8 ms·

Our company just got a warning that we have sixty days to release something on Play or have our developer console account closed. The email made it pretty clear

Our company just got a warning that we have sixty days to release something on Play or have our developer console account closed. The email made it pretty clear that Google wants developers to continuously push new versions to customers. We have no new features nor bug fixes in backlog. There is nothing to update. The only purpose of our software is to control hardware that our company makes. Nobody uses it for fun, they use it because they have to. If I had a say, I'd automate even larger parts of the customer workflow. (Yes, at first we released a mobile PWA but ran into limitations related to push notifications and MDM support. We then created the native app, but our customers cannot remotely load APKs not signed by Google).

echelon 1y ago
Google and Apple need to be regulated out of the app store business. They have no business doing this bullshit. It's time. Governments need to put an end to the app store.
- ok_dad 1y ago
  I’m with you, let us install programs like on a PC.
  - echelon 1y ago
    It wouldn't even be hard to achieve security: (1) sandboxing, (2) permissions system, (3) database of bad app signatures, (4) heuristics based monitoring. Most of this is already in place. There's no excuse except money and power.
    - owlbite 1y ago
      Because that's worked so well for PCs?
      - BlimpSpike 1y ago
        PCs don't have sandboxing or permissions.
        Marsymars 1y ago
        That’s a pretty broad statement, and sure, you can get an OS with neither, but broadly speaking modern operating systems that people use do have sandboxing and permissions.
      - ok_dad 1y ago
        In fact, I am using a PC right now that is working pretty well.
        nomel 1y ago
        Which specific heuristics based monitoring do you use? Is it tied to a for profit company?
    - nomel 1y ago
      > Most of this is already in place. No, it's in 10 different places.
throwaway743 1y ago
Could you just get away with modifying something small, uploading the update, then revert the change, and reupload? Either way, it's nonsense that they force this, especially for those who made an app however long ago and just uploaded and forgot about, or that version was the only one they intended to make. It's crazy how much Google gets away with bullying us.
- Loughla 1y ago
  Change font on One letter on one screen. Revert back 60 days later. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. It's a pain in the ass, but to be honest, I've been asked to do worse with my time.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
  Not OP, but depending on the industry, this could be enormous amounts of backend work. I have projects that needs to be validated, which effectively means a huge amount of human testing for any change. The Process is confirmed to work on version X.Y.Z and nothing else.
  - anilakar 1y ago
    Luckily there is no regulation in this industry, just demanding customers. The main issue is that we support way too many different workflows based on customer requirements and actual hardware configuration, and even a slight change to a component often means we have to do manual UX testing.
  - throwaway743 1y ago
    Ah interesting. Even so for like a small styling change?
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
      A change is a change. I have certainly made a few “safe, meaningless, no possible way it could break something” edits which blew up in some unexpected way. Why take the risk for some inconsequential update? Someone has to sign off on why this commit needs to be fast tracked outside the normal process.
nout 1y ago
You can update the version number and re-release. I think this may grant also adding the update note "Updated version number. Nothing else. Thank you Google".
- kazinator 1y ago
  Since they have 60 days to release something, they should have a dummy application which does nothing, but which just increments its version number.
  - mcny 1y ago
    I am not sure I quote ---- Limited Functionality and Content We do not allow apps that only have limited functionality and content. Here is an example of a common violation: Apps that are static without app-specific functionalities, for example, text only or PDF file apps Apps with very little content and that do not provide an engaging user experience, for example, single wallpaper apps Apps that are designed to do nothing or have no function https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/16070163?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
    - xigoi 1y ago
      Clearly Google has no problem with apps that are just a WebView wrapper over a website, so they could just create one of those. I think there are automated tools for that.
- serial_dev 1y ago
  My new startup idea: “upload the same release with a different version and build number about once a month till the end of times" as a service.
  - Y_Y 1y ago
    My new startup idea: malicious compliance as a service You forward us complaint emails and we create some AI slopscript that fulfils the least compliant interpretation of the rule it can think of. The goal would be to use automated nonsense to try to frustrate MBAs who have managed to burrow all the way to the brain of a tech giant and are now burdening humanity with their folly.
arghwhat 1y ago
[flagged]
- pyrale 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - lakomen 1y ago
    [dead]
  - bathtub365 1y ago
    At least they aren’t trying to claim a bug bounty :)
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - arghwhat 1y ago
    Only 15 years of experience in the field and now running a consultancy company, but what do I know.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- erikerikson 1y ago
  What is the threat vector here? User installs the game, has fun, uninstalls or leaves it there where only they can run it.
  - arghwhat 1y ago
    Sure if you never accept any external input of any sort and handles no user data or input, you can assume things are fine. But if that random game should, say, fetch user avatars from the web, then untrusted input to a way out of date image decoding library would be a nice path to a remote code execution vulnerability. Or if the app registers any intent handlers that other apps and websites can trigger, or establishes TLS connections to any third party site, or...
Arelius 1y ago
Ugh, on both mobile platforms, we have/had multiple popular games that their updates keep breaking, and they keep deprecating SDKs for. And each game is at on a different engine revision so we can't combone the work. We'd really like to keep these games up for for our mobile players, but we can't justify the cost, we make some money on these platforms, but nothing that justifies the immense cost. Meanwhile, our console/steam/gog builds have seen an update or so at our discretion, and have just continued to run happily, and make more money. Honestly it's hard to justify the maintenance effort to even consider porting out next games to mobile. But really the people who are hurt are our players that already bought our game, but when the upgrade phones or OSes they no longer have an option to play unless they want to transfer their licenses to PC.
godelski 1y ago
Imagine if we talked about other computers like we talked about phones. It's just so weird - you can only install programs from our approved package manager - if you make any transactions through your program, we'll take a 30% cut - you can't be access those files, you're not root - you got root?! We're going to fucking sue you (yeah, I know about the PS3...) - you can't change these settings - you can't access that hardware Why did we think this was a good idea? Smartphones aren't "smart" without the apps! These companies depend on developers. The developers gave them the "food" that allowed them to grow so big. They only gain from developers! They would still gain even if every developer cost them money. How the fuck do we think they got to be trillion dollar entities in the first place?! These companies have turned into scorpions[0]. It's myopic and they'll scream about how they're dying even though it's their own damn fault. These aren't just unavoidable things that are leading them to their deaths, but unreasonable. Foregoing larger future rewards (crossing the river) for short term ones (stinging). It is insanity. Especially as we often try to justify it [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
- ryu2k2 1y ago
  Don't worry. The time when our computers will be locked down the same way will come in our life time.
- mig39 1y ago
  It sounds like game consoles :-(
  - godelski 1y ago
    > It sounds like game consoles :-( >> - you got root?! We're going to fucking sue you (yeah, I know about the PS3...) It was wrong then too https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/if-you-used-to-run-linux-on-your-ps3-you-could-get-55-from-sony/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/if-you-used-to-r...
  - BobaFloutist 1y ago
    At least your bank, school, apartment, and airline aren't locking core services behind carrying a fucking PlayStation around with you. Consoles feel different because they're one-purpose machines. Sure, it's irritating if they hardcore a maximum fps or what have you, but it feels less offensive for them to be locked down. It's kind of like the difference of Disneyland having weird, restrictive, draconian rules versus just a public park. Which is also one of two brands of public parks in your city. That you also have to use to deposit checks.
llm_nerd 1y ago
I've had a Google developer console/play account for a decade+. Recently had to send some proof of identity stuff in their anti-spam thing -- which I did because who knows one day I might care about the account -- but I haven't released anything there in eight years. No threats of closing my account. Did they instead just warn that they would unpublish the app? Google does have minimum API levels that they slowly move forward, and they will unpublish your app if you don't periodically rebuild and resubmit.
- axus 1y ago
  They will suspend the account if you don't complete identity verification, though supposedly you can reinstate it if you disclose your personally identifiable information.
- mminer237 1y ago
  No, I got the same message. It was very clear that I had 60 days to publish a new app or an update or my entire developer account would be closed and I would have to apply and pay all over again. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/11605267?sjid=4284821390501027143-NA https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
  - llm_nerd 1y ago
    Ah, interesting. I guess it's that I did have a popular app on there (which was then removed after I completed a technology sale) and my details are verified.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"The email made it pretty clear that Google wants developers to continuously push new versions to customers." Why. It is not Google's software. Shouldn't that decision be left to the software author.
- redeux 1y ago
  I think it’s about optics. They don’t want their App Store to appear stagnant.
  - r0m4n0 1y ago
    I don't know if it's just optics. As a user, I personally don't want to see or download apps that are broken, neglected, or completely left for dead. Maintained apps are usually the best ones right?
    - fsckboy 1y ago
      >Maintained apps are usually the best ones right? microsoft windows has been maintained thru to the present, but has become increasingly unusable since Win 7. so, no, false.
      - hedora 1y ago
        Win 3.1 is more usable for me than it has been in years. I’m considering giving Win 98 or even XP another spin. Similarly, modern third party windows software runs better than ever. Of course, I run it all under Linux…
      - r0m4n0 1y ago
        One example doesn't prove that statement false. I said usually. But also I'm not sure that's a great example anyway because I'm sure most people would want to find Microsoft apps on the app store regardless of what you think about their "usability" or maintenance. Usability is a different metric that's more arbitrary
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
chinathrow 1y ago
Apple sent the exact same thing out to a just-working-fine app I maintain in the App Store.
- fsckboy 1y ago
  well, now you can update it to include links to things customers can buy outside the Apple ecosystem
nashashmi 1y ago
Google should delist the app from search rather than remove it entirely from the play store for old stale apps.
crazygringo 1y ago
Are you sure you don't rely on any third-party libraries that have been updated for security reasons? Are you sure there's no Android API being deprecated that you're still using? I sympathize with the general idea that software that hasn't been updated in a long time is more likely to contain bugs and incompatibilities with newest OS versions. Whenever I've opened ancient apps on my iPhone or my Mac, they generally break either partially or entirely. In your case I understand it might genuinely not need updates. But across the Play store as a whole, it seems like a largely beneficial policy. If there really aren't any dependencies that can/should be updated, surely you can make a tiny change to a text string somewhere, and get the added benefit of making sure your whole build chain still works? I get that it's annoying, but it really is valuable to weed out the truly unmaintained apps.
- Gamemaster1379 1y ago
  No, Google is being aggressive likely due to liability. I made an Android app that used React Native and it was the simplest thing ever. It had no auth, no telemetry, no persisted storage. Quite literally all it did was take text input and output it's braille equivalent and vice versa. Had another one that made procedurally generated credits like you'd see at the end of a game. Same thing. No auth, no telemetry, etc. I made a total of $3.97 for those apps. I did also receive a $350 settlement for some class action lawsuit Google lost about something they did to developers. Closing my account removes me from potential future class action pools.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  No, as someone that did Android development in the past, and still follows Android development due to its Java linage, and being a managed OS for the most part, that isn't the case. Google has become very aggressive, you need to keep updating the apps, to specific SDK versions, even if there are zero changes to your own application in terms of what APIs got changed. Otherwise it gets removed from PlayStore.
klysm 1y ago
Automate pushing an update every week with no changes other than a bit flipping back and forth or something. If they want to set up stupid shit then they get to get stupid shit
jbverschoor 1y ago
Release-make sure it works on latest toolkit. Shows you’re alive
ashoeafoot 1y ago
Its just a proof of a working company behind the app ? add a lorem ipsum string with a reference on it, inc version and re release?

echelon 1y ago

Google and Apple need to be regulated out of the app store business. They have no business doing this bullshit. It's time. Governments need to put an end to the app store.

ok_dad 1y ago
I’m with you, let us install programs like on a PC.
- echelon 1y ago
  It wouldn't even be hard to achieve security: (1) sandboxing, (2) permissions system, (3) database of bad app signatures, (4) heuristics based monitoring. Most of this is already in place. There's no excuse except money and power.
  - owlbite 1y ago
    Because that's worked so well for PCs?
    - BlimpSpike 1y ago
      PCs don't have sandboxing or permissions.
      - Marsymars 1y ago
        That’s a pretty broad statement, and sure, you can get an OS with neither, but broadly speaking modern operating systems that people use do have sandboxing and permissions.
    - ok_dad 1y ago
      In fact, I am using a PC right now that is working pretty well.
      - nomel 1y ago
        Which specific heuristics based monitoring do you use? Is it tied to a for profit company?
  - nomel 1y ago
    > Most of this is already in place. No, it's in 10 different places.

throwaway743 1y ago

Could you just get away with modifying something small, uploading the update, then revert the change, and reupload? Either way, it's nonsense that they force this, especially for those who made an app however long ago and just uploaded and forgot about, or that version was the only one they intended to make. It's crazy how much Google gets away with bullying us.

Loughla 1y ago
Change font on One letter on one screen. Revert back 60 days later. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. It's a pain in the ass, but to be honest, I've been asked to do worse with my time.
0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
Not OP, but depending on the industry, this could be enormous amounts of backend work. I have projects that needs to be validated, which effectively means a huge amount of human testing for any change. The Process is confirmed to work on version X.Y.Z and nothing else.
- anilakar 1y ago
  Luckily there is no regulation in this industry, just demanding customers. The main issue is that we support way too many different workflows based on customer requirements and actual hardware configuration, and even a slight change to a component often means we have to do manual UX testing.
- throwaway743 1y ago
  Ah interesting. Even so for like a small styling change?
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
    A change is a change. I have certainly made a few “safe, meaningless, no possible way it could break something” edits which blew up in some unexpected way. Why take the risk for some inconsequential update? Someone has to sign off on why this commit needs to be fast tracked outside the normal process.

nout 1y ago

You can update the version number and re-release. I think this may grant also adding the update note "Updated version number. Nothing else. Thank you Google".

kazinator 1y ago
Since they have 60 days to release something, they should have a dummy application which does nothing, but which just increments its version number.
- mcny 1y ago
  I am not sure I quote ---- Limited Functionality and Content We do not allow apps that only have limited functionality and content. Here is an example of a common violation: Apps that are static without app-specific functionalities, for example, text only or PDF file apps Apps with very little content and that do not provide an engaging user experience, for example, single wallpaper apps Apps that are designed to do nothing or have no function https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/16070163?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
  - xigoi 1y ago
    Clearly Google has no problem with apps that are just a WebView wrapper over a website, so they could just create one of those. I think there are automated tools for that.
serial_dev 1y ago
My new startup idea: “upload the same release with a different version and build number about once a month till the end of times" as a service.
- Y_Y 1y ago
  My new startup idea: malicious compliance as a service You forward us complaint emails and we create some AI slopscript that fulfils the least compliant interpretation of the rule it can think of. The goal would be to use automated nonsense to try to frustrate MBAs who have managed to burrow all the way to the brain of a tech giant and are now burdening humanity with their folly.

arghwhat 1y ago

[flagged]

pyrale 1y ago
[flagged]
- lakomen 1y ago
  [dead]
- bathtub365 1y ago
  At least they aren’t trying to claim a bug bounty :)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- arghwhat 1y ago
  Only 15 years of experience in the field and now running a consultancy company, but what do I know.
- tomhow 1y ago
  Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
erikerikson 1y ago
What is the threat vector here? User installs the game, has fun, uninstalls or leaves it there where only they can run it.
- arghwhat 1y ago
  Sure if you never accept any external input of any sort and handles no user data or input, you can assume things are fine. But if that random game should, say, fetch user avatars from the web, then untrusted input to a way out of date image decoding library would be a nice path to a remote code execution vulnerability. Or if the app registers any intent handlers that other apps and websites can trigger, or establishes TLS connections to any third party site, or...

Arelius 1y ago

Ugh, on both mobile platforms, we have/had multiple popular games that their updates keep breaking, and they keep deprecating SDKs for. And each game is at on a different engine revision so we can't combone the work. We'd really like to keep these games up for for our mobile players, but we can't justify the cost, we make some money on these platforms, but nothing that justifies the immense cost. Meanwhile, our console/steam/gog builds have seen an update or so at our discretion, and have just continued to run happily, and make more money. Honestly it's hard to justify the maintenance effort to even consider porting out next games to mobile. But really the people who are hurt are our players that already bought our game, but when the upgrade phones or OSes they no longer have an option to play unless they want to transfer their licenses to PC.

godelski 1y ago

Imagine if we talked about other computers like we talked about phones. It's just so weird - you can only install programs from our approved package manager - if you make any transactions through your program, we'll take a 30% cut - you can't be access those files, you're not root - you got root?! We're going to fucking sue you (yeah, I know about the PS3...) - you can't change these settings - you can't access that hardware Why did we think this was a good idea? Smartphones aren't "smart" without the apps! These companies depend on developers. The developers gave them the "food" that allowed them to grow so big. They only gain from developers! They would still gain even if every developer cost them money. How the fuck do we think they got to be trillion dollar entities in the first place?! These companies have turned into scorpions[0]. It's myopic and they'll scream about how they're dying even though it's their own damn fault. These aren't just unavoidable things that are leading them to their deaths, but unreasonable. Foregoing larger future rewards (crossing the river) for short term ones (stinging). It is insanity. Especially as we often try to justify it [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

ryu2k2 1y ago
Don't worry. The time when our computers will be locked down the same way will come in our life time.
mig39 1y ago
It sounds like game consoles :-(
- godelski 1y ago
  > It sounds like game consoles :-( >> - you got root?! We're going to fucking sue you (yeah, I know about the PS3...) It was wrong then too https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/if-you-used-to-run-linux-on-your-ps3-you-could-get-55-from-sony/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/if-you-used-to-r...
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  At least your bank, school, apartment, and airline aren't locking core services behind carrying a fucking PlayStation around with you. Consoles feel different because they're one-purpose machines. Sure, it's irritating if they hardcore a maximum fps or what have you, but it feels less offensive for them to be locked down. It's kind of like the difference of Disneyland having weird, restrictive, draconian rules versus just a public park. Which is also one of two brands of public parks in your city. That you also have to use to deposit checks.

llm_nerd 1y ago

I've had a Google developer console/play account for a decade+. Recently had to send some proof of identity stuff in their anti-spam thing -- which I did because who knows one day I might care about the account -- but I haven't released anything there in eight years. No threats of closing my account. Did they instead just warn that they would unpublish the app? Google does have minimum API levels that they slowly move forward, and they will unpublish your app if you don't periodically rebuild and resubmit.

axus 1y ago
They will suspend the account if you don't complete identity verification, though supposedly you can reinstate it if you disclose your personally identifiable information.
mminer237 1y ago
No, I got the same message. It was very clear that I had 60 days to publish a new app or an update or my entire developer account would be closed and I would have to apply and pay all over again. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/11605267?sjid=4284821390501027143-NA https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
- llm_nerd 1y ago
  Ah, interesting. I guess it's that I did have a popular app on there (which was then removed after I completed a technology sale) and my details are verified.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

"The email made it pretty clear that Google wants developers to continuously push new versions to customers." Why. It is not Google's software. Shouldn't that decision be left to the software author.

redeux 1y ago
I think it’s about optics. They don’t want their App Store to appear stagnant.
- r0m4n0 1y ago
  I don't know if it's just optics. As a user, I personally don't want to see or download apps that are broken, neglected, or completely left for dead. Maintained apps are usually the best ones right?
  - fsckboy 1y ago
    >Maintained apps are usually the best ones right? microsoft windows has been maintained thru to the present, but has become increasingly unusable since Win 7. so, no, false.
    - hedora 1y ago
      Win 3.1 is more usable for me than it has been in years. I’m considering giving Win 98 or even XP another spin. Similarly, modern third party windows software runs better than ever. Of course, I run it all under Linux…
    - r0m4n0 1y ago
      One example doesn't prove that statement false. I said usually. But also I'm not sure that's a great example anyway because I'm sure most people would want to find Microsoft apps on the app store regardless of what you think about their "usability" or maintenance. Usability is a different metric that's more arbitrary
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

chinathrow 1y ago

Apple sent the exact same thing out to a just-working-fine app I maintain in the App Store.

fsckboy 1y ago
well, now you can update it to include links to things customers can buy outside the Apple ecosystem

nashashmi 1y ago

Google should delist the app from search rather than remove it entirely from the play store for old stale apps.

crazygringo 1y ago

Are you sure you don't rely on any third-party libraries that have been updated for security reasons? Are you sure there's no Android API being deprecated that you're still using? I sympathize with the general idea that software that hasn't been updated in a long time is more likely to contain bugs and incompatibilities with newest OS versions. Whenever I've opened ancient apps on my iPhone or my Mac, they generally break either partially or entirely. In your case I understand it might genuinely not need updates. But across the Play store as a whole, it seems like a largely beneficial policy. If there really aren't any dependencies that can/should be updated, surely you can make a tiny change to a text string somewhere, and get the added benefit of making sure your whole build chain still works? I get that it's annoying, but it really is valuable to weed out the truly unmaintained apps.

Gamemaster1379 1y ago
No, Google is being aggressive likely due to liability. I made an Android app that used React Native and it was the simplest thing ever. It had no auth, no telemetry, no persisted storage. Quite literally all it did was take text input and output it's braille equivalent and vice versa. Had another one that made procedurally generated credits like you'd see at the end of a game. Same thing. No auth, no telemetry, etc. I made a total of $3.97 for those apps. I did also receive a $350 settlement for some class action lawsuit Google lost about something they did to developers. Closing my account removes me from potential future class action pools.
pjmlp 1y ago
No, as someone that did Android development in the past, and still follows Android development due to its Java linage, and being a managed OS for the most part, that isn't the case. Google has become very aggressive, you need to keep updating the apps, to specific SDK versions, even if there are zero changes to your own application in terms of what APIs got changed. Otherwise it gets removed from PlayStore.

klysm 1y ago

Automate pushing an update every week with no changes other than a bit flipping back and forth or something. If they want to set up stupid shit then they get to get stupid shit

jbverschoor 1y ago

Release-make sure it works on latest toolkit. Shows you’re alive

ashoeafoot 1y ago

Its just a proof of a working company behind the app ? add a lorem ipsum string with a reference on it, inc version and re release?