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.
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.
Rather the general app sandbox has had tightened security, which affects api compatibility, thus play rejects it to make sure it’s future proofed by author. In the meantime, during phase-out, sideloading works so old versions of app suddenly don’t stop working, but eventually that call will stop working.
Whether apps should be allowed to download and execute code out of the apk bundle itself is of course another political topic.
Oh yikes, Google is going down the Apple path of forbidding downloaded code? That's awful. How long until third party web browsers are banned on Android as well?
Googler opinions are my own. I know nothing about the space.
At least skimming the termux issue here is that it was done for SELinux policy changes in trying to improve security of application running on Android. Is that correct? Then the app store is trying to enforce this newer policy via forced API upgrades.
As you said, you can at least still side load if you would like?
Yes, but if only the system doesn't pop up the Play Protect button every few install, and words that discourage users instead of educating users about sideloading apps. Then I'll consider sideloading on par with installing from the Play store.
How about just adding a permission to the already present permission system? Oh, that's right. Google and Apple don't trust their users and want full control over everyone's devices.
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.
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 §4 (opens new window), because using Aurora Store clearly violates their terms of services. Being banned means that the very Google account you used to sign in with will be blocked forever. It might be worth using a dummy account for that reason.
I don't know how often using aurora store has actually resulted in a ban though.
>attempt to, or assist, authorize or encourage others to circumvent, disable or defeat any of the security features or components that protect, obfuscate or otherwise restrict access to any Content or Google Play.
Am I reading this correctly in that, this seems to me like just telling people about something like Aurora is against the terms of services and can get you banned whether you use it or not?
As in, even the gp comment technically breaks that rule just by posting that Aurora FAQ?
I've always considered TOS's an abberation of contract law myself.
I've had many professional contracts with both private and commercial clients. In none of those cases was I ever allowed to provide a contract where I could just decide whatever I want, whenever I want and the customer is forced to agree otherwise...fuck them...and I still get paid.
The TOS are subject to change but at least here (France) tout have to be informed about the change and you can leave the contract at no cost of you do not agree.
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.
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.
Mine was a broad statement, just by searching for alternatives you tell Google you know that they exist. You can use Aurora today and move to a different store tomorrow, or go straight there just now.
Either way, you send the message that you know there is a world out there, and you know how to choose, which is what advertisers hate the most, because they want to be the ones that make you decide if and when you should switch to a product.
That is wishful thinking. Do you think anyone at Google reads through all of the search queries? Or do you think the search terms for alternative app stores will start trending sufficiently to catch Google's attention?
Also, I want to tell you it gets better, I had problems getting sleep too for nearly a decade and it started really catching up with me as I entered my thirties (appetite, energy and cognitive issues for example). Turning screens off, limiting stimulants, not partying as much and keeping a regular wake up time _really_ helped me.
Interesting that that google search only gave me spam for 1.5 pages. Wikipedia being at the bottom of the second page. (I use F-Droid, I was just curious. Usually a DuckDuckGo user. Search done from Germany)
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.
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.
Errr, no they don't. Yes, they must be disable-able.
It does not require the phone maintain the same functionality, etc.
For example, Verizon makes visual voicemail only available on the verizon store.
You can disable it, you can remove it.
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/
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.
The natural state of these things is one where someone is abusing it, whether carriers or someone else.
I don't actually disagree with your assessment of what happened, but i don't have the hope people here do.
I have watched the ebb and flow too many times, and lived in DC too long :)
I also think the hope is amazingly misplaced.
Rarely, if ever, do complex systems like this change in the desired way as a result of trying to "fix them" directly. Sometimes they change, sometimes the inertia keeps them in the same state.
But it rarely, if ever, does this kind of change have the intended effect.
>> Sometimes they change, sometimes the inertia keeps them in the same state. But it rarely, if ever, does this kind of change have the intended effect.
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.
Google admits it tries to prevent sideloading as much as possible in their own court filings with Epic. Their own managers called the experience "abysmal", and they considered buying Epic to prevent them from doing it. Also they sent Project Zero out to portray Epic as "insecure" in a bunch of hit pieces across the media.
AOSP is not meaningfully existing on any device sold today.
The fact you can hack your device doesn't change the monopoly Google operates that 99.9% of Android devices are trapped in.
> An unlockable bootloader isn't a hack. Try again.
Several apps rely on successful SafetyNet verification to start functioning. A unlocked bootloader will trip this and apps stop functioning. Current solutions to overcome this is a cat and mouse game.
After the first time it takes a whole whopping, astounding, IMPOSSIBLE.... 4 steps. Open browser, download APK, open APK, click Install.
IMPOSSIBLE, I TELL YOU!
Don't even need to enable Developer Options in Android. No iOS developer cert needed. No host computer or one week expiration like Apple does it.
And guess what? Sideloading has always been possible on Android. Always.
This looks like something Google is doing to make it too difficult to sideload? ("Google tries to prevent sideloading as much as possible" I believe was said) Well, shit, whoever finds this difficult should not be sideloading apps in the first place.
> Several apps rely on successful SafetyNet verification to start functioning. A unlocked bootloader will trip this and apps stop functioning. Current solutions to overcome this is a cat and mouse game.
However, this doesn't change the fact that unlocking the bootloader on a device where a bootloader can be unlocked... is NOT A HACK.
Safetynet as a consequence of unlocking the bootloader is a known trade off. Security vs the ability to modify the system files. Seems completely fair to me.
The way you guys go about this, how you get so much wrong in the process that the disingenuous replies barely mask that your contempt lies with Google regardless of how anything is actually done.
You created an account to jump into a thread where you merely propagated the previous user's fallacies? Really?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't share that view. While there are things that I'd really miss in 2000 era Internet today like Wikipedia, GitHub and maybe YouTube, the only thing that really sucked was the IE monopoly (almost like Chrome today) and the Internet connections themselves. Only a few years after that DSL/cable became commonplace and since then the only thing different today is that websites became a lot more bloated and slow.
If you told me in 2000 about the things you listed I'd tell you you're a slowpoke, that's obviously coming and most things were actually already there like SIP, ICQ, IRC, translator software, browsers, etc. existed on the smartphones of the day. What wasn't there was the adoption by the masses, but the tech was there.
I appreciate this comment a lot. It's much easier to be nostalgic for a simpler time, if only because the problems were simpler (also with the benefit of hindsight).
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.
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.
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.
If "that's fair enough" is dismissive to you, I hope I never end up having to break up with you!
You're not the person I was replying to, I don't have to justify myself to you. If you want me to be graceful, you can come watch me at the rink instead.
I just wanted to point out how wrong you were, and how petulant your reaction was when it was pointed out (several times), just in case it may help open your eyes. Obviously it didn't.
Well, I disagree. The first web client that OSM had been, of course, very different: there wasn't smooth scrolling, etc, which were added after Google Maps did it.
However, a nice and smooth client with drag and zoom was a rather obvious thing to do: a lot of computer games had maps in them as early as in late 1980s, like Sim City and many others, where you could zoom, drag along etc, and it wasn't done in OSM rigth from the start mostly due to pitiful state of web browsers and web standards of the time. So I think that even without Google Maps, OSM would have evolved to have great usability, just as it did in our timeline.
perhaps this is whoosh, but I thought Google wasn't releasing their model weights or source code, at least for a lot of things.
like with WaveNet, it was easy to train but computationally infeasible to run the way they published the paper. then it turns out there's a trick that makes playing it forward far more efficient, which Google later acknowledged using internally, but didn't disclose.
What kind of trick? At a glance wavenet looks like you could reuse most of the computation from earlier timesteps (would gave to take a closer look to see if it'd actually work), but I assume you're talking about something less obvious?
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....
> 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?
Being able to group people into "good" and "bad" ones is convenient. It means you only need to find out once if someone is a "good" or "bad" person and once you have decided that someone is "bad" you can justify any of your own behavior towards them. But just because it is convenient does not make it true. People are people. Choices are bad or good or more likley somewhere in between. Nobody is innately good or bad - while some poeple my be wired to be more selfish than others, the choices they make throughout their lifes are as much dictated by the circumstances they are made in and by the experiences made before them as they are by the neurological makeup of the person.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I'm old enough to remember that in 2001, Microsoft got in trouble just for shipping Windows with IE preinstalled. Which seems like an awfully quaint concern by 2021 standards.
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".
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Cheat engine has one thing going for it: ready made scripts for many games that automatically show many important values for you. Conqueror doesn't have that.
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.
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.
Yes, I remember the debates about truly owning a game when you bought a physical copy vs buying it on Steam. I avoided Steam for that exact reason, but then the market for games that never had a physical distro exploded, and even many/most physical games moved to a physical disk but one-time activation codes.
Once I realized there was little benefit to physical purchases anymore and the hassle of reinstalling games when I got a new machine I made the switch. But with GOG around I at least still get to mostly own the games available through them.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)
> 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.
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.
Both Microsoft and Google will outright claim that files are Malware and even make up names for some trojan or whatever that the file supposedly contains based on nothing more than machine learning algorithms an heuristics. They will then drag their feet in removing the false positives, deny the review without any reason or simply automatically flag the same file again and again and again. All while Microsoft and Google are not letting users download the files without navigating through intentionally misnamed menu options or just straight up delete the legitimate software without any user promt. At this point I can only assume that this behavior is has malicious intent.
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??
Even though most users aren't developers, the "Freedom" in Free Software is about user freedom not developer freedom (which is also a point that trips some developers who claim that licenses like MIT, zlib, etc are more free - they see it from the developer's side instead of the user's side).
You shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run any software on your own devices and especially you shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run software you or your friend made modifications to.
Yes, but it's Apple we're talking about, so I'm moving past this part of the conversation. As a dev, you should want the least resistance to getting users running your code. If that means playing by the OS vendor's rules to get something signed that says "I'm not a crook", then that's what it takes. Should it? That's valid but beyond the scope of my comment and thought exercise.
I applaud your stance. So now it comes down to knowing what your software is intended to do, and who is trying to use it. If your target audience doesn't line up with your stance on an open OS, then you have to make that decision of staying true to your position, or meeting your users where they operate. As they say "a leader with no followers is just a person taking a walk".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Now introducing Windows 12 Developer edition. Dark mode is enabled by default, Visual Studio comes preinstalled and it is $5000 a year. Cheap to a professional developer and keeps the masses from running their own code.
This is not to stop the people who can download from a torrent (without getting sued into oblivion for copyright violations) and know how to install an OS. It's to stop the other 99%.
In some sense having an option for that 1% is a good idea, because it reduced their interest to break the "protections" in the Home edition that the majority uses.
Okay, let's see. All desktop web browsers come with developer tools, but most people have no idea. Many Android phones have unlockable bootloaders, and even fewer people know about this one. It's this difference between "can be done if you need and know how" and "burned into silicon so you're out of luck" that's very important. The latter is extremely dangerous as it completely strips the user of agency.
Windows recently started blocking torrenting software due to being “malware”. Coincidence that it’s the main distribution mechanism for Linux distribution’s installation media?
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.)
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".
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.
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)
"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.
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.
The first time you deal with Google's customer support, you wish you had never dealt with Google in the first place.
Their decisions are slow, arbitrary and often inconsistent. Regularly, they are not answering at all.
We are fighting with Google for 8 months already. Our app was suspended 5 times. We re-submitted 3 new apps in order to comply. They approved our appeals request, only to suspend the app one week later. A process error as admitted 3 months later by Google. Our app was even in quantum state once: both approved and suspended at the same time. The story still goes on ...
All other app stores, like Apple App Store, Huawei AppGallery, and Samsung Galaxy Store made a thorough check once, but all approved the app months ago.
When I started a startup, I was afraid of bureaucracy in Germany. Turns out that in fact the greatest threat is Google's (non existing) customer support.
To be clear, I don't blame the customer support itself. They are doing their best. It just seems that Google is seriously understaffed in this area. It's outrageous that the 30 percent fee is not invested in sufficient man power.
Apple does the same sort of thing. Even if you allow your customers to make an in-app purchase through apple, you can get your app flagged for having a link to your website in your app, if your website also has a way to pay. This sort of behavior is clearly predatory.
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.
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.
In what way(s) aren't PWAs as good, would you say?
Personally, I think >90% of all apps I've used could be implemented as a PWA, as nothing they do really require native performance.
The main issues I see are
1. The DX needs some improvement
2. Apple are dragging their feet implementing new web tech on Safari, and are therefore holding everyone hostage since you cannot install any other browser on iOS.
From my perspective (also iOS and macOS dev) PWAs can be great for a lot of use cases, especially if you just need a mobile offering for an existing SaaS product. If Apple actually implements some of the required features for PWAs in Safari they will still always be missing native controls, gestures, navigation will be off and I think the biggest difference is you'll be missing access to all the deeper integrations you can do with the OS through Apple's various frameworks and APIs. Whether or not thats important to your app varies a lot, for a lot of CRUD apps that need something in the stores the PWA approach with capacitor is likely fine.
For the record I'm also pro Apple implementing richer PWA support as I personally see both approaches coexisting.
The App stores have become a cartel and I'd love to see their unscrupulous behavior challenged in court. (Epic is doing that, but your case is easier to sympathize with).
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.
> 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.
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.
Why do they forbid tax exempt donations through Google Play billing? I would instead require everything including physical goods to be paid through them, and apply double cut to donations (kidding indeed, I am not a narcissist).
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.
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?
This guy is amazing. I don't even think he accepted donations until recently. I'd heavily recommend the Spanish course - his student is so active and attentive that you end up learning from her, too.
It's sad that a project like this has to suffer the bureaucracies of these awful gatekeepers. IIRC, he started teaching language for free in order to encourage understanding between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
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)
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.
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?
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"...
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.
For folks suggesting a PWA would solve this problem: the Language Transfer app caches audio files. PWA on all platforms have a storage limit (some % of free storage on the device). So it might not work for folks who tend to keep only a couple of percent space free on their phones.
Of course, there are other ways to use LT on your phone (download the files and play them with any audio player). But the app has a nice clean interface that reduces distractions, which is important because you need to tap 'pause' pretty often to get the best out of the experience.
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.
Wow, thanks for sharing your experience. The GitHub thing in particular is absolutely absurd. We do have GitHub Sponsors set up on the Language Transfer repository, but it looks like the GitHub link wasn't the culprit this time around.
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
Absolutely do not see Google doing anything about WhiteHatJr publishing apps on students behalf with dead privacy policy pages(which are actually google doc links of all things!). And all of the app websites being linked back to their own subdomains hosted at WhiteHatJr website. Such a shady company, acting as if under 14 years old kids have paid the $25 fee, read all agreements, built apps in any IDE & published the same....
Similarly, the iOS App Store reviewers once clicked a link to our podcast blog (website) and then found a patreon link, and thus rejected the app update. I asked how I could include a patreon link that enables them to take their cut, and they didn’t have an answer.
Additionally, my app currently has an if statement: if android, show patreon link. I thought they didn’t care! Goes they just haven’t noticed it yet.
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.
Ugh, this one hits close to home. Language Transfer is an amazing project that I recommended to multiple people in my family and they loved the Turkish lessons. I hope this doesn’t discourage them, you’re providing a truly generous resource to all language learners in a space where similar courses cost hundreds of dollars per language.
My unpopular but realistic opinion as a successful financially app dev is - just post a Google compliant link to a payment system. Take the 15% hit. The payment link is likely to be more direct and user friendly, so you will likely end up earning more even after the 15% cut. Having a link to a website and then having users have to scroll to the bottom in order to donate means you are likely to be earning near $0 from it anyway.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
> 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?
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.
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?)?
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.
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...
"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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
I read the intent as disallowing the use of the app store to distribute an app that you make money on, without paying for the use of the app store. It seems as simple as that. And "this app is free, but please come give me money for it" is a way of doing just that.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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].
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?
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?
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.
"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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...