5 ms·

It sounds like the problem is with the outsourced developers responsible for the app. It's their account which has been banned - for multiple violations of the

It sounds like the problem is with the outsourced developers responsible for the app. It's their account which has been banned - for multiple violations of the ToS. Now, perhaps this is just over-zealous enforcement on Google's part, but it's also possible that these developers have created shady apps before, or are adding shady code to apps developed for others. The OP doesn't seem to know for certain what code is in their app. Is it possible that the outsourced developers they're using could have introduced dangerous code, and have a track record of doing so before? Nowhere in the post does it suggest that the author has contacted them to find out why their account is banned, which seems a little odd given how frustrated they have become with Google for banning them.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pizza 8y ago
Google has the burden of proof to show why they are guilty by mere association, but won't do it, likely because they don't want to reveal any information about how they determine who is violating the ToS. There should be greater transparency and a better appeals process, but there won't be. At the very least it doesn't seem that Google has thought of a better way to handle the scenario where an honest client relies upon a firm that has within it one bad actor, which seems kind of short-sighted given the heavy-handed nature of their policy - ban and delete someone else's work..
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rjknight 8y ago
  Look at it from the other perspective - if Google doesn't police the Play Store then users are put at risk. When bad actors are detected, they're banned. It sucks if you've hired one of these bad actors to do development work for you, but that can't trump the need for users to be protected from malicious code. In an ideal world, code review of the app would reveal whether or not there's anything fishy going on. It doesn't seem like anyone has done this - not the OP, or Google. OP thinks their developers must be OK, and Google thinks (based on some past evidence) that they're not. This doesn't strike me as totally unreasonable on Google's part.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    I’ve seen enough posts like this that end with the developers being reinstated to doubt google here. They need to provide actual humans as resources to developers and companies. They take a huge cut, they should provide the service. But really we should move away from these app stores.
    - dhimes 8y ago
      Agree. take a huge cut Exactly. It seems there should be some certain legal "level of expectation" that they will act in good faith for 30% (I'm guessing- I don't use them). But really we should move away from these app stores Yep. Which is why I have to guess at the 30%. I find this whole story very disturbing. I understand Google's need to protect their ecosystem from malicious code, and the desire to ban developers who try to do harm (although I suspect that the real bad actors find work-arounds for the bans), but I can't help thinking that this isn't the way a good (morally) company would behave. I guess it points to way more developers out there than Google needs in order to have a vibrant ecosystem, so if they burn through some percentage it isn't worth their time. It makes me think of fishermen who fished ruthlessly and perhaps wastefully when the ocean harvest was plentiful. Years later, however, those fishermen face some dire times, with perhaps more ahead, because the harvest is more modest and future harvests are threatened.
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      I don't know if Google gets a huge cut now but they certainly didn't start that way. Originally when Android shipped Google took 30% but only got 5%, the other 25% went to the carrier. The fact that they only got 5% apparently meant they were barely covering costs. That maybe have changed in the last 10 years but I don't think it has. The help on it says > The remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees. In other words Google is not getting 30% https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... > But really we should move away from these app stores. Agreed
      - distances 8y ago
- on_and_off 8y ago
  >Google has the burden of proof no they don't; this is not a trial.
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  Google does not seem bound by the burden of proof you describe. What evidence supports your claim?
  - pizza 8y ago
    They can do whatever they want but it's just a standard that I find valuable. That's my opinion, not a fact.
    - floatingatoll 8y ago
      (For whatever it’s worth, I agree with your opinion, and wish it was legally binding upon them.)
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  The problem is, people would then use that information to evade bans.
on_and_off 8y ago
ding ding ding. It seems to be the issue to me as well. The analogy given in the article is wrong. It has nothing to do with incriminating you for your neighbors crimes. I do realize it sucks for Mark but if the reason is indeed that these devs are suspended, the suspension of his app is perfectly understandable.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hogu 8y ago
I don't think you can - once you get banned, they run you through some automated thing which usually just tells you the decision is final, and you're banned for good. Then you CANNOT talk to someone. And if you do speak with a customer service rep that finds out you've been banned, they have to stop talking to you. I had an account representative from google at some point. As soon as I was banned, all my calls were routed to voicemail automatically.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Aeolun 8y ago
  I’m assuming this means you were paying them as well?
  - hogu 8y ago
    No. I had just started and I was banned before my first billing cycle. The assign account managers to all new clients to help you get setup properly
    - hogu 8y ago
      I tried paying my outstanding balance (peanuts) but the system won't let you after you're banned
qwertox 8y ago
I'd love to see the source code of the uploaded app.
- system2 8y ago
  The owner most likely doesn't have them. If he had from the beginning none of this would've happened. Considering the publisher is the offshore developer, the owner would've gotten worse trouble than this in the future. Knowing all these, I wouldn't touch their iOS app with a ten-foot-pole.
yoz-y 8y ago
It might be but in that case they should have told them so. Not just "you are banned because of somebody else, sorry, good bye"
ajross 8y ago
> Nowhere in the post does it suggest that the author has contacted them to find out why their account is banned Which, to be fair, is by design. The article admits straight up that it's an attempt to get publicity and embarrass Google into reinstating the account. Giving a complete and forthright accounting cuts against that goal, they want to seem as sympathetic and innocent as possible. And, to be fair, the iPhone set around here is eating it up. Pitchforks are sharpened, torches are lit and the march to the castle is underway. As to the truth? We really have no idea. I think your theory sounds most plausible -- they hired someone scammy to write the app and Google happened to bring the banhammer down on them while this app was being launched.
- puranjay 8y ago
  I get where you're going, but Google has been guilty of similar egregious behavior in the past countless times. The testimony of so many people in this thread alone swings the case in OP's direction, not by virtue of evidence but by virtue of reputation
  - SZJX 8y ago
    Yeah this makes sense. This one particular example seems fishy but when so many people have voiced their support it's clear something is really broken with Google's procedures. This kind of thing is always hard to deal with though it seems Google does have it worse than many other similar behemoths.
m-p-3 8y ago
> suggest that the author has contacted them to find out why their account is banned With how Google makes the appeal/review process opaque, they might not even know themselves. Transparency is a major issue here, you cannot even defend yourself because you don't even have access to the "exhibits" or any other kind of details.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pizza 8y ago

Google has the burden of proof to show why they are guilty by mere association, but won't do it, likely because they don't want to reveal any information about how they determine who is violating the ToS. There should be greater transparency and a better appeals process, but there won't be. At the very least it doesn't seem that Google has thought of a better way to handle the scenario where an honest client relies upon a firm that has within it one bad actor, which seems kind of short-sighted given the heavy-handed nature of their policy - ban and delete someone else's work..

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rjknight 8y ago
Look at it from the other perspective - if Google doesn't police the Play Store then users are put at risk. When bad actors are detected, they're banned. It sucks if you've hired one of these bad actors to do development work for you, but that can't trump the need for users to be protected from malicious code. In an ideal world, code review of the app would reveal whether or not there's anything fishy going on. It doesn't seem like anyone has done this - not the OP, or Google. OP thinks their developers must be OK, and Google thinks (based on some past evidence) that they're not. This doesn't strike me as totally unreasonable on Google's part.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  I’ve seen enough posts like this that end with the developers being reinstated to doubt google here. They need to provide actual humans as resources to developers and companies. They take a huge cut, they should provide the service. But really we should move away from these app stores.
  - dhimes 8y ago
    Agree. take a huge cut Exactly. It seems there should be some certain legal "level of expectation" that they will act in good faith for 30% (I'm guessing- I don't use them). But really we should move away from these app stores Yep. Which is why I have to guess at the 30%. I find this whole story very disturbing. I understand Google's need to protect their ecosystem from malicious code, and the desire to ban developers who try to do harm (although I suspect that the real bad actors find work-arounds for the bans), but I can't help thinking that this isn't the way a good (morally) company would behave. I guess it points to way more developers out there than Google needs in order to have a vibrant ecosystem, so if they burn through some percentage it isn't worth their time. It makes me think of fishermen who fished ruthlessly and perhaps wastefully when the ocean harvest was plentiful. Years later, however, those fishermen face some dire times, with perhaps more ahead, because the harvest is more modest and future harvests are threatened.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    I don't know if Google gets a huge cut now but they certainly didn't start that way. Originally when Android shipped Google took 30% but only got 5%, the other 25% went to the carrier. The fact that they only got 5% apparently meant they were barely covering costs. That maybe have changed in the last 10 years but I don't think it has. The help on it says > The remaining 30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees. In other words Google is not getting 30% https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... > But really we should move away from these app stores. Agreed
    - distances 8y ago
on_and_off 8y ago
>Google has the burden of proof no they don't; this is not a trial.
floatingatoll 8y ago
Google does not seem bound by the burden of proof you describe. What evidence supports your claim?
- pizza 8y ago
  They can do whatever they want but it's just a standard that I find valuable. That's my opinion, not a fact.
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    (For whatever it’s worth, I agree with your opinion, and wish it was legally binding upon them.)
SamReidHughes 8y ago
The problem is, people would then use that information to evade bans.

on_and_off 8y ago

ding ding ding. It seems to be the issue to me as well. The analogy given in the article is wrong. It has nothing to do with incriminating you for your neighbors crimes. I do realize it sucks for Mark but if the reason is indeed that these devs are suspended, the suspension of his app is perfectly understandable.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hogu 8y ago

I don't think you can - once you get banned, they run you through some automated thing which usually just tells you the decision is final, and you're banned for good. Then you CANNOT talk to someone. And if you do speak with a customer service rep that finds out you've been banned, they have to stop talking to you. I had an account representative from google at some point. As soon as I was banned, all my calls were routed to voicemail automatically.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Aeolun 8y ago
I’m assuming this means you were paying them as well?
- hogu 8y ago
  No. I had just started and I was banned before my first billing cycle. The assign account managers to all new clients to help you get setup properly
  - hogu 8y ago
    I tried paying my outstanding balance (peanuts) but the system won't let you after you're banned

qwertox 8y ago

I'd love to see the source code of the uploaded app.

system2 8y ago
The owner most likely doesn't have them. If he had from the beginning none of this would've happened. Considering the publisher is the offshore developer, the owner would've gotten worse trouble than this in the future. Knowing all these, I wouldn't touch their iOS app with a ten-foot-pole.

yoz-y 8y ago

It might be but in that case they should have told them so. Not just "you are banned because of somebody else, sorry, good bye"

ajross 8y ago

> Nowhere in the post does it suggest that the author has contacted them to find out why their account is banned Which, to be fair, is by design. The article admits straight up that it's an attempt to get publicity and embarrass Google into reinstating the account. Giving a complete and forthright accounting cuts against that goal, they want to seem as sympathetic and innocent as possible. And, to be fair, the iPhone set around here is eating it up. Pitchforks are sharpened, torches are lit and the march to the castle is underway. As to the truth? We really have no idea. I think your theory sounds most plausible -- they hired someone scammy to write the app and Google happened to bring the banhammer down on them while this app was being launched.

puranjay 8y ago
I get where you're going, but Google has been guilty of similar egregious behavior in the past countless times. The testimony of so many people in this thread alone swings the case in OP's direction, not by virtue of evidence but by virtue of reputation
- SZJX 8y ago
  Yeah this makes sense. This one particular example seems fishy but when so many people have voiced their support it's clear something is really broken with Google's procedures. This kind of thing is always hard to deal with though it seems Google does have it worse than many other similar behemoths.

m-p-3 8y ago

> suggest that the author has contacted them to find out why their account is banned With how Google makes the appeal/review process opaque, they might not even know themselves. Transparency is a major issue here, you cannot even defend yourself because you don't even have access to the "exhibits" or any other kind of details.