5 ms·

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.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
They're trying to prevent money laundering.
- allworknoplay 7y ago
  I don't see how this makes sense -- if someone wants to launder money, why would they need to find a donation link to their external donation system inside an android app? I'm pretty sure they just want their cut.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Yup, I pretty much read it as this: "if you are operating an open source project then you should use ads for funding instead of donations or introduce paid features/upgrades so that we get a cut"
jldugger 7y ago
You think a breakup will change anything?
- snowflakeandrey 7y ago
  Yes — if there were real competition between multiple app stores, some of which provided better systems of vetting than others (both for users and for developers), then the kinds of stores that had these policies would die off.
  - alacombe 7y ago
    Then break-up is still not the solution. Microsoft didn't get split in the late 90's / early 2000's. Anti-trust case against Google / Apple seems far more appropriate and doesn't require new legislation. All in all, that whole "break-up" argument is just political white-knighting by wanna-be elites (ie. Warren & co).
    - rleigh 7y ago
      I don't follow this line of reasoning at all. By all accounts, Microsoft should have been broken up. They were convicted of abusing their monopoly position in a court of law. It was a travesty of justice that it was not carried out. Had this happened, the new companies would have been vastly more competitive, and the current state of computing might have been much better.
      - alacombe 7y ago
        It's hazardous at best to assume the state of something with so much variables. As for continuing being GAFA advocate (while still thinking they should be compelled to open up "Stores" to competition), vertical integration provides enough economy of scale to achieve ever greater complex things. Also, 1) you can't just "break-up" any GAFA. They're just gonna move out of State and be welcomed somewhere else, and 2) what you're asking put Government in a very awkward position as setting up both enough regulations to block new players, but also blocking player to achieve a certain size. Finally, this argument is getting awfully close to the "broken window" fallacy. You can't just "create competition" out of thin air.
teslafanboi 7y ago
go live in china you commie

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.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

They're trying to prevent money laundering.

allworknoplay 7y ago
I don't see how this makes sense -- if someone wants to launder money, why would they need to find a donation link to their external donation system inside an android app? I'm pretty sure they just want their cut.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  Yup, I pretty much read it as this: "if you are operating an open source project then you should use ads for funding instead of donations or introduce paid features/upgrades so that we get a cut"

jldugger 7y ago

You think a breakup will change anything?

snowflakeandrey 7y ago
Yes — if there were real competition between multiple app stores, some of which provided better systems of vetting than others (both for users and for developers), then the kinds of stores that had these policies would die off.
- alacombe 7y ago
  Then break-up is still not the solution. Microsoft didn't get split in the late 90's / early 2000's. Anti-trust case against Google / Apple seems far more appropriate and doesn't require new legislation. All in all, that whole "break-up" argument is just political white-knighting by wanna-be elites (ie. Warren & co).
  - rleigh 7y ago
    I don't follow this line of reasoning at all. By all accounts, Microsoft should have been broken up. They were convicted of abusing their monopoly position in a court of law. It was a travesty of justice that it was not carried out. Had this happened, the new companies would have been vastly more competitive, and the current state of computing might have been much better.
    - alacombe 7y ago
      It's hazardous at best to assume the state of something with so much variables. As for continuing being GAFA advocate (while still thinking they should be compelled to open up "Stores" to competition), vertical integration provides enough economy of scale to achieve ever greater complex things. Also, 1) you can't just "break-up" any GAFA. They're just gonna move out of State and be welcomed somewhere else, and 2) what you're asking put Government in a very awkward position as setting up both enough regulations to block new players, but also blocking player to achieve a certain size. Finally, this argument is getting awfully close to the "broken window" fallacy. You can't just "create competition" out of thin air.

teslafanboi 7y ago

go live in china you commie