[HN Gopher] Google is hurting new apps that have less users than...
___________________________________________________________________
Google is hurting new apps that have less users than competitors
Author : pk97
Score : 311 points
Date : 2025-05-02 13:54 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (support.google.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (support.google.com)
| pk97 wrote:
| I noticed this banner on one of my own apps while installing it
| for my mom on a new phone. The banner said "This app has fewer
| users than others...", almost as if they are discouraging users
| from installing it without even informing me. I looked it up
| online and it seems like many people have begun seeing this. I am
| linking a thread. If anyone from Google is reading this, such
| opaque policies are not appreciated!
| ncr100 wrote:
| It does seem like an Anti-Pattern.
|
| Presumably (some faction inside) Google wants to warn users
| about scam apps. However this seems like blatant shaming and
| ostracization of smaller developers who did not spend $$$$$ on
| Marketing through Google's Ad Network.
|
| Seems Monopolistic of Google to me.
| pk97 wrote:
| exactly. Imagine the audacity of this company. I have a paid
| app and they are already charging me a percentage of the
| revenue. And behind my back they have begun running this
| banner.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I doubt they're aware of you enough to do it behind your
| back. They're more wanting to flag this "Bank of 4merica"
| app you're about to install has 8 other users.
| pk97 wrote:
| I am obviously a very small player doing things as a
| hobby, I don't matter to Google. But what I am pointing
| out is that they already take a cut of whatever few
| dollars I earn (beyond the initial $25 I paid years ago
| just to get on the play store). If you see the thread,
| the OP asked their customer support and they said:
| "Especially, since the response from customer service
| seems to suggest that the best way to get it removed is
| to run Google AdWords (which I am already running, btw)"
|
| If the angle here is running ads and if they are already
| taking a cut, why are they doing this? If the angle is
| security, why not test the apps and have them removed!
| And in either case, why keep the developer in the dark?
| And why is there no way for small time insignificant devs
| like me to know how to get rid of the banner!
| csomar wrote:
| I think "Bank of 4merica" shouldn't have been there in
| the first place. Especially for a store that is running
| billions of $$ worth of transactions. This is Google,
| again, pushing a cost that it has to pay to external
| actors.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| Why would they allow this hypothetical app in the first
| place?
| jjani wrote:
| > Presumably (some faction inside) Google wants to warn users
| about scam apps
|
| Or (the ads faction that effectively runs the company) wants
| to warn users about apps that don't spend much on AdWords and
| Play Store ads.
| gs17 wrote:
| That feels more like it, I opened the Play Store to check
| it out, there was an ad for some waifu-gacha 3 star app
| with 1k downloads, 19 reviews, released last week, reviews
| imply it's something that was taken off the store before
| reuploaded under a new name. No banner saying it's
| questionable.
|
| Although, I spent a while trying to find an app that did
| have the banner, and nothing seems to get it on my account.
| register wrote:
| Calling it an anti-pattern is a euphemism. Let's call it what
| it is: a completely stupid idea.
| thayne wrote:
| It also disadvantages any apps that compete with Google's own
| apps.
| zerd wrote:
| "Are you sure you want to install OSM? Don't you know Google
| Maps is better? You should try Google Maps"
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| There's a weird nuance to this just because algorithmically
| PageRank itself was even somewhat anti-competitive.
|
| "This page has fewer links to it than others, therefore it will
| be buried in search results"
|
| I think most people appreciated Google's early search algos
| that prioritized "well-traffic'd" sites and sources over
| others. Obviously that was a long time ago before SEO (and
| Google themselves) destroyed everything. Back then there were
| actually still competitors in the search market so it didn't
| matter. Not the case now.
| luckylion wrote:
| Freshbot was a well-known effect back then (arguably still
| is, at least I see effects that look very similar where some
| new content section will rank quickly and amazingly well for
| a week or two and then slowly sink to the level you'd expect
| from such new content).
|
| But in the end, it's network effects, only that this banner
| seems to enforce it manually and explicitly. The old way
| would've been to not show apps with few users in the top
| spots.
| kedean wrote:
| I always thought the idea there was that a website needed to
| grow organically before google would rank it highly, which
| makes sense to me. Prove yourself first by building a
| network, they aren't obligated to help out.
|
| The difference here is that the play store is the one and
| only way to get apps for a regular user. By putting that
| banner up, they're discouraging anyone from trying it even if
| they found out about it through other channels.
|
| The analog in 2000 or so would be if Microsoft added a
| warning banner to any website you visited in Internet
| Explorer with a low link count.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I don't really see the difference.
|
| The entire point is that you _can_ find the app through
| other channels -- articles, posts, social media.
|
| They just link to the Play store, but that's how you find
| them. The banner shouldn't be discouraging if you've come
| from a post that explains it's brand-new!
| p_ing wrote:
| On the other hand....
|
| https://chromewebstore.google.com/search/ublock
|
| As a user who suddenly knows nothing about uBlock the ad
| blocker, are you going to trust an addin with 2k installs and
| 4.3 stars, or an addin with 30m installs and 4.7 stars?
|
| Install base can be informative when choosing.... anything,
| really. In many people's minds something that is used more is
| better in some metric, be it performance, reliability, price,
| et. al.
|
| EDIT: My numbers were way off :-)
| pk97 wrote:
| I agree with what you have said. It's what you mentioned at
| the end about people judging based on metrics - it should be
| up to people to judge for themselves, not the platform! The
| platform should present data, not try to sway opinions.
| Besides the message itself is so hand wavy if I am using the
| phrase correctly, what is Google trying to convey through the
| message? If something is a legit scam, they should either not
| be publishing such apps or be testing and removing them.
|
| I am increasingly convinced they are trying to direct traffic
| to apps that use their Ads network under the guise of such
| vaguely-about-security messages.
| p_ing wrote:
| > it should be up to people to judge for themselves, not
| the platform!
|
| If you download an App using MSFT Edge on Windows, it will
| warn you (MoTW). If you download an App using any browser
| on macOS, it will warn you (also MoTW). But if you grab
| apps via the App Store, there's no warning.
|
| Is that also unfair?
|
| While it's been many years since I did hands on end user
| support, or even worse, support for family friends back in
| the 9x days, people still have little clue about what
| they're doing without a big flashing warning sitting in
| front of them..., which even that sometimes does not work.
|
| Even I'll often choose an extension for Firefox that has
| more installs. If I'm going to get a SAML decoder, I want
| the least phishy SAML decoder available.
| saghm wrote:
| It sounds like showing those numbers already conveys the
| information you find useful; the question isn't whether the
| number of users is informative, but whether it's reasonable
| for Google to bucket apps into groups of competitors and then
| choose a threshold of minimum number of users to avoid
| actively discouraging additional users. I'm not opposed to
| the idea of owners of app marketplaces taking a more active
| step in curating things to try to help users, but this way of
| doing it seems pretty dubious.
| p_ing wrote:
| You're going off the premise that I'm an average user who
| would otherwise stare blankly at a zsh terminal.
|
| Those warnings in the Store aren't meant for you or I.
| duxup wrote:
| This almost smells like a google throwing their hands up and
| saying "Well maybe it's a harmful app and they should use
| something else ... I dunno, put a warning on it."
|
| I see similar-ish warnings on Amazon about "frequently returned
| item", but I've no idea if it is true or why. Maybe an underlying
| vendor for the same item is bad? Amazon (who doesn't care about
| bad vendors as far as I can tell) just slaps a label on it and
| throws up their hands.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| I find that "frequently returned item" warning really useful.
| It's a reminder to look at the 2 star and 3 star reviews.
| Sometimes it's just a sizing issue. At other times some subset
| of people have a specific issue. The issue may or may not be
| something that affects me (e.g. some people can't operate
| something that doesn't have really clear instructions).
| freedomben wrote:
| I do too, but I think it's important to consider that these
| are actually pretty different. In the Google example, the
| banner is being displayed because of something that isn't
| necessarily the fault of the dev and isn't itself an
| indicator of problematic behavior (and indeed is the starting
| position for _all_ developers of a new app), whereas at least
| Amazon (presumably) is basing it off of actual performance
| data that indicate poor performance /behavior.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| Yes 100% agree
| duxup wrote:
| It's not even clear if frequently returned item is a fault
| of a given seller. May sellers are involved in the "same"
| item on Amazon.
| duxup wrote:
| I find the "frequently returned item" warning totally
| confusing. It usually isn't reflected in their reviews that I
| can tell....
|
| I have to wonder if there's some sort of strange meta where
| people search for one thing buy something and not realize
| that they're actually looking for something else that's
| difficult to search.
| toast0 wrote:
| Or buy something and the warehouse ships them another. I
| bought something from amazon where reviews said about half
| the people got the wrong product, and I got the wrong
| product, returned it and got the wrong one again, and then
| they wouldn't let me try again.
|
| In a twist, I had previously attempted to order the right
| product from a different vendor, but I put the wrong one in
| the cart, and had to pay a restocking fee to return it.
| They sent me the right one when I ordered it properly.
| csomar wrote:
| Apples/Oranges. The equivalent of "frequently returned item" is
| "frequently reported app"
| ww520 wrote:
| "frequently returned item" = "frequently uninstalled app"
|
| Fewer installed is not it.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Amazon does something similiar so google copied. Before you get
| a buy now button you need 25 reviews which you get by sending
| free products to volunteers.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| Why does it seem like Google is trying to kill Android, or at
| least their app ecosystem.
|
| - They now require a DUNS number to submit an app
|
| - You now need 10-15 people to "QA" your app before submitting
|
| - Now this.
|
| It just seems that Google wants the "major" apps and nothing
| else.
| freedomben wrote:
| Indeed, and on the other end they are locking down the OS more
| and more. Pretty soon I suspect all my reasons for going
| Android over the years will no longer be valid and we'll just
| have a choice between overlords rather than have one closed and
| one open platform.
| poincaredisk wrote:
| >They now require a DUNS number to submit an app
|
| Even for non-us residents?
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| DUNS is used globally.
| pkaye wrote:
| Its an EU DSA requirement for app stores to display
| information about developers publicly available. Apple is
| also doing it. And I guess these companies are applying the
| requirement worldwide unless some countries are opposed to
| it.
| gooob wrote:
| what do you think the solution is? should we just all use
| fdroid?
| archerx wrote:
| I had a PWA turned app on the android App Store and I just gave
| up jumping through google's hoops to keep it up. I feel like
| Google is killing Google, like some bad actors have gotten
| control of the reins and is slowly steering it off a cliff.
| MattDaEskimo wrote:
| My leading theory is they're preparing for a increasing
| onslaught of spam "vibe-coded" shovelware
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| "I love sowing but I _hate_ reaping "
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > They now require a DUNS number to submit an app
|
| These things are easy to get, the idea is to at least slow down
| the deluge of scam apps and barely working "vibe coding" apps.
|
| > You now need 10-15 people to "QA" your app before submitting
|
| Again, enforcing at least a _baseline_ of testing isn 't bad.
|
| Both Apple's and Google's stores suffer from a massive problem
| with low quality apps and it's honestly more than time that
| this gets tackled.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > These things are easy to get, the idea is to at least slow
| down the deluge of scam apps and barely working "vibe coding"
| apps.
|
| When you add bureaucratic hurdles to a process to try to slow
| down abuse, you often find that abusive users are more
| willing to navigate that process than legitimate ones. (We've
| seen this with email spam already - spammers are perfectly
| willing to set up DKIM and DMARC, and have stronger
| incentives to do it correctly than legitimate senders.)
| iggldiggl wrote:
| The main goal of SP, DKIM and DMARC wasn't to slow down
| spammers by setting up "bureaucratic hurdles", it was to
| prevent domain spoofing, though, and arguably it's
| succeeded at that.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > When you add bureaucratic hurdles to a process to try to
| slow down abuse, you often find that abusive users are more
| willing to navigate that process than legitimate ones.
|
| In this case, it's not just a bureaucratic hurdle, it's
| adding a real external cost - app authors now have to go
| and deal with their government to get something DUNS
| accepts as a certification of entrepreneurship.
|
| For single developers and legitimate startups, that cost is
| practically irrelevant and they're going to have to do it
| anyway to file taxes - but scammers run into the issue that
| they'll have to either use their own identity or have to
| clone someone else's which carries _significantly_ more
| risk when the cops come investigating.
| kitallis wrote:
| the Apple App Store has always required a DUNS number.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| No, it hasn't, and doesn't.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/help/account/membership/D-U-N-S/
|
| > If you're enrolling as an individual, you don't need a D-U-
| N-S Number.
| kitallis wrote:
| Yes, for businesses. That's true for Play Store also
| https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-
| developer/answ...
| anothereng wrote:
| both app stores are not friendly to developers.
| LWIRVoltage wrote:
| ... These sorts of patterns do not help at all, and will hurt
| those who have critical need for apps without a lot of users.
|
| Speaking as somebody, who owns some mid-grade thermal cameras
| that stopped production in the past few years after a decade run,
| that depended on and are solely controlled and run on apps that
| were removed from the app store or no longer can run on modern
| phones because they are in 32-bit format ; this sort of thing
| would further punish that type of software and only speed up its
| demise.
|
| When you spend thousands and thousands and thousands and of
| dollars and resources into getting unique capabilities like that,
| that can only be controlled through Android apps often, and is
| the only way to get that capability for some (this will apply to
| multiple and I imagine with niche capabilities that only have one
| or two methods of Access)
|
| - this hurts a lot of opportunity, and this type of dark anti-
| pattern is far too blunt
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| They don't give a fuck. Just like Microsoft doesn't give a fuck
| about casual users running older software, or Apple doesn't
| give a fuck about power users who don't need their hands held
| through everything on their goddamn computers.
|
| All these gigafuck companies have a minimum viable user in
| mind: someone who has disposable income, free time, and wants
| to use their phone to shop for shit or endlessy scroll on
| whichever social they happen to like most, and that's what
| their products are designed to do. Everything else is
| ancillary.
|
| Spoken as someone who works on a niche app for both platforms
| that works with hardware we make: we get NO support. Arbitrary
| system changes fuck up our app constantly, without notice, and
| we have no recourse but to fix it ASAP and tell people to not
| update.
| edg5000 wrote:
| All the manufacturer has to do is publish an APK on their
| website. If all apps did this, Google would have no power. It's
| very easy for a volunteer to host the APK somewhere in an
| archiving effort. Much easier that it ever has been on iOS.
| toast0 wrote:
| Yeah, but if you're a new app, Google doesn't let you have
| your APK signing keys, so you either have to go through
| Google to get an APK you can publish (with all the
| resources), or users can't cross-upgrade because on phone
| storage is tied to the signing key.
| dboreham wrote:
| So we're done with correct English now?
| drcongo wrote:
| The actual article uses fewer. Some monster _chose_ to change
| it.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| My understanding is the rules on less vs fewer are not strict
| and in this case it's fine, just like 20 items or less is
| actually fine. Regardless, it's just made up BS, like the
| rule that sentences cannot end in a proposition.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/fewer-vs-less
| xnx wrote:
| Is Google Play like the Apple app store where Apple takes a
| smaller cut for apps with fewer users?
|
| If so, there's obvious financial incentive for Google to push
| more people to a smaller number of apps.
| strongpigeon wrote:
| In a way yes, though it's revenue based (if you make less than
| $1M/year) rather user based. I don't think it has much of a
| financial impact though as, from what I remember, the long tail
| of apps doesn't make them very much money in comparison to the
| whales.
| aquir wrote:
| Typical Big-tech approach: the solution is a non-solution without
| giving much thought to it but looks good for the board of
| investors and/or stock owners and they can say "we are stopping
| scam apps on our marketplace" on the next slides created by
| marketing. They just don't give a shit. (Just read the book
| "Careless People" - read it if you are not convinced. Engagement
| over everything)
| sometimes_all wrote:
| How does something like this ever get into production, especially
| at a place like Google, unless being hostile to new apps and
| developers is the plan? Or do they want to push potential
| developers into Google's double-dipping: pay them money to get on
| to the Play Store + pay a lot more money to get eyeballs on your
| app and thus more users.
| suddenexample wrote:
| A question for Googlers who may be responsible/adjacent - what is
| the intended function of this warning? It seems to be attempting
| to filter out low quality apps, but instead seems to be killing
| any attempt to change the status quo. If the app has fewer users
| than competing apps, the message Google is sending is "we don't
| need any new apps that do similar things to existing apps" and
| "if you're a small app, don't even think about unseating the
| dominant players."
|
| Google's Play Store policies have been harebrained for quite some
| time - previously with the 15 reviewer approach they decided to
| make it even harder for developers with fewer resources to
| distribute their apps. It's ironic that even though the iOS App
| Store is arguably more of a walled garden, it's so much
| friendlier to human beings who are trying to build a product. But
| at this point it seems ingrained in Google to release self-
| defeating features (remember the finder network that prioritized
| "first of its kind privacy" over being able to find things?)
| notatoad wrote:
| i'm guessing it's intended to warn that you're about to
| download one of the 500 apps that look like the ChatGPT app,
| but aren't actually the ChatGPT app.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Correct. Google's incentive is not to maximize players in the
| space. Their user isn't the developer; it's the person who
| downloads things onto an Android phone. If those users get
| burned too often because it's too hard to tell legitimate
| apps from knock-offs, they'll stop trusting the whole Play
| store and probably the whole phone platform (in favor of
| Apple instead).
|
| Google has the numbers to know that "buyer [or in this case,
| downloader] beware" isn't good enough because people aren't
| smart enough. It sucks, but at scale it's a pattern we see
| over and over and over again (see also "Why does Windows
| force updates," "Why is Apple so paranoid about side-
| loading," "Why is it so hard to get an app on Apple's App
| Store in the first place," and "Why does Facebook log a big
| warning in the browser console to not paste any code in there
| and hit enter").
| supportengineer wrote:
| It is ALWAYS tied to someone's promotion or career advancement.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > we don't need any new apps that do similar things to existing
| apps"
|
| I'm not a "Googler who may be responsible", but my
| understanding is that Apple does this too... and Google App
| Store has a reputation for being lower quality.
|
| I assume it's because unoriginal apps at some point are just
| "polluting" the market and making it harder to find higher
| quality products. Which is generally what users want. Some
| things are redundant - how many flashlight apps, weather apps,
| ChatGPT wrappers, etc are needed? I guess Google doesn't see
| value in hosting and distributing such apps.
|
| I'm not sure I agree with this, but I understand it. Target or
| Walmart don't need to sell your random trinkets that no one
| buys, and Google is deciding that the same applies to their
| store. At least with Android you can generally side load and
| access alternative stores, so you can build a richer
| marketplace where different "stores" can serve different
| customers.
| pluto_modadic wrote:
| quoting from a nice piece: https://lmnt.me/blog/app-stores-
| and-payment-methods.html "It still blows my mind how little
| the App Store has improved over the last decade. It's barely
| changed. Almost every bad thing about the App Store still
| exists. And almost every good thing that happened for app
| distribution and payment methods is just the result of
| regulation."
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| I don't really understand this thinking. If a long tail of
| mostly unremarkable apps make the good ones hard to find then
| that is a flaw of the ranking algorithm.
|
| If an app is not even in the app store, how can it possibly
| attract user interest? What if users happen to like some
| quirky feature that seems unremarkable to app store
| reviewers?
|
| App stores need better search and filtering.
| Marsymars wrote:
| > App stores need better search and filtering.
|
| I used to think this, but then I just abandoned their
| search and now use Kagi. (I use the !gp bang for the Play
| Store, no App Store bang seems to exist.)
|
| I can't imagine ever going back to native store searches
| now that they're full of ads.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > Some things are redundant - how many flashlight apps,
| weather apps, ChatGPT wrappers, etc are needed?
|
| For what it's worth, the wording Apple uses in their App
| Review Guidelines [1] is:
|
| > 4.3(b): Also avoid piling on to a category that is already
| saturated; the App Store has enough fart, burp, flashlight,
| fortune telling, dating, drinking games, and Kama Sutra apps,
| etc. already. We will reject these apps unless they provide a
| unique, high-quality experience.
|
| [1]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
| redserk wrote:
| I'll give credit to Apple for formally writing a policy to
| this extent, but it's disappointing. There's always the
| risk of putting in a lot of time for an app that is
| genuinely unique but Apple may not think so.
|
| I'd much rather Apple let in junk apps but do more to
| promote curated lists of good apps. I like the "Editors
| Choice" section. I think it is generally a step in the
| right direction to surface decent apps.
|
| Plus there's also already some kind of precedent: Maps does
| an acceptable job promoting third-party "Guides" to
| attractions and food for many cities.
| duskwuff wrote:
| For what it's worth, that bit of the policy was written
| early in the life of the App Store, when there really was
| a glut of low-effort novelty apps, particularly in the
| categories they mentioned, and when app discovery
| features in the store were more limited. It's probably
| not as necessary nowadays, but it does help guide
| developers away from writing apps which users are
| unlikely to find useful. (And if you've genuinely put in
| the effort to create something novel, it shouldn't be
| difficult to convince the reviewer of that - App Store
| review is a two-way street.)
| Marsymars wrote:
| > I'm not a "Googler who may be responsible", but my
| understanding is that Apple does this too... and Google App
| Store has a reputation for being lower quality.
|
| It doesn't help much for Apple. You can search for pretty
| much anything on the App Store and get at best a handful of
| useful results, followed by page after page of complete
| dreck.
| blibble wrote:
| I'd assume someone has a KPI to increase number of app
| updates...
| int_19h wrote:
| Speaking as a user, I do find that low number of downloads and
| reviews for an app strongly correlates with low quality and
| outright scams. The problem is that you have all those shops
| cranking out barely functioning apps for trivial things just to
| get into the listing and hopefully capture a few installs from
| users who don't have the time or the inclination to do proper
| vetting. And those apps are so pervasive that they drown out
| the genuinely useful and well-made new apps.
| rockyj wrote:
| All this just confirms for me the fact that how important the web
| is, thankfully it is still open / neutral and a good mobile web
| app is important for smaller devs.
|
| Thankfully the web has always been neutral, which has allowed all
| these monopolies to thrive and exploit it, otherwise who knows
| which proprietary app hell we would be in.
| skizm wrote:
| Nothing stopping Google or Apple from adding warnings to
| websites. They do control chrome / safari.
| Lammy wrote:
| They already do if you dare to try to host a web page without
| TLS. Hit http://httpforever.com/ for example and it will say
| "Not Secure" next to the URL bar.
| tlogan wrote:
| It would be great if they added something like a "frequently
| uninstalled app" label. That's much more helpful for users. But I
| get why Google prefers this kind of warning -- it supports their
| ad business.
|
| (I really want "frequently uninstalled" label for games: because
| games are very often 100% different than what they show or
| describe)
| strongpigeon wrote:
| In what way does it support their ads business?
| tlogan wrote:
| Because if a developer spends heavily on ads -- especially
| misleading ones for games -- they'll get a lot of installs,
| and the warning disappears.
| Marsymars wrote:
| Would hurt some utility apps though - sometimes I download an
| app to use for one thing, it works perfectly, and I uninstall
| it.
|
| (You get an automatic refund if you pay for an app and then
| uninstall again quickly. I've repurchased apps that I've been
| refunded for in this way - I don't want to punish developers
| who make apps that accomplish their function quickly.)
| reddalo wrote:
| Are you sure the refund is automatic if you just uninstall?
| That seems strange.
| redbell wrote:
| This was discussed a couple of weeks ago on reddit:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/1jddo84/the_new...
| anilakar wrote:
| Our company just got a warning that we have sixty days to release
| something on Play or have our developer console account closed.
| The email made it pretty clear that Google wants developers to
| continuously push new versions to customers. We have no new
| features nor bug fixes in backlog. There is nothing to update.
|
| The only purpose of our software is to control hardware that our
| company makes. Nobody uses it for fun, they use it because they
| have to. If I had a say, I'd automate even larger parts of the
| customer workflow.
|
| (Yes, at first we released a mobile PWA but ran into limitations
| related to push notifications and MDM support. We then created
| the native app, but our customers cannot remotely load APKs not
| signed by Google).
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Could you just get away with modifying something small,
| uploading the update, then revert the change, and reupload?
|
| Either way, it's nonsense that they force this, especially for
| those who made an app however long ago and just uploaded and
| forgot about, or that version was the only one they intended to
| make. It's crazy how much Google gets away with bullying us.
| Loughla wrote:
| Change font on One letter on one screen. Revert back 60 days
| later. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
|
| It's a pain in the ass, but to be honest, I've been asked to
| do worse with my time.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Not OP, but depending on the industry, this could be enormous
| amounts of backend work. I have projects that needs to be
| validated, which effectively means a huge amount of human
| testing for any change. The Process is confirmed to work on
| version X.Y.Z and nothing else.
| anilakar wrote:
| Luckily there is no regulation in this industry, just
| demanding customers.
|
| The main issue is that we support way too many different
| workflows based on customer requirements and actual
| hardware configuration, and even a slight change to a
| component often means we have to do manual UX testing.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Ah interesting. Even so for like a small styling change?
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| A change is a change. I have certainly made a few "safe,
| meaningless, no possible way it could break something"
| edits which blew up in some unexpected way. Why take the
| risk for some inconsequential update? Someone has to sign
| off on why this commit needs to be fast tracked outside
| the normal process.
| Marsymars wrote:
| Almost any software I can think of has different
| processes for testing/validating changes depending on
| impact/priority.
|
| e.g. I'm typing this on Firefox, which has a much
| different process for point release vs their 4-week
| release cycle.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| I imagine that if this sort of bullheaded google policy
| persists, companies will start adding "pinatas" into their
| code that have no real impact and can be changed with
| barely any validation required.
|
| This lets google beat the version numbers out of it at
| will.
| Twirrim wrote:
| I'd target an about page or something similar, just have
| a sentence or two that get picked at random from a
| selection each build. Then have a monthly build job that
| runs and publishes.
| anilakar wrote:
| I guess you can always change the style and location of UI
| controls just to mess with your users. After all, Big G does
| it all the time. :-)
| echelon wrote:
| Google and Apple need to be regulated out of the app store
| business. They have no business doing this bullshit.
|
| It's time. Governments need to put an end to the app store.
| ok_dad wrote:
| I'm with you, let us install programs like on a PC.
| echelon wrote:
| It wouldn't even be hard to achieve security: (1)
| sandboxing, (2) permissions system, (3) database of bad app
| signatures, (4) heuristics based monitoring. Most of this
| is already in place. There's no excuse except money and
| power.
| owlbite wrote:
| Because that's worked so well for PCs?
| BlimpSpike wrote:
| PCs don't have sandboxing or permissions.
| nomel wrote:
| > Most of this is already in place.
|
| No, it's in 10 different places.
| nout wrote:
| You can update the version number and re-release. I think this
| may grant also adding the update note "Updated version number.
| Nothing else. Thank you Google".
| kazinator wrote:
| Since they have 60 days to release _something_ , they should
| have a dummy application which does nothing, but which just
| increments its version number.
| mcny wrote:
| I am not sure
|
| I quote
|
| ----
|
| Limited Functionality and Content
|
| We do not allow apps that only have limited functionality
| and content.
|
| Here is an example of a common violation:
| Apps that are static without app-specific functionalities,
| for example, text only or PDF file apps Apps with
| very little content and that do not provide an engaging
| user experience, for example, single wallpaper apps
| Apps that are designed to do nothing or have no function
|
| https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-
| developer/answ...
| serial_dev wrote:
| My new startup idea: _"upload the same release with a
| different version and build number about once a month till
| the end of times " as a service_.
| Y_Y wrote:
| My new startup idea: _malicious compliance as a service_
|
| You forward us complaint emails and we create some AI
| slopscript that fulfils the least compliant interpretation
| of the rule it can think of.
|
| The goal would be to use automated nonsense to try to
| frustrate MBAs who have managed to burrow all the way to
| the brain of a tech giant and are now burdening humanity
| with their folly.
| alterom wrote:
| They're ahead of you.
|
| They're already using AI slop to come up with these rules
| in the first place, to verify compliance, _and_ to
| respond to your complaints.
|
| It's AI slop all the way down.
|
| And the shittier things are, the more raise they get for
| successfully moving the needle of utilization of AI in
| the business model.
| balder1991 wrote:
| Now I'm envisioning a future where nothing works and
| everything is halted endlessly because it is being
| handled by LLMs talking to LLMs, which summarize things
| so that other LLMs make a decision that gets expanded to
| a huge text with inconsistencies that in the end don't
| make sense anymore.
| PeeMcGee wrote:
| The singularity but stupid
| dotancohen wrote:
| No, it's intelligence. _Artificial_ intelligence.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Whose LLM wins. Yours or Googles?
| ff2400t wrote:
| You can ask apple for all the Training that you will need
| for that.
| conductr wrote:
| _This app is has less malicious compliance than others_
|
| Others = FAANG
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _You can update the version number and re-release._
|
| You kid, but Google makes substantial security and privacy
| SDK / API changes from one Android version to the next
| (reactively in response to abuse by 3p apps) & maintains
| backwards compatibility for a limited time period, post which
| incompatible apps are not visible to latest Androids on the
| Play Store. This means, developers have to continually update
| their "targetSdkVersion", if nothing else.
|
| https://developer.android.com/guide/app-compatibility / https
| ://developer.android.com/google/play/requirements/targe...
| m463 wrote:
| or "bug fix: google bugging us"
| hbn wrote:
| Every once in a while they'll bump the minimum SDK version or
| whatever other upload requirements, so if you do that you may
| have to tweak a few other things to stay compliant, at which
| point it seems like their system is working as they intended
| it.
| throwaway494932 wrote:
| That works if meanwhile Google hasn't decided to increase the
| target api level requirements [1]. In that case you may not
| be able to just republish the app, and extensive refactoring
| may be necessary.
|
| Forcing apps using old sdks out of the app store is probably
| the main reason they do this.
|
| [1] https://developer.android.com/google/play/requirements/ta
| rge...
| TuringNYC wrote:
| New business idea:
|
| AUaaS - App Update as a Service
| Arelius wrote:
| Ugh, on both mobile platforms, we have/had multiple popular
| games that their updates keep breaking, and they keep
| deprecating SDKs for. And each game is at on a different engine
| revision so we can't combone the work. We'd really like to keep
| these games up for for our mobile players, but we can't justify
| the cost, we make some money on these platforms, but nothing
| that justifies the immense cost.
|
| Meanwhile, our console/steam/gog builds have seen an update or
| so at our discretion, and have just continued to run happily,
| and make more money.
|
| Honestly it's hard to justify the maintenance effort to even
| consider porting out next games to mobile.
|
| But really the people who are hurt are our players that already
| bought our game, but when the upgrade phones or OSes they no
| longer have an option to play unless they want to transfer
| their licenses to PC.
| godelski wrote:
| Imagine if we talked about other computers like we talked about
| phones. It's just so weird - you can only
| install programs from our approved package manager - if
| you make any transactions through your program, we'll take a
| 30% cut - you can't be access those files, you're not
| root - you got root?! We're going to fucking sue you
| (yeah, I know about the PS3...) - you can't change these
| settings - you can't access that hardware
|
| Why did we think this was a good idea? Smartphones aren't
| "smart" without the apps! These companies depend on developers.
| The developers gave them the "food" that allowed them to grow
| so big. They only gain from developers! They would still gain
| even if every developer cost them money. How the fuck do we
| think they got to be trillion dollar entities in the first
| place?!
|
| These companies have turned into scorpions[0]. It's myopic and
| they'll scream about how they're dying even though it's their
| own damn fault. These aren't just unavoidable things that are
| leading them to their deaths, but unreasonable. Foregoing
| larger future rewards (crossing the river) for short term ones
| (stinging).
|
| It is insanity. Especially as we often try to justify it
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
| mig39 wrote:
| It sounds like game consoles :-(
| godelski wrote:
| > It sounds like game consoles :-( >> - you got
| root?! We're going to fucking sue you (yeah, I know about
| the PS3...)
|
| It was wrong then too https://arstechnica.com/tech-
| policy/2016/06/if-you-used-to-r...
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| At least your bank, school, apartment, and airline aren't
| locking core services behind carrying a fucking PlayStation
| around with you.
|
| Consoles feel different because they're one-purpose
| machines. Sure, it's irritating if they hardcore a maximum
| fps or what have you, but it feels less offensive for them
| to be locked down.
|
| It's kind of like the difference of Disneyland having
| weird, restrictive, draconian rules versus just a public
| park. Which is also one of two brands of public parks in
| your city. That you also have to use to deposit checks.
| ryu2k2 wrote:
| Don't worry. The time when our computers will be locked down
| the same way will come in our life time.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _Why did we think this was a good idea?_
|
| Who is "we"? I think this had always been the wet dream of
| corporate types, not the users. In the PC space there are too
| many existing ecosystems to implement that kind of control
| (through Microsoft certainly tried with the whole "trusted
| computing" stuff) but as soon as there was an opportunity for
| a popular new "blue ocean" platform, they jumped.
|
| You could see this most blatancy with ARM tablets. Microsoft
| released two versions of Windows, one for x86, one for ARM.
| The x86 one allowed installation of regular programs, the ARM
| version was restricted to Store apps. Made no sense from a
| technical perspective, the only reason is that they could.
| godelski wrote:
| > Who is "we"?
|
| We doesn't necessitate me[0]
|
| But my point is that the strategy is illogical even when
| one is simply profit maximizing. You get short term gains
| but they prevent future games. It need not even be that far
| in the future. See the iterative prisoners dilemma for a
| simple example. Defecting will get you higher reward in one
| round but if there are any further iterations then your
| rewards are lower.
|
| That's myopia. And I'm not satisfied with any "it's just it
| is" style arguments because we (inclusive) are ultimately
| the ones who decide how things are. It's a collective
| decision, a society. And that's why I press, because we can
| all do better. A rising tide lifts all ships, kings and
| peasants alike.
|
| [0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/editorial_we
| theamk wrote:
| This only applies to iPhones, most Androids are rootable, and
| even un-rooted, it is trivial (I am mean really trivial, like
| 3 clicks) to install programs from outside of app store.
|
| My opinion is anyone who owns iPhone knows what they sign up
| for, and does not care. So I don't get your rant.
|
| - Do you own iPhone? Well, you've made your bed, now lie in
| it. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of phones on the
| market - if you chose one without 3rd party app store, it's
| on you.
|
| - Do you own Android? You have nothing to complain about,
| push any apks you want anytime. Hey, get Samsung - it comes
| with 2nd app store preinstalled (from Samsung of course).
| Maybe even root the phone if you want to.
|
| (Note the GP mentions "MDM", and that's why they could not
| use this route. MDM means corporate security, and they
| apparently made a rule to block 3rd party installs. This is
| sad, and I feel for them... but this is a corporate problem,
| regular users are not affected)
|
| - Are you complaining on behalf of other people? They are all
| adults and made their own choice. If you want to make a
| difference, advocate against Apple. Or even better, advocate
| for regulations against Apple, to make their products worse
| so that more people move to Androids.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| These kind of barriers don't concern end users directly.
| They're just a huge pain point for developers, especially
| developers who don't make their software for commercial
| purposes only. The harder it is to develop, publish, and
| maintain an app, the less cool projects are being developed
| and the less innovation you get.
|
| Nobody can quantify how much these practices stifle
| innovation because there are plenty of app developers and
| there is no comparison to how the app landscape would look
| if there were less barriers. Perhaps it's not a big deal
| but the fact is that nobody knows...
| godelski wrote:
| > most Androids are rootable
|
| I don't have to wipe my computer to gain root nor distro
| hop. > So I don't get your rant.
|
| I think you will if you understand my list of examples are
| non-exhaustive. Similarly if you are willing to admit that
| needing to hack your device is not a counter-example, it
| supports my point. I can also "jailbreak" an iPhone. I can
| install linux on it too. A circumvention method not being
| known for a current or specific generation is not a
| counter.
|
| My point has nothing to do with what you "can" do. It has
| everything to do with the need for such efforts in the
| first place.
| autoexec wrote:
| > Imagine if we talked about other computers like we talked
| about phones. I
|
| That's the goal for PCs too. Windows is already partway there
| and they keep pushing.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| I've had a Google developer console/play account for a decade+.
| Recently had to send some proof of identity stuff in their
| anti-spam thing -- which I did because who knows one day I
| might care about the account -- but I haven't released anything
| there in eight years. No threats of closing my account.
|
| Did they instead just warn that they would unpublish the app?
| Google does have minimum API levels that they slowly move
| forward, and they will unpublish your app if you don't
| periodically rebuild and resubmit.
| axus wrote:
| They will suspend the account if you don't complete identity
| verification, though supposedly you can reinstate it if you
| disclose your personally identifiable information.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "The email made it pretty clear that Google wants developers to
| continuously push new versions to customers."
|
| Why. It is not Google's software. Shouldn't that decision be
| left to the software author.
| redeux wrote:
| I think it's about optics. They don't want their App Store to
| appear stagnant.
| r0m4n0 wrote:
| I don't know if it's just optics. As a user, I personally
| don't want to see or download apps that are broken,
| neglected, or completely left for dead. Maintained apps are
| usually the best ones right?
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _Maintained apps are usually the best ones right?_
|
| microsoft windows has been maintained thru to the
| present, but has become increasingly unusable since Win
| 7. so, no, false.
| chinathrow wrote:
| Apple sent the exact same thing out to a just-working-fine app
| I maintain in the App Store.
| fsckboy wrote:
| well, now you can update it to include links to things
| customers can buy outside the Apple ecosystem
| nashashmi wrote:
| Google should delist the app from search rather than remove it
| entirely from the play store for old stale apps.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Are you sure you don't rely on _any_ third-party libraries that
| have been updated for security reasons? Are you sure there 's
| no Android API being deprecated that you're still using?
|
| I sympathize with the general idea that software that hasn't
| been updated in a long time is more likely to contain bugs and
| incompatibilities with newest OS versions. Whenever I've opened
| ancient apps on my iPhone or my Mac, they generally break
| either partially or entirely.
|
| In your case I understand it might genuinely not need updates.
| But across the Play store as a whole, it seems like a largely
| beneficial policy. If there really aren't any dependencies that
| can/should be updated, surely you can make a tiny change to a
| text string somewhere, and get the added benefit of making sure
| your whole build chain still works? I get that it's annoying,
| but it really is valuable to weed out the truly unmaintained
| apps.
| butz wrote:
| Very sad state of affairs on Play Store. Independent app
| developers are clearly not welcome there. I already pulled all my
| hobby apps from Play Store, just to sleep soundly at night
| without thinking how to pass yet another app review after update,
| when policies keep getting more ridiculous each time. To the
| point where one update finally was pushed to the store, and
| another got the same issue again. The biggest question is, how
| does one closes their Google Play Developer Account? There is no
| button in admin for that.
| saghm wrote:
| Based on another comment on this thread, it sounds like maybe
| the easiest way would have been to leave all those apps up
| without updating them, and then hopefully get a 60-day warning
| that you can ignore.
| reddalo wrote:
| I did ignore it and I got my developer account banned. They
| didn't even refund my 15 $.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| > It feels like Google is unfairly punishing smaller, specialized
| developers in favor of mass-market apps.
|
| This seems like a problem across Google generally. Search seems
| like it has been tuned toward the mass market in almost every
| query, which buries high-quality content, which is by its nature
| rare, specialized, and less well-known.
|
| They have also tuned the features of Search in this direction,
| for example replacing queries with similar but more common text
| strings, and applying "did you mean" redirection more often,
| instead of just executing the search as typed. They now do this
| even if you quote the search string!
|
| Google tests and tunes its algorithm updates. If an algorithm
| update results in lower prominence for sites they consider
| popular, they tune the algorithm to "fix" it. As a friend said,
| the modern Google would never release an algorithm update if it
| doesn't put Home Depot on the first page for "buy power saw."
| Result: a generous in-kind marketing subsidy for whoever is
| already popular. I'm convinced this is why Fandom and Quora still
| hang around polluting SERPs. They're well-known because they're
| well-known, like the Kardashians.
| krunck wrote:
| Alternative app distribution systems are the future. I love you
| f-Droid.
| aoanevdus wrote:
| It's tempting to anthropomorphize a company like Google, and
| assume that every behavior is part of some evil master plan. Just
| as often, it's some small group of people within the company
| making a dumb mistake. I'd guess there is some team tasked with
| reducing the "app spam" problem, where there the store and (app
| review process) is crammed with thousands of near-identical apps,
| torturing the naive user with ads as they attempt to perform
| basic functions.
|
| This targeting of this warning is over-broad, preventing honest
| new app developers from getting traction. That's bad for the
| long-term health of Android's app ecosystem, and a competitive
| disadvantage against iOS. There's probably some other team at
| Google who is responsible for improving the development
| experience for Android, who hates this new warning.
|
| Talking about the harmful outcomes of this warning, it's good to
| get the news far and wide and try to get it fixed.
|
| Analyzing why the thing got pushed in the first place, it seems
| to me a symptom of the challenge of coherently managing a hundred
| thousand employees.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| It'd be great if Android devs could organize and push our reps (I
| know it's likely futile) or something to get Google to stop
| bullying us. It's exhausting dealing with the non-stop struggle
| they force onto us, especially as someone who's trying to make a
| living by starting (in my case) a one person business building
| Android apps.
|
| Play Store/Dev Console:
|
| - the pettiness of and delays by their production reviewers
|
| - won't take action on obviously spammed negative (or positive)
| app reviews
|
| - allowing expired/fraudulent payment options to take advantage
| of trials
|
| - not showing all possible search results for search terms which
| cuts off a ton of other apps from having any visibility
|
| - among many other issues with the Play Store/Dev Console
|
| It's beyond exhausting.
|
| Add to it the fact that Admob:
|
| - won't serve 98% of requests with impressions, having any way to
| contact them for support or get meaningful support (also have
| left their contact options unfixed for years which feels like
| it's being done on purpose)
|
| - will put serving limits on the smallest friggin things, serving
| limits when they allowed a single user from a country that gets
| flagged for serving limits all the time was manually blocked
| months ago from my account after my first encounter of serving
| limits for the reason of ads being served to users from that
| country
|
| - will put serving limits even after adding your device's ID/Add
| ID as a testing device
|
| - etc etc etc
|
| Nevermind that we don't even know if they're actually serving ads
| or not in our apps and just pocketing what they don't report to
| us.
|
| Google Ads:
|
| - Block ads all the time for any reason. In my case, my app is
| purely a crypto market charting and analytics application (yeah I
| know crypto markets/charts are looked down upon here, but
| whatever I and others use it. It's not a gambling or trading app,
| just analytics. please save your hate for NFTs) and it doesn't
| allow transactions, trading or anything of the sort. Just data.
| But because "crypto" is in the name of my app, I can't use my
| app's name in ad copy, nor the word "crypto", etc. And the
| support team refuses to understand this or make an exception.
| Because of this policy I can't even show ads in certain countries
| or languages unless I find some convoluted workaround.
|
| Everything with them has just been a non-stop uphill battle. It's
| soul crushing and makes you feel helpless and hopeless. They
| don't care about us even when we've been/are the substrate for
| the Play Store.
| nottorp wrote:
| Yeah, google isn't a harmful monopoly at all, as this article
| clearly shows.
| AlexanderTheGr8 wrote:
| Off-topic to the comments here, I am impressed by how the poster
| has described their issue so eloquently!
|
| They mentioned 6 reasons for why they have an issue with the
| banner : each of the 6 is a valid concern and put very eloquently
| and clearly.
|
| I suppose I only noticed this because I am used to
| speaking/writing/reading/listening mid-quality English in day-to-
| day life as a programmer.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| This article and the comments here are kind of scary. It feels
| like Google's only supporting apps that "drive engagement". That
| sounds like they want to force developers into producing stuff
| they can show ads in because they need more ads, not like they
| need more apps.
|
| It also feels a bit like how software people STILL haven't
| figured out how to deal with a product that has a finite
| development cycle. Which is to say, a piece of code that is
| _done_ and doesn 't need any changes. You don't have Hardware
| stores forcing supply companies to come out with a new version of
| shovel every year right? A shovel is a shovel. There are probably
| 8 different types for various uses and within those perhaps two
| or three variants. So 24 or 30 variant of 'shovel' and your done.
| Some software can be like that too.
|
| The subtext though that Google is actively hurting their
| developers for unspecified goals which look like they are
| desperate to make more money but it certainly could be some other
| thing. It reminds me of all the wailing about people whose web
| pages fell in the rankings because they hadn't been "updated" but
| when you've got the most useful description of say the scientific
| method on the web, why should you need to update that? It hasn't
| changed. And yet the 'older' your page got, the lower and lower
| it ranked.
| int_19h wrote:
| > It also feels a bit like how software people STILL haven't
| figured out how to deal with a product that has a finite
| development cycle. Which is to say, a piece of code that is
| done and doesn't need any changes.
|
| The problem is that platforms these days are in a constant
| state of slow rug pull. Even if you have absolutely no bugs to
| fix and no new features to add, you still need to keep things
| updated just to make it work on the most recent version of the
| platform (which users are going to be on because that's the
| only one that receives security fixes). A slightly less damning
| case is when the app works but doesn't _integrate_ well with
| the new parts of the platform, or even just its changing look
| and feel. E.g. old Windows apps often work fine but don 't
| support hi-DPI properly, meaning that they look very ugly on
| that 4K display.
|
| I don't think it's a problem that can be fully solved, but the
| impact would be much less severe if platforms stopped churn for
| the sake of churn. For example, we don't need a "fresh new" UI
| redesign every 3 years. And when it comes to API stability,
| Win32 should be considered the exemplary model of that - yes,
| it is a lot of effort to keep things working 30 years after
| they first shipped, but that's the only way if we don't want to
| be an industry that's constantly building castles on sand.
| darepublic wrote:
| Lack of transparency adds to the kafkaesque nature of it
| strobe wrote:
| I was involved in mobile game development for several years, but
| I'm no longer active in that field. In my opinion, one of the
| reasons they do this is to maximize Ad revenue. In this case,
| it's obvious that if you see this warning on your product page,
| the quick fix would be to spend money on Ads to gain a few more
| users as soon as possible. This also creates a competitive
| bidding situation across the market, as more developers buy ads,
| forcing others to do the same to keep up.
| kazinator wrote:
| How do they measure users? If I install the app, but never use
| it, do I count?
|
| If I uninstall it, do I still count or not?
| xg15 wrote:
| > _Many users download our app to solve a specific problem (car
| issues), use it once successfully, then naturally don 't open it
| again until needed months later. Low daily engagement doesn't
| mean low quality - it means the app successfully solved the
| user's problem!_
|
| What level of Enshittification is it if you actively penalize
| other apps for _not_ enshittifying enough?
| 0rzech wrote:
| All the things I keep reading about Apple and Google... Such a
| reassuring news, given I'm in the course of writing my own indie
| app with the intent of entering their stores. I hope the EU will
| fine them to oblivion for their shit.
| Marazan wrote:
| This is the same thinking by Google that has ruined the web as
| everyone chases the perfect SEO optimised page.
|
| A page that presents and answer to your problem in the first
| sentence as soon as you open the page? Low engagement time, high
| bounce rate down rank. A page that buries the not actually an
| answer under 1500 words and 4 images? Perfect page, up rank.
| callc wrote:
| This and the recent Apple App Store fees have justified my
| decision to only distribute via the web. Thank Tim Berners-Lee
| for this open ecosystem, and for everyone contributing.
|
| Thanks Tim Sweeney for fighting to open these closed feudal
| systems.
|
| Thanks to all the Tims!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-02 23:01 UTC)