21 ms·

FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

853 points by timothyaveni 5y ago

tnash 5y ago
Absolutely absurd take from Google here. What could they be thinking? It's like they want app store legislation.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  Is the cost of losing not-quite exclusivity on Android worth the benefit of gaining a foothold in Apple land? Probably. Do I think Google made that decision consciously and this is part of their scheme? No, I think they screwed up the way that they do all the time, won't apologize for it, and if they decide to reverse themselves this time, they could still un-reverse their judgement after any future update, or just because Google is incompetent that way.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
This is outrageous. Google definitely lived long enough to become a villain. It is incredible how much goodwill they've lost in the past decade. When was the last time they did anything good?
- maxwell 5y ago
  I was glad they walked back on Dragonfly and (effectively) killed AMP. In the process they did lose me as a user of their free products though. And they lost me as a developer, I no longer opt for building with their tools, including Chrome, Android, Angular, GCloud, etc.
  - pengaru 5y ago
    > and (effectively) killed AMP err, what? I still regularly get AMP links from news.google.com
    - maxwell 5y ago
      I was referring to https://plausible.io/blog/google-amp https://plausible.io/blog/google-amp Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192685
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - tyingq 5y ago
      The incentive to move to AMP is gone, since it's no longer needed to land in the carousel, but moving off of it is still a project/effort.
  - sintaxi 5y ago
    AMP failed.
    - nanidin 5y ago
      I switched to Duck Duck Go on mobile as a direct result of AMP. So not only did AMP fail, but Google lost most of the eyeball time they were getting from me and they're not getting it back any time soon.
      - maxwell 5y ago
        Yeah that was what made me switch to DDG from GSearch as well in late 2018. I use the terminal theme in DDG, and it's become the canonical SERP in my mind. When I do !g every now and then, it feels like GSearch has become AltaVista with a dash of MySpace.
- jonas21 5y ago
  > When was the last time they did anything good? Oh I dunno... how about that time they solved protein folding? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rrobukef 5y ago
    Mad science to prove the point.
  - nbardy 5y ago
    Or the other reams of world class machine learning research and model weights they've released freely.
    - sterlind 5y ago
      perhaps this is whoosh, but I thought Google wasn't releasing their model weights or source code, at least for a lot of things. like with WaveNet, it was easy to train but computationally infeasible to run the way they published the paper. then it turns out there's a trick that makes playing it forward far more efficient, which Google later acknowledged using internally, but didn't disclose.
      - CodesInChaos 5y ago
        What kind of trick? At a glance wavenet looks like you could reuse most of the computation from earlier timesteps (would gave to take a closer look to see if it'd actually work), but I assume you're talking about something less obvious?
      - nbardy 5y ago
        They don't always release weights and often the code and weights are delayed from the paper. But more often than not they release a lot of their weights and/or research code.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
  That is very black and white thinking. Large organizations can do both good and terrible things. Google still serves are huge portion of search traffic which pretty clearly is a good thing. Youtube has an incredible wealth of tutorials & educational content. Deepmind is pushing the boundaries of what is possible. Various OSS projects continue to be pushed out. Gmail has been an amazing free resource for millions etc. They are also doing terrible things as well.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    Yeah, google does awful shit every day but it's worth remembering that Maps, Search and YouTube are world-changing resources. All three have their problems (especially that third one) but they have done an incredible amount of Good in the world and they continue to do so every day.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      The world changing resource is OpenStreetMap. Google Maps is just an asset to better track users. As for YouTube, it is technically marvellous, but since they started censoring and silencing one side of a political spectrum, YT turned into a propaganda machine, no less.
      - scrollaway 5y ago
        I love OSM but without Google Maps it would not exist. It’s just not all black and white.
        Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Actually, OSM was launched before Google Maps, in August 2004, while Google Maps were launched only in February 2005, six months later.
        scrollaway 5y ago
- dotcommand 5y ago
  > Google definitely lived long enough to become a villain. I hate to break this to you but google was born a villain. Nobody innately good has to remind themselves "Don't be evil". Imagine walking down the street and meeting a stranger constantly repeating "Don't be evil" to himself?
  - account42 5y ago
    Being able to group people into "good" and "bad" ones is convenient. It means you only need to find out once if someone is a "good" or "bad" person and once you have decided that someone is "bad" you can justify any of your own behavior towards them. But just because it is convenient does not make it true. People are people. Choices are bad or good or more likley somewhere in between. Nobody is innately good or bad - while some poeple my be wired to be more selfish than others, the choices they make throughout their lifes are as much dictated by the circumstances they are made in and by the experiences made before them as they are by the neurological makeup of the person.
sgtfrankieboy 5y ago
I really hope Epic wins the lawsuit against Apple and that the laws being announced in the US Senate/House get passed. I also hope the EU start pushing against this kind of stuff more. Apple and Google have too much control.
- Siira 5y ago
  Which is why Apple’s volunteered to run on-device surveillance programs. Between their lobbying power and the holy grail of utter surveillance, the governments will never stand for the basic rights of the people.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
    governments aren't monoliths, there are many players that are looking for different things. House reps probably aren't setting their legislative agenda about monopolistic power based off of what the intelligence community would like the most.
    - ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
      there are, at most, two groups.
- young_unixer 5y ago
  I can also see how legislation would worsen the situation by eliminating incentives for people to use alternative mobile stores and operating systems. "Why use another store, when Google and Apple are required by law to have all apps?"
  - sgtfrankieboy 5y ago
    The laws are about being able to provide alternative payment methods and stores. They aren't going to force Google and Apple to have all apps?
    - 5y ago
encryptluks2 5y ago
This is sad, but I do think I see the issue here. You are loading the website in your own app so it is considered part of the app experience. If you load the website externally using the mobile browser it shouldn't be an issue.
- timothyaveni 5y ago
  Nope, we're not actually. On my device, anyway, the link opens in Chrome, not in an in-app browser.
- kklisura 5y ago
  > You are loading the website in your own app I don't think they are. > If you load the website externally using the mobile browser it shouldn't be an issue. The screenshots look like browser and not some in-app website view.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- croes 5y ago
  Nope, it's an external link and even it wasn't it would be a lame excuse. What if a webpage links to google.com, does that count as providing access to violence and pornography?
- Saris 5y ago
  You can see from the screenshots that Google sent with the rejection that they have it loaded in Chrome. Most obvious indicator is the 40 other tabs they have open in their browser on the top right.
aboringusername 5y ago
This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google. I cannot believe how at the rate the world is changing (pace wise, with each new technological breakthrough) the law simply cannot keep pace. We've allowed AI systems unfettered, unrestricted access to our lives. AI is being deployed with absolutely no oversight (Apple's CSAM comes to mind), I'm not even sure there are any laws at all. How can apple just deploy a new system without having to first go through the courts? We all know at some point someone will lodge a suit against them for an inaccurate match... Decisions like this must be deferred to a human, who creates a record and is capable in case anything untoward happens. AI seems exempt from any liability (this is probably why so many places are deploying such systems, as a society it seems we've decided that no matter what good or bad may happen "AI" gets a free pass and no human will likely go to jail, even if your self driving car kills you). The fact you can be deprived due to a mistaken software error is one of the most awful things in our society, and this has happened far too many times for it to go ignored time and again. But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time. How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN before we DEMAND action be taken? See you next month ;).
- Phrodo_00 5y ago
  Why are you assuming this is an AI-driven decision? It looks like human intervention to me.
  - aboringusername 5y ago
    Isn't it safer to assume it is until proven otherwise? A developer has their app removed, perhaps their livelihood, and Google can't be fucked to sign off who made the decision? If it was a human I expect to know who, and who I can write to so it can be reviewed, by another human. I want to know how I can contact a human for support and not some useless AI chat bot that seem to be all the rage these days (looking at you Amazon...) But yes, it's happened so much by AI you just assume these days...like a YouTube takedown for example by a bot.
    - ribosometronome 5y ago
rvz 5y ago
Here we go again. Another month, another ban. They are the problem and they will never change. Their behaviour affects everyone and they do not care since they will just point to their guidelines and ban you. Can you finally see that Google (YouTube), Apple, Microsoft and Facebook are NOT your friends?
- collaborative 5y ago
  Shocking this gets downvotes
rbx 5y ago
Would Google also be able to negatively influence such an app if the app was a PWA? Publishing PWA on Play Store might still lead to the same outcome, but what if it is just an independent PWA and is "installed" through the phone's browser? Of course you would loose some discoverability though, but are there other disadvantages? (provided the app is even feasible as a PWA)
- suprfsat 5y ago
  They could make Chrome experience deliberately bad, if you believe they're not doing that currently.
  - rbx 5y ago
    Well, personally I use Firefox. Although I do have a suspition that Google has found some way of keeping Firefox experience on mobile inferior in some way. Just speculating.
  - depressedpanda 5y ago
    I don't really want to defend Google here, but the best PWA experience for both Android and desktop is actually with Chrome.
progval 5y ago
Looks like the Apple Store has a similar policy https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/106658813153945020 https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/106658813153945020
tomaszs 5y ago
There is an obvious internal conflict of interest in Google. Donation based app being banned are a result of that conflict of interest. But this is just a tip of an iceberg. While sometimes Google does something to patch the issue, it can not on itself fix it. Because it is caused by a core flaw of the company business model. It supports two competing platforms where only one earns money and gives control. It renders Google to be incapable of supporting both app creators and open web properly. I wrote about it lately: https://tomaszs2.medium.com/ups-we-broke-the-web-again-sorry-4f904913dd4e https://tomaszs2.medium.com/ups-we-broke-the-web-again-sorry...
yorwba 5y ago
Is there a specific reason the app is not available via F-Droid? My guess is lack of time, but maybe it's something else?
- 1xdevnet 5y ago
  As of last year[0] it looks like they were trying to make sure the app assets had clear licenses first. [0] https://github.com/language-transfer/lt-app/issues/24 https://github.com/language-transfer/lt-app/issues/24
squarefoot 5y ago
Tell Google how you feel about that by searching "google app store alternatives", then installing Aurora Store. https://auroraoss.com/ https://auroraoss.com/ https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS From the Aurora Store FAQ: What is the difference between Aurora Store and Google's Play store? Unlike Google's Play Store, Aurora Store doesn't track your downloads or the apps you use. We respect your privacy. Aurora Store is also unaffected by Google marking your device as uncertified or lacking of necessary Google apps. Play Protect is not present, as this is a Play Store only feature. Do I need Google Play Services to use Aurora Store? No. Aurora Store was built to access the Google Play store without any kind of Google services. It doesn't matter if you use it with or without Google Play Services/MicroG. Is it safe to use Aurora store? Aurora Store is fully open-source and verified by F-Droid. If you're asking about the safety of the apps in the store, those are the exact same ones the Play Store would load and display. A lot of dangerous stuff seems to sneak past Google though, so as a rule of thumb, don't download anything which you're unsure about.
- BelenusMordred 5y ago
  Always amuses me when using google to search for <App> f-droid. Google will always insist you meant <App> android and show you those results instead, which of course is the play store version if it exists.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    I searched for "ssh f-droid" and the top 4 results were f-droid SSH apps, then a link to a reddit post, and then a link to JuiceSSH on the Play store.
  - SquareWheel 5y ago
    Worked fine here. https://i.imgur.com/2vWBEG4.png https://i.imgur.com/2vWBEG4.png
  - techrat 5y ago
    What you speak of does not appear to be the case. https://i.imgur.com/3R6JzvB.png https://i.imgur.com/3R6JzvB.png The search results even gave me the correct name of the app in f-droid that is named differently. (firefox > fennec)
itake 5y ago
The developer is asking people to optionally pay for his app. From a tax perspective, the dev would owe taxes on this income, since he is not a not-for-profit legal entity. Since these payments are considered taxable income, I am not sure why they would think they could avoid Google's rules just because they are a "small one-man shop". The simple solution here is to add in-app purchases like every other "small one-man shop" and not ask for noncompetitive advantages and accept Google's 15% cut [0]. [0] - https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2021/03/boosting-dev-success.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2021/03/boosting-d...
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  I'd never heard of them, but judging by their website it looks like they produce apps for iOS, for Android and also have a webapp. Should they be required to remove an optional donation link from their website even though it might not have anything to do with Android at all? How does this involve Google exactly?
- oauea 5y ago
  You do realize that Google is not the government? What do taxes have to do with anything?
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
  It sounds like they are asking for donations on their website, not through the app. Do the terms of service really extend past the app to the website for the project?
- MrStonedOne 5y ago
  People using "donations" to refer to tips on free services is an old practice and not one you should be arguing is the same as a non-profit. Mincing words to make your argument is kinda frown upon here.
whocares2345 5y ago
Is there any particular reason the author paying rent via donations is different from any of us paying rent from our work? You decided to use Googles distribution platform and infrastructure while not sharing the revenue - fully knowing it is illegal in the Play Store to accept payments outside of the platform. Basically you attempted to steal the efforts Google invested in creating and promoting Android, it’s development tools and infrastructure - and they banned you for it.
- Siira 5y ago
  Donations are voluntary, in-app purchases unlock features (traditionally). Besides, Google has to maintain the App Store to keep their OS afloat.
- aboringusername 5y ago
  Sorry but this is why we need regulation and fast. We need by default other app stores on all operating systems (similar to search engines Google were forced to advertise) Google should have to compete on merit and if somebody doesn't want to give Google/Apple a cut, too bad. These platforms should probably not be placed under the control of such large entities, Android/iOS should be split into their own organisation . Google/Apple can then pick their OS or appstore, not both.
  - izacus 5y ago
    There's absolutely nothing stopping the author from distributing his app in following ways: - on F-Droid, an app store dedicated for OSS software - on Samsung Store, an app store preinstalled on most Android phones sold in US and other western world - on Amazon store - on Huawei app store - on their own webpage as a downloadable APK But what they really want is to use Googles distribution system while not paying the margin.
  - foota 5y ago
    To play devil's advocate, competing app stores could just be a race to the bottom.
legrande 5y ago
Just so people know, the two dominating app stores are under scrutiny because of the monopoly they have on the market: https://www.wsj.com/articles/app-store-competition-targeted-by-bipartisan-senate-bill-11628704834 https://www.wsj.com/articles/app-store-competition-targeted-... https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/11/tech/apple-google-app-stores-senate-bill/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/11/tech/apple-google-app-sto... https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/11/22620454/apple-google-app-store-senate-play-bill-epic-games-fortnite https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/11/22620454/apple-google-app...
- xtracto 5y ago
  As they are, app stores are crap. They are a huge control mechanism to stiff competition. For those of you who are old enough: Imagine if in 2000, Microsoft released "Windows Me" with something similar (for PC) to what Apple or Google are doing in the current dominant computing device form factor (Mobile). It just would not have been tolerated. Adobe, Netscape, Autodesk, Corel and others having to pay Microsoft a 15% cut for their software? Netscape? Opera? Apple having to pay 15% of the revenue from Apple Itunes? That's crazy...
  - Dove 5y ago
    I'm old enough to remember that in 2001, Microsoft got in trouble just for shipping Windows with IE preinstalled. Which seems like an awfully quaint concern by 2021 standards. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....
  - ribosometronome 5y ago
    A Microsoft operating system was on 97% of all computing devices in the year 2000, even higher if you narrow the definition to something like "home computer".
    - tomnipotent 5y ago
      Microsoft didn't a collect a tax on every dollar made from every business distributing on Windows.
TrianguloY 5y ago
I'm not sure if this is written somewhere, but from personal experience: "you can't place a url whose content contains a direct link to a donation service (paypal, patreon, etc) nor in your app nor in the play store description". Placing a link to a site which contains a link to another site with the actual donations links is fine...for now.
legrande 5y ago
App ecosystems can't work properly if they're weakened by LEAs. People would just not use them if they know they're being watched. I'm not saying the majority would switch to Linux phones either (like Librem 5 & Pinephone), simply that the two dominating app-stores (Play & Apple Store) would be phased out and people would probably fund independent FLOSS app stores to replace them. In the end, the people will speak out and respond to back-doors. In-fact we need FLOSS app stores right now (Similar to F-Droid[0], but baked in as the default store), and they need to be funded properly & they need sound economic incentives to continue. No more 'free' apps where you pay for them with your data. It's possible to have FLOSS apps that are not gratis where people pay for them with money, not their data. (The reason I suggest we switch to FLOSS app stores is that the apps can easily be checked for back-doors or malicious code since the code is open source. It makes the apps readily available for audits too) [0] https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/
rkagerer 5y ago
Got a Donate link to contribute toward a lawsuit? The App stores have become a cartel and I'd love to see their unscrupulous behavior challenged in court. (Epic is doing that, but your case is easier to sympathize with).
zozbot234 5y ago
From looking at the report, I'm not sure I understand this decision. The referenced policy is about in-store or in-app purchases, primarily of digital content, and a free donation is not "purchasing" anything. (Even taking this precedent at face value, it could impact any app that prominently features links to websites where donations are asked for, which seems quite unreasonable.)
- jcranberry 5y ago
  I think it's most likely this was done by someone lazy or not paying attention.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    They had to follow through a bunch of not-so-prominent links on the website to discover the donation page. Whatever that is, I don't think it qualifies as "lazy".
    - banana_giraffe 5y ago
      The page they linked to, the main page of the website, has a large "Donate" link on the top of the page. It's kinda hard to not notice it.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  It seems a new policy of is to add "donations" to "purchases", and the drone which referenced the policy apparently could not be precise.
endisneigh 5y ago
why you should make your app a web app if technically possible, example #203942
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Contact your Congresspeople and ask them to support and vote for the Open App Markets Act as soon as possible: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/11/apple-google-senators-app-store-conflict/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/11/apple-g... (The primary goal of this bill is to prohibit Google and Apple from punishing app developers from soliciting payments outside of their platforms.) Also, consider hooking up with the Coalition for App Fairness, who may be able to help draw more visibility to your issue: https://appfairness.org/ https://appfairness.org/ The only solution to constant abuse by app market actors is legal action.
damsta 5y ago
To the person that reviewed this app in Google Play – you are disgusting! You seriously scrolled down on their homepage and you took screenshot of their donate button? That is absurd... How can you end your day of work and think "I did a good job today"...
g_p 5y ago
I'd urge anyone who finds this behaviour unacceptable to contact the UK's CMA - the regulator responsible for competition. They have an ongoing investigation into Google and Apple's practices with regards to app stores (and mobile platforms in general) [1], and have been looking for evidence on the topic of competition in app stores, and dominance. While the UK is just one country, the CMA has a wide mandate to act on competition matters and has announced their preliminary findings on the merger of Facebook and Giphy, which (in short) recommend a forced sale of Giphy to prevent potential future anticompetitive moves, such as through terms of service. They have a particular current interest in digital markets, and are forming a new unit specifically to deal with tech antitrust issues (the digital markets unit) While the CMA public consultation on the Apple/Google mobile platforms work has closed, their investigation team can be contacted via the email inbox listed at [1]. When engaging with regulators like this (for anyone not familiar), it is helpful if you explain why a particular move has harmed you, and can give examples or any available evidence about it, and explain the impact that it has had on you, and the impact on the wider ecosystem as a result. I'm sure other regulators are looking into this, but for those who are unhappy about this situation, I'd urge you to contact a regulator. If your own national regulator isn't looking into it, there's no reason not to contact the UK one (or indeed any other), and explain your concerns and help them with finding evidence - often for policy and enforcement teams, getting evidence together is the hard part of their job, and I can say from experience they do read their emails. [1] https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-ecosystems-market-study https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-ecosystems-market-study [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/facebook-s-takeover-of-giphy-raises-competition-concerns https://www.gov.uk/government/news/facebook-s-takeover-of-gi...
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  The US Dept. of Justice has an Antitrust Division[1], along with a page that details how and why[2] to get in touch with them. The FTC has the Bureau of Competition[3]. Each individual state has an Attorney General office that will hear these types of complaints, and some of them have explicit antitrust divisions[4]. [1] https://www.justice.gov/atr https://www.justice.gov/atr [2] https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations [3] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition/about-bureau-competition https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competi... [4] https://www.naag.org/issues/antitrust/ https://www.naag.org/issues/antitrust/
_moof 5y ago
Every time I see a headline like this I think, "ok, let's dig deeper here and find out what actually happened." But no, in this case, this is actually what happened, and it's complete garbage. In fact it's even worse than the headline.
bjarneh 5y ago
When a company has to remove the motto "Don't be evil" You know something is not well
- SquareWheel 5y ago
  Please be mindful not to spread misinformation. The motto is still featured in their code of conduct as it always was. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
  - bjarneh 5y ago
    > "Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto. What misinformation? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
    - SquareWheel 5y ago
      The article is wrong, and this is explained in the Talk page. There's no source for the claim that the motto has been removed. What's linked is a clickbait article about how they moved the phase from the opening statement to the closing statement in the Code of Conduct. That says nothing at all about its use as a motto.
noasaservice 5y ago
Proof #32767 why monopolies are bad
crazygringo 5y ago
This is a perfect example of a line having to be drawn somewhere, but wherever you draw it is never going to be perfect in every case. First of all -- app stores need to make money or at least break even. They cost a lot of money to run. So app stores take a cut of all transactions. If they let developers implement their own payment mechanisms, either in-app or with a single link, then developers will make every app free, with a link to their own payment, and the app store now becomes unsustainable and we're back to the same malware problems that plagued early versions of Windows. At the same, there are legitimate use cases where an app is just one facet of a whole service, and so the app store lets users consume content purchased elsewhere, just not buy it directly -- see e.g. Kindle, etc. Now how is an app store going to draw the line? Well an easy rule is: prohibit any information about payment, and prohibit a link to any page that has a link to make a payment or talks about making payments. It's a pretty reasonable rule. So in this case, the developer had a link to a page that at the bottom has a link to make a payment. Not allowed. Sure the developer can argue the reviewer had to "scroll to the very bottom of the page" but it doesn't matter. It's on the page. And then they say the reviewer had to "click through twice to find a way to contribute funds" but that's false -- clicking through twice is just part of the payment process. The main page already has direct links to Patreon and for PayPal. Would it be nice if Google could add a subrule that links are allowed if they're at the very bottom of the page? Well how do you even define that, what if the page is a single sentence and then payment options? Or a rule that "donations" are allowed? Well then you get "donations" that come with "bonus functionality" and so forth, and a new line has to be drawn. So is this annoying for the creator? Absolutely. But is Google hugely in the wrong? It's not perfect, but they had to make some kind of rule and the one they've got is pretty decent. Can the creator do anything about it? Yeah -- they can just link to a page on their website that doesn't contain donate buttons. It's really easy. Or else allow donations in-app but allow the app store to take their cut, which goes towards hosting, distribution and discovery of the app anyways.
- Borgz 5y ago
  Google already allows/requires tax-exempt donations to not be done with Google Play billing. This doesn't apply in the case of this app because the developer is supposedly an individual rather than a non-profit organization. >Or a rule that "donations" are allowed? Well then you get "donations" that come with "bonus functionality" and so forth, and a new line has to be drawn. There really isn't any ambiguity about what constitutes a donation. If you receive something in return, it isn't a donation. I would argue that Google could easily permit donations of any kind at no detriment to themselves.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
collaborative 5y ago
This is illegal and unethical. But if it were Apple you would get "I am glad Apple forces developers blablabla" responses. Now downvote and enjoy your iSpied device
nousermane 5y ago
Another example of arbitrary playstore rules killing a FOSS app - playstore version of termux is stuck on a 2-year-old release (0.101) and can't run on Android 10 at all. If you install from F-Droid - latest version is available (0.117) and works on Android 10, too. https://github.com/termux/termux-app/issues/1072 https://github.com/termux/termux-app/issues/1072 https://wiki.termux.com/wiki/Termux_Google_Play https://wiki.termux.com/wiki/Termux_Google_Play
- kyrra 5y ago
  Googler opinions are my own. I know nothing about the space. At least skimming the termux issue here is that it was done for SELinux policy changes in trying to improve security of application running on Android. Is that correct? Then the app store is trying to enforce this newer policy via forced API upgrades. As you said, you can at least still side load if you would like?
  - ProtoAES256 5y ago
    Yes, but if only the system doesn't pop up the Play Protect button every few install, and words that discourage users instead of educating users about sideloading apps. Then I'll consider sideloading on par with installing from the Play store.
  - oauea 5y ago
    How about just adding a permission to the already present permission system? Oh, that's right. Google and Apple don't trust their users and want full control over everyone's devices.
- crowbahr 5y ago
  I'm running termux on Android 11. Ran it on 10. All installed from Google play. I'm not saying there aren't issues. I'm just saying that you can install and run from gplay.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ThePhysicist 5y ago
Just wait 5-10 years and it will probably be the same way on Windows and MacOS. They will argue that installing arbitrary, unvetted software through the web is dangerous, so it's only reasonable for Microsoft and Apple to make this very difficult and instead promote installing all software through their app stores (which they already start doing). Once software is primarily distributed via these stores they will also start asking for a cut of any revenue that is made through that software. The reason it's not like that already isn't that they're very nice, it's just that historically computers were open platforms and it will take longer to convert them to the walled gardens that smartphones have been from the very beginning of their existence.
- echelon 5y ago
  We need to legislate requiring web installs of software for all computer and smartphone operating systems. Any device owner should be allowed to run their own software on their computer. This bullshit has to stop.
  - grishka 5y ago
    IMO it should be illegal for a company to make hardware, software, AND online services. Any two yes, but not all three. It should also be illegal to make any public keys and server hostnames unchangeable by the end user.
- m4rtink 5y ago
  The possibility of OS vendors forcing users to only install software from their walled gardens is the reason Valve started to support Linux, created their own Linux distro (Steam OS, now based on Arch Linux) and ultimately why Steam Deck was built. IIRC the main trigger was Windows 8 that back then had a strong push to only use Windows Store to install software. Valve could not conceivably continue doing business if OS vendors took a cut of all purchases via their walled garden store, not to mention having the OS vendor limit what games they can distribute and how.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
AJRF 5y ago
I’m an iOS developer but I would never ever start an iOS or Android app as a side project. Don’t support this madness anymore. PWAs aren't as good but they are good enough for most use cases. Just refuse to make apps for these platforms anymore. If every dev does it there will be overwhelming pressure for Apple and Google to improve PWA support. Just keep pushing back against this.
- depressedpanda 5y ago
  In what way(s) aren't PWAs as good, would you say? Personally, I think >90% of all apps I've used could be implemented as a PWA, as nothing they do really require native performance. The main issues I see are 1. The DX needs some improvement 2. Apple are dragging their feet implementing new web tech on Safari, and are therefore holding everyone hostage since you cannot install any other browser on iOS.
  - jamil7 5y ago
    From my perspective (also iOS and macOS dev) PWAs can be great for a lot of use cases, especially if you just need a mobile offering for an existing SaaS product. If Apple actually implements some of the required features for PWAs in Safari they will still always be missing native controls, gestures, navigation will be off and I think the biggest difference is you'll be missing access to all the deeper integrations you can do with the OS through Apple's various frameworks and APIs. Whether or not thats important to your app varies a lot, for a lot of CRUD apps that need something in the stores the PWA approach with capacitor is likely fine. For the record I'm also pro Apple implementing richer PWA support as I personally see both approaches coexisting.
loycombinate 5y ago
Hahaha don’t be evil Google
tyingq 5y ago
"That's right; someone at Google reviewed this app, visited the LT website, scrolled to the very bottom of the page, and clicked through twice to find a way to contribute funds to the project." Oof. So the app didn't link to the donate page, and it was at least 1 click away (maybe 2) from the page it did link to.
heavyset_go 5y ago
Google is cracking down on their Play Store and enforcing similar rules to the ones Apple enforces on their App Store. As of September 2021, all apps distributed on the Play Store must use Google's billing method[1]. Apps listed on the Play Store cannot link to alternative payment or donation methods in the listing's description or in the app itself[1]. Google will take a 15% to 30% cut off all sales. These rules are similar to the rules on the App Store. Google and Apple hold a duopoly in the mobile operating systems market and the mobile app distribution market. The move to enforce the adoption of Google's billing system seems like the mobile app distribution cartel is engaging in price fixing[2]. It also seems like Google and Apple have leveraged their duopolies in the mobile OS and app distribution markets to dominate the mobile app payments market, now, too. [1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
- mdp2021 5y ago
  A rule like «cannot link to [...] donation methods» - surely arbitrary and unfair to some judgements - should move away developers. Also the way of OruxMaps is possible: one version published in the store and another published elsewhere: «only donate version available in google play, because the free version "has been removed because it violates the payments policy"»
martin1975 5y ago
Greed is good. - Gordon Gecko
blacklight 5y ago
I have said it many times already: stop uploading your apps to the Play Store. It's a shitty product developed by a shitty company. It takes a mandatory 30% share of all of your payments for offering you a shitty service with no human support. It has opaque and inconsistent removal practices completely managed by algorithms, and violating any of the many unwritten rules can result in the output of your hard work disappearing overnight, and what's worse is that often there's no human to validate these decisions and the reasons for removal aren't F-Droid is the way to go if you build FOSS apps. Real humans are behind he keyboard to validate your app and answer your questions, the store sits completely outside of the money cycle, your source code is protected by the right licenses, and apps don't get banned just for linking a URL to their website.
tabbott 5y ago
We've had similar problems with keeping Zulip in the Apple app store. It's incredibly unpleasant to deal with this aspect of publishing an open source application. For context, Zulip is a 100% open-source team chat project (in the same space as Slack/IRC/etc.). You can self-host Zulip, which we've put a lot of effort into making easy, or host it on Zulip Cloud (with both free and paid plans). There's no individual subscription option for the product at all -- just like with Slack -- so the app store policies to enforce their monopoly by requiring all individual purchases be taxed by Google/Apple shouldn't even apply to us. But we've still had multiple rounds of rejections caused by aggressive enforcement of these policies: * A couple years ago, Apple reviewers repeatedly rejected updates to the app because the privacy policy / terms of service pages linked from the app contained the zulip.com website footer, which in turn link to the pricing page for Zulip's paid offerings. This means our Privacy Policy could be a way to get people to buy something without paying the Apple tax! We "resolved" this, on the advice of their appeals expert, by passing a special parameter when loading these pages from the ToS/Privacy links in the mobile apps that hides the header/footer sections of the page :(. * In May, Apple reviewers repeatedly rejected the Zulip mobile app for linking to its own source on GitHub. At first we thought the problem was that we had recently set up GitHub Sponsors [1]. Further correspondence determined that the problem was even more ridiculous: Any GitHub page has a tiny link in the https://github.com/zulip/zulip-mobile https://github.com/zulip/zulip-mobile footer for GitHub's own pricing! We were able to convince them to approve it in the end, but we were close to giving up and removing the GitHub links. I'm still upset about the whole experience because it was a huge waste of energy. It's not clear to me whether these rejections are what Apple's policies intended or just the policies being incorrectly applied. But it doesn't really matter: these appeal processes are opaque and scary and mostly consist of them repeating what you need to change with minimal explanation. If not for the entrenched monopoly, we'd be looking to switch to another vendor that wasn't so sloppy about something that's very important to us. I think the harm caused by sloppiness on the part of monopolies doesn't get enough attention. [1] This would have been wrong too, though I do know some companies use a Patreon as the way to sell their product, and I can imagine that being a workaround that Apple would be on the lookout for. But it's easy to check that we're definitely not playing that game.
- timothyaveni 5y ago
thayne 5y ago
Apple does the same sort of thing. Even if you allow your customers to make an in-app purchase through apple, you can get your app flagged for having a link to your website in your app, if your website also has a way to pay. This sort of behavior is clearly predatory.
rahimnathwani 5y ago
For folks suggesting a PWA would solve this problem: the Language Transfer app caches audio files. PWA on all platforms have a storage limit (some % of free storage on the device). So it might not work for folks who tend to keep only a couple of percent space free on their phones. Of course, there are other ways to use LT on your phone (download the files and play them with any audio player). But the app has a nice clean interface that reduces distractions, which is important because you need to tap 'pause' pretty often to get the best out of the experience.
altitudinous 5y ago
My unpopular but realistic opinion as a successful financially app dev is - just post a Google compliant link to a payment system. Take the 15% hit. The payment link is likely to be more direct and user friendly, so you will likely end up earning more even after the 15% cut. Having a link to a website and then having users have to scroll to the bottom in order to donate means you are likely to be earning near $0 from it anyway.
ryantgtg 5y ago
Similarly, the iOS App Store reviewers once clicked a link to our podcast blog (website) and then found a patreon link, and thus rejected the app update. I asked how I could include a patreon link that enables them to take their cut, and they didn’t have an answer. Additionally, my app currently has an if statement: if android, show patreon link. I thought they didn’t care! Goes they just haven’t noticed it yet.
quambene 5y ago
The first time you deal with Google's customer support, you wish you had never dealt with Google in the first place. Their decisions are slow, arbitrary and often inconsistent. Regularly, they are not answering at all. We are fighting with Google for 8 months already. Our app was suspended 5 times. We re-submitted 3 new apps in order to comply. They approved our appeals request, only to suspend the app one week later. A process error as admitted 3 months later by Google. Our app was even in quantum state once: both approved and suspended at the same time. The story still goes on ... All other app stores, like Apple App Store, Huawei AppGallery, and Samsung Galaxy Store made a thorough check once, but all approved the app months ago. When I started a startup, I was afraid of bureaucracy in Germany. Turns out that in fact the greatest threat is Google's (non existing) customer support. To be clear, I don't blame the customer support itself. They are doing their best. It just seems that Google is seriously understaffed in this area. It's outrageous that the 30 percent fee is not invested in sufficient man power.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 5y ago
This guy is amazing. I don't even think he accepted donations until recently. I'd heavily recommend the Spanish course - his student is so active and attentive that you end up learning from her, too. It's sad that a project like this has to suffer the bureaucracies of these awful gatekeepers. IIRC, he started teaching language for free in order to encourage understanding between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
villgax 5y ago
Absolutely do not see Google doing anything about WhiteHatJr publishing apps on students behalf with dead privacy policy pages(which are actually google doc links of all things!). And all of the app websites being linked back to their own subdomains hosted at WhiteHatJr website. Such a shady company, acting as if under 14 years old kids have paid the $25 fee, read all agreements, built apps in any IDE & published the same....
osener 5y ago
Ugh, this one hits close to home. Language Transfer is an amazing project that I recommended to multiple people in my family and they loved the Turkish lessons. I hope this doesn’t discourage them, you’re providing a truly generous resource to all language learners in a space where similar courses cost hundreds of dollars per language.
Aulig 5y ago
Wow, I just downloaded that app a week ago. It's absolutely amazing for language learning. Aside from that, as an app developer, I'm really looking forward to that bill that will hopefully weaken app stores.

853 points by timothyaveni 5y ago

tnash 5y ago

Absolutely absurd take from Google here. What could they be thinking? It's like they want app store legislation.

dsr_ 5y ago
Is the cost of losing not-quite exclusivity on Android worth the benefit of gaining a foothold in Apple land? Probably. Do I think Google made that decision consciously and this is part of their scheme? No, I think they screwed up the way that they do all the time, won't apologize for it, and if they decide to reverse themselves this time, they could still un-reverse their judgement after any future update, or just because Google is incompetent that way.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

This is outrageous. Google definitely lived long enough to become a villain. It is incredible how much goodwill they've lost in the past decade. When was the last time they did anything good?

maxwell 5y ago
I was glad they walked back on Dragonfly and (effectively) killed AMP. In the process they did lose me as a user of their free products though. And they lost me as a developer, I no longer opt for building with their tools, including Chrome, Android, Angular, GCloud, etc.
- pengaru 5y ago
  > and (effectively) killed AMP err, what? I still regularly get AMP links from news.google.com
  - maxwell 5y ago
    I was referring to https://plausible.io/blog/google-amp https://plausible.io/blog/google-amp Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192685 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192685
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - tyingq 5y ago
    The incentive to move to AMP is gone, since it's no longer needed to land in the carousel, but moving off of it is still a project/effort.
- sintaxi 5y ago
  AMP failed.
  - nanidin 5y ago
    I switched to Duck Duck Go on mobile as a direct result of AMP. So not only did AMP fail, but Google lost most of the eyeball time they were getting from me and they're not getting it back any time soon.
    - maxwell 5y ago
      Yeah that was what made me switch to DDG from GSearch as well in late 2018. I use the terminal theme in DDG, and it's become the canonical SERP in my mind. When I do !g every now and then, it feels like GSearch has become AltaVista with a dash of MySpace.
jonas21 5y ago
> When was the last time they did anything good? Oh I dunno... how about that time they solved protein folding? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rrobukef 5y ago
  Mad science to prove the point.
- nbardy 5y ago
  Or the other reams of world class machine learning research and model weights they've released freely.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    perhaps this is whoosh, but I thought Google wasn't releasing their model weights or source code, at least for a lot of things. like with WaveNet, it was easy to train but computationally infeasible to run the way they published the paper. then it turns out there's a trick that makes playing it forward far more efficient, which Google later acknowledged using internally, but didn't disclose.
    - CodesInChaos 5y ago
      What kind of trick? At a glance wavenet looks like you could reuse most of the computation from earlier timesteps (would gave to take a closer look to see if it'd actually work), but I assume you're talking about something less obvious?
    - nbardy 5y ago
      They don't always release weights and often the code and weights are delayed from the paper. But more often than not they release a lot of their weights and/or research code.
X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
That is very black and white thinking. Large organizations can do both good and terrible things. Google still serves are huge portion of search traffic which pretty clearly is a good thing. Youtube has an incredible wealth of tutorials & educational content. Deepmind is pushing the boundaries of what is possible. Various OSS projects continue to be pushed out. Gmail has been an amazing free resource for millions etc. They are also doing terrible things as well.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  Yeah, google does awful shit every day but it's worth remembering that Maps, Search and YouTube are world-changing resources. All three have their problems (especially that third one) but they have done an incredible amount of Good in the world and they continue to do so every day.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    The world changing resource is OpenStreetMap. Google Maps is just an asset to better track users. As for YouTube, it is technically marvellous, but since they started censoring and silencing one side of a political spectrum, YT turned into a propaganda machine, no less.
    - scrollaway 5y ago
      I love OSM but without Google Maps it would not exist. It’s just not all black and white.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Actually, OSM was launched before Google Maps, in August 2004, while Google Maps were launched only in February 2005, six months later.
        scrollaway 5y ago
dotcommand 5y ago
> Google definitely lived long enough to become a villain. I hate to break this to you but google was born a villain. Nobody innately good has to remind themselves "Don't be evil". Imagine walking down the street and meeting a stranger constantly repeating "Don't be evil" to himself?
- account42 5y ago
  Being able to group people into "good" and "bad" ones is convenient. It means you only need to find out once if someone is a "good" or "bad" person and once you have decided that someone is "bad" you can justify any of your own behavior towards them. But just because it is convenient does not make it true. People are people. Choices are bad or good or more likley somewhere in between. Nobody is innately good or bad - while some poeple my be wired to be more selfish than others, the choices they make throughout their lifes are as much dictated by the circumstances they are made in and by the experiences made before them as they are by the neurological makeup of the person.

sgtfrankieboy 5y ago

I really hope Epic wins the lawsuit against Apple and that the laws being announced in the US Senate/House get passed. I also hope the EU start pushing against this kind of stuff more. Apple and Google have too much control.

Siira 5y ago
Which is why Apple’s volunteered to run on-device surveillance programs. Between their lobbying power and the holy grail of utter surveillance, the governments will never stand for the basic rights of the people.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
  governments aren't monoliths, there are many players that are looking for different things. House reps probably aren't setting their legislative agenda about monopolistic power based off of what the intelligence community would like the most.
  - ajklsdhfniuwehf 5y ago
    there are, at most, two groups.
young_unixer 5y ago
I can also see how legislation would worsen the situation by eliminating incentives for people to use alternative mobile stores and operating systems. "Why use another store, when Google and Apple are required by law to have all apps?"
- sgtfrankieboy 5y ago
  The laws are about being able to provide alternative payment methods and stores. They aren't going to force Google and Apple to have all apps?
  - 5y ago

encryptluks2 5y ago

This is sad, but I do think I see the issue here. You are loading the website in your own app so it is considered part of the app experience. If you load the website externally using the mobile browser it shouldn't be an issue.

timothyaveni 5y ago
Nope, we're not actually. On my device, anyway, the link opens in Chrome, not in an in-app browser.
kklisura 5y ago
> You are loading the website in your own app I don't think they are. > If you load the website externally using the mobile browser it shouldn't be an issue. The screenshots look like browser and not some in-app website view.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
croes 5y ago
Nope, it's an external link and even it wasn't it would be a lame excuse. What if a webpage links to google.com, does that count as providing access to violence and pornography?
Saris 5y ago
You can see from the screenshots that Google sent with the rejection that they have it loaded in Chrome. Most obvious indicator is the 40 other tabs they have open in their browser on the top right.

aboringusername 5y ago

This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google. I cannot believe how at the rate the world is changing (pace wise, with each new technological breakthrough) the law simply cannot keep pace. We've allowed AI systems unfettered, unrestricted access to our lives. AI is being deployed with absolutely no oversight (Apple's CSAM comes to mind), I'm not even sure there are any laws at all. How can apple just deploy a new system without having to first go through the courts? We all know at some point someone will lodge a suit against them for an inaccurate match... Decisions like this must be deferred to a human, who creates a record and is capable in case anything untoward happens. AI seems exempt from any liability (this is probably why so many places are deploying such systems, as a society it seems we've decided that no matter what good or bad may happen "AI" gets a free pass and no human will likely go to jail, even if your self driving car kills you). The fact you can be deprived due to a mistaken software error is one of the most awful things in our society, and this has happened far too many times for it to go ignored time and again. But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time. How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN before we DEMAND action be taken? See you next month ;).

Phrodo_00 5y ago
Why are you assuming this is an AI-driven decision? It looks like human intervention to me.
- aboringusername 5y ago
  Isn't it safer to assume it is until proven otherwise? A developer has their app removed, perhaps their livelihood, and Google can't be fucked to sign off who made the decision? If it was a human I expect to know who, and who I can write to so it can be reviewed, by another human. I want to know how I can contact a human for support and not some useless AI chat bot that seem to be all the rage these days (looking at you Amazon...) But yes, it's happened so much by AI you just assume these days...like a YouTube takedown for example by a bot.
  - ribosometronome 5y ago

rvz 5y ago

Here we go again. Another month, another ban. They are the problem and they will never change. Their behaviour affects everyone and they do not care since they will just point to their guidelines and ban you. Can you finally see that Google (YouTube), Apple, Microsoft and Facebook are NOT your friends?

collaborative 5y ago
Shocking this gets downvotes

rbx 5y ago

Would Google also be able to negatively influence such an app if the app was a PWA? Publishing PWA on Play Store might still lead to the same outcome, but what if it is just an independent PWA and is "installed" through the phone's browser? Of course you would loose some discoverability though, but are there other disadvantages? (provided the app is even feasible as a PWA)

suprfsat 5y ago
They could make Chrome experience deliberately bad, if you believe they're not doing that currently.
- rbx 5y ago
  Well, personally I use Firefox. Although I do have a suspition that Google has found some way of keeping Firefox experience on mobile inferior in some way. Just speculating.
- depressedpanda 5y ago
  I don't really want to defend Google here, but the best PWA experience for both Android and desktop is actually with Chrome.

progval 5y ago

Looks like the Apple Store has a similar policy https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/106658813153945020 https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/106658813153945020

tomaszs 5y ago

There is an obvious internal conflict of interest in Google. Donation based app being banned are a result of that conflict of interest. But this is just a tip of an iceberg. While sometimes Google does something to patch the issue, it can not on itself fix it. Because it is caused by a core flaw of the company business model. It supports two competing platforms where only one earns money and gives control. It renders Google to be incapable of supporting both app creators and open web properly. I wrote about it lately: https://tomaszs2.medium.com/ups-we-broke-the-web-again-sorry-4f904913dd4e https://tomaszs2.medium.com/ups-we-broke-the-web-again-sorry...

yorwba 5y ago

Is there a specific reason the app is not available via F-Droid? My guess is lack of time, but maybe it's something else?

1xdevnet 5y ago
As of last year[0] it looks like they were trying to make sure the app assets had clear licenses first. [0] https://github.com/language-transfer/lt-app/issues/24 https://github.com/language-transfer/lt-app/issues/24

squarefoot 5y ago

Tell Google how you feel about that by searching "google app store alternatives", then installing Aurora Store. https://auroraoss.com/ https://auroraoss.com/ https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS From the Aurora Store FAQ: What is the difference between Aurora Store and Google's Play store? Unlike Google's Play Store, Aurora Store doesn't track your downloads or the apps you use. We respect your privacy. Aurora Store is also unaffected by Google marking your device as uncertified or lacking of necessary Google apps. Play Protect is not present, as this is a Play Store only feature. Do I need Google Play Services to use Aurora Store? No. Aurora Store was built to access the Google Play store without any kind of Google services. It doesn't matter if you use it with or without Google Play Services/MicroG. Is it safe to use Aurora store? Aurora Store is fully open-source and verified by F-Droid. If you're asking about the safety of the apps in the store, those are the exact same ones the Play Store would load and display. A lot of dangerous stuff seems to sneak past Google though, so as a rule of thumb, don't download anything which you're unsure about.

BelenusMordred 5y ago
Always amuses me when using google to search for <App> f-droid. Google will always insist you meant <App> android and show you those results instead, which of course is the play store version if it exists.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  I searched for "ssh f-droid" and the top 4 results were f-droid SSH apps, then a link to a reddit post, and then a link to JuiceSSH on the Play store.
- SquareWheel 5y ago
  Worked fine here. https://i.imgur.com/2vWBEG4.png https://i.imgur.com/2vWBEG4.png
- techrat 5y ago
  What you speak of does not appear to be the case. https://i.imgur.com/3R6JzvB.png https://i.imgur.com/3R6JzvB.png The search results even gave me the correct name of the app in f-droid that is named differently. (firefox > fennec)

itake 5y ago

The developer is asking people to optionally pay for his app. From a tax perspective, the dev would owe taxes on this income, since he is not a not-for-profit legal entity. Since these payments are considered taxable income, I am not sure why they would think they could avoid Google's rules just because they are a "small one-man shop". The simple solution here is to add in-app purchases like every other "small one-man shop" and not ask for noncompetitive advantages and accept Google's 15% cut [0]. [0] - https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2021/03/boosting-dev-success.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2021/03/boosting-d...

CogitoCogito 5y ago
I'd never heard of them, but judging by their website it looks like they produce apps for iOS, for Android and also have a webapp. Should they be required to remove an optional donation link from their website even though it might not have anything to do with Android at all? How does this involve Google exactly?
oauea 5y ago
You do realize that Google is not the government? What do taxes have to do with anything?
X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
It sounds like they are asking for donations on their website, not through the app. Do the terms of service really extend past the app to the website for the project?
MrStonedOne 5y ago
People using "donations" to refer to tips on free services is an old practice and not one you should be arguing is the same as a non-profit. Mincing words to make your argument is kinda frown upon here.

whocares2345 5y ago

Is there any particular reason the author paying rent via donations is different from any of us paying rent from our work? You decided to use Googles distribution platform and infrastructure while not sharing the revenue - fully knowing it is illegal in the Play Store to accept payments outside of the platform. Basically you attempted to steal the efforts Google invested in creating and promoting Android, it’s development tools and infrastructure - and they banned you for it.

Siira 5y ago
Donations are voluntary, in-app purchases unlock features (traditionally). Besides, Google has to maintain the App Store to keep their OS afloat.
aboringusername 5y ago
Sorry but this is why we need regulation and fast. We need by default other app stores on all operating systems (similar to search engines Google were forced to advertise) Google should have to compete on merit and if somebody doesn't want to give Google/Apple a cut, too bad. These platforms should probably not be placed under the control of such large entities, Android/iOS should be split into their own organisation . Google/Apple can then pick their OS or appstore, not both.
- izacus 5y ago
  There's absolutely nothing stopping the author from distributing his app in following ways: - on F-Droid, an app store dedicated for OSS software - on Samsung Store, an app store preinstalled on most Android phones sold in US and other western world - on Amazon store - on Huawei app store - on their own webpage as a downloadable APK But what they really want is to use Googles distribution system while not paying the margin.
- foota 5y ago
  To play devil's advocate, competing app stores could just be a race to the bottom.

legrande 5y ago

Just so people know, the two dominating app stores are under scrutiny because of the monopoly they have on the market: https://www.wsj.com/articles/app-store-competition-targeted-by-bipartisan-senate-bill-11628704834 https://www.wsj.com/articles/app-store-competition-targeted-... https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/11/tech/apple-google-app-stores-senate-bill/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/11/tech/apple-google-app-sto... https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/11/22620454/apple-google-app-store-senate-play-bill-epic-games-fortnite https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/11/22620454/apple-google-app...

xtracto 5y ago
As they are, app stores are crap. They are a huge control mechanism to stiff competition. For those of you who are old enough: Imagine if in 2000, Microsoft released "Windows Me" with something similar (for PC) to what Apple or Google are doing in the current dominant computing device form factor (Mobile). It just would not have been tolerated. Adobe, Netscape, Autodesk, Corel and others having to pay Microsoft a 15% cut for their software? Netscape? Opera? Apple having to pay 15% of the revenue from Apple Itunes? That's crazy...
- Dove 5y ago
  I'm old enough to remember that in 2001, Microsoft got in trouble just for shipping Windows with IE preinstalled. Which seems like an awfully quaint concern by 2021 standards. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....
- ribosometronome 5y ago
  A Microsoft operating system was on 97% of all computing devices in the year 2000, even higher if you narrow the definition to something like "home computer".
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    Microsoft didn't a collect a tax on every dollar made from every business distributing on Windows.

TrianguloY 5y ago

I'm not sure if this is written somewhere, but from personal experience: "you can't place a url whose content contains a direct link to a donation service (paypal, patreon, etc) nor in your app nor in the play store description". Placing a link to a site which contains a link to another site with the actual donations links is fine...for now.

legrande 5y ago

App ecosystems can't work properly if they're weakened by LEAs. People would just not use them if they know they're being watched. I'm not saying the majority would switch to Linux phones either (like Librem 5 & Pinephone), simply that the two dominating app-stores (Play & Apple Store) would be phased out and people would probably fund independent FLOSS app stores to replace them. In the end, the people will speak out and respond to back-doors. In-fact we need FLOSS app stores right now (Similar to F-Droid[0], but baked in as the default store), and they need to be funded properly & they need sound economic incentives to continue. No more 'free' apps where you pay for them with your data. It's possible to have FLOSS apps that are not gratis where people pay for them with money, not their data. (The reason I suggest we switch to FLOSS app stores is that the apps can easily be checked for back-doors or malicious code since the code is open source. It makes the apps readily available for audits too) [0] https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/

rkagerer 5y ago

Got a Donate link to contribute toward a lawsuit? The App stores have become a cartel and I'd love to see their unscrupulous behavior challenged in court. (Epic is doing that, but your case is easier to sympathize with).

zozbot234 5y ago

From looking at the report, I'm not sure I understand this decision. The referenced policy is about in-store or in-app purchases, primarily of digital content, and a free donation is not "purchasing" anything. (Even taking this precedent at face value, it could impact any app that prominently features links to websites where donations are asked for, which seems quite unreasonable.)

jcranberry 5y ago
I think it's most likely this was done by someone lazy or not paying attention.
- int_19h 5y ago
  They had to follow through a bunch of not-so-prominent links on the website to discover the donation page. Whatever that is, I don't think it qualifies as "lazy".
  - banana_giraffe 5y ago
    The page they linked to, the main page of the website, has a large "Donate" link on the top of the page. It's kinda hard to not notice it.
mdp2021 5y ago
It seems a new policy of is to add "donations" to "purchases", and the drone which referenced the policy apparently could not be precise.

endisneigh 5y ago

why you should make your app a web app if technically possible, example #203942

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

Contact your Congresspeople and ask them to support and vote for the Open App Markets Act as soon as possible: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/11/apple-google-senators-app-store-conflict/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/11/apple-g... (The primary goal of this bill is to prohibit Google and Apple from punishing app developers from soliciting payments outside of their platforms.) Also, consider hooking up with the Coalition for App Fairness, who may be able to help draw more visibility to your issue: https://appfairness.org/ https://appfairness.org/ The only solution to constant abuse by app market actors is legal action.

damsta 5y ago

To the person that reviewed this app in Google Play – you are disgusting! You seriously scrolled down on their homepage and you took screenshot of their donate button? That is absurd... How can you end your day of work and think "I did a good job today"...

g_p 5y ago

I'd urge anyone who finds this behaviour unacceptable to contact the UK's CMA - the regulator responsible for competition. They have an ongoing investigation into Google and Apple's practices with regards to app stores (and mobile platforms in general) [1], and have been looking for evidence on the topic of competition in app stores, and dominance. While the UK is just one country, the CMA has a wide mandate to act on competition matters and has announced their preliminary findings on the merger of Facebook and Giphy, which (in short) recommend a forced sale of Giphy to prevent potential future anticompetitive moves, such as through terms of service. They have a particular current interest in digital markets, and are forming a new unit specifically to deal with tech antitrust issues (the digital markets unit) While the CMA public consultation on the Apple/Google mobile platforms work has closed, their investigation team can be contacted via the email inbox listed at [1]. When engaging with regulators like this (for anyone not familiar), it is helpful if you explain why a particular move has harmed you, and can give examples or any available evidence about it, and explain the impact that it has had on you, and the impact on the wider ecosystem as a result. I'm sure other regulators are looking into this, but for those who are unhappy about this situation, I'd urge you to contact a regulator. If your own national regulator isn't looking into it, there's no reason not to contact the UK one (or indeed any other), and explain your concerns and help them with finding evidence - often for policy and enforcement teams, getting evidence together is the hard part of their job, and I can say from experience they do read their emails. [1] https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-ecosystems-market-study https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-ecosystems-market-study [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/facebook-s-takeover-of-giphy-raises-competition-concerns https://www.gov.uk/government/news/facebook-s-takeover-of-gi...

heavyset_go 5y ago
The US Dept. of Justice has an Antitrust Division[1], along with a page that details how and why[2] to get in touch with them. The FTC has the Bureau of Competition[3]. Each individual state has an Attorney General office that will hear these types of complaints, and some of them have explicit antitrust divisions[4]. [1] https://www.justice.gov/atr https://www.justice.gov/atr [2] https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations [3] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition/about-bureau-competition https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competi... [4] https://www.naag.org/issues/antitrust/ https://www.naag.org/issues/antitrust/

_moof 5y ago

Every time I see a headline like this I think, "ok, let's dig deeper here and find out what actually happened." But no, in this case, this is actually what happened, and it's complete garbage. In fact it's even worse than the headline.

bjarneh 5y ago

When a company has to remove the motto "Don't be evil" You know something is not well

SquareWheel 5y ago
Please be mindful not to spread misinformation. The motto is still featured in their code of conduct as it always was. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
- bjarneh 5y ago
  > "Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto. What misinformation? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
  - SquareWheel 5y ago
    The article is wrong, and this is explained in the Talk page. There's no source for the claim that the motto has been removed. What's linked is a clickbait article about how they moved the phase from the opening statement to the closing statement in the Code of Conduct. That says nothing at all about its use as a motto.

noasaservice 5y ago

Proof #32767 why monopolies are bad

crazygringo 5y ago

This is a perfect example of a line having to be drawn somewhere, but wherever you draw it is never going to be perfect in every case. First of all -- app stores need to make money or at least break even. They cost a lot of money to run. So app stores take a cut of all transactions. If they let developers implement their own payment mechanisms, either in-app or with a single link, then developers will make every app free, with a link to their own payment, and the app store now becomes unsustainable and we're back to the same malware problems that plagued early versions of Windows. At the same, there are legitimate use cases where an app is just one facet of a whole service, and so the app store lets users consume content purchased elsewhere, just not buy it directly -- see e.g. Kindle, etc. Now how is an app store going to draw the line? Well an easy rule is: prohibit any information about payment, and prohibit a link to any page that has a link to make a payment or talks about making payments. It's a pretty reasonable rule. So in this case, the developer had a link to a page that at the bottom has a link to make a payment. Not allowed. Sure the developer can argue the reviewer had to "scroll to the very bottom of the page" but it doesn't matter. It's on the page. And then they say the reviewer had to "click through twice to find a way to contribute funds" but that's false -- clicking through twice is just part of the payment process. The main page already has direct links to Patreon and for PayPal. Would it be nice if Google could add a subrule that links are allowed if they're at the very bottom of the page? Well how do you even define that, what if the page is a single sentence and then payment options? Or a rule that "donations" are allowed? Well then you get "donations" that come with "bonus functionality" and so forth, and a new line has to be drawn. So is this annoying for the creator? Absolutely. But is Google hugely in the wrong? It's not perfect, but they had to make some kind of rule and the one they've got is pretty decent. Can the creator do anything about it? Yeah -- they can just link to a page on their website that doesn't contain donate buttons. It's really easy. Or else allow donations in-app but allow the app store to take their cut, which goes towards hosting, distribution and discovery of the app anyways.

Borgz 5y ago
Google already allows/requires tax-exempt donations to not be done with Google Play billing. This doesn't apply in the case of this app because the developer is supposedly an individual rather than a non-profit organization. >Or a rule that "donations" are allowed? Well then you get "donations" that come with "bonus functionality" and so forth, and a new line has to be drawn. There really isn't any ambiguity about what constitutes a donation. If you receive something in return, it isn't a donation. I would argue that Google could easily permit donations of any kind at no detriment to themselves.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

collaborative 5y ago

This is illegal and unethical. But if it were Apple you would get "I am glad Apple forces developers blablabla" responses. Now downvote and enjoy your iSpied device

nousermane 5y ago

Another example of arbitrary playstore rules killing a FOSS app - playstore version of termux is stuck on a 2-year-old release (0.101) and can't run on Android 10 at all. If you install from F-Droid - latest version is available (0.117) and works on Android 10, too. https://github.com/termux/termux-app/issues/1072 https://github.com/termux/termux-app/issues/1072 https://wiki.termux.com/wiki/Termux_Google_Play https://wiki.termux.com/wiki/Termux_Google_Play

kyrra 5y ago
Googler opinions are my own. I know nothing about the space. At least skimming the termux issue here is that it was done for SELinux policy changes in trying to improve security of application running on Android. Is that correct? Then the app store is trying to enforce this newer policy via forced API upgrades. As you said, you can at least still side load if you would like?
- ProtoAES256 5y ago
  Yes, but if only the system doesn't pop up the Play Protect button every few install, and words that discourage users instead of educating users about sideloading apps. Then I'll consider sideloading on par with installing from the Play store.
- oauea 5y ago
  How about just adding a permission to the already present permission system? Oh, that's right. Google and Apple don't trust their users and want full control over everyone's devices.
crowbahr 5y ago
I'm running termux on Android 11. Ran it on 10. All installed from Google play. I'm not saying there aren't issues. I'm just saying that you can install and run from gplay.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

ThePhysicist 5y ago

Just wait 5-10 years and it will probably be the same way on Windows and MacOS. They will argue that installing arbitrary, unvetted software through the web is dangerous, so it's only reasonable for Microsoft and Apple to make this very difficult and instead promote installing all software through their app stores (which they already start doing). Once software is primarily distributed via these stores they will also start asking for a cut of any revenue that is made through that software. The reason it's not like that already isn't that they're very nice, it's just that historically computers were open platforms and it will take longer to convert them to the walled gardens that smartphones have been from the very beginning of their existence.

echelon 5y ago
We need to legislate requiring web installs of software for all computer and smartphone operating systems. Any device owner should be allowed to run their own software on their computer. This bullshit has to stop.
- grishka 5y ago
  IMO it should be illegal for a company to make hardware, software, AND online services. Any two yes, but not all three. It should also be illegal to make any public keys and server hostnames unchangeable by the end user.
m4rtink 5y ago
The possibility of OS vendors forcing users to only install software from their walled gardens is the reason Valve started to support Linux, created their own Linux distro (Steam OS, now based on Arch Linux) and ultimately why Steam Deck was built. IIRC the main trigger was Windows 8 that back then had a strong push to only use Windows Store to install software. Valve could not conceivably continue doing business if OS vendors took a cut of all purchases via their walled garden store, not to mention having the OS vendor limit what games they can distribute and how.
- ineedasername 5y ago

AJRF 5y ago

I’m an iOS developer but I would never ever start an iOS or Android app as a side project. Don’t support this madness anymore. PWAs aren't as good but they are good enough for most use cases. Just refuse to make apps for these platforms anymore. If every dev does it there will be overwhelming pressure for Apple and Google to improve PWA support. Just keep pushing back against this.

depressedpanda 5y ago
In what way(s) aren't PWAs as good, would you say? Personally, I think >90% of all apps I've used could be implemented as a PWA, as nothing they do really require native performance. The main issues I see are 1. The DX needs some improvement 2. Apple are dragging their feet implementing new web tech on Safari, and are therefore holding everyone hostage since you cannot install any other browser on iOS.
- jamil7 5y ago
  From my perspective (also iOS and macOS dev) PWAs can be great for a lot of use cases, especially if you just need a mobile offering for an existing SaaS product. If Apple actually implements some of the required features for PWAs in Safari they will still always be missing native controls, gestures, navigation will be off and I think the biggest difference is you'll be missing access to all the deeper integrations you can do with the OS through Apple's various frameworks and APIs. Whether or not thats important to your app varies a lot, for a lot of CRUD apps that need something in the stores the PWA approach with capacitor is likely fine. For the record I'm also pro Apple implementing richer PWA support as I personally see both approaches coexisting.

loycombinate 5y ago

Hahaha don’t be evil Google

tyingq 5y ago

"That's right; someone at Google reviewed this app, visited the LT website, scrolled to the very bottom of the page, and clicked through twice to find a way to contribute funds to the project." Oof. So the app didn't link to the donate page, and it was at least 1 click away (maybe 2) from the page it did link to.

heavyset_go 5y ago

Google is cracking down on their Play Store and enforcing similar rules to the ones Apple enforces on their App Store. As of September 2021, all apps distributed on the Play Store must use Google's billing method[1]. Apps listed on the Play Store cannot link to alternative payment or donation methods in the listing's description or in the app itself[1]. Google will take a 15% to 30% cut off all sales. These rules are similar to the rules on the App Store. Google and Apple hold a duopoly in the mobile operating systems market and the mobile app distribution market. The move to enforce the adoption of Google's billing system seems like the mobile app distribution cartel is engaging in price fixing[2]. It also seems like Google and Apple have leveraged their duopolies in the mobile OS and app distribution markets to dominate the mobile app payments market, now, too. [1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

mdp2021 5y ago
A rule like «cannot link to [...] donation methods» - surely arbitrary and unfair to some judgements - should move away developers. Also the way of OruxMaps is possible: one version published in the store and another published elsewhere: «only donate version available in google play, because the free version "has been removed because it violates the payments policy"»

martin1975 5y ago

Greed is good. - Gordon Gecko

blacklight 5y ago

I have said it many times already: stop uploading your apps to the Play Store. It's a shitty product developed by a shitty company. It takes a mandatory 30% share of all of your payments for offering you a shitty service with no human support. It has opaque and inconsistent removal practices completely managed by algorithms, and violating any of the many unwritten rules can result in the output of your hard work disappearing overnight, and what's worse is that often there's no human to validate these decisions and the reasons for removal aren't F-Droid is the way to go if you build FOSS apps. Real humans are behind he keyboard to validate your app and answer your questions, the store sits completely outside of the money cycle, your source code is protected by the right licenses, and apps don't get banned just for linking a URL to their website.

tabbott 5y ago

We've had similar problems with keeping Zulip in the Apple app store. It's incredibly unpleasant to deal with this aspect of publishing an open source application. For context, Zulip is a 100% open-source team chat project (in the same space as Slack/IRC/etc.). You can self-host Zulip, which we've put a lot of effort into making easy, or host it on Zulip Cloud (with both free and paid plans). There's no individual subscription option for the product at all -- just like with Slack -- so the app store policies to enforce their monopoly by requiring all individual purchases be taxed by Google/Apple shouldn't even apply to us. But we've still had multiple rounds of rejections caused by aggressive enforcement of these policies: * A couple years ago, Apple reviewers repeatedly rejected updates to the app because the privacy policy / terms of service pages linked from the app contained the zulip.com website footer, which in turn link to the pricing page for Zulip's paid offerings. This means our Privacy Policy could be a way to get people to buy something without paying the Apple tax! We "resolved" this, on the advice of their appeals expert, by passing a special parameter when loading these pages from the ToS/Privacy links in the mobile apps that hides the header/footer sections of the page :(. * In May, Apple reviewers repeatedly rejected the Zulip mobile app for linking to its own source on GitHub. At first we thought the problem was that we had recently set up GitHub Sponsors [1]. Further correspondence determined that the problem was even more ridiculous: Any GitHub page has a tiny link in the https://github.com/zulip/zulip-mobile https://github.com/zulip/zulip-mobile footer for GitHub's own pricing! We were able to convince them to approve it in the end, but we were close to giving up and removing the GitHub links. I'm still upset about the whole experience because it was a huge waste of energy. It's not clear to me whether these rejections are what Apple's policies intended or just the policies being incorrectly applied. But it doesn't really matter: these appeal processes are opaque and scary and mostly consist of them repeating what you need to change with minimal explanation. If not for the entrenched monopoly, we'd be looking to switch to another vendor that wasn't so sloppy about something that's very important to us. I think the harm caused by sloppiness on the part of monopolies doesn't get enough attention. [1] This would have been wrong too, though I do know some companies use a Patreon as the way to sell their product, and I can imagine that being a workaround that Apple would be on the lookout for. But it's easy to check that we're definitely not playing that game.

timothyaveni 5y ago

thayne 5y ago

Apple does the same sort of thing. Even if you allow your customers to make an in-app purchase through apple, you can get your app flagged for having a link to your website in your app, if your website also has a way to pay. This sort of behavior is clearly predatory.

rahimnathwani 5y ago

For folks suggesting a PWA would solve this problem: the Language Transfer app caches audio files. PWA on all platforms have a storage limit (some % of free storage on the device). So it might not work for folks who tend to keep only a couple of percent space free on their phones. Of course, there are other ways to use LT on your phone (download the files and play them with any audio player). But the app has a nice clean interface that reduces distractions, which is important because you need to tap 'pause' pretty often to get the best out of the experience.

altitudinous 5y ago

My unpopular but realistic opinion as a successful financially app dev is - just post a Google compliant link to a payment system. Take the 15% hit. The payment link is likely to be more direct and user friendly, so you will likely end up earning more even after the 15% cut. Having a link to a website and then having users have to scroll to the bottom in order to donate means you are likely to be earning near $0 from it anyway.

ryantgtg 5y ago

Similarly, the iOS App Store reviewers once clicked a link to our podcast blog (website) and then found a patreon link, and thus rejected the app update. I asked how I could include a patreon link that enables them to take their cut, and they didn’t have an answer. Additionally, my app currently has an if statement: if android, show patreon link. I thought they didn’t care! Goes they just haven’t noticed it yet.

quambene 5y ago

The first time you deal with Google's customer support, you wish you had never dealt with Google in the first place. Their decisions are slow, arbitrary and often inconsistent. Regularly, they are not answering at all. We are fighting with Google for 8 months already. Our app was suspended 5 times. We re-submitted 3 new apps in order to comply. They approved our appeals request, only to suspend the app one week later. A process error as admitted 3 months later by Google. Our app was even in quantum state once: both approved and suspended at the same time. The story still goes on ... All other app stores, like Apple App Store, Huawei AppGallery, and Samsung Galaxy Store made a thorough check once, but all approved the app months ago. When I started a startup, I was afraid of bureaucracy in Germany. Turns out that in fact the greatest threat is Google's (non existing) customer support. To be clear, I don't blame the customer support itself. They are doing their best. It just seems that Google is seriously understaffed in this area. It's outrageous that the 30 percent fee is not invested in sufficient man power.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 5y ago

This guy is amazing. I don't even think he accepted donations until recently. I'd heavily recommend the Spanish course - his student is so active and attentive that you end up learning from her, too. It's sad that a project like this has to suffer the bureaucracies of these awful gatekeepers. IIRC, he started teaching language for free in order to encourage understanding between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

villgax 5y ago

Absolutely do not see Google doing anything about WhiteHatJr publishing apps on students behalf with dead privacy policy pages(which are actually google doc links of all things!). And all of the app websites being linked back to their own subdomains hosted at WhiteHatJr website. Such a shady company, acting as if under 14 years old kids have paid the $25 fee, read all agreements, built apps in any IDE & published the same....

osener 5y ago

Ugh, this one hits close to home. Language Transfer is an amazing project that I recommended to multiple people in my family and they loved the Turkish lessons. I hope this doesn’t discourage them, you’re providing a truly generous resource to all language learners in a space where similar courses cost hundreds of dollars per language.

Aulig 5y ago

Wow, I just downloaded that app a week ago. It's absolutely amazing for language learning. Aside from that, as an app developer, I'm really looking forward to that bill that will hopefully weaken app stores.