15 ms·
Android App Devs now require 20 people to test before publishing to Play Store
- discard124 3y agoThat seems absurdly onerous for indie devs. I hope Apple doesn’t do anything as extreme.
- justworkout 3y ago20 people is just a start. I expect it to ramp up and effectively lock out indie developers. This alone would've prevented stuff like Flappy Bird from ever being published.
- Gigachad 3y agoRealistically there is not much reason for flappy bird to be on the store. It could have been a website.
- vsnf 3y agoWhat if I want to program in Java, not JavaScript? What if I don't want to learn how to work with PWA and instead just want have an easily offline-accessible app? What if I wanted to add in-app purchases? There's plenty of reasons for apps like Flappy Bird to be on the store.
- rokkitmensch 3y agoThe universe really doesn't cater to the howls of "but I just want to!"
- vsnf 3y agoFair enough. What if I need to program in Java, not JavaScript (because it is a requirement of the project)? What if I need it to not be PWA (because some of the libraries are native-only)? What if I need to add in-app purchases (because it is our business model)? Does changing "want to" "need to" make a difference? It shouldn't.
- bzzzt 3y agoYour project requirement, native-only library or business model are choices that can change, not 'needs'.
- vsnf 3y agoWhat is a need in your model of the universe?
- rokkitmensch 3y agoMaking payroll.
- philipwhiuk 3y agoNo not really. The universe doesn't care much for stupid business decisions either - the business tends to just fail.
- justworkout 3y agoThat goes for virtually every corporate app that this policy change benefits.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago"Wanting to get paid for your work" is a reason.
- teapot7 3y agoSome programmers like the idea of making a profit. Apps facilitate this.
- radlad 3y agoI've had issues with my camera manufacturer's app for syncing photos on Android for years, so I finally built a super lightweight replacement which is faster and more reliable.[0] I used it for a year or so before finally going through the hassle of publishing it to the Play Store. The app has a very limited audience. In the first month, I've had approximately 28 purchases. If I had to find 20 people to use the app for a couple weeks before I could publish, it wouldn't have been published. [0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.johnmaguire.eureka https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=me.johnmaguire...
- clumsysmurf 3y agoThe other question that has come up, is what happens when one of the 20 testers has their account banned? Is the guilt-by-association thing going to apply; would the developer account also get shut down?
- secretsatan 3y agoYeah, this is really arbitrary, when I first got started in mobile apps I had one or two users to start with, I didn't know anyone who would help, it was really specialised as it was, catering to a niche market, I just had an idea and I could publish it (to apple in my case). It didn't do well, but I still sell copies every month, and getting an app on a store considerably improved job prospects after a somewhat drastic change in career direction. This sucks.
- MartijnBraam 3y agoWell that ends my app...
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- clnq 3y agoAs the article says, it’s likely that the devs who previously would test their apps prior to release had higher quality apps just because they were experienced and skilled devs, not because of an arbitrary number of people testing the app for an arbitrary length of time. If Google would want to get rid of shovelware on the Play Store, they know what to do - (edit: better) automated + human reviews, like Apple. That would be what would nip shovelware in the bud. But they’re just trying to outsource the cost of that. It feels like one of those Google initiatives that was started by someone who cared, then got watered down to the point of counter-productivity by MBA logic.
- tadfisher 3y agoThey do have automated + manual reviews. I think the $99/yr developer account is what separates Google from Apple here, along with much stricter policy enforcement on the Apple side.
- dangus 3y agoI have to think that $99 a year keeps away a lot of people who aren’t serious, and maybe even discourages various scams and schemes that depend on flooding platforms with apps scammers know will get rejected eventually in a whack-a-mole fashion. If your account gets banned and you lose $99 before the scam paid off it’s not worth your time.
- lakpan 3y agoI think you underestimate how much scamming pays. It’s much more than $99 per day, so unless Apple blocks the app immediately they’re still making money.
- clnq 3y agoBut not all crummy behavior, right? Things like ad-infested basic apps might be discouraged even with the $99. I am talking about apps like tip calculators, daily quote apps, and very basic games like slots that have no chance of being monetized well beyond ads.
- yareally 3y agoOnly for new accounts > "Without providing an exact timeframe, Google says that new developers with individual accounts (as opposed to new Organization accounts) will be required to test apps with 20 people or more for 2 weeks or longer before publishing to production"
- meltyness 3y agoFrom the official press release, > ... developers with newly created personal Play Console accounts will soon be required to test their apps with at least 20 people for a minimum of two weeks before applying for access to production. Does this mean that a developer has to recruit 20 users through a special workflow, or the users will simply see that they are 'testers' for a new app?
- tadfisher 3y agoYou add their email addresses to a list of tester accounts, then they have to install the app via the Play Store. So yes, developers need to recruit users (well, Google accounts).
- dangus 3y agoI was about to say…isn’t this really easy to game? Is google checking IDs at the door?
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- bigiain 3y agoBRB, starting up AndroidAppDevTesting.io - faking test users to PlayStore-as-a-Service. For just $29.95/month we will load your new app onto a fleet of 20 test Android devices and run your Appium or Selendroid test suites twice a day for 14 days.
- dkarras 3y agoyou joke but this will happen.
- bigiain 3y agoI mean, it's kinda just BrowserStack or DeviceFarm and an Ansible script, right? (I'd spend an evening or two setting up a landing page and duct taping that Ansible script onto my Stripe account, but I've got a personal policy of never ever trying to sell tools to developers...)
- MrDresden 3y ago>I've got a personal policy of never ever trying to sell tools to developers... It feels like there is a story there. Care to share?
- Spivak 3y agoDevelopers are some of the worst customers you'll ever have the displeasure of experiencing. We are incredibly cheap and price sensitive, have literally zero ethics around reasonable usage (if they didn't want me to do it they should have stopped me), we're loud and obnoxious with strongly held opinions, think the world revolves around us and our pet issues, and will work tirelessly to make sure you make no money. We're the Karen's of the digital age. This is a self-callout, I'm guilty of all of these.
- JohnFen 3y agoI've been selling dev tools and libraries for decades, and all of that exists (it exists with non-dev customers as well), but none of it is so awful that it makes addressing that market undesirable.
- dmitrygr 3y agoI cannot imagine any sane person coming up with this as a solution to any problem other than "it is too easy as an indie developer to make an app, solve a problem people have, and make it big in the world". Seriously whose ass did this idea get pulled from, and how can this be justified?
- gilgoomesh 3y agoMy guess is that 2 weeks and the usage pattern of 20 users gives Google enough data points to determine whether the app is just AI generated bot spam. Because I'm betting there's a lot of that at the moment. Still seems like absurdly high bar for indie devs to clear.
- Rastonbury 3y agoYeah this is just going to spawn a cottage industry on Fiverr with jobs for "20 people testing your Android app", it honestly reminds me of my county's bureaucrats needlessly adding hoops to a process (which is so they can collect bribes). Even for a small company of up to 10 people, I doubt many have 20 testing user lying around ready and waiting. Either pay/recruit or everyone get their extended families
- HurdsTimesNear 3y agoMaybe that is the exact problem this is meant to solve. Maybe all these countless apps cost too much to host for google?
- mpalczewski 3y agoThis would have prevented me from publishing my first app, which ended up getting me my first job and a great career.
- txtsd 3y agoWow. Could you tell us more about your journey?
- silenced_trope 3y agoWow? It sounds like he created a portfolio piece. lol.
- mpalczewski 3y agoI bought a t-mobile g1 the first android phone. At the time my school's wifi needed you to log in every time you joined the network. I wrote an app that logged you in automatically. Solved a need I had, I then put in in the app store for $0.99 and sold a few hundred. I went to a small company career fair for the free lunch. When they saw I had an app in the app store, I had immediate interest and got an internship.
- arunkumar9t2 3y agoSame, got my first Android dev job from my side projects. Don't think current state of app stores would let something like that happen easily.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- instagib 3y agoTo bypass that, make an org account and give them: As organization’s name, type, size, detailed address, phone number, and website.
- janosdebugs 3y agoWait what? So if you have a company, you don't need to test? Edit: wow, that's how I'm reading it too. If you have a DUNS number, this will presumably not apply to you. So this isn't about quality, it's an anti-spam measure. Crazy.
- dinobones 3y agoI don't even know 20 people with Androids.
- worthless-trash 3y agoI dont even know 20 people who would install something for me.
- skydhash 3y agoI don’t even expect 20 users.
- whoopsie 3y agoWhat if testing for launch is higher volume than post launch downloads?
- worthless-trash 3y agoIn the apps I write, that very well may be the case.
- fsflover 3y agoThen Google doesn't care about your app and you.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- thenickdude 3y agoI don't even know 20 people
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- etchalon 3y agoIt's a good thing Google accounts are hard to generate in bulk and Android simulators don't exist.
- RockRobotRock 3y agoThey have the tech to block 99% of those easily. The last 1% who can get around the block will have a nice source of revenue.
- ergonaught 3y agoI really don't understand why all the actually brilliant people at Google, Apple, etc, are never allowed to make user-facing decisions.
- cultofmetatron 3y agoI don't think I even have 20 friends... nevermind 20 I could get to install my apps. guess I'm sticking to the cloud :(
- tapoxi 3y agoWell there goes any hope I had of publishing to the Play Store. I don't know 20 people with an Android phone. What's the option here? Beg for random people to install your beta app?
- mgarciaisaia 3y agoDeveloping-world startup idea here. +90% of Android market share here in Argentina, and probably most South American countries (if not all).
- dr_kiszonka 3y agoThere will be discords for fellow devs to install each other's apps and possibly companies to facilitate it for a fee (e.g., $3 per install + 50c per day of "testing"). Although, if testers have to be in the same market as where the app is to be sold, this could get a bit more expensive.
- YetAnotherNick 3y agoIt's definitely weird rule if I understand it correctly. If the app developer selects 20 people, what benefit does it offer.
- JohnFen 3y ago> Beg for random people to install your beta app? I wouldn't call it "begging", but essentially, yes, this is what I've always done.
- throwaway487ajl 3y agoI wish this applied to existing apps I have to use at work which seem to be upgraded without any testing. Such gems as get an Android version upgrade and can't reinstall app; lose all location information on the app that provides maps of work to do; alerts stop working when graphics on the app are "improved". Sigh.
- account-5 3y agoFuck Google. Every time I think they can't get worse. Looks like my app will be fdroid only.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- cat_plus_plus 3y agoYou guys know you can distribute your app outside Play Store right? Not saying that's a long term business plan for most, but if you are at the point you can't even get 20 people to install, world of mouth can clear at least this hurdle. As for requirement itself, non-trivial apps that didn't get even this level of testing are likely to be quite broken. Will you really test on different form factors and Android versions / anticipate all user behavior? So I can see the case for protecting basic store reputation, in that anything you download is unlikely to crash right away or drain your battery etc.
- mcny 3y agoYou can also set up your own repo for fdroid. With Android 12 and above, neostore can auto update apps. It actually works now. And I believe Android 14 will bring even more updates here but I don't remember exactly what it is ..
- veeti 3y agoWhat do you base this assumption on exactly? Back in the day I released my first app without even a physical Android device to countless happy users. In the enterprises I have professionally worked we didn't have 20 dedicated testers.
- YetAnotherNick 3y agoExactly. As a startup asking the first 20 users some other way of installing the app which is not in play store doesn't give any confidence.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- meindnoch 3y agoLadies and gentleman, I present you the company, that prides itself on hiring only the best and the brightest!
- calebj0seph 3y agoSo glad I saw this on November 10 before the deadline. I quickly set up a Play Console account, verified my ID and set up a draft of my app to ensure I'd be in the clear. Been working on an indie game for the last couple of years - would have been a huge pain trying to find 20 people with Android devices to meet this arbitrary threshold.
- jarlab 3y agoHorrible decision
- mrtksn 3y agoHmm, this will probably create indie devs going around and begging people to test their apps. Finding 20 people is not easy if you are just one person having idea, skills to build the idea but not much else.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- greentea23 3y agoI cannot imagine using the play store or the apple store ever again. What hell. This is the true value of Android vs. iOS though: Google can do whatever corporate nonsense Google does, and I can live in my own parallel universe that works for me. Hopefully, Android stays open until other open alternatives emerge. But I think we have several more years before Google could feasibly pull back on AOSP even if they wanted to.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- sebtron 3y agoThis lockdown of what used to be a relatively accessible app distribution system is sad. At least we have F-Droid :) https://f-droid.org https://f-droid.org
- yellow_lead 3y ago20 is too many. How many of us have 20 friends we can corral into testing an Android app that isn't even on the store yet?
- HurdsTimesNear 3y agoIf we had 20 friends we would be in sales.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- KomoD 3y agoWhat a terrible decision, how does that do anything other than fuck over small developers? The ones who want to publish "unsafe" apps will just cheat the system How about they actually deal with the low quality, spammy apps that are already published? I'll give a good example, VPN apps, specifically the ones published by "Country VPN LLC", they have 145 apps that are just titled copy-paste "(insert country) VPN", nor do they actually provide the VPN location they claim. And there's more just like that publisher, such as "Proxy Master & Turbo VPN" and "AltApps" both of which have 14 apps that are titled for different countries https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Country+VPN+LLC https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Country+VPN+... https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Proxy+Master+%26+Turbo+VPN https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Proxy+Master... https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=AltApps https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=AltApps
- rohithgilla 3y agoVery annoying for indie devs
- Garvi 3y agoThis is the last straw for me. I know I cannot just move my business to some non-existent competition in Soviet America, but they don't control everything on the web just yet. Mail, storage, even ads can be had elsewhere. And this is now giving me the motivation to finally reduce my dependence on google. If they can fuck over my app business just like that, they can do the same with ads, mail, storage or SAAS and it's a risk I cannot take.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- zer0x4d 3y agoIf Google wants Android apps to have better quality, they need to take a step back and look at their mess of a platform. UI Support? Completely broken. Apple has simple UI frameworks. You either use UIKit or SwiftUI. Very clear which one is being used in which file and the code won't compile if you mess up. No worry about color changes, design mismatch, etc. Everything looks the same and matches. They are compatible and interoperable. Begin with UIKit and you can slowly transition to SwiftUI if you want to. Android? Support library, material 2, material 3, androidx, jetpack compose, AppCompat, etc. I confused myself even trying to look this list up. wtf Google? Code compiles, you run. Either crashes right off the bat which is the lucky case (you are using component from material 3 but view theme is not a descendant of a material 3 theme), or if you're unlucky and it runs, half things are one design and color, the rest don't match? Why? Oh you forgot this one view uses a theme that is descendant of a different library. Off you go hunting down the style that component uses in 30 xml files (which btw, for some reason, are broken down based on dpi and api version too??) Good luck with that. 2 hours later you narrow it down, fix it, sigh of relief, then bam, it hits you back just like a window blind. The color matches but the button now looks different. Hmmm Build system? Somehow this is even more broken than the ui support. Open project that used to build fine 1 month ago, hit build, it fails. Hmm what's wrong? Oh there is a gradle version mismatch between what the IDE has and what the project has downloaded in the main folder (wtf x2! Why is a binary for the build system living in the project source in the first place???) Shouldn't the android development tools included in the IDE already contain the last and best version of the build system that is backwards compatible? Imagine if Xcode asked you to download and store xcodebuild in the project source. It's ok. Update to new gradle version, hit build, it fails again. what now?? Oh the version for `com.android.tools.build:gradle` doesn't match! Weird, shouldn't android studio just be able to download and use the appropriate version of the android gradle plugin based on the gradle version you have specified (uhum I mean the one Android Studio itself should have included and you should never have to specify manually or download or store in your project source???) Oh and how could I forget our wonderful friend, the multidex! See, our build tools aren't even smart enough to be able to tell when your project needs to multi dex. It just errors out and you have to manually go ahead and enable it and include the library. To their credit, newer versions seem to have fixed this but this shouldn't have ever been even left to the developer. Dependencies? This one isn't even debatable. It's yet another fragmented mess. Xcode dependency management is very simple. You either use their provided SwiftPM or you can use Cocoapods. Or both. They work well together. With android? Oh, Google does not want to commit a small storage/bandwidth from their massive capability to delivering good dependency hosting to developers. You pull the code from repo, dependencies can't be fetched! Wtf? Teammate swears it builds fine on their side (huh doesn't it always??). You check what's wrong! Oh Bintray/JCenter decided to shut down forever! Bye bye. They left and left you the generous parting gift of 10 unresolvable dependencies! You got hunting down the Github rabbit hole, issues galore. Everyone's freaking out. Project maintainer has left and hasn't pushed code to other dependency repos. You think: Good, the code is on Github, I should be able to just use the GitHub url directly in the dependencies instead, right? NO! Wrong!!! Things can't be that simple with android! You realize gradle dependency management doesn't allow you to just pull that code and use it unlike SwiftPM and Cocoapods. You are now at the mercy of yet another third party website (jitpack.io) to act as middle man between Github and gradle. This website shuts down any second and you are back to square one! Why god?? Why can't I just pull the god forsaken code and build it locally myself!? Did I mention that besides jitpack.io there's also maven central? What happens if that shuts down? No one knows! I'm not even going to talk about the mess that is/was app signing and release, billing sdk updates, target sdk version deprecation, etc. Fix your broken ecosystem first before blaming the developers! Why do the android apps for even bigger players like Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge have significantly lower rating than their iOS counterpart? They surely do test properly and can afford proper development. This just goes to show there is something really wrong with the android ecosystem and Google needs to look inwards to figure out how to get it out of the state its in right now.
- grishka 3y agoAn unpopular opinion: app stores as a default means of app distribution need to die, yesterday. The intentions were good, but in the end, it's horrible for everyone — both the users and the developers. Especially for those outside of the US who don't share the American obsession with relentlessly protecting everyone from the very idea of sexuality, whether they want that protection or not. And the reviews are just never helpful to neither users nor developers. And apps begging for those reviews always feel pathetic.
- diffeomorphism 3y agoNot likely. Both mobile platforms have app stores, windows has winget/chocolatey/..., macs are trying/have brew and linux has package managers since the 90s. It seems very much that this approach is winning over "side-loading" and for good reason. Your complaint is somewhat orthogonal to this. It would be perfectly possible to just have multiple repositories/sources backing the same app store with different values of curation/censorship. Tick a box once to enable the sources and it is completely seamless. Of course, the store owners have little incentive to do that, since they earn a cut if you buy from their repo, but that is why you have to force "gatekeepers" (in the EU terminology). If they make it non-seamless, fine them and fine them again until they do.
- idle_zealot 3y agoI think you and GP are using different definitions of "App Store". GP seems to be taking issue with how walled gardens enable application censorship and erode user control. You counter that standardized application installation/management is good UX and compatible with models that allow anyone to spin up software repositories, which is true, but doesn't counter anything GP says.
- diffeomorphism 3y agoGP is equating app stores with walled gardens. I am saying that this need not be the case and that you should keep the benefits while getting rid of the points he is criticizing. > but doesn't counter anything GP says. It says that razing the earth and getting rid of the whole concept is overkill and his criticism should not be of app stores as such but of "gatekeepers" abusing their position.
- rock_artist 3y agoThis sounds like another nail in the coffin of indie devs. I have 2-3 apps. I’ve started with Android with eclipse. Back then I was really enjoying how I could make a small utility and get it on devices quickly. After my 3rd nexus just died I’ve switched to Apple walled garden and.. got back to developing for Apple eco-system some indie apps. Since then, The amount of resources I’ve spent on just maintaining an existing app on Google play was so time consuming. Let alone API and depreciation, the play store required me after all those years sooo much documents and procedures just to keep my account. I’m not sure how Google got the play store experience to be so worse than Apple.
- jmiskovic 3y agoExactly this, so much energy is needed just to keep things working as they were. It's like Google actively cultivates and accelerates the software rot. Personally I'm tired of it and I'm getting off the train with my app. I'll also stop using the Play Store because this change clearly signals what's welcome there. They don't want to host quirky-but-useful indie apps with personality. They would rather have the polished addiction forming platforms for corporations. Worst thing, they dress it up as a favor to their users. F-Droid looks good, though.
- anthony88 3y agoI don't think that what's friends are for (to test your app). Meaning, you'll need to go to a paying service, making it harder to justify afterwards to make your app free without ads or in-app purchase.
- Fnoord 3y agoI don't even have 20 friends. But if you/your team have 15 acquaintances who are willing, you can set up five Google accounts to test the app. After all, all you need for a Google account is a phone number. Which, at least in my country, can be acquired for free without much hassle.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- helsinkiandrew 3y agoIsn't this just going to create lots of dodgy services that offer a "test 20 apps and 20 people will test yours", that already exist for giving app 5 star reviews?
- wilonth 3y agoThis won't stop any app store spammers, if they can spam the app store it's no problem for them to get 20 fake devices and bypass this. Again it's the genuine indie developers getting punished.
- AreYouElite 3y agoHas anybody considered this may not be a bug but a feature? They might intend to get indie apps off the store. Maybe the maintenance is too much for them, and this is a lower backlash way to do it than outright banning indie apps. This way the indie devs leave on their own by becoming disgruntled.
- HurdsTimesNear 3y agoYou're paranoid, get help!
- Aulig 3y agoWhat a stupid requirement. I run an app builder and offer my users plenty of ways to test their app beforehand, but outside of Google Play, since their system is just cumbersome. This will make it nearly impossible to get an app published as a small business, since who the hell has 20 users just waiting for your app? It's already a huge struggle to help people with publishing their app. The road to hell is truly paved with good intentions. All the scam apps will have no problem cheating this system, but honest devs will struggle. I can only hope Google reconsiders this requirement, otherwise it might be worth it to push my users more towards alternative app stores. We already support the Amazon App Store and the Huawei App Gallery (which are a lot easier to publish apps in), but the user base is just not there unfortunately.
- forgotpwd16 3y ago>since who the hell has 20 users just waiting for your app And that's how test-as-a-service is born.
- brucecrust 3y agoAlready here. I work in that industry.
- Anamon 3y ago> who the hell has 20 users just waiting for your app? I'd wager that the majority of apps published to app stores struggle to find 20 users total, period. Let alone before public release. It really seems like an obviously counterproductive measure. I think you're totally right in that the people who will have the least issues passing these new requirements, are those who don't shy away from dishonesty.
- sourav22 3y agoThought that i would atleast create an app that is useful, so spent 1 month developing it, their was more to it but i wanted to publish atleast 1 app. So spent $25 to create account , than spent 3-4 hours publishing app , waited 5 days to get released. Today it was showing " Closed testing " in app status. I was not aware of it. So searched on internet & read about Google's NEW REQUIREMENTS. This month on 16- Nov i created account on it & that time i was not aware of this new policy!!!!!! From where the hell i am going to bring 20 testers now !!!!!
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoIT is getting more and more industrialized and I expect those moves will happen again and again.
- beretguy 3y agoStop building apps. Just build WPAs.
- firejake308 3y agoYeah, my response to this is that I'm glad I quit Android app development a while ago to focus on PWAs. Just hope for better PWA support from Apple/Safari one day, even though it is explicitly against their self-interest
- webworker 3y agoApple made some really good progress in the latest MacOS and iOS releases. I have been using the "Add to Dock" feature in Safari for things like YT Music and Twitter/X. It's pretty neat and works well.
- beretguy 3y agoSafari on iPhone even supports notifications now! Check out revolt chat. It looks and feels like a native app.
- O-stevns 3y agoThe native experience benefits the user and the device more because it's using the APIs as they were intended, WPA's will forever be the inferior choice.
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- Gorbzel 3y agoGoogle is basically acknowledging they don’t want and or care about portfolio/small utility/first time project apps on their store. This obviously isn’t a great look, especially when both companies nominally support educational and vocational efforts around app development. IMO, onus is on these companies to resolve the inherent contradiction here. That said, it might be the right move. Despite some FUD in the comments that this will hinder indie devs or prevent the next Flappy Bird, such claims seem a bit exaggerated. Also, overcoming obstacles is part of the challenge of app development so if somehow this relatively low bar is the line too far…good riddance. Anecdotally, I’ve interviewed quite a few mobile developers with clear resume projects who then claim they’ve “published multiple apps to the [Play/App] store”; almost universally these candidates acknowledge without much pressing that said apps are unmaintained bitrot or even delisted due to some other unmet requirement anyhow. I suppose the best argument is the same mentality that leads to spam on the store could be used to get around the 20 tester limit. Sure, but I’d expect that Google expects at least meaningful improvement even with malevolent actors, as that’s the new normal with such mitigations in any online marketplace these days.
- alexalx666 3y agoAndroid is great for reach, otherwise much more trouble than its worth
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 3y ago20 seems pretty low. I'd be very, very nervous about releasing any software that only had 20 beta testers. I am disappointed to hear that there is such a problem with apps being inadequately tested. But how is Google going to enforce this?
- butz 3y agoIn addition to developer verification, which will display your real name in Play Store, it seems like Google wants to kick all hobbyists off the platform. Anyone care to guess if malware count will drop sharply?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- goodburb 3y agoWhat happens to apps that are IoT/Bluetooth-only requiring hardware? Is demo mode enough? Will there be detailed documentation other than a blogpost?
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]
- Testers20 3y ago[flagged]