34 ms·

Open-source apps removed from Google Play Store due to donation links

1438 points by regecks 7y ago

quirkafleeg3 7y ago
And yet games with hundred dollar microtransactions stay up fine. It's almost as if Google turn a blind eye to that which makes them richer. oh wait, that's exactly what it's like. The bastards.
Tepix 7y ago
If only there was an alternative to the Apple app store like F-Droid is for Google Play...
- gallexme 7y ago
  Does Cydia etc no longer exist?
  - newscracker 7y ago
    That requires jailbreaking the device, which may or may not be possible depending on the device and the version of iOS it's running. Recently there was a bootrom exploit called checkm8 that made possible "tethered" jailbreaks to be created for a large range of devices. But even that works only till iPhone X (and not on newer devices), and the jailbreak (if/when available) would have to be done every time the device is restarted.
  - dewey 7y ago
    If you jailbreak you also usually have to run on an older iteration of the OS and have to wait before updating. It's not really a very attractive option. Signing up as developer, paying the fee and building the app yourself is probably the better option. Even if you have to rebuild it every xx days.
- nyuszika7h 7y ago
  AltStore is a thing, assuming you have a Mac...
  - virgilp 7y ago
    Apple can still shut it down, and you can bet they will if it gets any sort of popularity. > Testut imagines Apple could disable the ability to sync over Wi-Fi, but that would just mean plugging in your phone once a week to continue using AltStore How about limit the number of disable WiFi syncs and force you to plug in once every 8 hours?
  - Tepix 7y ago
    I just noticed a beta version for Windows on their homepage.
- driverdan 7y ago
  There is, F-Droid on Android. Stop using devices you don't have root access to.
- Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
  Actually, F-Droid is not panacea. F-Droid apps do not have access to Push notifications. Coupled with crippled background app performance in recent Android version, it extremely limits certain classes of apps, especially all messengers.
tcd 7y ago
Unsurprising - Google obviously wants you to be within their walled garden. You could probably add an in-app purchase but this has been a known thing for a while now.
trulyrandom 7y ago
Apparently andOTP was removed for the same reason a couple of days ago: https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396 https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396. As mentioned in the announcement, you can switch over to F-Droid (for the time being) to get the latest version: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android.
- bubblethink 7y ago
  >(for the time being) Why do you have that caveat ? You can use f-droid forever.
  - trulyrandom 7y ago
    Because I prefer sticking to APKs signed by the author of the app. F-Droid APKs are signed with different keys, typically.
    - zx2c4 7y ago
      I agree with your sentiment in theory. Unfortunately, in practice, Google Play Store rips off my signature after I upload and sticks their own one on instead. Blah.
      - trulyrandom 7y ago
        Huh, isn't that only the case for Android App Bundles?
        Avamander 7y ago
        Only if the app is enrolled to their resigning program, requires either initial agreement or signing key upload.
      - pmh 7y ago
        I thought that was opt-in still (https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/7384423?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...) unless you use app bundles, but that article makes it sound like you can bring your own key too. Do they still modify the signature in that case?
izacus 7y ago
For anyone else publishing mobile apps: Neither Apple nor Google allow bypassing the store's purchase system by linking to external donation pages. No matter the app type, it will result in rejection.
- ismaildonmez 7y ago
  The same app has the same link on its iOS app and just in the last week was updated twice.
  - yoz-y 7y ago
    It is however forbidden. Just because they didn't get caught does not mean anything. Spamming users with notifications is also against the rules and everybody does it anyways.
- alt_f4 7y ago
  that plus app store monopoly on each platform should mean several billion dollars in fines, if we actually enforced antitrust laws
- dessant 7y ago
  Google Play In-app Billing does not support donations. > Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing: > One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations. https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/
- NightlyDev 7y ago
  Donation pages, maybe. But there is a lot of categories on the play store where you have to use your own payment method or can if you want to. Some examples are purchases that can be used outside the app, eg. cross platform purchases and things like transportation and finance.
- tyfon 7y ago
  I wonder what would happen if you link your your home page and you have a donation link there. How deep does it have to be before they cut you off? Can you link to a page that is only linking to another page where the donation happens? How much extra text would you need to "pass inspection". I find these kinds of arbitrary rules very unsettling. It's definitely time to break up the tech giants. It is odd that they remove this though, I use at least two more open source apps that asks for a donation and will send me to their donation page if I click.
supergilbert 7y ago
When is an alternative Android play store coming? To all the entrepreneurs reading this: please create one. To all the VCs reading this: please fund one. It's badly needed. I heard Huawei is working on one but I wouldn't bet on it.
- phoe-krk 7y ago
  F-Droid already exists.
  - supergilbert 7y ago
    Yes but none of my friends and family who own an Android device know about it. I'm talking about a mainstream alternative android store. The design of f-droid is not appealing enough.
    - trulyrandom 7y ago
      F-Droid has a pretty strong foundation in my opinion. It just needs more resources to be able to publish app updates more quickly. It also needs a redesign, like you said, but I don't think there's a need to start from scratch
    - phoe-krk 7y ago
      So do you mean a store run by a company that has the money and intent to promote such a store enough for everybody knows about it, e.g. Facebook, Amazon, or Microsoft? I don't think this is a solution.
      - stOneskull 7y ago
        Amazon has an app store but it's just an inferior play store really. Nothing exclusive, I don't think, and just Amazon takes 30% instead.
    - moviuro 7y ago
      1. F-Droid can't be published on Google Play Store, because they're an "alternative market". 2. Please, make it appealing for you and others! https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidclient https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidclient
dessant 7y ago
It's unfortunate that the developer resubmitted the app without the donation link, open source projects having a donation link in their apps does not violate Google Play policies. > Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing: > One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations. https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/
- zx2c4 7y ago
  It indeed is unfortunate. But what other recourse did we have? The first objective, before we even consider donations or anything, is to make our software available and functional to our users. So we had to resubmit. And it's not like the resubmission process is instantaneous; as of writing, the app still isn't back in the store. But anyway, now what? Let's say things return to normal, but we still want to put the silly link in the app. Our appeal was rejected. We could send letters, I suppose. Perhaps this article on HN will get the attention of the right people? We could appeal the appeal, maybe. And then appeal the appeal for the appeal. At what point does this become a waste of energy that could be spent coding and improving the app in other ways? It's hard to know where to draw the line and which battles are worth fighting. I'm happy to hear folks' opinions on the matter. I certainly agree, though, that it is unfortunate.
  - dessant 7y ago
    Donations are not supported by in-app purchases, and I'm sure this doesn't mean open source apps are not allowed to sustain themselves by showing a donation link. Or if that is Google's unwritten policy, people must make their voices heard, this abusive behavior cannot be accepted. I would resubmit the app with the donation link and continue to document and share what happened. Please do not allow them to set a precedent with a popular project like WireGuard. It's important to share every detail of the issue, the messages you received, your replies, and the policy links you were given about the alleged policy violations.
    - bipson 7y ago
esotericn 7y ago
$50 sent, thanks Jason, no thanks Google. A small amount relative to the value that you're giving to the world, but hopefully a few pints won't go amiss. Fuck gatekeepers.
- alias_neo 7y ago
  I too made a "fuck Google" donation to the WireGuard project today, after seeing an update and then the app disappearing entirely. I'd love to use the F-Droid version but it's not up-to-date, and isn't published by Jason, so it's not signed by him either. Publishing it on the website with a built in update-check might be one solution I'd be happy with, it'd only need a text file hosted on the website and a check, perhaps each time WG is activated to see if there is an update. Modern Android versions can be toggled to allow installing software from external sources, so the app could "install itself".
- karambir 7y ago
  Though I am not using android app, I just made a $10 donation. WireGuard has been a great software for me on Desktops. Cheers
dvh 7y ago
Does patreon link count?
reacharavindh 7y ago
This is really unfortunate. If Google is ready to arm twist a popular project like Wireguard, smaller indie open source apps stand little to no chance than to bend over. This App store gatekeeping should be illegal. Selling the hardware/OS and marketplace by the same person is more like online dictatorship at this time.
- Hamcha 7y ago
  Honestly. I'm fine as long as sideloading 3rd party shops is not actively sabotaged. I tend to search stuff on fdroid first and Play store later, and that's something I just can't do on iOS.
irjustin 7y ago
I know this will be against deeply against HNews but I'm open to discussion. I don't see anything wrong with this. Charging vs Donations, I don't see what the difference is. It's people paying money for good/services/software. The primary difference is the open ended pricing model. Google, Apple put up networks and there's value in that network. Whether someone chooses to release their app for free or charge money for it, that app is dictated by the network fees. This network is extremely powerful in terms of its distribution reach. Does it warrant 30%? That's what the market is willing to put up with, but if we're debating 30% - it should be for the whole network not just because someone has an open ended pricing model. If this app is registered as a non-profit (which it did not look like based on the website?) then I am 100% in the wrong and do believe the app should be able to operate under different pricing schemes. At a philosophical level - what is the difference between a free-to-use app that has open ended pricing vs a FOSS with donations? If there is a difference, let's discuss it.
- usr1106 7y ago
  It is useless to discuss market or even fairness as long Google and Apple are (de-facto) monopolies for the respective phone owner. It's a major failure of governments to allow monopolies.
  - irjustin 7y ago
    100% agree that what Apple and Google take for their network is extortion pricing.
- dessant 7y ago
  There is no need for a philosophical debate, because Google Play In-app Billing simply doesn't support donations. https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/
- wtfwhateven 7y ago
  >Charging vs Donations, I don't see what the difference is. Charging: Person paying gets something in return Donating: Person paying does not get something in return >The primary difference is the open ended pricing model. What does "an open ended pricing model" mean?
hohohmm 7y ago
Please make wireguard available in App Store China region.
Crazyontap 7y ago
A lot of people justify Google and Apple's 30% because they provide an app store and distribution. But Android is Android because of these apps. Without them it would be like the Windows phone which was nice but didn't get enough apps on it and so it failed. These companies depend on our apps as much as we depend on their app store for distribution. Fuck apple for starting this walled garden and creating a parasitic relationship rather than a symbiotic relationship.
- sjwright 7y ago
  "Android is Android because of these apps" but "Fuck Apple"? I don't understand.
  - Crazyontap 7y ago
    I said: > Fuck apple for starting this walled garden IIRC apple started it and now all the big players are following suite.. including even Windows 10 which has it's own app store and similar cut.
- bagacrap 7y ago
  TBH Google Maps was the killer app that smartphones needed to get off the ground. Out of 13 apps on my home screen, 7 are Google apps. Both Apple and Google did a little more than building the framework and then sitting back... So how do you decide what a fair cut is? Over the course of a month, given all your app and system usage, and all the pieces of software you've touched or relied on, what percent of the engineer hours required for that stuff to work came from Google/Apple vs coming from third party app makers? Is that how you decide the split? Because I have a feeling the time it took to build the 15 third party apps I might touch in a month don't come close to the level of effort required to have built the system and first party apps.
sofaofthedamned 7y ago
Donated via PayPal. Thanks for your work, would be great to see it in the kernel soon.
hnarn 7y ago
> Sorry for the inconvenience. I'm sure many users are just as annoyed as I am. In the interim, luckily F-Droid has our app.[1] Thank heavens there's an alternate way of distributing apps on Android. Say what you want about Android vs. iOS, but at least there's an alternative if you as a consumer have a beef with Google Play. [1]: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android/
- degenerate 7y ago
  Even if the Play Store and F-Droid both disappeared, the replacement could be a community-run open directory of APKs sorted by version. At least we have options on Android.
  - cesarb 7y ago
    > directory of APKs sorted by version Something like that already exists. I had to use one of these directories once to install an older release of Signal on a relative's phone (newer releases of Signal don't work on older phones, older releases of Signal aren't compatible with the current Signal server, but there's a single version in the middle which both works on older phones and is compatible with the current Signal server; unfortunately, that phone hadn't yet updated to that release before a newer release went out).
unnouinceput 7y ago
Quote: "They said it was because we're in violation of their "Payments Policy", presumably because we have a link inside the app that opens the user's web browser to wireguard.com/donations/" C'mon people, is Google we talk about, you know, those who bow to might $$$ only. You should've made a donation link INSIDE google, so they can charge their 30% before you get the money, that's how you keep your app in their store </sarcasm>.
- Spivak 7y ago
  I mean you're being sarcastic but this is how basically every other app accepts payments to support the developer. There are plenty of "buy me a coffee" buttons in free apps.
segfaultbuserr 7y ago
I use WireGuard daily since 2017, and it's one of my most favorite computer programs in the entire world - robust, reliable, state-of-art cryptography, and seamless integration into the system. I've never donated to WireGuard before, and I didn't think about donation (I installed WireGuard from my package manager and didn't realize a donation link exists), until now. Just donated 25 USD. Thanks Jason. No thanks, Google.
- neop1x 7y ago
  Me too. Just donated. Awesome software.
chx 7y ago
Deleted. Wrong thread.
- tadzik_ 7y ago
  Wrong thread? :)
  - chx 7y ago
    Yes. Absolutely. Let me see whether I can delete it.
gorgoiler 7y ago
Ugh, app stores! No one needs them for discovering new software. You go to the app store to get a specific piece of software you already know about and whose reputation you’ve already verified. No one needs them for code signing. If you want the real firefox.apk you can download it from https://firefox.com/ https://firefox.com/ and notice a lack of SSL alarms going off. What’s the code signing for — to let me know that HTTPS works?! All I really want is an OS facility that only executes code that has been installed explicitly by me, and always in a sandbox. That’ll stop that dodgy email from executing r00t.sh via an exploit in my mail client. App stores and code signing popups are proxies for that kind of OS facility, but I’d rather it was just part of the OS explicitly. App stores leave me with all sorts of unwanted properties, namely Google / Apple throwing their unwanted opinion around. Search for Instagram in the iOS App Store: the top UI element is “InstaMap”, thanks Apple!
- LennyWhiteJr 7y ago
  Code Signing and HTTPS are two completely unrelated concepts...
  - etskinner 7y ago
    Yes, but their point is: Why would you need code signing if https is working correctly when downloading software?
    - nwatson 7y ago
      The product is built in a very controlled and secure environment at the core of a company's competency ... code-signing here stamps the product as authoritative and representing the company's efforts. The website from which you, the customer, download the software often is built and managed under less controlled and more vulnerable circumstances, often with third party involvement. Any bad actor in a long chain of internal caretakers and potentially external hackers can replace the to-be-downloaded artifact HTTPS with malicious junk. Code-signing mitigates this.
    - Xylakant 7y ago
black_puppydog 7y ago
The very same thing happened to manyverse (android ssb client) the other day. Got de-listed, resubmitted without donation page, now it's back up. How google tries to claim any sort of support for open source is beyond me. What open source app doesn't need a donation link? Those approved and funded by google don't, okay. But other than that?
- sniuff 7y ago
  Open source app can be compiled and installed without Google play store. If you are hosting on their platform, you adhere to their rules, you are not paying monthly for your free app download bandwith and storage do you ?
  - icebraining 7y ago
    That doesn't mean you can't question (and even criticize!) the rules or their application.
  - acollins1331 7y ago
    Wow great point. Now why the hell can't they have a donation link?
    - Spivak 7y ago
      Because you can't use Google's store as a sales funnel without giving them a 30% cut. It doesn't matter if you're a company taking payments or an individual accepting donations.
      - ViViDboarder 7y ago
        Wrong. You can’t even use Google with giving them a 30% cut since donations are prohibited from Google Payments.
      - BlueTemplar 7y ago
        I'm not a lawyer, but aren't sales and donations quite different? For instance donations tend to have negative taxes...
tjpnz 7y ago
As far as moneitisation is concerned it really feels as though Google want you displaying their ads or have you funnel your users through their checkout process. Anything else seems to result in apps getting flagged for violating policies around payments or deceptive advertising.
Santosh83 7y ago
A general comment: the need of the hour is to educate the billions of 'ordinary' computer users about the basics of software, privacy, security and trust. We must not fall into the narrative being parroted around off-late that considers end-users as pretty much dumb content consumers who should not be expected to ever know even the minimum about the underlying tech and therefore every decision needs to be made for them by a small minority of corporations, govts, and the tech elite acting as gatekeepers and overseers. This is a dangerous road to go down unwittingly. Too much de facto power is concentrated in the hands of the few while the rest are gradually trained into normalise being helplessly manipulated and told to defer to authority.
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  What you're asking for is technology literacy, similar to science literacy. Adults generally don't care to learn this stuff. But you can teach the next generation.
  - Santosh83 7y ago
    Yes, and the tech industry is already several decades old and multiple generations have come and gone, but today's tech consumers seem to be even less confident of poking behind the surface than those of the yesteryears. And do note that there was a point in history when even basic literacy belonged to a small few who argued in exactly the same manner than tech people do today, i.e., that most people will never be able to understand basic science and maths, and we cannot hope for any better than to be benevolent dictators. Later history proved the hollowness of those claims. Today the majority in most of the developed and some of the developing countries are basically literate and what their grandparents couldn't imagine doing, they do effortlessly today. I don't see a single reason why computer sector should be any different. I'm not talking about a deep understanding of computers, just basic literacy that would obviate the excuse for tight, walled gardens and locked down devices.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      > but today's tech consumers seem to be even less confident of poking behind the surface than those of the yesteryears. To be fair, I'm less confident poking around behind the surface because what used to be relatively straight forward has become --for various reasons, few of which are legitimate in my eyes-- absurdly complicated.
zimbatm 7y ago
The problem of donation links from Google's perspective is that they are not getting their 30% cut. You might think that this is unfair, but the app is using their distribution platform. It's possible to make open source applications and still ask for payment on Google Play, either as the asking price, subscription or by adding in-app payments for donations. This is the right way to do it, and will probably also have a much better return since the payment workflow is much easier.
- blauditore 7y ago
  Donations through the Play store's payment platform are prohibited, since all purchases need to give an additional value in return. The only reliable way to get donations in a compliant way is by linking to a website from the app and have a donation button there.
  - VMG 7y ago
    how long until that is prohibited though..
    - adev_ 7y ago
      It's already forbidden for Apple /iOS... https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/06/apple-extends-deadline-for-new-html5-app-store-guidelines-to-march-2020/ https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/06/apple-extends-deadline-for-ne...
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  I can even go along your last point. But it's a different argument to say "going through google is more efficient" or to say "you can't not go through google". Frankly, they're using their market dominant position to force free developers into a distribution model that serves them as the payment processor. I'd not go so far as to argue those are separate businesses, but it's really a blatant abuse of their power. Arguing that this is somehow related to software quality, safety or whatever is pure BS> There is simply no other explanation for this than "it will make us money and we can get away with it."
sly010 7y ago
In other news, my Pixel 3 with Google Fi keeps reconnecting to Google's VPN without asking me permission.
WomanCanCode 7y ago
Now, if only Google can remove the apps that can be downloaded and installed on youtube video interface. Those pesky apps can be install even by little children.
djsumdog 7y ago
The Apple/Play stores are essentially a totally broken implementation of something that had existed for over a decade before: package repositories. It's embraced and extended Linux/BSD package/ports trees, except without things like the ability to add a 3rd party repository with other authors signing keys, pin certain versions, etc. https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/#package-management https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/#packag... We could go on about how regular users wouldn't understand or care and blah blah blah and we'll keep getting software that's neutered, tracks us and becomes more like the proverbial car with the hood welded shut; where people who know about cars have to attach several sidecars just to keep our vehicle doing what we want it to do.
- baxtr 7y ago
  “Totally broken implementation” is very close to BS, at least strongly exaggerated. They’re both highly successful distribution models. Of course, every system has downsides. You’re free not to participate
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mimi89999 7y ago
    Really? It's basically impossible to distribute apps for iOS outside the AppStore and very difficult (all security, warranty warnings, settings, etc.) to distribute them outside the PlayStore.
    - dna_polymerase 7y ago
      Thankfully so. Apple keeps the App Store pretty clean, legacy apps, that are not maintained enough don't make it to the next iOS release and their capability system means I don't have to trust third party apps with anything. Of course, there are cases that essentially suffer from this, but for me as a user, I've got to say I'm pretty satisfied.
      - 7y ago
BlueTemplar 7y ago
What is a FOSS app even doing on the Play Store ?!? Didn't these devs get the memo about the GAFAM boycott ??
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
drtz 7y ago
I've been a regular Wireguard user for the last year and love it. Google just gave me the motivation to finally make a donation. Thanks for the great work!
peterwwillis 7y ago
A lot of these threads feel like complaining that McDonalds doesn't offer more sauces, or that they don't let you leave their store with the sauce. It's their store, it's their sauce. I don't think you can even claim monopoly, because nobody needs to use these devices. We can still use dumb phones for voice and texting, and regular computers for the internet. You have to accept that these are commercial products for commercial gain. They are not a product of or for a community. Massive corporations use these systems to create products that drive their revenue. They will do whatever works for the majority; the fact that a minority wants certain kinds of changes does not impact their bottom line, so why should they consider it? They do not care about your outrage or opinions, they care about cash.
Fnoord 7y ago
Can we just stop distributing "donation-ware" FOSS and use F-Droid for that instead? It is not as if Google Play Store is a credible source anyway given all the hostile content (for both privacy and security). Today I learned they even remove the orig. signature [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268717
- yladiz 7y ago
  Why? Google Play Store has a much larger audience and so the apps will be seen by many more people. Many people use Android and they also should be able to use FOSS apps, regardless of the platform’s privacy and security issues. Is there a reason to not join the Play Store besides something philosophical?
  - mplewis 7y ago
    This OP is about an app being dropped from the Play Store because they're asking for donations. That's a pretty good reason.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    (What you describe is the issue of the Google Play Store network effect.) Because that way, we can install these applications from F-Droid, by default. That allows us to cope out of the network effect of Google Play Store, allowing the more fair F-Droid (which specifically allows donation-ware) to increase its network effect.
- bogwog 7y ago
  I can see the headlines already > Google Project Zero researchers find 100 ZERO-DAY vulnerabilities in unofficial app store "FDroid"
dessant 7y ago
Google Play In-app Billing does not support donations [1], so open source developers should be allowed to link to their own donation pages. Google Play policies do not spell out that linking to donation platforms such as Patreon is forbidden. Disallowing developers from using in-app billing for donations, while also barring them from linking to external donation platforms, puts open source projects in a difficult position, and appears to be overly hostile towards funding open source development. Google must clarify their position on whether they allow donation links in apps published on Google Play. The app takedowns [2] of the last few days show that this is a significant development, and it is of great importance for all open source developers. It's best to publicly document the messages you receive during app takedowns, since app store policies are often vague, it's easy for reviewers to make mistakes, and having a clear reference for these decisions also helps the public assess the validity of the takedown. [1] https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ > Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing: > One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389
- anilshanbhag 7y ago
  In this case, can't you simply have a one time purchase instead of a donation ?
  - dessant 7y ago
    There are always workarounds, but that is not the point. We must not allow these platforms to discriminate against funding open source development through donations.
- enriquto 7y ago
  > (...) puts open source projects in a difficult position, and appears to be overly hostile towards funding open source development. This is the problem of developing free software on a non-free platform. They have absolute control of your work under their own terms, no matter how ridiculous they are. I never understood why the google play store is a socially acceptable idea for free software developers.
hawski 7y ago
I like the way that the author of Simple Mobile Tools [0] made donations. Applications are free and open source, but there is a paid app Simple Thank You [1]. That's also how I was thinking about doing "donationware" on a mobile app store. Side note: They are also available on F-Droid. [0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/cluster?clp=igM4ChkKEzkwNzAyOTYzODgwMjI1ODkyNjYQCBgDEhkKEzkwNzAyOTYzODgwMjI1ODkyNjYQCBgDGAA%3D:S:ANO1ljIN7-U&gsr=CjuKAzgKGQoTOTA3MDI5NjM4ODAyMjU4OTI2NhAIGAMSGQoTOTA3MDI5NjM4ODAyMjU4OTI2NhAIGAMYAA%3D%3D:S:ANO1ljIS1ys https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/cluster?clp=ig... [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.thankyou https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobi...
- Nux 7y ago
  Yes, this is quite a good workaround, though probably less lucrative.
  - kumarm 7y ago
    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.gallery.pro https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobi... Has more than 100K downloads. i.e made at least 100K after Google cut.
- postsantum 7y ago
  This is against policy. Not sure if it is enforced though https://play.google.com/about/spam-min-functionality/min-functionality/ https://play.google.com/about/spam-min-functionality/min-fun...
  - sp332 7y ago
    I think it's pretty common though, for example buying a "key" separately from the main app. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.keramidas.TitaniumBackupPro https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.keramidas....
- KingMachiavelli 7y ago
EGreg 7y ago
One of our apps (https://Yang2020.app https://Yang2020.app) were rejected by Apple for the same reason - having a Donate link. Ultimately we removed the link on native apps (kept it on the Web) and the app was accepted. However, before doing this, we corresponded with Apple Developer Support / App Review Team and asked them about the Acceptable Business Models of their developer guidelines, which states: (vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase. They scheduled a “specialist” to call us from Apple and discuss this. However when they called a few days later, they repeatedly declined to give a single example of how this paragraph would ever apply. We tried asking many different ways, but they kept saying we would need to submit the app with the business model to get it reviewed. They would not give a single example of an app they approved with this business model. I personally was on the phone and said that we simply wanted to be compliant and it was very expensive to build something just to be rejected, so we wanted guidance about their policies. But the representative did not know anything. I asked if anyone else on their team knew but they basically said no. So Apple seems to have certain “platitudes” in their Guidelines which companies can’t take advantage of. Has anyone here seen a single exception to the 30% cut? I know ApplePay may be used to purchase “real-life” items and where you can’t afford to pay 30% less to the vendor. But what about services, like booking time with a teacher? What about digital services such as hosting a videoconference? Apple takes a 30% but you have to pay Twilio. That means any web-based app would cost 30% less! We were hoping that maybe there can be some link to buy things with Ethereum and since Apple doesn’t offer that facility we can try to argue that we need transactions to be non-reversible etc. Doesn’t Apple allow apps that allow the user to send and receive bitcoin payments to some address? BOOM! Another thing we can do is micropayments, maybe, and tell users how they can purchase credits elsewhere. But that last part is against Apple’s rules, isn’t it?
- EGreg 7y ago
  Screw the rules, I have cryptocurrency!
yccheok 7y ago
Google (Or Apple) is pretty serious regarding their app stores rules and regulations. Google owns the app store. So, developers should abide rules imposed by Google although the rules do not seem reasonable all the time. My suggestion is, developer can still implement in-app billing, removing "donation" wording. For the in-app item, make it as good-to-have feature like "unlocking additional app color theme". With such, he will still abide the rule, yet able to get his monetary reward.
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  > Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing: > One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations. Source: https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/
jumbopapa 7y ago
How does AndOTP compare to FreeOTP+?
- mtgx 7y ago
  Aegis authenticator is much nicer than both. It also has some extra security features: https://www.reddit.com/r/androidapps/comments/b45zrj/dev_aegis_authenticator_secure_two_factor/ej4g6ll/ https://www.reddit.com/r/androidapps/comments/b45zrj/dev_aeg... https://beem.dev/ https://beem.dev/
jrockway 7y ago
I am not sure why it needs to be called a donation. Just let the in-app purchase unlock some cosmetics in the app like games do. You weren't going to deduct the donation from your taxes anyway. I am curious how this ends up working out. Google takes a cut of the donations now... but the process of buying is probably easier. So maybe it will increase donation revenue, and make it easier to support free software. (Taking a step back; it is pretty weird to have apps opening links to web pages that take your credit card number. The app store operators are right to view that with suspicion because I'm sure that for every legitimate open source project, there are a million phishing scams.)
- dessant 7y ago
  Open source developers shouldn't be forced to lock away additional functionality in their apps, or resort to special tricks just to be able to receive donations for their projects. Google could make a positive impact by introducing new features that help users seamlessly fund their favourite open source apps, right from their Google accounts. GitHub has recently introduced a similar initiative called GitHub Sponsors [1]. > Taking a step back; it is pretty weird to have apps opening links to web pages that take your credit card number. There is nothing weird about accepting payments outside of Google Play, and it is allowed if the payment does not result in buying a product that is used within the app. Buying a movie ticket, or operating an online store with a third-party payment processor are perfectly fine use cases which are allowed on Google Play. [1] https://github.com/sponsors https://github.com/sponsors
  - kbenson 7y ago
    >> Just let the in-app purchase unlock some cosmetics in the app like games do. > Open source developers shouldn't be forced to lock away additional functionality in their apps I don't think functionality was what was suggested. Literally cosmetics. A nice banner that says thanks for supporting the project would likely be sufficient. Edit: Although I agree it shouldn't be required. As a workaround it doesn't seem too bad though.
  - helpPeople 7y ago
    Completely agree. I do not want to restrict any users. Annoying how hard it is to be independent of FAANG control.
dang 7y ago
We merged a similar thread, "AndOTP Removed from the Google Play Store Due to Donation Link", into this one. Perhaps we'll update the title to cover both. https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396 https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269542
- dmix 7y ago
  Just to add clarity these were two different apps that were taken down: Wireguard and AndOTP (among others mentioned in this thread) Wireguard had 50k+ installs according to its (now dead) playstore page: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kSsZsb1h5KoJ:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details%3Fid%3Dcom.wireguard.android%26hl%3Den_CA+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kSsZsb... AndOTP had 10k+ installs: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:buaKcFCyT9YJ:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details%3Fid%3Dorg.shadowice.flocke.andotp%26hl%3Den_CA+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:buaKcF...
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Hmm, any idea how Google automatically catches a donation link? I feel like there's so many ways to do it that they must only be catching a handful.
  - Trellmor 7y ago
    My app also got taken down some months ago. I had a menu entry called Donation that linked to a web page containing a PayPal donation button. I'm guessing they are just looking for the string Donation in your app.
    - mimi89999 7y ago
      What app was it?
  - dang 7y ago
    The OP says the process is manual.
ddtaylor 7y ago
This is Google wanting their 30% cut. It's that simple.
tazeg95 7y ago
And so... What ? They removed some of my apps to for this reason.
mongol 7y ago
Would linking to Patreon also be against terms and conditions?
ur-whale 7y ago
It's really time for a decentralized / distributed version of the play store to replace the Google provided one.
ur-whale 7y ago
One thing I've found to be true throughout my career: the culture and ethos of organizations is usually a direct consequence of the culture and ethos of the leader who built it initially, and remains as such loooong after said leader is gone. Well guess what ... the android team at google and the entire android ecosystem is the brainchild of Andy Rubin, who has recently been outed publicly as a total asshole (and who everyone at Google knew was a total asshole since pretty much the start of Android). All the things wrong with Android, including the iron-fisted management of what can and cannot run on the platform ("I know, I'm squeezing your balls til you pass out, but don't worry, it's for your own protection") can easily be traced to him.
RedComet 7y ago
Ah yes, the multi-billion dollar megacorp trying to prevent goodwill donations. Dear regulators: BREAK UP GOOGLE.
- panopticon 7y ago
  To play devil's advocate, I'm sure Google's intent is to prevent garbage apps from spamming or tricking users into paying money and the resulting PR backlash from having an app store full of shady apps. As evidence of this, Google does allow donations if the publisher is a 501(c)(3) (see https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en).
  - dmix 7y ago
    Nothing like opaque, zero due process take downs which change day-to-day unexpectedly until you wake and find your app is no longer in the Play Store. There has to be a better way to handle these sorts of things. Were they even notified beforehand?
  - snowflakeandrey 7y ago
    A 501(c)(3) application costs at least $275 and takes 2-12 months to process. That seems all right if you're a SV SWE registering something on the side of your regular 6 figure income, but for a lot of folks around the world, that seems a largely no-go way to support their project. If this is really an attempt at preventing garbage apps from spamming or tricking users, this is both overly broad (many false positives) and badly targeted (many false negatives). Why is it that iOS doesn't have this policy, and has significantly fewer garbage apps? Maybe if Google were to allow third party app stores, folks could choose the one that fits their ability to evaluate the sophistication of apps themselves. For example, some folks might want to pay for extra security checks on the apps they use, while others want to install anything and everything under the sun.
  - unethical_ban 7y ago
    So if I write a legit open source app and release it, and link to a donation page, that's wrong? I don't deserve some credit for my work? Oh right, it's because Google wants me to have some kind of "pro" app that is effectively a license, that they can get their 30% cut of. They don't give a damn about fraud via this method. They want their money.
edhelas 7y ago
My social-network/IM app (https://movim.eu/ https://movim.eu/) got also removed from the Play Store because I had a link to the F-Droid app. The Android app is basically a web-view pointing to one of the many instances of the social network https://nl.movim.eu/?login https://nl.movim.eu/?login. Regarding the time (and also money) spent to publish the APK on the Play Store and the hassle it is to discuss with the Google moderation team I didn't bothered putting it back.
- kragen 7y ago
  That's interesting — not a donation page, but an F-Droid page (which as far as I know doesn't accept donations)? When did this happen?
  - smileybarry 7y ago
    That's probably due to the "can't link to other stores" clause. There's a reason you have to manually go to Amazon.com to download their app store, you can't advertise or link to a third-party app source via a Google Play-delivered app.
chrisballinger 7y ago
I guess this will get lost in the noise, but a few years ago Apple relaxed its restrictions on IAP donations and allows developers to offer a "tip jar" where IAPs don't unlock any specific features. I've been shipping a free and open source app with a donate button on the App Store since mid-2017 [1]. 1. https://chatsecure.org/blog/sustainable-open-source-starts-with-you/ https://chatsecure.org/blog/sustainable-open-source-starts-w...
- hosteur 7y ago
  Interesting. As someone who considers making an open source app with a tip jar like that I would be very interested in hearing how much that actually nets you if you want to share that info (Maybe via PM if you prefer)
- wavefunction 7y ago
  Does Apple take their customary cut? I am not interested in "donating" to Apple.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    They do.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    Ever use a credit card to make a donation anywhere?
    - allworknoplay 7y ago
      Apple's cut is a hell of a lot more than 2.9% + $0.30.
      - diminoten 7y ago
        Never said it wasn't? Just pointing out how silly this stance is.
bogwog 7y ago
> I appealed using their website appeal form. Thirty minutes later (was this automated, unlike the manual app review process?), I received a rejection of the appeal. Google in a nutshell.
peignoir 7y ago
All of these really motivates me to push for decentralized projects. If the future Is basically full of gate keepers choosing what apps can be used or not and we don’t have any platform allowing freedom then it would be a very sad future indeed
legohead 7y ago
https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/ "Do the right thing"
ganitarashid 7y ago
Just link to: http://www.google.com/search?q=wireguard+donate http://www.google.com/search?q=wireguard+donate Problem solved.
zxter 7y ago
So... what is next? Mentioning/linking patreon profile in YouTube videos could also be bannable if one disable ads in their videos?
billfruit 7y ago
Though easy to phrase it as a moral problem, I think the matter requires an unemotional analysis. At first hearing it looks like shutting down avenues by which open source app developers can gather donations, but perhaps the measure was targeted at shady money laundering operations. Perhaps the right thing to do is for Google to offer a discounted cut to legit open source apps, from the usual 30% to a lesser value or entirely waive it off so that they can still seek contributions through Google play billing.
opan 7y ago
I have been disappointed in the Play Store for a while now. Last I checked, they don't display licenses either, so you can't easily tell what's free software. I get everything from F-Droid these days, and on my primary devices I never even install the google apps after flashing LineageOS.
sm4rk0 7y ago
Our freedoms are being taken away one by one by those who say they are protecting our freedoms just because of capitalism -> money -> greed.
- sm4rk0 7y ago
  Because "there's no free lunch" in capitalism. https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/dhir1i/in_the_us_we_design_our_public_facilities_with/ https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/dhir1i/in_th...
iamleppert 7y ago
In an ironic twist, our app that Google supported via Summer of Code was removed. Whoever came up with this policy and started enforcing it at Google is completely tone-deaf, needs to be fired and publicly called out so we can set an example as a community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated. We have contacted engineering leadership at Google and they are in the process of figuring out who it is internally.
- dessant 7y ago
  Please share more details about your app and its takedown, it's important to publicly document the issue.
- ummonk 7y ago
  As crazy as this policy is, firing and publicly shaming an employee is not the right response to a poor decision by an employee.
  - jmsmistral 7y ago
    I feel it is. It's an effective platform for (positive) change, in this case.
    - jraph 7y ago
      I think this is a bad decision, but I don't want to live in a world in which people risk their privacy by making poor decisions. We just need processes to learn and avoid doing mistakes twice, and shaming is a poor way to do it. If I risked being ashamed when making decisions, I would probably avoid decisions altogether. This would be awful. The discussed decision is not even out of law. What we can do though, is to tell people we know and love about F-Droid and suggest them to only fall back to the Play Store if they don't find what they want, and that they should be aware that by doing so, they enter the jungle and that this jungle follows Google's arbitrary rules, some of which are not in their own interests.
- psychometry 7y ago
  If you think that's an appropriate and proportional response to an employee making a mistake or misunderstanding an internal policy, I sincerely hope that you're not in charge of anyone at your day job.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
amelius 7y ago
It's one thing if a government regulates a market, yet another thing if a company regulates it ...
michielderhaeg 7y ago
I would like to point out how the PPSSPP project circumvents this problem. It's an open-source PSP emulator. They have the a free version available on the Play Store here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.ppsspp https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.pps... They also have a "Gold" version available: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.ppssppgold https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.pps... These two apps are functionally identical, only difference is the logo and that the "Gold" version costs money. So if you want to contribute some cash to this project, you just buy the "Gold" version. Other open-source projects could adopt this model too to evade this policy. The price you pay however, is that a part of the money goes to Google. Which is obviously the reason why donation links are not allowed in the first place.
nullandvoid 7y ago
I would much rather donation links than the horrendous ad spam that comes with most apps. But of course this impact googles bottom line so the sane approach goes out the window
aneutron 7y ago
Again making a case for alternative app stores. Yes having a centralized software repository has its benefits, but it's starting to show it's limits ...
emrhzc 7y ago
Totally right move! I'd rather see genital enhancement ads than those disgusting, immoral donation links.
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
Uh oh, we have open-source app on Google play with Patreon banner. Seems like we have to expect trouble soon. Thanks, Google!
Animats 7y ago
Recently, new versions "Simple ..." line of open source apps from "simplemobiletools.com "on the F-Droid app store have started popping up requests for donations. Those now need to be checked.
h4waii 7y ago
Who do you trust more, to secure their infrastructure? Google or F-Droid / a bunch of volunteers who may or may not be very security-conscious? Not to downplay the effort that F-Droid contributors (or any Android FOSS groups) make, but it's a very legitimate concern. Would an attacker have an easier time infiltrating Google or a member of F-Droid the development community? Are users of F-Droid higher value than users of Google Play, to warrant a direct attack? If one wants to pick off users who are fairly technically inclined, other developers, system administrators, etc...F-Droid is a pretty good place to start.
- vsviridov 7y ago
  At least read up on how f-droid does their reproducible build infrastructure before you spread FUD.
  - h4waii 7y ago
    What about my comment is FUD? Regardless of the fact that builds are reproducible, F-Droid has infrastructure. How is that infra secured? How are the servers that store signing keys secured? How are the build servers accessed? How is the access secured? Okay, so the builds are reproducible -- is someone maintaining a concurrent system that verifies reproducibility and provides notification of a collision when things don't match up with built and served binaries?
- behringer 7y ago
  Easy answer. F-Droid.
jerrac 7y ago
After reading so many similar stories, here is what Google/Apple/etc should, in my opinion. If an automated process blocks/bans/rejects something, then the message to the developer MUST say "Our automated scanner discovered..." Any time something is blocked/banned/rejected, the message to the developer MUST explain exactly why. In the case of this article: "Your update was rejected due to a link to a third party payment system. This violates section N of our terms. The link we detected was <insert link here>." There should be two kinds of appeal processes. Automated, and manual. You should be able to appeal or resubmit to the automated process as often as you need to. The manual process should involve real time communication between the developer and an appeal agent. Via phone or chat. To prevent the system from being overloaded, only allow developers a few free appeals, then start charging a fee. Developer accounts should only be fully banned after multiple manual appeals and the appeals agent determining that the developer is operating in bad faith. Automated processes should never be able to fully ban an account. It must involve a real person. Full bans also must include a detailed email to the developer explaining exactly why they have been banned. The biggest, and most important, change these companies really need to make is including exactly WHY something happened. No more of these general "you violated our TOS" without any explanation of how the TOS was violated messages.
interhacker 7y ago
The title reads like a not the onion post
dessant 7y ago
WireGuard was reinstated after Jason has submitted a new version which does not contain a donation link. The issue has not been solved, and Google did not yet contact maintainers to clarify whether they would be allowed to have a donation link in WireGuard. Several other open source apps are still missing from Google Play, including andOTP. While WireGuard was bought back online, version 0.0.20191013 was briefly made available (with a donation link) before it got updated to version 0.0.20191016. Again, the current version of WireGuard does not contain a donation link. This is the original version of the post, which has become inaccurate minutes after it was posted: > WireGuard has been reinstated [1], and the donation link is in the app menu (version 0.0.20191013). > Google has reversed its decision to remove an app that contains a link to a donation page, likely because of public scrutiny. > I'm hopeful that people will continue to seek answers for why Google has begun to remove these open source apps, there are several of them mentioned in this thread alone. Please don't allow this to go unnoticed, the future of a bunch of less popular open source projects may depend on how this issue is perceived by the public, and addressed by Google. > [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wireguard.android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wireguard....
- neonate 7y ago
  > Google has reversed its decision to remove an app that contains a link to a donation page Are we sure that this is a decision reversal, as opposed to just reinstating one (or a few) apps?
  - dessant 7y ago
    This is why it is important to continue questioning their actions, a bunch of other open source apps remain taken down, or were forced to remove their donation links. The issue of donation links in apps must be clearly addressed by Google.
- zx2c4 7y ago
  Could you double check 0.0.20191013? My phone just updated, and I'm seeing the APK version that has the donation link removed, 0.0.20191016. I haven't received any further emails from Google (yet?), so I'm still uncertain as to whether I have any sort of green light to republish a version with the link.
camhart 7y ago
A bit of a tangent, but does anyone know how Netflix gets away with not doing in app payments?
MelodyConcerto 7y ago
My guess would be some idiot in Legal got their panties in a bunch over nothing.
dubb20 7y ago
in the same time there are dozens of free "Zodiak" and "Calendar" trial apps that charge 100+ usd a month after the first week....
villgax 7y ago
So if a Facebook profile or article inside an app has a donation link it should get de-listed? All of Facebook fund raising should get burnt as well?!!
ariana101 7y ago
all process is manually done
carlos22 7y ago
The question should be: When will society accept that capitalism always will kill any form of "don't be evil". There is no choice.
fastbmk_com 7y ago
No idea why, but this app offers purchases via good old Bank Cards, without any Google mediation. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.navigation.offlinemaps.gps&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.navigation...

1438 points by regecks 7y ago

And yet games with hundred dollar microtransactions stay up fine. It's almost as if Google turn a blind eye to that which makes them richer. oh wait, that's exactly what it's like. The bastards.

Tepix 7y ago

If only there was an alternative to the Apple app store like F-Droid is for Google Play...

gallexme 7y ago
Does Cydia etc no longer exist?
- newscracker 7y ago
  That requires jailbreaking the device, which may or may not be possible depending on the device and the version of iOS it's running. Recently there was a bootrom exploit called checkm8 that made possible "tethered" jailbreaks to be created for a large range of devices. But even that works only till iPhone X (and not on newer devices), and the jailbreak (if/when available) would have to be done every time the device is restarted.
- dewey 7y ago
  If you jailbreak you also usually have to run on an older iteration of the OS and have to wait before updating. It's not really a very attractive option. Signing up as developer, paying the fee and building the app yourself is probably the better option. Even if you have to rebuild it every xx days.
nyuszika7h 7y ago
AltStore is a thing, assuming you have a Mac...
- virgilp 7y ago
  Apple can still shut it down, and you can bet they will if it gets any sort of popularity. > Testut imagines Apple could disable the ability to sync over Wi-Fi, but that would just mean plugging in your phone once a week to continue using AltStore How about limit the number of disable WiFi syncs and force you to plug in once every 8 hours?
- Tepix 7y ago
  I just noticed a beta version for Windows on their homepage.
driverdan 7y ago
There is, F-Droid on Android. Stop using devices you don't have root access to.
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
Actually, F-Droid is not panacea. F-Droid apps do not have access to Push notifications. Coupled with crippled background app performance in recent Android version, it extremely limits certain classes of apps, especially all messengers.

tcd 7y ago

Unsurprising - Google obviously wants you to be within their walled garden. You could probably add an in-app purchase but this has been a known thing for a while now.

trulyrandom 7y ago

Apparently andOTP was removed for the same reason a couple of days ago: https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396 https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396. As mentioned in the announcement, you can switch over to F-Droid (for the time being) to get the latest version: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android.

bubblethink 7y ago
>(for the time being) Why do you have that caveat ? You can use f-droid forever.
- trulyrandom 7y ago
  Because I prefer sticking to APKs signed by the author of the app. F-Droid APKs are signed with different keys, typically.
  - zx2c4 7y ago
    I agree with your sentiment in theory. Unfortunately, in practice, Google Play Store rips off my signature after I upload and sticks their own one on instead. Blah.
    - trulyrandom 7y ago
      Huh, isn't that only the case for Android App Bundles?
      - Avamander 7y ago
        Only if the app is enrolled to their resigning program, requires either initial agreement or signing key upload.
    - pmh 7y ago
      I thought that was opt-in still (https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/7384423?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...) unless you use app bundles, but that article makes it sound like you can bring your own key too. Do they still modify the signature in that case?

izacus 7y ago

For anyone else publishing mobile apps: Neither Apple nor Google allow bypassing the store's purchase system by linking to external donation pages. No matter the app type, it will result in rejection.

ismaildonmez 7y ago
The same app has the same link on its iOS app and just in the last week was updated twice.
- yoz-y 7y ago
  It is however forbidden. Just because they didn't get caught does not mean anything. Spamming users with notifications is also against the rules and everybody does it anyways.
alt_f4 7y ago
that plus app store monopoly on each platform should mean several billion dollars in fines, if we actually enforced antitrust laws
dessant 7y ago
Google Play In-app Billing does not support donations. > Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing: > One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations. https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/
NightlyDev 7y ago
Donation pages, maybe. But there is a lot of categories on the play store where you have to use your own payment method or can if you want to. Some examples are purchases that can be used outside the app, eg. cross platform purchases and things like transportation and finance.
tyfon 7y ago
I wonder what would happen if you link your your home page and you have a donation link there. How deep does it have to be before they cut you off? Can you link to a page that is only linking to another page where the donation happens? How much extra text would you need to "pass inspection". I find these kinds of arbitrary rules very unsettling. It's definitely time to break up the tech giants. It is odd that they remove this though, I use at least two more open source apps that asks for a donation and will send me to their donation page if I click.

supergilbert 7y ago

When is an alternative Android play store coming? To all the entrepreneurs reading this: please create one. To all the VCs reading this: please fund one. It's badly needed. I heard Huawei is working on one but I wouldn't bet on it.

phoe-krk 7y ago
F-Droid already exists.
- supergilbert 7y ago
  Yes but none of my friends and family who own an Android device know about it. I'm talking about a mainstream alternative android store. The design of f-droid is not appealing enough.
  - trulyrandom 7y ago
    F-Droid has a pretty strong foundation in my opinion. It just needs more resources to be able to publish app updates more quickly. It also needs a redesign, like you said, but I don't think there's a need to start from scratch
  - phoe-krk 7y ago
    So do you mean a store run by a company that has the money and intent to promote such a store enough for everybody knows about it, e.g. Facebook, Amazon, or Microsoft? I don't think this is a solution.
    - stOneskull 7y ago
      Amazon has an app store but it's just an inferior play store really. Nothing exclusive, I don't think, and just Amazon takes 30% instead.
  - moviuro 7y ago
    1. F-Droid can't be published on Google Play Store, because they're an "alternative market". 2. Please, make it appealing for you and others! https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidclient https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidclient

dessant 7y ago

It's unfortunate that the developer resubmitted the app without the donation link, open source projects having a donation link in their apps does not violate Google Play policies. > Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing: > One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations. https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/

zx2c4 7y ago
It indeed is unfortunate. But what other recourse did we have? The first objective, before we even consider donations or anything, is to make our software available and functional to our users. So we had to resubmit. And it's not like the resubmission process is instantaneous; as of writing, the app still isn't back in the store. But anyway, now what? Let's say things return to normal, but we still want to put the silly link in the app. Our appeal was rejected. We could send letters, I suppose. Perhaps this article on HN will get the attention of the right people? We could appeal the appeal, maybe. And then appeal the appeal for the appeal. At what point does this become a waste of energy that could be spent coding and improving the app in other ways? It's hard to know where to draw the line and which battles are worth fighting. I'm happy to hear folks' opinions on the matter. I certainly agree, though, that it is unfortunate.
- dessant 7y ago
  Donations are not supported by in-app purchases, and I'm sure this doesn't mean open source apps are not allowed to sustain themselves by showing a donation link. Or if that is Google's unwritten policy, people must make their voices heard, this abusive behavior cannot be accepted. I would resubmit the app with the donation link and continue to document and share what happened. Please do not allow them to set a precedent with a popular project like WireGuard. It's important to share every detail of the issue, the messages you received, your replies, and the policy links you were given about the alleged policy violations.
  - bipson 7y ago

esotericn 7y ago

$50 sent, thanks Jason, no thanks Google. A small amount relative to the value that you're giving to the world, but hopefully a few pints won't go amiss. Fuck gatekeepers.

alias_neo 7y ago
I too made a "fuck Google" donation to the WireGuard project today, after seeing an update and then the app disappearing entirely. I'd love to use the F-Droid version but it's not up-to-date, and isn't published by Jason, so it's not signed by him either. Publishing it on the website with a built in update-check might be one solution I'd be happy with, it'd only need a text file hosted on the website and a check, perhaps each time WG is activated to see if there is an update. Modern Android versions can be toggled to allow installing software from external sources, so the app could "install itself".
karambir 7y ago
Though I am not using android app, I just made a $10 donation. WireGuard has been a great software for me on Desktops. Cheers

dvh 7y ago

Does patreon link count?

reacharavindh 7y ago

This is really unfortunate. If Google is ready to arm twist a popular project like Wireguard, smaller indie open source apps stand little to no chance than to bend over. This App store gatekeeping should be illegal. Selling the hardware/OS and marketplace by the same person is more like online dictatorship at this time.

Hamcha 7y ago
Honestly. I'm fine as long as sideloading 3rd party shops is not actively sabotaged. I tend to search stuff on fdroid first and Play store later, and that's something I just can't do on iOS.

irjustin 7y ago

I know this will be against deeply against HNews but I'm open to discussion. I don't see anything wrong with this. Charging vs Donations, I don't see what the difference is. It's people paying money for good/services/software. The primary difference is the open ended pricing model. Google, Apple put up networks and there's value in that network. Whether someone chooses to release their app for free or charge money for it, that app is dictated by the network fees. This network is extremely powerful in terms of its distribution reach. Does it warrant 30%? That's what the market is willing to put up with, but if we're debating 30% - it should be for the whole network not just because someone has an open ended pricing model. If this app is registered as a non-profit (which it did not look like based on the website?) then I am 100% in the wrong and do believe the app should be able to operate under different pricing schemes. At a philosophical level - what is the difference between a free-to-use app that has open ended pricing vs a FOSS with donations? If there is a difference, let's discuss it.

usr1106 7y ago
It is useless to discuss market or even fairness as long Google and Apple are (de-facto) monopolies for the respective phone owner. It's a major failure of governments to allow monopolies.
- irjustin 7y ago
  100% agree that what Apple and Google take for their network is extortion pricing.
dessant 7y ago
There is no need for a philosophical debate, because Google Play In-app Billing simply doesn't support donations. https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/
wtfwhateven 7y ago
>Charging vs Donations, I don't see what the difference is. Charging: Person paying gets something in return Donating: Person paying does not get something in return >The primary difference is the open ended pricing model. What does "an open ended pricing model" mean?

hohohmm 7y ago

Please make wireguard available in App Store China region.

Crazyontap 7y ago

A lot of people justify Google and Apple's 30% because they provide an app store and distribution. But Android is Android because of these apps. Without them it would be like the Windows phone which was nice but didn't get enough apps on it and so it failed. These companies depend on our apps as much as we depend on their app store for distribution. Fuck apple for starting this walled garden and creating a parasitic relationship rather than a symbiotic relationship.

sjwright 7y ago
"Android is Android because of these apps" but "Fuck Apple"? I don't understand.
- Crazyontap 7y ago
  I said: > Fuck apple for starting this walled garden IIRC apple started it and now all the big players are following suite.. including even Windows 10 which has it's own app store and similar cut.
bagacrap 7y ago
TBH Google Maps was the killer app that smartphones needed to get off the ground. Out of 13 apps on my home screen, 7 are Google apps. Both Apple and Google did a little more than building the framework and then sitting back... So how do you decide what a fair cut is? Over the course of a month, given all your app and system usage, and all the pieces of software you've touched or relied on, what percent of the engineer hours required for that stuff to work came from Google/Apple vs coming from third party app makers? Is that how you decide the split? Because I have a feeling the time it took to build the 15 third party apps I might touch in a month don't come close to the level of effort required to have built the system and first party apps.

sofaofthedamned 7y ago

Donated via PayPal. Thanks for your work, would be great to see it in the kernel soon.

hnarn 7y ago

> Sorry for the inconvenience. I'm sure many users are just as annoyed as I am. In the interim, luckily F-Droid has our app.[1] Thank heavens there's an alternate way of distributing apps on Android. Say what you want about Android vs. iOS, but at least there's an alternative if you as a consumer have a beef with Google Play. [1]: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android/

degenerate 7y ago
Even if the Play Store and F-Droid both disappeared, the replacement could be a community-run open directory of APKs sorted by version. At least we have options on Android.
- cesarb 7y ago
  > directory of APKs sorted by version Something like that already exists. I had to use one of these directories once to install an older release of Signal on a relative's phone (newer releases of Signal don't work on older phones, older releases of Signal aren't compatible with the current Signal server, but there's a single version in the middle which both works on older phones and is compatible with the current Signal server; unfortunately, that phone hadn't yet updated to that release before a newer release went out).

unnouinceput 7y ago

Quote: "They said it was because we're in violation of their "Payments Policy", presumably because we have a link inside the app that opens the user's web browser to wireguard.com/donations/" C'mon people, is Google we talk about, you know, those who bow to might $$$ only. You should've made a donation link INSIDE google, so they can charge their 30% before you get the money, that's how you keep your app in their store </sarcasm>.

Spivak 7y ago
I mean you're being sarcastic but this is how basically every other app accepts payments to support the developer. There are plenty of "buy me a coffee" buttons in free apps.

segfaultbuserr 7y ago

I use WireGuard daily since 2017, and it's one of my most favorite computer programs in the entire world - robust, reliable, state-of-art cryptography, and seamless integration into the system. I've never donated to WireGuard before, and I didn't think about donation (I installed WireGuard from my package manager and didn't realize a donation link exists), until now. Just donated 25 USD. Thanks Jason. No thanks, Google.

neop1x 7y ago
Me too. Just donated. Awesome software.

chx 7y ago

Deleted. Wrong thread.

tadzik_ 7y ago
Wrong thread? :)
- chx 7y ago
  Yes. Absolutely. Let me see whether I can delete it.

gorgoiler 7y ago

Ugh, app stores! No one needs them for discovering new software. You go to the app store to get a specific piece of software you already know about and whose reputation you’ve already verified. No one needs them for code signing. If you want the real firefox.apk you can download it from https://firefox.com/ https://firefox.com/ and notice a lack of SSL alarms going off. What’s the code signing for — to let me know that HTTPS works?! All I really want is an OS facility that only executes code that has been installed explicitly by me, and always in a sandbox. That’ll stop that dodgy email from executing r00t.sh via an exploit in my mail client. App stores and code signing popups are proxies for that kind of OS facility, but I’d rather it was just part of the OS explicitly. App stores leave me with all sorts of unwanted properties, namely Google / Apple throwing their unwanted opinion around. Search for Instagram in the iOS App Store: the top UI element is “InstaMap”, thanks Apple!

LennyWhiteJr 7y ago
Code Signing and HTTPS are two completely unrelated concepts...
- etskinner 7y ago
  Yes, but their point is: Why would you need code signing if https is working correctly when downloading software?
  - nwatson 7y ago
    The product is built in a very controlled and secure environment at the core of a company's competency ... code-signing here stamps the product as authoritative and representing the company's efforts. The website from which you, the customer, download the software often is built and managed under less controlled and more vulnerable circumstances, often with third party involvement. Any bad actor in a long chain of internal caretakers and potentially external hackers can replace the to-be-downloaded artifact HTTPS with malicious junk. Code-signing mitigates this.
  - Xylakant 7y ago

black_puppydog 7y ago

The very same thing happened to manyverse (android ssb client) the other day. Got de-listed, resubmitted without donation page, now it's back up. How google tries to claim any sort of support for open source is beyond me. What open source app doesn't need a donation link? Those approved and funded by google don't, okay. But other than that?

sniuff 7y ago
Open source app can be compiled and installed without Google play store. If you are hosting on their platform, you adhere to their rules, you are not paying monthly for your free app download bandwith and storage do you ?
- icebraining 7y ago
  That doesn't mean you can't question (and even criticize!) the rules or their application.
- acollins1331 7y ago
  Wow great point. Now why the hell can't they have a donation link?
  - Spivak 7y ago
    Because you can't use Google's store as a sales funnel without giving them a 30% cut. It doesn't matter if you're a company taking payments or an individual accepting donations.
    - ViViDboarder 7y ago
      Wrong. You can’t even use Google with giving them a 30% cut since donations are prohibited from Google Payments.
    - BlueTemplar 7y ago
      I'm not a lawyer, but aren't sales and donations quite different? For instance donations tend to have negative taxes...

tjpnz 7y ago

As far as moneitisation is concerned it really feels as though Google want you displaying their ads or have you funnel your users through their checkout process. Anything else seems to result in apps getting flagged for violating policies around payments or deceptive advertising.

Santosh83 7y ago

A general comment: the need of the hour is to educate the billions of 'ordinary' computer users about the basics of software, privacy, security and trust. We must not fall into the narrative being parroted around off-late that considers end-users as pretty much dumb content consumers who should not be expected to ever know even the minimum about the underlying tech and therefore every decision needs to be made for them by a small minority of corporations, govts, and the tech elite acting as gatekeepers and overseers. This is a dangerous road to go down unwittingly. Too much de facto power is concentrated in the hands of the few while the rest are gradually trained into normalise being helplessly manipulated and told to defer to authority.

peterwwillis 7y ago
What you're asking for is technology literacy, similar to science literacy. Adults generally don't care to learn this stuff. But you can teach the next generation.
- Santosh83 7y ago
  Yes, and the tech industry is already several decades old and multiple generations have come and gone, but today's tech consumers seem to be even less confident of poking behind the surface than those of the yesteryears. And do note that there was a point in history when even basic literacy belonged to a small few who argued in exactly the same manner than tech people do today, i.e., that most people will never be able to understand basic science and maths, and we cannot hope for any better than to be benevolent dictators. Later history proved the hollowness of those claims. Today the majority in most of the developed and some of the developing countries are basically literate and what their grandparents couldn't imagine doing, they do effortlessly today. I don't see a single reason why computer sector should be any different. I'm not talking about a deep understanding of computers, just basic literacy that would obviate the excuse for tight, walled gardens and locked down devices.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > but today's tech consumers seem to be even less confident of poking behind the surface than those of the yesteryears. To be fair, I'm less confident poking around behind the surface because what used to be relatively straight forward has become --for various reasons, few of which are legitimate in my eyes-- absurdly complicated.

zimbatm 7y ago

The problem of donation links from Google's perspective is that they are not getting their 30% cut. You might think that this is unfair, but the app is using their distribution platform. It's possible to make open source applications and still ask for payment on Google Play, either as the asking price, subscription or by adding in-app payments for donations. This is the right way to do it, and will probably also have a much better return since the payment workflow is much easier.

blauditore 7y ago
Donations through the Play store's payment platform are prohibited, since all purchases need to give an additional value in return. The only reliable way to get donations in a compliant way is by linking to a website from the app and have a donation button there.
- VMG 7y ago
  how long until that is prohibited though..
  - adev_ 7y ago
    It's already forbidden for Apple /iOS... https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/06/apple-extends-deadline-for-new-html5-app-store-guidelines-to-march-2020/ https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/06/apple-extends-deadline-for-ne...
black_puppydog 7y ago
I can even go along your last point. But it's a different argument to say "going through google is more efficient" or to say "you can't not go through google". Frankly, they're using their market dominant position to force free developers into a distribution model that serves them as the payment processor. I'd not go so far as to argue those are separate businesses, but it's really a blatant abuse of their power. Arguing that this is somehow related to software quality, safety or whatever is pure BS> There is simply no other explanation for this than "it will make us money and we can get away with it."

sly010 7y ago

In other news, my Pixel 3 with Google Fi keeps reconnecting to Google's VPN without asking me permission.

WomanCanCode 7y ago

Now, if only Google can remove the apps that can be downloaded and installed on youtube video interface. Those pesky apps can be install even by little children.

djsumdog 7y ago

The Apple/Play stores are essentially a totally broken implementation of something that had existed for over a decade before: package repositories. It's embraced and extended Linux/BSD package/ports trees, except without things like the ability to add a 3rd party repository with other authors signing keys, pin certain versions, etc. https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/#package-management https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/#packag... We could go on about how regular users wouldn't understand or care and blah blah blah and we'll keep getting software that's neutered, tracks us and becomes more like the proverbial car with the hood welded shut; where people who know about cars have to attach several sidecars just to keep our vehicle doing what we want it to do.

baxtr 7y ago
“Totally broken implementation” is very close to BS, at least strongly exaggerated. They’re both highly successful distribution models. Of course, every system has downsides. You’re free not to participate
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mimi89999 7y ago
  Really? It's basically impossible to distribute apps for iOS outside the AppStore and very difficult (all security, warranty warnings, settings, etc.) to distribute them outside the PlayStore.
  - dna_polymerase 7y ago
    Thankfully so. Apple keeps the App Store pretty clean, legacy apps, that are not maintained enough don't make it to the next iOS release and their capability system means I don't have to trust third party apps with anything. Of course, there are cases that essentially suffer from this, but for me as a user, I've got to say I'm pretty satisfied.
    - 7y ago

BlueTemplar 7y ago

What is a FOSS app even doing on the Play Store ?!? Didn't these devs get the memo about the GAFAM boycott ??

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

drtz 7y ago

I've been a regular Wireguard user for the last year and love it. Google just gave me the motivation to finally make a donation. Thanks for the great work!

peterwwillis 7y ago

A lot of these threads feel like complaining that McDonalds doesn't offer more sauces, or that they don't let you leave their store with the sauce. It's their store, it's their sauce. I don't think you can even claim monopoly, because nobody needs to use these devices. We can still use dumb phones for voice and texting, and regular computers for the internet. You have to accept that these are commercial products for commercial gain. They are not a product of or for a community. Massive corporations use these systems to create products that drive their revenue. They will do whatever works for the majority; the fact that a minority wants certain kinds of changes does not impact their bottom line, so why should they consider it? They do not care about your outrage or opinions, they care about cash.

Fnoord 7y ago

Can we just stop distributing "donation-ware" FOSS and use F-Droid for that instead? It is not as if Google Play Store is a credible source anyway given all the hostile content (for both privacy and security). Today I learned they even remove the orig. signature [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268717

yladiz 7y ago
Why? Google Play Store has a much larger audience and so the apps will be seen by many more people. Many people use Android and they also should be able to use FOSS apps, regardless of the platform’s privacy and security issues. Is there a reason to not join the Play Store besides something philosophical?
- mplewis 7y ago
  This OP is about an app being dropped from the Play Store because they're asking for donations. That's a pretty good reason.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  (What you describe is the issue of the Google Play Store network effect.) Because that way, we can install these applications from F-Droid, by default. That allows us to cope out of the network effect of Google Play Store, allowing the more fair F-Droid (which specifically allows donation-ware) to increase its network effect.
bogwog 7y ago
I can see the headlines already > Google Project Zero researchers find 100 ZERO-DAY vulnerabilities in unofficial app store "FDroid"

dessant 7y ago

Google Play In-app Billing does not support donations [1], so open source developers should be allowed to link to their own donation pages. Google Play policies do not spell out that linking to donation platforms such as Patreon is forbidden. Disallowing developers from using in-app billing for donations, while also barring them from linking to external donation platforms, puts open source projects in a difficult position, and appears to be overly hostile towards funding open source development. Google must clarify their position on whether they allow donation links in apps published on Google Play. The app takedowns [2] of the last few days show that this is a significant development, and it is of great importance for all open source developers. It's best to publicly document the messages you receive during app takedowns, since app store policies are often vague, it's easy for reviewers to make mistakes, and having a clear reference for these decisions also helps the public assess the validity of the takedown. [1] https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ > Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing: > One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389

anilshanbhag 7y ago
In this case, can't you simply have a one time purchase instead of a donation ?
- dessant 7y ago
  There are always workarounds, but that is not the point. We must not allow these platforms to discriminate against funding open source development through donations.
enriquto 7y ago
> (...) puts open source projects in a difficult position, and appears to be overly hostile towards funding open source development. This is the problem of developing free software on a non-free platform. They have absolute control of your work under their own terms, no matter how ridiculous they are. I never understood why the google play store is a socially acceptable idea for free software developers.

hawski 7y ago

I like the way that the author of Simple Mobile Tools [0] made donations. Applications are free and open source, but there is a paid app Simple Thank You [1]. That's also how I was thinking about doing "donationware" on a mobile app store. Side note: They are also available on F-Droid. [0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/cluster?clp=igM4ChkKEzkwNzAyOTYzODgwMjI1ODkyNjYQCBgDEhkKEzkwNzAyOTYzODgwMjI1ODkyNjYQCBgDGAA%3D:S:ANO1ljIN7-U&gsr=CjuKAzgKGQoTOTA3MDI5NjM4ODAyMjU4OTI2NhAIGAMSGQoTOTA3MDI5NjM4ODAyMjU4OTI2NhAIGAMYAA%3D%3D:S:ANO1ljIS1ys https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/cluster?clp=ig... [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.thankyou https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobi...

Nux 7y ago
Yes, this is quite a good workaround, though probably less lucrative.
- kumarm 7y ago
  https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.gallery.pro https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobi... Has more than 100K downloads. i.e made at least 100K after Google cut.
postsantum 7y ago
This is against policy. Not sure if it is enforced though https://play.google.com/about/spam-min-functionality/min-functionality/ https://play.google.com/about/spam-min-functionality/min-fun...
- sp332 7y ago
  I think it's pretty common though, for example buying a "key" separately from the main app. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.keramidas.TitaniumBackupPro https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.keramidas....
KingMachiavelli 7y ago

EGreg 7y ago

One of our apps (https://Yang2020.app https://Yang2020.app) were rejected by Apple for the same reason - having a Donate link. Ultimately we removed the link on native apps (kept it on the Web) and the app was accepted. However, before doing this, we corresponded with Apple Developer Support / App Review Team and asked them about the Acceptable Business Models of their developer guidelines, which states: (vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase. They scheduled a “specialist” to call us from Apple and discuss this. However when they called a few days later, they repeatedly declined to give a single example of how this paragraph would ever apply. We tried asking many different ways, but they kept saying we would need to submit the app with the business model to get it reviewed. They would not give a single example of an app they approved with this business model. I personally was on the phone and said that we simply wanted to be compliant and it was very expensive to build something just to be rejected, so we wanted guidance about their policies. But the representative did not know anything. I asked if anyone else on their team knew but they basically said no. So Apple seems to have certain “platitudes” in their Guidelines which companies can’t take advantage of. Has anyone here seen a single exception to the 30% cut? I know ApplePay may be used to purchase “real-life” items and where you can’t afford to pay 30% less to the vendor. But what about services, like booking time with a teacher? What about digital services such as hosting a videoconference? Apple takes a 30% but you have to pay Twilio. That means any web-based app would cost 30% less! We were hoping that maybe there can be some link to buy things with Ethereum and since Apple doesn’t offer that facility we can try to argue that we need transactions to be non-reversible etc. Doesn’t Apple allow apps that allow the user to send and receive bitcoin payments to some address? BOOM! Another thing we can do is micropayments, maybe, and tell users how they can purchase credits elsewhere. But that last part is against Apple’s rules, isn’t it?

EGreg 7y ago
Screw the rules, I have cryptocurrency!

yccheok 7y ago

Google (Or Apple) is pretty serious regarding their app stores rules and regulations. Google owns the app store. So, developers should abide rules imposed by Google although the rules do not seem reasonable all the time. My suggestion is, developer can still implement in-app billing, removing "donation" wording. For the in-app item, make it as good-to-have feature like "unlocking additional app color theme". With such, he will still abide the rule, yet able to get his monetary reward.

oarsinsync 7y ago
> Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing: > One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations. Source: https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/ https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/

jumbopapa 7y ago

How does AndOTP compare to FreeOTP+?

mtgx 7y ago
Aegis authenticator is much nicer than both. It also has some extra security features: https://www.reddit.com/r/androidapps/comments/b45zrj/dev_aegis_authenticator_secure_two_factor/ej4g6ll/ https://www.reddit.com/r/androidapps/comments/b45zrj/dev_aeg... https://beem.dev/ https://beem.dev/

jrockway 7y ago

I am not sure why it needs to be called a donation. Just let the in-app purchase unlock some cosmetics in the app like games do. You weren't going to deduct the donation from your taxes anyway. I am curious how this ends up working out. Google takes a cut of the donations now... but the process of buying is probably easier. So maybe it will increase donation revenue, and make it easier to support free software. (Taking a step back; it is pretty weird to have apps opening links to web pages that take your credit card number. The app store operators are right to view that with suspicion because I'm sure that for every legitimate open source project, there are a million phishing scams.)

dessant 7y ago
Open source developers shouldn't be forced to lock away additional functionality in their apps, or resort to special tricks just to be able to receive donations for their projects. Google could make a positive impact by introducing new features that help users seamlessly fund their favourite open source apps, right from their Google accounts. GitHub has recently introduced a similar initiative called GitHub Sponsors [1]. > Taking a step back; it is pretty weird to have apps opening links to web pages that take your credit card number. There is nothing weird about accepting payments outside of Google Play, and it is allowed if the payment does not result in buying a product that is used within the app. Buying a movie ticket, or operating an online store with a third-party payment processor are perfectly fine use cases which are allowed on Google Play. [1] https://github.com/sponsors https://github.com/sponsors
- kbenson 7y ago
  >> Just let the in-app purchase unlock some cosmetics in the app like games do. > Open source developers shouldn't be forced to lock away additional functionality in their apps I don't think functionality was what was suggested. Literally cosmetics. A nice banner that says thanks for supporting the project would likely be sufficient. Edit: Although I agree it shouldn't be required. As a workaround it doesn't seem too bad though.
- helpPeople 7y ago
  Completely agree. I do not want to restrict any users. Annoying how hard it is to be independent of FAANG control.

dang 7y ago

We merged a similar thread, "AndOTP Removed from the Google Play Store Due to Donation Link", into this one. Perhaps we'll update the title to cover both. https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396 https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269542

dmix 7y ago
Just to add clarity these were two different apps that were taken down: Wireguard and AndOTP (among others mentioned in this thread) Wireguard had 50k+ installs according to its (now dead) playstore page: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kSsZsb1h5KoJ:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details%3Fid%3Dcom.wireguard.android%26hl%3Den_CA+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kSsZsb... AndOTP had 10k+ installs: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:buaKcFCyT9YJ:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details%3Fid%3Dorg.shadowice.flocke.andotp%26hl%3Den_CA+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:buaKcF...
hanniabu 7y ago
Hmm, any idea how Google automatically catches a donation link? I feel like there's so many ways to do it that they must only be catching a handful.
- Trellmor 7y ago
  My app also got taken down some months ago. I had a menu entry called Donation that linked to a web page containing a PayPal donation button. I'm guessing they are just looking for the string Donation in your app.
  - mimi89999 7y ago
    What app was it?
- dang 7y ago
  The OP says the process is manual.

ddtaylor 7y ago

This is Google wanting their 30% cut. It's that simple.

tazeg95 7y ago

And so... What ? They removed some of my apps to for this reason.

mongol 7y ago

Would linking to Patreon also be against terms and conditions?

ur-whale 7y ago

It's really time for a decentralized / distributed version of the play store to replace the Google provided one.

ur-whale 7y ago

One thing I've found to be true throughout my career: the culture and ethos of organizations is usually a direct consequence of the culture and ethos of the leader who built it initially, and remains as such loooong after said leader is gone. Well guess what ... the android team at google and the entire android ecosystem is the brainchild of Andy Rubin, who has recently been outed publicly as a total asshole (and who everyone at Google knew was a total asshole since pretty much the start of Android). All the things wrong with Android, including the iron-fisted management of what can and cannot run on the platform ("I know, I'm squeezing your balls til you pass out, but don't worry, it's for your own protection") can easily be traced to him.

RedComet 7y ago

Ah yes, the multi-billion dollar megacorp trying to prevent goodwill donations. Dear regulators: BREAK UP GOOGLE.

panopticon 7y ago
To play devil's advocate, I'm sure Google's intent is to prevent garbage apps from spamming or tricking users into paying money and the resulting PR backlash from having an app store full of shady apps. As evidence of this, Google does allow donations if the publisher is a 501(c)(3) (see https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en).
- dmix 7y ago
  Nothing like opaque, zero due process take downs which change day-to-day unexpectedly until you wake and find your app is no longer in the Play Store. There has to be a better way to handle these sorts of things. Were they even notified beforehand?
- snowflakeandrey 7y ago
  A 501(c)(3) application costs at least $275 and takes 2-12 months to process. That seems all right if you're a SV SWE registering something on the side of your regular 6 figure income, but for a lot of folks around the world, that seems a largely no-go way to support their project. If this is really an attempt at preventing garbage apps from spamming or tricking users, this is both overly broad (many false positives) and badly targeted (many false negatives). Why is it that iOS doesn't have this policy, and has significantly fewer garbage apps? Maybe if Google were to allow third party app stores, folks could choose the one that fits their ability to evaluate the sophistication of apps themselves. For example, some folks might want to pay for extra security checks on the apps they use, while others want to install anything and everything under the sun.
- unethical_ban 7y ago
  So if I write a legit open source app and release it, and link to a donation page, that's wrong? I don't deserve some credit for my work? Oh right, it's because Google wants me to have some kind of "pro" app that is effectively a license, that they can get their 30% cut of. They don't give a damn about fraud via this method. They want their money.

edhelas 7y ago

My social-network/IM app (https://movim.eu/ https://movim.eu/) got also removed from the Play Store because I had a link to the F-Droid app. The Android app is basically a web-view pointing to one of the many instances of the social network https://nl.movim.eu/?login https://nl.movim.eu/?login. Regarding the time (and also money) spent to publish the APK on the Play Store and the hassle it is to discuss with the Google moderation team I didn't bothered putting it back.

kragen 7y ago
That's interesting — not a donation page, but an F-Droid page (which as far as I know doesn't accept donations)? When did this happen?
- smileybarry 7y ago
  That's probably due to the "can't link to other stores" clause. There's a reason you have to manually go to Amazon.com to download their app store, you can't advertise or link to a third-party app source via a Google Play-delivered app.

chrisballinger 7y ago

I guess this will get lost in the noise, but a few years ago Apple relaxed its restrictions on IAP donations and allows developers to offer a "tip jar" where IAPs don't unlock any specific features. I've been shipping a free and open source app with a donate button on the App Store since mid-2017 [1]. 1. https://chatsecure.org/blog/sustainable-open-source-starts-with-you/ https://chatsecure.org/blog/sustainable-open-source-starts-w...

hosteur 7y ago
Interesting. As someone who considers making an open source app with a tip jar like that I would be very interested in hearing how much that actually nets you if you want to share that info (Maybe via PM if you prefer)
wavefunction 7y ago
Does Apple take their customary cut? I am not interested in "donating" to Apple.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  They do.
- diminoten 7y ago
  Ever use a credit card to make a donation anywhere?
  - allworknoplay 7y ago
    Apple's cut is a hell of a lot more than 2.9% + $0.30.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      Never said it wasn't? Just pointing out how silly this stance is.

bogwog 7y ago

> I appealed using their website appeal form. Thirty minutes later (was this automated, unlike the manual app review process?), I received a rejection of the appeal. Google in a nutshell.

peignoir 7y ago

All of these really motivates me to push for decentralized projects. If the future Is basically full of gate keepers choosing what apps can be used or not and we don’t have any platform allowing freedom then it would be a very sad future indeed

legohead 7y ago

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/ "Do the right thing"

ganitarashid 7y ago

Just link to: http://www.google.com/search?q=wireguard+donate http://www.google.com/search?q=wireguard+donate Problem solved.

zxter 7y ago

So... what is next? Mentioning/linking patreon profile in YouTube videos could also be bannable if one disable ads in their videos?

billfruit 7y ago

Though easy to phrase it as a moral problem, I think the matter requires an unemotional analysis. At first hearing it looks like shutting down avenues by which open source app developers can gather donations, but perhaps the measure was targeted at shady money laundering operations. Perhaps the right thing to do is for Google to offer a discounted cut to legit open source apps, from the usual 30% to a lesser value or entirely waive it off so that they can still seek contributions through Google play billing.

opan 7y ago

I have been disappointed in the Play Store for a while now. Last I checked, they don't display licenses either, so you can't easily tell what's free software. I get everything from F-Droid these days, and on my primary devices I never even install the google apps after flashing LineageOS.

sm4rk0 7y ago

Our freedoms are being taken away one by one by those who say they are protecting our freedoms just because of capitalism -> money -> greed.

sm4rk0 7y ago
Because "there's no free lunch" in capitalism. https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/dhir1i/in_the_us_we_design_our_public_facilities_with/ https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/dhir1i/in_th...

iamleppert 7y ago

In an ironic twist, our app that Google supported via Summer of Code was removed. Whoever came up with this policy and started enforcing it at Google is completely tone-deaf, needs to be fired and publicly called out so we can set an example as a community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated. We have contacted engineering leadership at Google and they are in the process of figuring out who it is internally.

dessant 7y ago
Please share more details about your app and its takedown, it's important to publicly document the issue.
ummonk 7y ago
As crazy as this policy is, firing and publicly shaming an employee is not the right response to a poor decision by an employee.
- jmsmistral 7y ago
  I feel it is. It's an effective platform for (positive) change, in this case.
  - jraph 7y ago
    I think this is a bad decision, but I don't want to live in a world in which people risk their privacy by making poor decisions. We just need processes to learn and avoid doing mistakes twice, and shaming is a poor way to do it. If I risked being ashamed when making decisions, I would probably avoid decisions altogether. This would be awful. The discussed decision is not even out of law. What we can do though, is to tell people we know and love about F-Droid and suggest them to only fall back to the Play Store if they don't find what they want, and that they should be aware that by doing so, they enter the jungle and that this jungle follows Google's arbitrary rules, some of which are not in their own interests.
psychometry 7y ago
If you think that's an appropriate and proportional response to an employee making a mistake or misunderstanding an internal policy, I sincerely hope that you're not in charge of anyone at your day job.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

amelius 7y ago

It's one thing if a government regulates a market, yet another thing if a company regulates it ...

michielderhaeg 7y ago

I would like to point out how the PPSSPP project circumvents this problem. It's an open-source PSP emulator. They have the a free version available on the Play Store here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.ppsspp https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.pps... They also have a "Gold" version available: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.ppssppgold https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.pps... These two apps are functionally identical, only difference is the logo and that the "Gold" version costs money. So if you want to contribute some cash to this project, you just buy the "Gold" version. Other open-source projects could adopt this model too to evade this policy. The price you pay however, is that a part of the money goes to Google. Which is obviously the reason why donation links are not allowed in the first place.

nullandvoid 7y ago

I would much rather donation links than the horrendous ad spam that comes with most apps. But of course this impact googles bottom line so the sane approach goes out the window

aneutron 7y ago

Again making a case for alternative app stores. Yes having a centralized software repository has its benefits, but it's starting to show it's limits ...

emrhzc 7y ago

Totally right move! I'd rather see genital enhancement ads than those disgusting, immoral donation links.

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago

Uh oh, we have open-source app on Google play with Patreon banner. Seems like we have to expect trouble soon. Thanks, Google!

Animats 7y ago

Recently, new versions "Simple ..." line of open source apps from "simplemobiletools.com "on the F-Droid app store have started popping up requests for donations. Those now need to be checked.

h4waii 7y ago

Who do you trust more, to secure their infrastructure? Google or F-Droid / a bunch of volunteers who may or may not be very security-conscious? Not to downplay the effort that F-Droid contributors (or any Android FOSS groups) make, but it's a very legitimate concern. Would an attacker have an easier time infiltrating Google or a member of F-Droid the development community? Are users of F-Droid higher value than users of Google Play, to warrant a direct attack? If one wants to pick off users who are fairly technically inclined, other developers, system administrators, etc...F-Droid is a pretty good place to start.

vsviridov 7y ago
At least read up on how f-droid does their reproducible build infrastructure before you spread FUD.
- h4waii 7y ago
  What about my comment is FUD? Regardless of the fact that builds are reproducible, F-Droid has infrastructure. How is that infra secured? How are the servers that store signing keys secured? How are the build servers accessed? How is the access secured? Okay, so the builds are reproducible -- is someone maintaining a concurrent system that verifies reproducibility and provides notification of a collision when things don't match up with built and served binaries?
behringer 7y ago
Easy answer. F-Droid.

jerrac 7y ago

After reading so many similar stories, here is what Google/Apple/etc should, in my opinion. If an automated process blocks/bans/rejects something, then the message to the developer MUST say "Our automated scanner discovered..." Any time something is blocked/banned/rejected, the message to the developer MUST explain exactly why. In the case of this article: "Your update was rejected due to a link to a third party payment system. This violates section N of our terms. The link we detected was <insert link here>." There should be two kinds of appeal processes. Automated, and manual. You should be able to appeal or resubmit to the automated process as often as you need to. The manual process should involve real time communication between the developer and an appeal agent. Via phone or chat. To prevent the system from being overloaded, only allow developers a few free appeals, then start charging a fee. Developer accounts should only be fully banned after multiple manual appeals and the appeals agent determining that the developer is operating in bad faith. Automated processes should never be able to fully ban an account. It must involve a real person. Full bans also must include a detailed email to the developer explaining exactly why they have been banned. The biggest, and most important, change these companies really need to make is including exactly WHY something happened. No more of these general "you violated our TOS" without any explanation of how the TOS was violated messages.

interhacker 7y ago

The title reads like a not the onion post

dessant 7y ago

WireGuard was reinstated after Jason has submitted a new version which does not contain a donation link. The issue has not been solved, and Google did not yet contact maintainers to clarify whether they would be allowed to have a donation link in WireGuard. Several other open source apps are still missing from Google Play, including andOTP. While WireGuard was bought back online, version 0.0.20191013 was briefly made available (with a donation link) before it got updated to version 0.0.20191016. Again, the current version of WireGuard does not contain a donation link. This is the original version of the post, which has become inaccurate minutes after it was posted: > WireGuard has been reinstated [1], and the donation link is in the app menu (version 0.0.20191013). > Google has reversed its decision to remove an app that contains a link to a donation page, likely because of public scrutiny. > I'm hopeful that people will continue to seek answers for why Google has begun to remove these open source apps, there are several of them mentioned in this thread alone. Please don't allow this to go unnoticed, the future of a bunch of less popular open source projects may depend on how this issue is perceived by the public, and addressed by Google. > [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wireguard.android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wireguard....

neonate 7y ago
> Google has reversed its decision to remove an app that contains a link to a donation page Are we sure that this is a decision reversal, as opposed to just reinstating one (or a few) apps?
- dessant 7y ago
  This is why it is important to continue questioning their actions, a bunch of other open source apps remain taken down, or were forced to remove their donation links. The issue of donation links in apps must be clearly addressed by Google.
zx2c4 7y ago
Could you double check 0.0.20191013? My phone just updated, and I'm seeing the APK version that has the donation link removed, 0.0.20191016. I haven't received any further emails from Google (yet?), so I'm still uncertain as to whether I have any sort of green light to republish a version with the link.

camhart 7y ago

A bit of a tangent, but does anyone know how Netflix gets away with not doing in app payments?

MelodyConcerto 7y ago

My guess would be some idiot in Legal got their panties in a bunch over nothing.

dubb20 7y ago

in the same time there are dozens of free "Zodiak" and "Calendar" trial apps that charge 100+ usd a month after the first week....

villgax 7y ago

So if a Facebook profile or article inside an app has a donation link it should get de-listed? All of Facebook fund raising should get burnt as well?!!

ariana101 7y ago

all process is manually done

carlos22 7y ago

The question should be: When will society accept that capitalism always will kill any form of "don't be evil". There is no choice.

fastbmk_com 7y ago

No idea why, but this app offers purchases via good old Bank Cards, without any Google mediation. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.navigation.offlinemaps.gps&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.navigation...