6 ms·

Google Play banned my highly rated app with no real justification

42 points by jimmyff 5y ago

jimmyff 5y ago
I've written the article with the hope that it will get someone's attention at Google and they can improve the systems and policies over there, or at very least start providing developers with actual reasons for banning their app so they can learn from their mistakes. So please give the article a clap and help it reach the suits at Google!
- fsflover 5y ago
  > with the hope that ... they can improve the systems and policies over there This is not going to happen. There's been a dozen of such posts on HN in the recent time. Google doesn't care.
- john2010 5y ago
  > See popular apps: Amazon, Bumble etc …nobody's on device app title reflects the apps functionality, they just use their brand name) Whether or not it is correct/ethical but do not compare your app to Amazon. They are different, big, <add much more>. My only guess is some one made a clone of your app; and is perhaps 'reporting' your app. And Google's AI is responding to you. (And if you are regular hn user... you know the results, sadly).
  - jimmyff 5y ago
    Apologies; I didn't mean to compare my app with those giants, I was just trying to demonstrate that on device titles tend not to reflect app functionality.
peanut_worm 5y ago
I think google has proven they aren’t trustworthy at all
nhinck 5y ago
You put up an app that used the Eurovision name in the same (or a very similar) font, using their logo and are surprised that Google doesn't want to expend any effort in figuring out how legitimate your app is?
- stillblue 5y ago
  Did you actually read the entire article or just skim?
  - tssva 5y ago
    From the HN comment guidelines: "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." This is especially true here because I did read the article and have no idea why you think this comment somehow reflects the person didn't fully read the article.
    - stillblue 5y ago
      I think you've misinterpreted the guidelines on my comment. Mine was not "Did you even read the article?". It was "Did you read it whole or skim it?" The reason I asked what I did - the very thing the original commenter had a problem with was thoroughly addressed in that article. If you have no idea why I think the person did not fully read the article, I'm sorry but I have to ask you if you too have read the article in full or just skimmed it? This is just bizarre that I see two instances of, what I assume, are reading comprehension difficulties about the exact same thing.
      - nhinck 5y ago
        I guess I've got to ask, did you read my comment or skim it? Because the point of it is why are you surprised that Google doesn't want to spend time on resolving and reinstating his account, not the trademark issues which were only restating for context.
fsflover 5y ago
Consider publishing it in F-Droid.
MrDresden 5y ago
I blogged about it when I launched it and that post received comments and applause from senior Google engineers and the official Firebase Twitter account even tweeted about it I'm always sceptical when there are no links or evidence backing up these kinds of claims. I can not see any writings in Medium by this account about a launch of this application, which makes me even more sceptical. Not saying the author is fabricating this whole thing, but there is literally no proof of this ever having happened either. /edit: Was able to find that blog post finally, so I was wrong.
- jimmyff 5y ago
  Hey, I probably should have linked the original article, I didn't as it was a PWA back then (rather than native app) and it had a different name- two factors I thought could be confusing. Glad you found it anyway, if anyone's interested this is the article I was referring too: https://medium.com/@jimmyff/building-a-web-app-the-progressive-way-e81177e95738 https://medium.com/@jimmyff/building-a-web-app-the-progressi... Frustratingly I didn't screen grab the Firebase tweet and there history doesn't go that far back anymore. I got the mention after posting the article to the Firebase slack channel and one of the team took notice and sent me a PM. (I'm sure the conversation about it will still be in my slack history). I'm happy to share all correspondence to and from Google if there is an appetite for it. I posted the original messages to reddit 6 months back asking for advice: https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/o6xghx/google_play_policy_team_your_ondevice_title_does/ https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/o6xghx/google_p...
randy408 5y ago
Obvious trademark infringement.
- peanut_worm 5y ago
  That isnt what they removed it for the stated reason was: > your on-device title does not reflect your app’s functionality. There are several other apps with Eurovision in the name. If the infringement were the reason they are selective with enforcement.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    What is a "on-device title"?
    - jimmyff 5y ago
      It's the name that appears on your phone/device if you have the app installed. This can differ from the app store title which is often more verbose.
      - johnisgood 5y ago
        > your on-device title does not reflect your app’s functionality. So you cannot just give it any name, it has to reflect the app's functionality? That is weird. I have a project that is named X, but from that alone you cannot tell what it does exactly. It is impossible to give it a name that would do that.
  - randy408 5y ago
    An average user would download "Eurovision GP" expecting the voting functionality everyone and their dog knows is a major part of the experience and instead they get a gallery app. OP's highly rated app was more than likely listed higher than the official app rated 2.8 stars hence user reports and its subsequent removal. Trademark infringement is never a good idea, those other apps could get pulled for the same reason at any time.
leros 5y ago
I built a startup that depended on YouTube API access for critical functionality. I worked with Google to get a high API quota approved. It took months. They knew everything about my system architecture, product user flows, revenue models etc. It was insane how involved they were. I got everything approved, launched, and got my API access revoked a week later. Same thing as OP. They wouldn't tell me why and told me it was a final decision. They stopped replying to my emails after that. I no longer use Google Cloud or anything managed by Google. Having a faceless company be able to take down your business and not even talk to you about it is too much of a risk for me.
- Sargos 5y ago
  This is the principle reason we need decentralized versions of apps like YouTube as you cannot safely build companies or big projects on top of them as your entire organization's existence can be turned off arbitrarily through no fault of your own. Businesses are hard enough to run at the best of times without the threat of your foundation shifting under you.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > This is the principle reason we need decentralized versions of apps like YouTube Not apps but services. See https://joinpeertube.org https://joinpeertube.org.
- chii 5y ago
  > It was insane how involved they were. and yet, not insane enough to have a contract signed with them to allow the use of the api?
  - leros 5y ago
    I had agreed to terms of service and was a paying Google Cloud customer. The API itself was free to use if they granted you quota. Maybe if I was a larger corporate customer, I would have had enough spend to have a sales rep and the ability to contact humans and get a more official contract, but that wasn't available to me as a small business.

42 points by jimmyff 5y ago

I've written the article with the hope that it will get someone's attention at Google and they can improve the systems and policies over there, or at very least start providing developers with actual reasons for banning their app so they can learn from their mistakes. So please give the article a clap and help it reach the suits at Google!

fsflover 5y ago
> with the hope that ... they can improve the systems and policies over there This is not going to happen. There's been a dozen of such posts on HN in the recent time. Google doesn't care.
john2010 5y ago
> See popular apps: Amazon, Bumble etc …nobody's on device app title reflects the apps functionality, they just use their brand name) Whether or not it is correct/ethical but do not compare your app to Amazon. They are different, big, <add much more>. My only guess is some one made a clone of your app; and is perhaps 'reporting' your app. And Google's AI is responding to you. (And if you are regular hn user... you know the results, sadly).
- jimmyff 5y ago
  Apologies; I didn't mean to compare my app with those giants, I was just trying to demonstrate that on device titles tend not to reflect app functionality.

peanut_worm 5y ago

I think google has proven they aren’t trustworthy at all

nhinck 5y ago

You put up an app that used the Eurovision name in the same (or a very similar) font, using their logo and are surprised that Google doesn't want to expend any effort in figuring out how legitimate your app is?

stillblue 5y ago
Did you actually read the entire article or just skim?
- tssva 5y ago
  From the HN comment guidelines: "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." This is especially true here because I did read the article and have no idea why you think this comment somehow reflects the person didn't fully read the article.
  - stillblue 5y ago
    I think you've misinterpreted the guidelines on my comment. Mine was not "Did you even read the article?". It was "Did you read it whole or skim it?" The reason I asked what I did - the very thing the original commenter had a problem with was thoroughly addressed in that article. If you have no idea why I think the person did not fully read the article, I'm sorry but I have to ask you if you too have read the article in full or just skimmed it? This is just bizarre that I see two instances of, what I assume, are reading comprehension difficulties about the exact same thing.
    - nhinck 5y ago
      I guess I've got to ask, did you read my comment or skim it? Because the point of it is why are you surprised that Google doesn't want to spend time on resolving and reinstating his account, not the trademark issues which were only restating for context.

fsflover 5y ago

Consider publishing it in F-Droid.

MrDresden 5y ago

I blogged about it when I launched it and that post received comments and applause from senior Google engineers and the official Firebase Twitter account even tweeted about it I'm always sceptical when there are no links or evidence backing up these kinds of claims. I can not see any writings in Medium by this account about a launch of this application, which makes me even more sceptical. Not saying the author is fabricating this whole thing, but there is literally no proof of this ever having happened either. /edit: Was able to find that blog post finally, so I was wrong.

jimmyff 5y ago
Hey, I probably should have linked the original article, I didn't as it was a PWA back then (rather than native app) and it had a different name- two factors I thought could be confusing. Glad you found it anyway, if anyone's interested this is the article I was referring too: https://medium.com/@jimmyff/building-a-web-app-the-progressive-way-e81177e95738 https://medium.com/@jimmyff/building-a-web-app-the-progressi... Frustratingly I didn't screen grab the Firebase tweet and there history doesn't go that far back anymore. I got the mention after posting the article to the Firebase slack channel and one of the team took notice and sent me a PM. (I'm sure the conversation about it will still be in my slack history). I'm happy to share all correspondence to and from Google if there is an appetite for it. I posted the original messages to reddit 6 months back asking for advice: https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/o6xghx/google_play_policy_team_your_ondevice_title_does/ https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/o6xghx/google_p...

randy408 5y ago

Obvious trademark infringement.

peanut_worm 5y ago
That isnt what they removed it for the stated reason was: > your on-device title does not reflect your app’s functionality. There are several other apps with Eurovision in the name. If the infringement were the reason they are selective with enforcement.
- johnisgood 5y ago
  What is a "on-device title"?
  - jimmyff 5y ago
    It's the name that appears on your phone/device if you have the app installed. This can differ from the app store title which is often more verbose.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      > your on-device title does not reflect your app’s functionality. So you cannot just give it any name, it has to reflect the app's functionality? That is weird. I have a project that is named X, but from that alone you cannot tell what it does exactly. It is impossible to give it a name that would do that.
- randy408 5y ago
  An average user would download "Eurovision GP" expecting the voting functionality everyone and their dog knows is a major part of the experience and instead they get a gallery app. OP's highly rated app was more than likely listed higher than the official app rated 2.8 stars hence user reports and its subsequent removal. Trademark infringement is never a good idea, those other apps could get pulled for the same reason at any time.

leros 5y ago

I built a startup that depended on YouTube API access for critical functionality. I worked with Google to get a high API quota approved. It took months. They knew everything about my system architecture, product user flows, revenue models etc. It was insane how involved they were. I got everything approved, launched, and got my API access revoked a week later. Same thing as OP. They wouldn't tell me why and told me it was a final decision. They stopped replying to my emails after that. I no longer use Google Cloud or anything managed by Google. Having a faceless company be able to take down your business and not even talk to you about it is too much of a risk for me.

Sargos 5y ago
This is the principle reason we need decentralized versions of apps like YouTube as you cannot safely build companies or big projects on top of them as your entire organization's existence can be turned off arbitrarily through no fault of your own. Businesses are hard enough to run at the best of times without the threat of your foundation shifting under you.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > This is the principle reason we need decentralized versions of apps like YouTube Not apps but services. See https://joinpeertube.org https://joinpeertube.org.
chii 5y ago
> It was insane how involved they were. and yet, not insane enough to have a contract signed with them to allow the use of the api?
- leros 5y ago
  I had agreed to terms of service and was a paying Google Cloud customer. The API itself was free to use if they granted you quota. Maybe if I was a larger corporate customer, I would have had enough spend to have a sales rep and the ability to contact humans and get a more official contract, but that wasn't available to me as a small business.