4 ms·

I haven't tried the specific flow for private individuals (seems to just be a radio button), but I do recall getting DUNS numbers as just filling in an online f

I haven't tried the specific flow for private individuals (seems to just be a radio button), but I do recall getting DUNS numbers as just filling in an online form with name and location and getting the number by mail, without any hoops for fees. A bit silly to require for private individuals, and a bit annoying to have to go back and do, but not itself a big deal.

Lammy 1y ago
> I do recall getting DUNS numbers as just filling in an online form with name and location and getting the number by mail, without any hoops for fees Having to do it at all is the hoop, and more than zero hoops is too many. I got nothing out of having my apps on Google Play except the joy of sharing in what was at the time a new and exciting medium. See Windows Phone for a great example of how it would have played out if Google hadn't successfully courted small-time devs like me and countless others. Corporate publishers would have never colonized Google Play in the first place if an audience wasn't already there. The way they addressed me makes it very clear that solo devs are no longer needed, so I will never submit to it on principle no matter how easy it's claimed to be.
- arghwhat 1y ago
  Going through hoops usually refer to an excessive effort. Having to go through between zero (it you have needed the number before) and one free forms from a standard entity to get a widely recognized identifier used for many things is objectively not an excessive effort. Sharing apps on app stores is a continuous commitment with various responsibilities like, such as ensuring safety of users through regular maintenance. If the idea if submitting one number is too much of a burden given the joy/finances you get out of it, then the rest of the maintenance responsibilities likely are too and maybe it's better to skip the publishing part. Not sure what you're on about with corporate colonization. Colonizing implies forcefully taking what was rightfully someone elses. Also, in many places, making a company is just a form and standard practice even if you're just going to sell a single bogus app for 0.99 USD or whatever, so even individuals will be "corporations".
  - Lammy 1y ago
    Spare me your “““safety””” FUD and your moralizing language please. My responsibilities were set out in the license text and are not up for you to debate: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section15 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section15
    - arghwhat 1y ago
      No they were set out in the contract you agreed to when publishing which has commitments and grants entirely orthogonal to your source license. Plus certain moral obligations to society. Your license text is only capable of adding supplementary rights, and you're responsible for ensuring that your source license is fully compatible with the contract at time of publishing. If you just want to dump stuff, leave it on GitHub.
    - shitpostbot 1y ago
      [dead]
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    While I believe some of the (App|Play Store) requirements with DUN numbers and such are overkill and unnecessary, I also agree that there’s maybe a bit too much of a tendency for devs (commercial and indie alike) to take advantage of less restrictive means of distribution to “dump and run”, where they toss a binary over the wall and forget the project even exists for long stretches of time, even as bugs and vulnerabilities accumulate. This worked alright in the 90s and to a more limited extent in the 2000s, but from the 2010s onward it’s become more and more untenable except for the most simplistic of software, especially when it comes to anything dealing with the internet or externally sourced files. Regular maintenance and updates are an unavoidable fact of life for devs. So I’m kind of two minds here. Lower resistance/barrier to entry can be good in terms of encouraging participation, but it also inevitably means a lot more neglected projects sitting around rusting. If there’s no effort to control that, platforms can easily become filled with rusty half-functional apps. The way that Apple/Google are attempting to do this is not great however because it’s too oriented towards companies.
- Keyframe 1y ago
  Having to do it at all is the hoop, and more than zero hoops is too many. For sure, but it's a KYC for companies. How else would you expect B2B dealings and compliance to go through? They could do tax ids per country, but with DUNS, compared to local tax id, they get global ultimate beneficial owner as well as other insights. Getting a DUNS is free and relatively fast, unless you're in a hurry then there's a faster route that costs some relatively cheap amount. It's a common ID for global companies, especially those with international supply chains to rely on as "the id number" for companies.
  - freeone3000 1y ago
    > companies I’m not a company
    - arghwhat 1y ago
      You read that wrong, you're the customer in Google's KYC (know your customer). They're the company.
      - freeone3000 1y ago
        Did I? B2B dealings, DUNS number… none of these are for individuals. Is it the intention that individuals cannot write software for phones anymore?
        arghwhat 1y ago
        DUNS numbers are for all legal entities including individuals, and an individual can act as a business.
        Keyframe 1y ago
        DUNS numbers are for all legal entities including individuals only if they do operate as a business through sole proprietorship, otherwise no.

Lammy 1y ago

> I do recall getting DUNS numbers as just filling in an online form with name and location and getting the number by mail, without any hoops for fees Having to do it at all is the hoop, and more than zero hoops is too many. I got nothing out of having my apps on Google Play except the joy of sharing in what was at the time a new and exciting medium. See Windows Phone for a great example of how it would have played out if Google hadn't successfully courted small-time devs like me and countless others. Corporate publishers would have never colonized Google Play in the first place if an audience wasn't already there. The way they addressed me makes it very clear that solo devs are no longer needed, so I will never submit to it on principle no matter how easy it's claimed to be.

arghwhat 1y ago
Going through hoops usually refer to an excessive effort. Having to go through between zero (it you have needed the number before) and one free forms from a standard entity to get a widely recognized identifier used for many things is objectively not an excessive effort. Sharing apps on app stores is a continuous commitment with various responsibilities like, such as ensuring safety of users through regular maintenance. If the idea if submitting one number is too much of a burden given the joy/finances you get out of it, then the rest of the maintenance responsibilities likely are too and maybe it's better to skip the publishing part. Not sure what you're on about with corporate colonization. Colonizing implies forcefully taking what was rightfully someone elses. Also, in many places, making a company is just a form and standard practice even if you're just going to sell a single bogus app for 0.99 USD or whatever, so even individuals will be "corporations".
- Lammy 1y ago
  Spare me your “““safety””” FUD and your moralizing language please. My responsibilities were set out in the license text and are not up for you to debate: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section15 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section15
  - arghwhat 1y ago
    No they were set out in the contract you agreed to when publishing which has commitments and grants entirely orthogonal to your source license. Plus certain moral obligations to society. Your license text is only capable of adding supplementary rights, and you're responsible for ensuring that your source license is fully compatible with the contract at time of publishing. If you just want to dump stuff, leave it on GitHub.
  - shitpostbot 1y ago
    [dead]
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  While I believe some of the (App|Play Store) requirements with DUN numbers and such are overkill and unnecessary, I also agree that there’s maybe a bit too much of a tendency for devs (commercial and indie alike) to take advantage of less restrictive means of distribution to “dump and run”, where they toss a binary over the wall and forget the project even exists for long stretches of time, even as bugs and vulnerabilities accumulate. This worked alright in the 90s and to a more limited extent in the 2000s, but from the 2010s onward it’s become more and more untenable except for the most simplistic of software, especially when it comes to anything dealing with the internet or externally sourced files. Regular maintenance and updates are an unavoidable fact of life for devs. So I’m kind of two minds here. Lower resistance/barrier to entry can be good in terms of encouraging participation, but it also inevitably means a lot more neglected projects sitting around rusting. If there’s no effort to control that, platforms can easily become filled with rusty half-functional apps. The way that Apple/Google are attempting to do this is not great however because it’s too oriented towards companies.
Keyframe 1y ago
Having to do it at all is the hoop, and more than zero hoops is too many. For sure, but it's a KYC for companies. How else would you expect B2B dealings and compliance to go through? They could do tax ids per country, but with DUNS, compared to local tax id, they get global ultimate beneficial owner as well as other insights. Getting a DUNS is free and relatively fast, unless you're in a hurry then there's a faster route that costs some relatively cheap amount. It's a common ID for global companies, especially those with international supply chains to rely on as "the id number" for companies.
- freeone3000 1y ago
  > companies I’m not a company
  - arghwhat 1y ago
    You read that wrong, you're the customer in Google's KYC (know your customer). They're the company.
    - freeone3000 1y ago
      Did I? B2B dealings, DUNS number… none of these are for individuals. Is it the intention that individuals cannot write software for phones anymore?
      - arghwhat 1y ago
        DUNS numbers are for all legal entities including individuals, and an individual can act as a business.
        Keyframe 1y ago
        DUNS numbers are for all legal entities including individuals only if they do operate as a business through sole proprietorship, otherwise no.