5 ms·

I suspect this is to foreclose against a future option for Google to monetize ‘free’ content in the play store without compensating the developers much as they

I suspect this is to foreclose against a future option for Google to monetize ‘free’ content in the play store without compensating the developers much as they do people’s videos on Youtube. For those who aren’t aware, in the games industry the distributor has been in the role of adding DRM to games on the pretense that they are “protecting their interests and channels”. As the distributor, Google may feel empowered to make these sort of “protective” changes, and the one that would be most likely (in my estimation) would be wrapping the APK such that it played a pre-roll ad before your free game started. I could be completely off base here but to my way of thinking it would be consistent with Google’s moves in the past.

tauntz 5y ago
That would explain why they are trying to convince/coerce/force developers to hand them their signing keys during the last years.
- pow_pp_-1_v 5y ago
  I think the signing keys are required because of features like "play as you download" etc. [Not an Android dev]
  - btown 5y ago
    As we've seen with the complaints re: AMP [0], Google is incredibly talented at building "it loads faster" features that are primarily a way to give them greater control over monetization in ways that are less than transparent. Requiring signing keys can be both of these things at once. [0] https://searchengineland.com/google-throttled-amp-page-speeds-created-format-to-hamper-header-bidding-antitrust-complaint-claims-375466 https://searchengineland.com/google-throttled-amp-page-speed...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - igneo676 5y ago
    The real Google response would be - it's to facilitate a migration to new signing keys in case the developer: 1. Loses their signing keys 2. Needs to migrate to a better signing algorithm Google can just handle that on your behalf. Additionally, there's no more need to care about signing keys at any point in the development pipeline. Rather than keep it secret, anyone with proper access to the Google developer console can sign and release apps More cynically, what they're really guarding against is other app stores. It's MUCH harder to migrate an app from the Play Store to another store if the signatures don't match. * Without a matching signature, the user can't pull their data from Google in the same way. They'd have to completely uninstall and reinstall the app, potentially losing data if the app isn't backed by a server. * With a matching signature, the other app store should pick it up seamlessly. Modifying apps without opt-in seems like a step further than they'd be able to pull off without massive backlash right now.
    - GauntletWizard 5y ago
      Frog leaps out of boiling pot, this news and more at 11.
- buu700 5y ago
  An alternative explanation is that Google was paid off to facilitate state-sponsored attacks. I wouldn't go as far as to claim that as fact, but it's nevertheless egregiously bad that Google suddenly wants a mandatory backdoor into every new app.
mdp2021 5y ago
> the distributor has been in the role of adding That would cause (relative) avoidance of the distributors - and in the case of APK, any site could be a distributor.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  You are underestimating the prevalence and reach of centralized app stores. Consumers could side-load, but the vast majority will not, and that's where the money is.
dheera 5y ago
Can we just all agree on an alternative language that means "no ads"? How about "coool" spelled with 3 o's? As long as you use that everyone will know it means "no ads" if we can get some media to write about it. I mean, this is exactly what happens on the internet in China when words are banned. No media writes about it but it spreads through social media fast enough such that it's not really possible to ban words. We can do the same for censorship in the US by Google.
- ryanschneider 5y ago
  How about “Let’s go branding!” /s.
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
Sounds totally believable. The app stores are scams. Look at Apple's deliberately defective search functionality. Both these companies think nothing of stabbing developers and partners in the back.
chimeracoder 5y ago
> I suspect this is to foreclose against a future option for Google to monetize ‘free’ content in the play store without compensating the developers much as they do people’s videos on Youtube. As the distributor, Google may feel empowered to make these sort of “protective” changes, and the one that would be most likely (in my estimation) would be wrapping the APK such that it played a pre-roll ad before your free game started. I'd be quite surprised if Google forced ads into apps that don't have them, knowing full well that Apple would not do the same thing for iOS apps. While Google and Apple are in different businesses, they are both reliant on the same set of users for their different business models, and from users' perspective, they offer products that are both competitive and mutually exclusive (very few people use both an Android and iPhone daily). It's one thing to force ads in front of Youtube videos - a given video is hosted on one platform, and users click links to the videos they want to watch with little sense of loyalty to a particular platform in the moment. But doing the same thing to mobile apps across an entire operating system risks people actually eschewing their product in favor of their competitor's, which would jeopardize the core of their entire business (search revenue is incredibly vulnerable to traffic on walled garden mobile platforms - it's the reason Google correctly saw iOS as such a threat and responded quickly with their investment in Android in the first place).
NikolaNovak 5y ago
My simpler explanation is that putting "no ads" in title is meaningless and without proof and on its own unenforceable. As a consumer, honestly, as much as I want to rant against big companies and for small developers - yeah, I'm with Google on this one. Putting random unverified claims in title is bad. (concordantly, I fully support making "no ads" actual metadata searchable/filterable, as well as "Supports Controller" "in game purchases" etc.)
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  Putting "no added sugar" on a product box isn't meaningless because there are legal reprucussions to fraud. If nothing is happening when games with "no ads" have ads then that is a criticism to bring to the regulators.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    No added sugar is something that can be objectively measured. What does "no ads" mean? No Google ads? No sponsored content? Nothing referencing paid products? No soliciting?
    - smorgusofborg 5y ago
      Yes, this time it is digital so it's hopeless and since someone may get into a long dispute over product placements, every app should be equally likely to be bringing in protocols that are purely for ads. The only solution is to let the distributor just remove all information that might inform our decisions. Here is the FDA's rules for the term "lite": https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.56 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFR... Certainly not perfect, but better than if the next time a product at whole foods gets caught in a fraud we let Amazon remark everything as "food".
- gpt5 5y ago
  Your point is not specific for ads and completely ignores the dynamics of reviews. Your app will immediately receive a ton of 1 star reviews for misleading the users.

tauntz 5y ago

That would explain why they are trying to convince/coerce/force developers to hand them their signing keys during the last years.

pow_pp_-1_v 5y ago
I think the signing keys are required because of features like "play as you download" etc. [Not an Android dev]
- btown 5y ago
  As we've seen with the complaints re: AMP [0], Google is incredibly talented at building "it loads faster" features that are primarily a way to give them greater control over monetization in ways that are less than transparent. Requiring signing keys can be both of these things at once. [0] https://searchengineland.com/google-throttled-amp-page-speeds-created-format-to-hamper-header-bidding-antitrust-complaint-claims-375466 https://searchengineland.com/google-throttled-amp-page-speed...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- igneo676 5y ago
  The real Google response would be - it's to facilitate a migration to new signing keys in case the developer: 1. Loses their signing keys 2. Needs to migrate to a better signing algorithm Google can just handle that on your behalf. Additionally, there's no more need to care about signing keys at any point in the development pipeline. Rather than keep it secret, anyone with proper access to the Google developer console can sign and release apps More cynically, what they're really guarding against is other app stores. It's MUCH harder to migrate an app from the Play Store to another store if the signatures don't match. * Without a matching signature, the user can't pull their data from Google in the same way. They'd have to completely uninstall and reinstall the app, potentially losing data if the app isn't backed by a server. * With a matching signature, the other app store should pick it up seamlessly. Modifying apps without opt-in seems like a step further than they'd be able to pull off without massive backlash right now.
  - GauntletWizard 5y ago
    Frog leaps out of boiling pot, this news and more at 11.
buu700 5y ago
An alternative explanation is that Google was paid off to facilitate state-sponsored attacks. I wouldn't go as far as to claim that as fact, but it's nevertheless egregiously bad that Google suddenly wants a mandatory backdoor into every new app.

mdp2021 5y ago

> the distributor has been in the role of adding That would cause (relative) avoidance of the distributors - and in the case of APK, any site could be a distributor.

warkdarrior 5y ago
You are underestimating the prevalence and reach of centralized app stores. Consumers could side-load, but the vast majority will not, and that's where the money is.

dheera 5y ago

Can we just all agree on an alternative language that means "no ads"? How about "coool" spelled with 3 o's? As long as you use that everyone will know it means "no ads" if we can get some media to write about it. I mean, this is exactly what happens on the internet in China when words are banned. No media writes about it but it spreads through social media fast enough such that it's not really possible to ban words. We can do the same for censorship in the US by Google.

ryanschneider 5y ago
How about “Let’s go branding!” /s.

PostThisTooFast 5y ago

Sounds totally believable. The app stores are scams. Look at Apple's deliberately defective search functionality. Both these companies think nothing of stabbing developers and partners in the back.

chimeracoder 5y ago

> I suspect this is to foreclose against a future option for Google to monetize ‘free’ content in the play store without compensating the developers much as they do people’s videos on Youtube. As the distributor, Google may feel empowered to make these sort of “protective” changes, and the one that would be most likely (in my estimation) would be wrapping the APK such that it played a pre-roll ad before your free game started. I'd be quite surprised if Google forced ads into apps that don't have them, knowing full well that Apple would not do the same thing for iOS apps. While Google and Apple are in different businesses, they are both reliant on the same set of users for their different business models, and from users' perspective, they offer products that are both competitive and mutually exclusive (very few people use both an Android and iPhone daily). It's one thing to force ads in front of Youtube videos - a given video is hosted on one platform, and users click links to the videos they want to watch with little sense of loyalty to a particular platform in the moment. But doing the same thing to mobile apps across an entire operating system risks people actually eschewing their product in favor of their competitor's, which would jeopardize the core of their entire business (search revenue is incredibly vulnerable to traffic on walled garden mobile platforms - it's the reason Google correctly saw iOS as such a threat and responded quickly with their investment in Android in the first place).

NikolaNovak 5y ago

My simpler explanation is that putting "no ads" in title is meaningless and without proof and on its own unenforceable. As a consumer, honestly, as much as I want to rant against big companies and for small developers - yeah, I'm with Google on this one. Putting random unverified claims in title is bad. (concordantly, I fully support making "no ads" actual metadata searchable/filterable, as well as "Supports Controller" "in game purchases" etc.)

smorgusofborg 5y ago
Putting "no added sugar" on a product box isn't meaningless because there are legal reprucussions to fraud. If nothing is happening when games with "no ads" have ads then that is a criticism to bring to the regulators.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  No added sugar is something that can be objectively measured. What does "no ads" mean? No Google ads? No sponsored content? Nothing referencing paid products? No soliciting?
  - smorgusofborg 5y ago
    Yes, this time it is digital so it's hopeless and since someone may get into a long dispute over product placements, every app should be equally likely to be bringing in protocols that are purely for ads. The only solution is to let the distributor just remove all information that might inform our decisions. Here is the FDA's rules for the term "lite": https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.56 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFR... Certainly not perfect, but better than if the next time a product at whole foods gets caught in a fraud we let Amazon remark everything as "food".
gpt5 5y ago
Your point is not specific for ads and completely ignores the dynamics of reviews. Your app will immediately receive a ton of 1 star reviews for misleading the users.