
| signing certificate really is just a drop in the bucket.
|
| The only issue companies have with getting their apps signed
| is managing the certificates.
| ineedasername wrote:
| The issue is the revenue cut MS wants for sales through
| their app store and companies losing near total control
| over the distribution of their software.
|
| 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.
| aboringusername wrote:
| This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google. I
| cannot believe how at the rate the world is changing (pace wise,
| with each new technological breakthrough) the law simply cannot
| keep pace.
|
| 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 ;).
| rvz wrote:
| > This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google
|
| 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
|
| [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275
|
| [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964226
| userbinator wrote:
| _tyrants_
|
| That old saying about patriots and tyrants comes to mind...
| fao_ wrote:
| I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted -- the top comment
| and highest rated replies are bikeshedding about AI, you're
| actually showing that this is a pattern of shitty behaviour
| by Google.
| davisr wrote:
| > How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN
| before we DEMAND action be taken?
|
| 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?
| alpaca128 wrote:
| The word bug has nothing to do with someone's stance on
| "defects". This term has been in use (with the same meaning)
| for longer than computers exist. It also has no connection to
| bugs as in animals. But what do I know, I'm just a shoddy
| coder.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I'm sorry for being nitpicky but have you even skimmed the
| article? It has nothing to do with AI: a human visited their
| website and decided asking for donations there violates the
| Play Store ToS. I mean your comment is perfectly fine, it
| simply has nothing to do with the article.
| croes wrote:
| Could still have been an AI that automatically visits all
| sites and subsites in an App and scans for certain keyword
| and makes screenshots
| mdoms wrote:
| This is completely speculative.
| croes wrote:
| Just like the claim that a human visited the site and
| found a donation subsite. What's more likely? That
| someone at google checked the links in a small relatively
| unknown app or that an automatic process scanned the
| links in the app, something what is the main business of
| Google next to advertising?
| visarga wrote:
| If I was in charge of monitoring compliance I would write
| the Paypal link checker bot in my first day of work.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I bet most of the people reading these comments could
| actually write such a script in under 30 minutes, it has
| nothing to do with AI.
|
| 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.
| Phrodo_00 wrote:
| Why are you assuming this is an AI-driven decision? It looks
| like human intervention to me.
| aboringusername wrote:
| Isn't it safer to assume it _is_ until proven otherwise?
|
| 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.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| How do you know Phrodo_00 isn't an AI?
| craftinator wrote:
| How do you know you aren't an AI?
| visarga wrote:
| Ask yourself a tricky question, if you can answer you're
| an AI. AI's don't actually know when they don't know
| something. It's called the "softmax curse", causes them
| to have Dunning-Kruger.
| itake wrote:
| Can you please elaborate why you would think this is a mistake
| and Google should side step the app store rules applied to all
| businesses? This income is clearly taxable. The play store
| offers a 50% discount for small apps.
|
| 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?)?
| josephcsible wrote:
| > Can you please elaborate why you would think this is a
| mistake and Google should side step the app store rules
| applied to all businesses?
|
| 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.
| miloignis wrote:
| Apparently this isn't how Google sees it, but I'd say yes,
| giving people a way to donate on your website where your
| website is linked to from the app under "About" or "More
| Information" is clearly different from offering an app for
| purchase, or with in-app purchase, on multiple fronts.
|
| 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.
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| it seems you're spiritually correct but google is trying to
| remove the payment loophole that apple enforces as well so
| I'm curious if we can pressure them both to allow donation
| links even if normal payment options are banned...
| rkagerer wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong. From the screenshot[1] it looks like
| the donation is made through Paypal, not Google's merchant
| services. My understanding is the app just links to a
| website. If there's any tax evasion going on it has nothing
| to do with Google.
|
| [1] https://user-
| images.githubusercontent.com/1474671/129396236-...
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Taxes are entirely beside the issue - that's between the
| original developer and the IRS. The Play Store policy has
| always been about in-app purchases, and few people would
| describe a donation as "purchasing" anything.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I agree with you on the taxes issue (and can't imagine how
| the opposing argument would go).
|
| 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.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| As mentioned in TFA, Google does not allow non- _tax_ able
| donations through Play, and requires that you use a 3rd-
| party processor for those.
| qwertox wrote:
| What does Google have to do with taxes related to Patreon?
|
| This clearly isn't Ubisoft.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| "Purchases that require Google Play's billing system: Digital
| items, Subscription services, App functionality or content,
| Cloud software and services"
|
| 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?
| RHSeeger wrote:
| While I understand what you're saying here, I would guess
| that it's seen as bypassing the intent of the rules, if not
| their specific wording.
|
| 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.
| jfrunyon wrote:
| If Google's intent is to ban donations to an app creator,
| then why does it explicitly say "if they require or
| accept payment for access to features or services,
| including any app functionality, digital content or
| goods"?
|
| 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.
| SquishyPanda23 wrote:
| The screenshot says that the violation is on the other part
| of the policy:
|
| "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.
| danShumway wrote:
| I don't think anyone is saying this has anything to do with
| the payment being optional or the app being Open Source.
| Google's interpretation of its rules (assuming that this
| isn't just a mistake) is that an app can't link _in-app_ to
| any source or page if there 's a way to get from that page to
| a payment processor.
|
| 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.
| izacus wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| danShumway wrote:
| That would be a problem if that was what was happening
| here. But it's not what's happening here, so it's not a
| problem :)
|
| 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?
| k33l3r4pp wrote:
| How about we just stop 100% trusting Google?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't fulminate or call names on HN, regardless of how
| you feel about app store policies. Instead, please make your
| substantive points thoughtfully. All this is in the site
| guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
|
| > 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...
| geofft wrote:
| A human did this. See the screenshots on the post - there's a
| screenshot of the home page, followed by a screenshot of the
| donation page, followed by a screenshot of PayPal. Quoting TFA:
|
| > _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.)
| loycombinate wrote:
| Hahaha don't be evil Google
| zozbot234 wrote:
| From looking at the report, I'm not sure I understand this
| decision. The referenced policy is about _in-store or in-app
| purchases_ , primarily of digital content, and a free donation is
| not "purchasing" anything.
|
| (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.)
| jcranberry wrote:
| I think it's most likely this was done by someone lazy or not
| paying attention.
| int_19h wrote:
| They had to follow through a bunch of not-so-prominent links
| on the website to discover the donation page. Whatever that
| is, I don't think it qualifies as "lazy".
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| The page they linked to, the main page of the website, has
| a large "Donate" link on the top of the page. It's kinda
| hard to not notice it.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| It seems a new policy of is to add "donations" to "purchases",
| and the drone which referenced the policy apparently could not
| be precise.
| rvz wrote:
| Here we go again. Another month, another ban. They are the
| problem and they will never change. Their behaviour affects
| everyone and they do not care since they will just point to their
| guidelines and ban you.
|
| Can you finally see that Google (YouTube), Apple, Microsoft and
| Facebook are NOT your friends?
| collaborative wrote:
| Shocking this gets downvotes
| rbx wrote:
| Would Google also be able to negatively influence such an app if
| the app was a PWA? Publishing PWA on Play Store might still lead
| to the same outcome, but what if it is just an independent PWA
| and is "installed" through the phone's browser? Of course you
| would loose some discoverability though, but are there other
| disadvantages? (provided the app is even feasible as a PWA)
| suprfsat wrote:
| They could make Chrome experience deliberately bad, if you
| believe they're not doing that currently.
| rbx wrote:
| Well, personally I use Firefox. Although I do have a
| suspition that Google has found some way of keeping Firefox
| experience on mobile inferior in some way. Just speculating.
| martin1975 wrote:
| Greed is good. - Gordon Gecko
| progval wrote:
| Looks like the Apple Store has a similar policy
| https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/106658813153945020
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Contact your Congresspeople and ask them to support and vote for
| the Open App Markets Act as soon as possible:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/11/apple-g...
| (The primary goal of this bill is to prohibit Google and Apple
| from punishing app developers from soliciting payments outside of
| their platforms.)
|
| 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.
| damsta wrote:
| To the person that reviewed this app in Google Play - you are
| disgusting! You seriously scrolled down on their homepage and you
| took screenshot of their donate button? That is absurd... How can
| you end your day of work and think "I did a good job today"...
| crazygringo wrote:
| This is a perfect example of a line having to be drawn somewhere,
| but wherever you draw it is never going to be perfect in every
| case.
|
| 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.
| Borgz wrote:
| Google already allows/requires tax-exempt donations to not be
| done with Google Play billing. This doesn't apply in the case
| of this app because the developer is supposedly an individual
| rather than a non-profit organization.
|
| >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.
| zestyping wrote:
| There's no reason for this to be the only solution. This
| doesn't have to be the only revenue channel for Google, or even
| the only revenue channel for an app store, and even if it is
| the revenue channel for the app store, this doesn't have to be
| the method of making people use it.
|
| > 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.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| > First of all -- app stores need to make money or at least
| break even.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| mkishi wrote:
| The thing about this app is that they don't advertise donations
| anywhere, and people aren't donating for the app, they are
| donating for the content -- and that's available everywhere.
| You know, the same criteria that Apple uses to distinguish
| Kindle and Dropbox from non-content-reader apps.
|
| 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?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-13 23:00 UTC)