4 ms·

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

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.
- anchpop 7y ago
  Would it be acceptable to Google if the only perk of buying an IAP was a little icon on the screen saying "contributor" or something? Do they ban all donation verbiage or just IAPs that do nothing?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    it's not the verbiage it's the 30% cut that google is missing when using a donation link
    - anchpop 7y ago
      Oh, I see, thanks
- briandear 7y ago
  I don’t know much about Android, but is the Play store necessary? If it isn’t, then isn’t that independence from FAANG control?
  - black_puppydog 7y ago
    That's like telling a convenience store owner that they're "independent" of Visa and Mastercard. Yeah sure, good luck with that.
  - sm4rk0 7y ago
    It isn't [1] but an average Joe doesn't know about alternatives and what's worse doesn't care about them because he's not affected by Google's foul play (or at least he thinks he isn't). 1: https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/
im3w1l 7y ago
While I see what you are saying, it doesn't need to be "locked away functionality". You could like "sell" badges. $10 """buys""" a bronze badge, $30 a silver etc, whose only functionality is to be listed in some irrelevant "thanks for your support" view.
gojomo 7y ago
> …are allowed on Google Play. Until some morning when suddenly, they're not!
_-david-_ 7y ago
>Open source developers shouldn't be forced to lock away additional functionality in their app The additional feature can just be text that says thanks for the money, feel free to give us more money in the future.
- benj111 7y ago
  Is that still technically open source compatible? Edit: I'm referring to https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Edit2: Having read round some more, it seems you possibly could sell a different version, of course you would have to offer the source code which others would be free to give away, (this is for the gpl). I don't know if the discrimination clause of the Open Source Definition would come into play though.
- phkahler 7y ago
  Better yet, just charge a dollar for the app. Link from the primary website to the app store, so people can buy the right one.
  - dTal 7y ago
    No thanks. If I'm donating to a good cause, I don't want the App Mafia taking a 30% cut. That just reinforces this bad behavior.
    - ndarwincorn 7y ago
      It's sort of a convenience fee. I agree with your App Mafia take but my guess is folks that can't be troubled to use F-Droid probably weren't going to donate in the first place. For instance, D-Sub is available for free on F-Droid but costs something like ~$4 on Google Play. AndOTP is available on F-Droid, not sure about Wireguard but I'd assume so.
      - imhoguy 7y ago
        > For instance, D-Sub is available for free on F-Droid but costs something like ~$4 on Google Play. This is great solution to sustain the app developmant and spread the word about F-Droid!

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.

anchpop 7y ago
Would it be acceptable to Google if the only perk of buying an IAP was a little icon on the screen saying "contributor" or something? Do they ban all donation verbiage or just IAPs that do nothing?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  it's not the verbiage it's the 30% cut that google is missing when using a donation link
  - anchpop 7y ago
    Oh, I see, thanks
briandear 7y ago
I don’t know much about Android, but is the Play store necessary? If it isn’t, then isn’t that independence from FAANG control?
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  That's like telling a convenience store owner that they're "independent" of Visa and Mastercard. Yeah sure, good luck with that.
- sm4rk0 7y ago
  It isn't [1] but an average Joe doesn't know about alternatives and what's worse doesn't care about them because he's not affected by Google's foul play (or at least he thinks he isn't). 1: https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/

im3w1l 7y ago

While I see what you are saying, it doesn't need to be "locked away functionality". You could like "sell" badges. $10 """buys""" a bronze badge, $30 a silver etc, whose only functionality is to be listed in some irrelevant "thanks for your support" view.

gojomo 7y ago

> …are allowed on Google Play. Until some morning when suddenly, they're not!

_-david-_ 7y ago

>Open source developers shouldn't be forced to lock away additional functionality in their app The additional feature can just be text that says thanks for the money, feel free to give us more money in the future.

benj111 7y ago
Is that still technically open source compatible? Edit: I'm referring to https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Edit2: Having read round some more, it seems you possibly could sell a different version, of course you would have to offer the source code which others would be free to give away, (this is for the gpl). I don't know if the discrimination clause of the Open Source Definition would come into play though.
phkahler 7y ago
Better yet, just charge a dollar for the app. Link from the primary website to the app store, so people can buy the right one.
- dTal 7y ago
  No thanks. If I'm donating to a good cause, I don't want the App Mafia taking a 30% cut. That just reinforces this bad behavior.
  - ndarwincorn 7y ago
    It's sort of a convenience fee. I agree with your App Mafia take but my guess is folks that can't be troubled to use F-Droid probably weren't going to donate in the first place. For instance, D-Sub is available for free on F-Droid but costs something like ~$4 on Google Play. AndOTP is available on F-Droid, not sure about Wireguard but I'd assume so.
    - imhoguy 7y ago
      > For instance, D-Sub is available for free on F-Droid but costs something like ~$4 on Google Play. This is great solution to sustain the app developmant and spread the word about F-Droid!