8 ms·

So says you. This is what the ToS say: Google may terminate this Agreement with You for any reason with thirty (30) days' prior written notice. In addition, Go

by avip 8y ago

So says you. This is what the ToS say: Google may terminate this Agreement with You for any reason with thirty (30) days' prior written notice. In addition, Google may, at any time, immediately suspend or terminate this Agreement with You if: (a) You have breached any provision of this Agreement, any non-disclosure agreement or other agreement relating to Google Play or the Android platform; (b) Google is required to do so by law; (c) You cease to be an authorised developer, a developer in good standing, or are barred from using Android software; or (d) Google decides to no longer provide Google Play. https://play.google.com/intl/ALL_uk/about/developer-distribution-agreement.html https://play.google.com/intl/ALL_uk/about/developer-distribu...

noonespecial 8y ago
You are quite right about that. I guess the question is, can they very publicly offer a review process which is essentially a functionless placebo button or is that misleading enough to subject them to any liability at all?
yayr 8y ago
There are varios ways a ToS may be not applicable depending on the jurisdiction. In this case considering the monopoly position of Google here I doubt they can terminate an account that is equivalent to market access for any reason in the EU
- TheForumTroll 8y ago
  >monopoly Apple has a bigger market share
NoblePublius 8y ago
Disclaiming liability is not an excuse for treating your customers poorly.
- confounded 8y ago
  Google’s customers are advertisers, not app developers.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryanhuff 8y ago
    Google took money from the developer in exchange for the performance of a service. The developer is a customer of Google's.
    - ratsmack 8y ago
      I believe the point parent was trying to make is that advertisers are more valuable customers while app developers, as customers, are expendable.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Those app developers who have been dutifully paying fees to Google may be surprised to discover that they are somehow not also paying customers...
    - JetSpiegel 8y ago
      Ancillary customers that Google throws some crumbs to, not the raison d'être of the enterprise.
      - benologist 8y ago
        They have collected billions from developers via their 30% commission on sales and IAPs on their app store, plus the massive volume of advertisements shown in their customers apps for which their split is much more than 30%. Many developers are paying thousands or more a month to Google. Google's customers include advertisers, and they include people paying them for hosting, and people paying them to buy apps, and people paying them to publish apps, people paying them for online services, people buying their hardware, etc.
SiVal 8y ago
Caprices of TOS details, reviews, algorithms, service quality, or whatever are not the real problem. The real problem is when you can't reasonably choose to do business with someone else and move on, as they are free to do with you. Network effects are causing more and more important things to both expand into great significance and to be dominated by a single company (or pair of gatekeepers, both of whom must be appeased, as in the phone platform.) Your business can be utterly wiped out with no realistic recourse by any of a thousand actions that could be taken at any time by the giant, like an elephant stepping on an ant. I'm afraid that the only real recourse is to have certain anticompetitive regulations automatically kick in once a business rises above a certain percentage control of access to some market or medium that has become significant. They lose the ability to unilaterally ban, for example, except in narrow cases involving fraud or suspected criminal activity, which will eventually have to be proved to some official. If they fail to prove it, the official will order compensation without the banned party having to fight the giant's lawyers.
- avip 8y ago
  Sounds like you’d like to see Google classified as a class II common carrier...
  - samat 8y ago
    Hell yes!
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Would that be so wrong?
    - writepub 8y ago
      Yes - they're a private company, albeit unfair in this particular instance.
      - monocasa 8y ago
        Almost all title II common carriers are private companies.
xigency 8y ago
This agreement requires 30 days notice if your agreement is not terminated for breach of terms. So in the case that you have a dispute, they could in fact be in breach of the terms without that 30 days notice. E.g. They can't just say "we don't want to do business with you anymore starting now," at least from this clause.
- londons_explore 8y ago
  They could presumably argue that they close your account today, but the agreement is terminated 30 days in the future.
progval 8y ago
> Google may terminate this Agreement with You for any reason with thirty (30) days' prior written notice. The irony's that the mentioned notice was sent to the junk folder by Gmail. (I'm assuming Gmail from the screenshots)
- coleca 8y ago
  I see this all the time. Legit mail from Google gets stopped by Googles own spam filters on our Corp google apps account. But clearly forged phishing emails purporting to be from our CEO (sent “from” their email address but not from Googles own servers when we use Google apps and have DKIM/SPF setup) gets through to the inboxes.
  - CosmicShadow 8y ago
    I just found my Google support chat transcript in my spam folder on Gmail.
  - smelendez 8y ago
    If they specially whitelisted themselves it would raise antitrust issues.
    - kevingadd 8y ago
      System messages getting through the spam filter isn't an antitrust issue, they're not marketing or competition or sales. In this case it's a 'your account is about to be terminated' message which absolutely should not be getting sent into the spam bin, that's actively harmful to your business. Imagine if the gmail spam bin was eating important renewal notifications and business notices for a company that competes with google, would it still be anti-competitive for Google to make sure gmail's spam filter works right?
      - bad_user 8y ago
        The problem is that Google might be sending those emails in a way that activates the spam filters on other email providers. So if the message is "use Gmail or otherwise you can lose important messages from Google and then your business gets screwed" ... that's definitely an anti-trust issue. That said, they should definitely fix this issue.
mcguire 8y ago
Have those TOS been validated through the courts?
- falsedan 8y ago
  They’re just torts, so yes
adventured 8y ago
There's no such thing as a terms of service that gets you out of openly commiting fraud. The issue isn't the ToS. It's fighting Google in court. If fraud is occuring, the ToS will not actually protect you. You want to know what's keeping Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai up at night right now? They both recently openly lied to Congress and can be put in prison at any time for it. A powerful congressperson merely has to decide to act on it. Dorsey has begun walking back Twitter's aggressive deplatforming against the political rightwing because he's scared now, he knows they can get him on lying to Congress. They can get anyone on lying to Congress, all they have to do is get you to testify extensively, then you're fucked. It's why Google didn't want to send their CEO to testify. The only way to deal with a corporation as powerful as Google is to get their executives in front of Congress or on record in front of federal agents and pin them to the wall. Once they've testified enough under oath, they're effectively in a permanent minefield. They have to be very careful with all related business practices after that. That works when you have a hot political issue, like election tampering. I doubt it's possible to scare up enough attention for app store bans. The only recourse there is to pursue it in court and or hope some state AG will jump on board.
- kebman 8y ago
  Ha, like the state cares about anyone but themselves. :)
- icebraining 8y ago
  What lies did Pichai tell Congress?
mirimir 8y ago
I'm extremely sympathetic with Mark. And Google's support for its ~free services is indeed cursory. Sure, one possible lesson is not making your business dependent on such third parties. But if your business involves an app, you're pretty much stuck being dependent on Google and Apple. I mean, ask Facebook about that. And amusingly, Google re Apple ;) The key lesson here, I think, is the importance of vetting any consultants, developers, etc that you use. In particular, the importance of vetting their reputations with Google and Apple. And indeed, maybe it's best to isolate consultants, developers, etc from Google and Apple. They do work for you, and then you interact with Google and Apple. And you make sure that everything gets sanitized, in the process. That would protect businesses, consultants, and developers from each other regarding their reputations with Google and Apple. For many years, I did work for attorneys. But I never submitted anything directly to any court, opposing counsel, or whatever. And I was careful to wipe my identity from any electronic files that would be submitted.

by avip 8y ago

noonespecial 8y ago

You are quite right about that. I guess the question is, can they very publicly offer a review process which is essentially a functionless placebo button or is that misleading enough to subject them to any liability at all?

yayr 8y ago

There are varios ways a ToS may be not applicable depending on the jurisdiction. In this case considering the monopoly position of Google here I doubt they can terminate an account that is equivalent to market access for any reason in the EU

TheForumTroll 8y ago
>monopoly Apple has a bigger market share

NoblePublius 8y ago

Disclaiming liability is not an excuse for treating your customers poorly.

confounded 8y ago
Google’s customers are advertisers, not app developers.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ryanhuff 8y ago
  Google took money from the developer in exchange for the performance of a service. The developer is a customer of Google's.
  - ratsmack 8y ago
    I believe the point parent was trying to make is that advertisers are more valuable customers while app developers, as customers, are expendable.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  Those app developers who have been dutifully paying fees to Google may be surprised to discover that they are somehow not also paying customers...
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    Ancillary customers that Google throws some crumbs to, not the raison d'être of the enterprise.
    - benologist 8y ago
      They have collected billions from developers via their 30% commission on sales and IAPs on their app store, plus the massive volume of advertisements shown in their customers apps for which their split is much more than 30%. Many developers are paying thousands or more a month to Google. Google's customers include advertisers, and they include people paying them for hosting, and people paying them to buy apps, and people paying them to publish apps, people paying them for online services, people buying their hardware, etc.

SiVal 8y ago

Caprices of TOS details, reviews, algorithms, service quality, or whatever are not the real problem. The real problem is when you can't reasonably choose to do business with someone else and move on, as they are free to do with you. Network effects are causing more and more important things to both expand into great significance and to be dominated by a single company (or pair of gatekeepers, both of whom must be appeased, as in the phone platform.) Your business can be utterly wiped out with no realistic recourse by any of a thousand actions that could be taken at any time by the giant, like an elephant stepping on an ant. I'm afraid that the only real recourse is to have certain anticompetitive regulations automatically kick in once a business rises above a certain percentage control of access to some market or medium that has become significant. They lose the ability to unilaterally ban, for example, except in narrow cases involving fraud or suspected criminal activity, which will eventually have to be proved to some official. If they fail to prove it, the official will order compensation without the banned party having to fight the giant's lawyers.

avip 8y ago
Sounds like you’d like to see Google classified as a class II common carrier...
- samat 8y ago
  Hell yes!
- monocasa 8y ago
  Would that be so wrong?
  - writepub 8y ago
    Yes - they're a private company, albeit unfair in this particular instance.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      Almost all title II common carriers are private companies.

xigency 8y ago

This agreement requires 30 days notice if your agreement is not terminated for breach of terms. So in the case that you have a dispute, they could in fact be in breach of the terms without that 30 days notice. E.g. They can't just say "we don't want to do business with you anymore starting now," at least from this clause.

londons_explore 8y ago
They could presumably argue that they close your account today, but the agreement is terminated 30 days in the future.

progval 8y ago

> Google may terminate this Agreement with You for any reason with thirty (30) days' prior written notice. The irony's that the mentioned notice was sent to the junk folder by Gmail. (I'm assuming Gmail from the screenshots)

coleca 8y ago
I see this all the time. Legit mail from Google gets stopped by Googles own spam filters on our Corp google apps account. But clearly forged phishing emails purporting to be from our CEO (sent “from” their email address but not from Googles own servers when we use Google apps and have DKIM/SPF setup) gets through to the inboxes.
- CosmicShadow 8y ago
  I just found my Google support chat transcript in my spam folder on Gmail.
- smelendez 8y ago
  If they specially whitelisted themselves it would raise antitrust issues.
  - kevingadd 8y ago
    System messages getting through the spam filter isn't an antitrust issue, they're not marketing or competition or sales. In this case it's a 'your account is about to be terminated' message which absolutely should not be getting sent into the spam bin, that's actively harmful to your business. Imagine if the gmail spam bin was eating important renewal notifications and business notices for a company that competes with google, would it still be anti-competitive for Google to make sure gmail's spam filter works right?
    - bad_user 8y ago
      The problem is that Google might be sending those emails in a way that activates the spam filters on other email providers. So if the message is "use Gmail or otherwise you can lose important messages from Google and then your business gets screwed" ... that's definitely an anti-trust issue. That said, they should definitely fix this issue.

mcguire 8y ago

Have those TOS been validated through the courts?

falsedan 8y ago
They’re just torts, so yes

adventured 8y ago

There's no such thing as a terms of service that gets you out of openly commiting fraud. The issue isn't the ToS. It's fighting Google in court. If fraud is occuring, the ToS will not actually protect you. You want to know what's keeping Jack Dorsey and Sundar Pichai up at night right now? They both recently openly lied to Congress and can be put in prison at any time for it. A powerful congressperson merely has to decide to act on it. Dorsey has begun walking back Twitter's aggressive deplatforming against the political rightwing because he's scared now, he knows they can get him on lying to Congress. They can get anyone on lying to Congress, all they have to do is get you to testify extensively, then you're fucked. It's why Google didn't want to send their CEO to testify. The only way to deal with a corporation as powerful as Google is to get their executives in front of Congress or on record in front of federal agents and pin them to the wall. Once they've testified enough under oath, they're effectively in a permanent minefield. They have to be very careful with all related business practices after that. That works when you have a hot political issue, like election tampering. I doubt it's possible to scare up enough attention for app store bans. The only recourse there is to pursue it in court and or hope some state AG will jump on board.

kebman 8y ago
Ha, like the state cares about anyone but themselves. :)
icebraining 8y ago
What lies did Pichai tell Congress?

mirimir 8y ago

I'm extremely sympathetic with Mark. And Google's support for its ~free services is indeed cursory. Sure, one possible lesson is not making your business dependent on such third parties. But if your business involves an app, you're pretty much stuck being dependent on Google and Apple. I mean, ask Facebook about that. And amusingly, Google re Apple ;) The key lesson here, I think, is the importance of vetting any consultants, developers, etc that you use. In particular, the importance of vetting their reputations with Google and Apple. And indeed, maybe it's best to isolate consultants, developers, etc from Google and Apple. They do work for you, and then you interact with Google and Apple. And you make sure that everything gets sanitized, in the process. That would protect businesses, consultants, and developers from each other regarding their reputations with Google and Apple. For many years, I did work for attorneys. But I never submitted anything directly to any court, opposing counsel, or whatever. And I was careful to wipe my identity from any electronic files that would be submitted.