My app just got removed with no prior warning(javierantonsblog.blogspot.com)
javierantonsblog.blogspot.com
My app just got removed with no prior warning
https://javierantonsblog.blogspot.com/2021/07/my-app-just-got-removed-with-no-prior.html
129 comments
> I guarantee bad actors would remove unpermitted functionality right before the review, and put it back after.
Outside of a dynamic feature flag setup, this would be trivial to detect as Google and Apple completely control the submission process.
Outside of a dynamic feature flag setup, this would be trivial to detect as Google and Apple completely control the submission process.
I once used a very dumb feature flag set up to get around a rule an Apple reviewer told us were breaking, just for review period. The supposed rule violation was around for a year and no one had flagged it except for this one reviewer, and they were clearly interpreting the policy wrong. Easier to make a flag to appease then try and work up the management review chain.
This wasn't malware or anything like that, but goes to show limits of automated review.
This wasn't malware or anything like that, but goes to show limits of automated review.
That's so great--when you do 100 submissions, you're sure to get some really bad reviewer who is just trying to improve their metrics. We had to take out a bunch of functionality to get it approved... didn't want to spend time fighting up the chain and the upper folks don't even care.
Almost had to do this too. Luckily the part of the app that was in violation was just a web view and the plan was to just hide that part of the page until after it went live. And with OTA updates apps can get a surprisingly large amount around the review process. Although you risk being banned if they catch you!
> And with OTA updates apps can get a surprisingly large amount around the review process.
Right, which is exactly why the OP's suggestion would not work, that Apple should always tell you in advance when they plan to do post-release review.
Right, which is exactly why the OP's suggestion would not work, that Apple should always tell you in advance when they plan to do post-release review.
It doesn't seem like there's a single reviewer involved. Whenever we've encountered this behavior with reviewers blocking, simply resubmitting seems to "fix" the issue.
Any mobile dev can just setup firebase remote config and get a "dynamic feature flag" setup for free, with no backend experience required. Then add a few if statements, turn it off during your review period and back on when done.
Go one small step further and disable the offending feature during review only for the next build version and you don't even disrupt existing users.
Go one small step further and disable the offending feature during review only for the next build version and you don't even disrupt existing users.
No it wouldn't. Have the bad functionality behind a DNS lookup. It fails, app behaves.
Developer can change flag and there's little Google/Apple/Amazon can do about it.
Developer can change flag and there's little Google/Apple/Amazon can do about it.
Apple and Google only review the code that runs.......?!
Apps are allowed to load remote resources.
Your app can be rejected for talking about off-app payment, but how is a reviewer going to find that if it's talked about in a helpdesk document that's fetched via a HTTP call to a remote server and is temporarily edited to remove that paragraph?
Your app can be rejected for talking about off-app payment, but how is a reviewer going to find that if it's talked about in a helpdesk document that's fetched via a HTTP call to a remote server and is temporarily edited to remove that paragraph?
Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't Google/Apple have the ability to examine compiled code as hosted on their servers? This implies Google/Apple themselves can perform static and dynamic analysis at their leisure. There is therefore no concept of "remove just before" or otherwise a form of slight-of-hand.
Are we still operating under the illusion that Google/Apple have no capability for having suitable tooling around this? I find it difficult to believe. Especially for finding unofficial api use and similar shenanigans.
Are we still operating under the illusion that Google/Apple have no capability for having suitable tooling around this? I find it difficult to believe. Especially for finding unofficial api use and similar shenanigans.
The proposal in the OP is again:
> App stores should review apps at set frequencies. Developers should know the expected date for their next review so that they can prepare for unexpected consequences that require direct action.
So that would introduce the concept of "remove just before", if stores limited review to expected dates, and developers knew the expected date of review.
> App stores should review apps at set frequencies. Developers should know the expected date for their next review so that they can prepare for unexpected consequences that require direct action.
So that would introduce the concept of "remove just before", if stores limited review to expected dates, and developers knew the expected date of review.
Are we expected to sympathize with an app that's siphoning off sensitive user data from phones without informing the user? Seems shady.
Your main website says:
* Data is never kept online
* No ads, no affiliate marketers, and no creepy tracking
* No phone number is required; No need to share your phone book. Only need an email address (can be masked)
But your privacy policy says:
* For a better experience while using our Service, we may require you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information, including but not limited to your name and email address.
* We may employ third-party companies and individuals
* We want to inform our Service users that these third parties have access to your Personal Information.
Kind of ridiculous IMO that you can get away with doing that just by adding an additional link in your app.
Your main website says:
* Data is never kept online
* No ads, no affiliate marketers, and no creepy tracking
* No phone number is required; No need to share your phone book. Only need an email address (can be masked)
But your privacy policy says:
* For a better experience while using our Service, we may require you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information, including but not limited to your name and email address.
* We may employ third-party companies and individuals
* We want to inform our Service users that these third parties have access to your Personal Information.
Kind of ridiculous IMO that you can get away with doing that just by adding an additional link in your app.
It also doesn't say who the agreement is with. It says it's a company, but there's no company number or registered address.
In the UK (which is the claimed jurisdiction) this is a legal requirement for websites.
In the UK (which is the claimed jurisdiction) this is a legal requirement for websites.
Thanks, corrected
Seems like a pretty boilerplate privacy policy. When in doubt cover your own ass.
Privacy policies are just a waste of time anyways, bad actors are going to act bad regardless of any "policy" they have in place.
Not to mention the policy is not necessarily a contract.
Privacy policies are just a waste of time anyways, bad actors are going to act bad regardless of any "policy" they have in place.
Not to mention the policy is not necessarily a contract.
You are not required :)
*Data is never kept online -》 this is written next to the E2EE chat, not user accounts. E2EE msg data is not kept online
I don't employ any 3rd parties, but included that just in case. It is a word-for-word copy of a sentence in ProtonMail's privacy policy
The email address can be masked and the name and surname can be made up or left blank
*Data is never kept online -》 this is written next to the E2EE chat, not user accounts. E2EE msg data is not kept online
I don't employ any 3rd parties, but included that just in case. It is a word-for-word copy of a sentence in ProtonMail's privacy policy
The email address can be masked and the name and surname can be made up or left blank
If you don't employ third parties then presumably you could have chosen not to copy that part of protonmail's privacy policy.
I am not a lawyer and don't know how wide "3rd parties" can refer to. Is my cloud provider a 3rd party? If there is a lawyer here who can advise that it is safe to do I will remove it
Don't take legal advice from Internet lawyers; don't take business advice from your competitors.
Hire somebody knowledgeable to review your privacy policy and terms of service.
Hire somebody knowledgeable to review your privacy policy and terms of service.
Have you ever hired a lawyer to review a privacy policy / ToS? It costs thousands of dollars.
So? Lots of things cost money. It almost sounds like you're advocating for a cheap short-cut. It's bad in code, it's bad in legal dealings
Yes, I am 100% advocating for a cheap shortcut when it makes sense. The vast majority of projects will not find success and do not warrant thousands of dollars of investment when a boilerplate ToS / PP will do. OP did the due diligence of at least reading through and trying to understand theirs. I do not think it is appropriate to grill them about it, hence my comment.
Do a cost/benefit analysis. Choices:
1. Write good docs and get them reviewed.
2. Write good docs (as far as you know) and skip review.
3. Copy docs off the net from someone else, get them reviewed.
4. Copy docs off the net, no review.
5. Write "Coming Soon!" for each doc and don't do anything about it until you have customers to justify it; then pick another option from 1-4.
1. Write good docs and get them reviewed.
2. Write good docs (as far as you know) and skip review.
3. Copy docs off the net from someone else, get them reviewed.
4. Copy docs off the net, no review.
5. Write "Coming Soon!" for each doc and don't do anything about it until you have customers to justify it; then pick another option from 1-4.
Probably shouldn't be running a public service with a privacy policy and no lawyer.
What horribly impractical advice. I mean, in theory, sure, but retaining a lawyer because you run a small public service? Nah.
I think the point being made is that the company shouldn't be making up legally binding agreements (the privacy policy) without consultation.
Here in the UK you can create and run a company with no lawyers and no accountants. I am originally from Spain where doing anything requires lawyers, notaries, and loads of cash. That results in a petrified business class. I was lucky to have business oriented parents that taught me concepts related to taxation, employment law etc. But I appreciate the LibDem's move years ago to cut paperwork and am happy for it
And if too small/cheap to have consulted a solicitor, are you really saying none is better than 'made up'?
Worst case is what, you miss something you should've included and it bites you? Something you thought covered you turned out not to be binding (because it's otherwise illegal or too narrowly defined or whatever)?
Seems to me many small side projects or whatever would do well (and zero harm) to 'make up' user agreements sooner.
Worst case is what, you miss something you should've included and it bites you? Something you thought covered you turned out not to be binding (because it's otherwise illegal or too narrowly defined or whatever)?
Seems to me many small side projects or whatever would do well (and zero harm) to 'make up' user agreements sooner.
If you are asking for my opinion, I'd suggest not going anywhere near PII without legal consultation.
[deleted]
Can you guarantee that you are handling data the way that ProtonMail does? Do you know how ProtonMail handles its data?
A privacy policy is not just some mumbo-jumbo where you just need to get the words right. The words need to be in correspondence with your actions. Copying someone else's words is not a recipe for success because those words are in accordance with their actions. Even if the privacy policy is compliant for them, the same policy can be non-compliant for you.
A privacy policy is not just some mumbo-jumbo where you just need to get the words right. The words need to be in correspondence with your actions. Copying someone else's words is not a recipe for success because those words are in accordance with their actions. Even if the privacy policy is compliant for them, the same policy can be non-compliant for you.
OP will have to speak for themselves, but the policy looks like boilerplate I've had to include for 3rd party crash reporting services.
So if the stack trace for a null pointer somehow vaguely includes some kind of PII as a side effect of reporting the crash, the privacy policy needs to cover their behind.
So if the stack trace for a null pointer somehow vaguely includes some kind of PII as a side effect of reporting the crash, the privacy policy needs to cover their behind.
> 1) Unexpectedly pulling an app with no warning and then imposing a 7-day review period is not reasonable. OK, my app only has tens of thousands of downloads.
No, no. Don't apologize. Would you expect Google to remove twitter's app with no prior notice? How about a U.S. government app? Why should you expect different treatment from Google than Twitter et al.?
Google has to provide a consistent and responsive experience for any company who is using their rather monopolistic marketplace to distribute their app. That they don't in all cases should concern even regulators. They can greatly distort the market in undesirable, noncompetitive directions for the economy.
No, no. Don't apologize. Would you expect Google to remove twitter's app with no prior notice? How about a U.S. government app? Why should you expect different treatment from Google than Twitter et al.?
Google has to provide a consistent and responsive experience for any company who is using their rather monopolistic marketplace to distribute their app. That they don't in all cases should concern even regulators. They can greatly distort the market in undesirable, noncompetitive directions for the economy.
> Why should you expect different treatment from Google than Twitter et al.?
Twitter and the US government are well known and are very unlikely to turn rogue (i.e. cash out or sell the app to a shady advertising company). This base trust does not exist for a small, unknown developer.
I can see why this is a bit unfair, but having the same treatment for well-known, trusted entities and first time submitters will lead to either extreme unreliability or a flood of scams.
Twitter and the US government are well known and are very unlikely to turn rogue (i.e. cash out or sell the app to a shady advertising company). This base trust does not exist for a small, unknown developer.
I can see why this is a bit unfair, but having the same treatment for well-known, trusted entities and first time submitters will lead to either extreme unreliability or a flood of scams.
Interesting, because Twitter didn't sell to shady advertisimg company, they became shady advertising company with PII gobbling and dark practices.
It is also interesting you say about givernment (although my beef isn't with USG), because my givernment has tons of shady apps that leak sensitive PII left and right, and nobody cares..
It is also interesting you say about givernment (although my beef isn't with USG), because my givernment has tons of shady apps that leak sensitive PII left and right, and nobody cares..
You’re totally right. The government always can be trusted to surveil its populace through only legal means. And large corporations would never break the law when they think the consequences will cost less than the profits to be made.
Just want to clarify that it had been on the Play Store for 3 to 4 years before they did this and had reached a couple dozen thousand downloads
> Why should you expect different treatment from Google than Twitter et al.?
Well, because you aren't twitter. Expecting google to treat indie dev the same as multibillion dollar corporations would be stupid. World isn't fair place and crying after fairness is often waste of time.
This kind of blog post might affect the situation and I think it makes sense to make it in polite way. However my default assumption would be that no one inside google will do anything about this, because thats how giant corporations work.
Well, because you aren't twitter. Expecting google to treat indie dev the same as multibillion dollar corporations would be stupid. World isn't fair place and crying after fairness is often waste of time.
This kind of blog post might affect the situation and I think it makes sense to make it in polite way. However my default assumption would be that no one inside google will do anything about this, because thats how giant corporations work.
Please sir can I have some more?
Demanding some level of fairness in specific well thought out regulation is exactly the solution to a lot of these problems. It's a tried and true method of reeling in bad actors and imposing some checks and balances.
Realistically, no you can't expect to get the attention of Twitter, but officially it must be the case that they have to at least give real effort to maintaining some measurable level of equality amongst customers.
The actual question is why Google or Apple's App Store is special? Why can a bank pick and choose who they give loans to but the app walled gardens are in the wrong. I think we probably have the same general idea about this question, but I don't have a really solid answer.
Anyway, I feel compelled to rebel a bit, so just remember kids. Fuck the system, don't be polite, and fight for what you know deep down is right.
MOOORE!?
Demanding some level of fairness in specific well thought out regulation is exactly the solution to a lot of these problems. It's a tried and true method of reeling in bad actors and imposing some checks and balances.
Realistically, no you can't expect to get the attention of Twitter, but officially it must be the case that they have to at least give real effort to maintaining some measurable level of equality amongst customers.
The actual question is why Google or Apple's App Store is special? Why can a bank pick and choose who they give loans to but the app walled gardens are in the wrong. I think we probably have the same general idea about this question, but I don't have a really solid answer.
Anyway, I feel compelled to rebel a bit, so just remember kids. Fuck the system, don't be polite, and fight for what you know deep down is right.
MOOORE!?
> The actual question is why Google or Apple's App Store is special? Why can a bank pick and choose who they give loans to but the app walled gardens are in the wrong. I think we probably have the same general idea about this question, but I don't have a really solid answer.
Because they have spent untold millions since 2008 buying ads telling consumers that apps are the only way. Flash is dangerous. PWAs are dangerous. Never mind that our app uses Facebook SDK, requires GPS, mic and camera access for 'essential services'.
Because they have spent untold millions since 2008 buying ads telling consumers that apps are the only way. Flash is dangerous. PWAs are dangerous. Never mind that our app uses Facebook SDK, requires GPS, mic and camera access for 'essential services'.
> PWAs are dangerous.
I've never seen that one from Google, and both iOS, Android and Chrome have pretty good support for PWAs. Source: we discontinued our mobile apps for a PWA. It's been great.
I've never seen that one from Google, and both iOS, Android and Chrome have pretty good support for PWAs. Source: we discontinued our mobile apps for a PWA. It's been great.
If you want to implement basic functionality like push notifications in your PWA[1], Apple has gone out of their way to not implement them in Safari, and they prevent other browser engines from being distributed on the App Store.
The marketing line and apologetics imply that it's dangerous for PWAs to implement that basic functionality, therefore it's a good thing that PWAs are hobbled on iOS.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26520148
The marketing line and apologetics imply that it's dangerous for PWAs to implement that basic functionality, therefore it's a good thing that PWAs are hobbled on iOS.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26520148
What? Google spends (idk how much) money promoting PWAs. Just look at https://web.dev
Sure, maybe the Android division has a strategic preference for Android apps, but.. what would you expect, really?
Sure, maybe the Android division has a strategic preference for Android apps, but.. what would you expect, really?
I think we both know that just because Google has a website about something, doesn't necessarily mean that they invest time, resources and organizational will into making it succesful.
When Google was courting developers to build for Android, they threw every possible financial incentive at them to get those app store numbers up. There are no such incentives for PWAs.
When Google was courting developers to build for Android, they threw every possible financial incentive at them to get those app store numbers up. There are no such incentives for PWAs.
This isn't how it works.
Every business tranches it's partners and customers, it's both fair and normative.
If you a a huge customer of XYZ, they're going to treat you differently than if you're not.
As long as they are acting within their own guidelines etc. then this is fine.
I think G. should probably give some notice for GPlay violations, but in my experience they do for these things.
If you don't have a 'Privacy' URL in your GPlay listing that's going to have been flagged for a while in my experience.
Every business tranches it's partners and customers, it's both fair and normative.
If you a a huge customer of XYZ, they're going to treat you differently than if you're not.
As long as they are acting within their own guidelines etc. then this is fine.
I think G. should probably give some notice for GPlay violations, but in my experience they do for these things.
If you don't have a 'Privacy' URL in your GPlay listing that's going to have been flagged for a while in my experience.
This comment, and the truth within it, causes me to think of Stallman.
Aside discoverability, usability and the messaging problem of selling libre software to Mom, proprietary software and walled gardens will just do this to people.
At this time in history there is not really a viable option to access the huge market of app stores with de facto monopolies of the app ecosystem aside from hoping some multinational corporation won't capriciously squash your vulnerable sapling beneath its crocs or birkenstock on its way to exercise some stock options.
The app developers are barely a blip on corporate radars, they don't see 10k users of an app as valuable at all--but this person sure does! Javier probably feels this as much as google, apple, etc would an antitrust suit. Probably more, as unlike them, he has not prepared a multi-million dollar legal defense.
Even though F-Droid is available and those apps are usable and often very good, individuals are basically beholden to this garbage!
Of course he doesn't expect to be treated fairly, this blog concludes that it is unreasonable to yank his side project app and that he has no recourse because of the way that the app ecosystem is. I don't know how these state of affairs can be improved, quickly, but I hope it is possible.
Aside discoverability, usability and the messaging problem of selling libre software to Mom, proprietary software and walled gardens will just do this to people.
At this time in history there is not really a viable option to access the huge market of app stores with de facto monopolies of the app ecosystem aside from hoping some multinational corporation won't capriciously squash your vulnerable sapling beneath its crocs or birkenstock on its way to exercise some stock options.
The app developers are barely a blip on corporate radars, they don't see 10k users of an app as valuable at all--but this person sure does! Javier probably feels this as much as google, apple, etc would an antitrust suit. Probably more, as unlike them, he has not prepared a multi-million dollar legal defense.
Even though F-Droid is available and those apps are usable and often very good, individuals are basically beholden to this garbage!
Of course he doesn't expect to be treated fairly, this blog concludes that it is unreasonable to yank his side project app and that he has no recourse because of the way that the app ecosystem is. I don't know how these state of affairs can be improved, quickly, but I hope it is possible.
Thanks
Overall, I am optimistic about the future. I don't expect developing solo will make financial sense anytime soon, but I imagine the scales have to start turning at some point
The current treatment we get from Apple and Google is beyond belief. We add value to their respective platforms almost for free, and what little we make they take a fee from it. To top it off, Apple even charges us to be able to work for them. And then we get shown "our place" when they do things like what they just did to me
But as a collective, developers have a lot to gain if we get organized
Overall, I am optimistic about the future. I don't expect developing solo will make financial sense anytime soon, but I imagine the scales have to start turning at some point
The current treatment we get from Apple and Google is beyond belief. We add value to their respective platforms almost for free, and what little we make they take a fee from it. To top it off, Apple even charges us to be able to work for them. And then we get shown "our place" when they do things like what they just did to me
But as a collective, developers have a lot to gain if we get organized
Here here!
I think this is reasonable. The bigger the entity is, the more likely it is to act predictably like a corporation, with fleets of lawyers and boards of directors and general risk-aversion. Smaller corps and indie devs have different risk tolerances, and thus act differently.
But also, bigger corps are bigger revenue streams for Google. Google has less to lose by alienating indie devs than Twitter.
But also, bigger corps are bigger revenue streams for Google. Google has less to lose by alienating indie devs than Twitter.
an indie app isn't the same as an official app of a large public company or an official app of the world's largest economy.
Apple does the same, so Google does too.
What came first, an Abusive Apple or an Abusive Google?
I can't help to think how much better the mobile world would be with Microsoft vs Google. I wonder what would be the great difference? Right now it's Veblen good vs utility.
Whatever the case, at least you still can use apk.
What came first, an Abusive Apple or an Abusive Google?
I can't help to think how much better the mobile world would be with Microsoft vs Google. I wonder what would be the great difference? Right now it's Veblen good vs utility.
Whatever the case, at least you still can use apk.
> That they don't in all cases should concern even regulators.
only if the gov defines it as a monopol.
> Google has to provide a consistent and responsive experience for any company who is using their rather monopolistic marketplace to distribute their app.
If you assume it is not monopolistic, they can do whatever they want and for example prefer bigger clients.
only if the gov defines it as a monopol.
> Google has to provide a consistent and responsive experience for any company who is using their rather monopolistic marketplace to distribute their app.
If you assume it is not monopolistic, they can do whatever they want and for example prefer bigger clients.
People need to realize that these walled garden lock ins are the worst thing ever in our industry.
To be honest, I would think twice nowadays if I wanted to do invest my precious life in developing an iOS app and have my income derived from that. If the gatekeeper is unhappy, they can kill my livelihood without any recourse.
Same thing is happening in the ecommerce space with Amazon: they can ban your seller account without any reason and you lose all the revenue and your funds get frozen.
Shoot first, ask questions later. Thats whats going on here and threatening good businesses and individuals who have invested time and money into these platforms.
So if you think that these monopoly platforms should not be regulated properly, think about these scenarios. And Im not buying the “security” argument that always gets thrown around.
To be honest, I would think twice nowadays if I wanted to do invest my precious life in developing an iOS app and have my income derived from that. If the gatekeeper is unhappy, they can kill my livelihood without any recourse.
Same thing is happening in the ecommerce space with Amazon: they can ban your seller account without any reason and you lose all the revenue and your funds get frozen.
Shoot first, ask questions later. Thats whats going on here and threatening good businesses and individuals who have invested time and money into these platforms.
So if you think that these monopoly platforms should not be regulated properly, think about these scenarios. And Im not buying the “security” argument that always gets thrown around.
> To be honest, I would think twice nowadays if I wanted to do invest my precious life in developing an iOS app and have my income derived from that. If the gatekeeper is unhappy, they can kill my livelihood without any recourse.
Don't worry, Apple has predicted your concerns, and has made sure that PWAs can't implement basic functionality[1] that native apps can. You're practically forced to write native apps for mobile users because of it.
But I am in the same boat. I have several open source macOS apps that the gatekeeper is making difficult to distribute without paying a $100 a year Apple tax. If you don't pay the Apple tax, then macOS treats your app as if it's radioactive, and refuses to run it unless users know how to perform a magic ritual that bypasses Gatekeeper.
There are iOS and Android apps that I'd like to develop, but I'm not going to bother for two reasons. The first is that the App Store and the Play Store have encouraged a race to the bottom for mobile app pricing, and consumers expect apps to either be free or costs a dollar or two. The mobile app store distribution model has broken the paid upgrade model for apps, the same payment model that is alive and well on desktops. The second reason is that Apple or Google are capricious, and my potential mobile app can only exist at their whims. There is also no guarantee that either company won't rip off the apps, either.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26520148
Don't worry, Apple has predicted your concerns, and has made sure that PWAs can't implement basic functionality[1] that native apps can. You're practically forced to write native apps for mobile users because of it.
But I am in the same boat. I have several open source macOS apps that the gatekeeper is making difficult to distribute without paying a $100 a year Apple tax. If you don't pay the Apple tax, then macOS treats your app as if it's radioactive, and refuses to run it unless users know how to perform a magic ritual that bypasses Gatekeeper.
There are iOS and Android apps that I'd like to develop, but I'm not going to bother for two reasons. The first is that the App Store and the Play Store have encouraged a race to the bottom for mobile app pricing, and consumers expect apps to either be free or costs a dollar or two. The mobile app store distribution model has broken the paid upgrade model for apps, the same payment model that is alive and well on desktops. The second reason is that Apple or Google are capricious, and my potential mobile app can only exist at their whims. There is also no guarantee that either company won't rip off the apps, either.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26520148
That's right.
Just one more reason to break them up. I'm certain I'll get people who disagree, or say that it won't do any good. But I disagree. These companies are too big, too powerful. Break them up.
Just one more reason to break them up. I'm certain I'll get people who disagree, or say that it won't do any good. But I disagree. These companies are too big, too powerful. Break them up.
Ah yes, the famous walled garden of Android.
What?
What?
Like Apple, Google also mandates that apps distributed via the Play Store must use Google's payment system[1], and give Google a 15% to 30% cut of revenue:
> Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment.
Google prevents mobile app distribution competitors from competing with the Play Store on feature parity because user installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can.
If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution method for malware on Android[2] when they go to install apps with it.
That sounds like a walled garden to me.
[1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
[2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...
> Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment.
Google prevents mobile app distribution competitors from competing with the Play Store on feature parity because user installable 3rd party mobile app stores cannot implement automatic upgrades, background installation of apps, or batch installs of apps like the Play Store can.
If the user tries to install an app on their own, they're shown scary warnings and must adjust arcane settings, but if they use Google's Play Store, no scary warnings are shown and no settings need to be adjusted. They're told they're "protected" by Play Protect, but aren't shown scary warnings about the fact that the Play Store is the main distribution method for malware on Android[2] when they go to install apps with it.
That sounds like a walled garden to me.
[1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
[2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/play-store-identified-as-main-...
I don't think you understand what a walled garden is.
There's a default store, sure.
But there's literally nothing preventing you using a 3rd party store or even installing apks directly on the device.
There's a default store, sure.
But there's literally nothing preventing you using a 3rd party store or even installing apks directly on the device.
Not every Android phone can be rooted, and a lot of people don't root even if they can. Without rooting, there's way, way more friction every time you want to install or update an app from outside the Play Store. It's better than iOS, sure, but that's not saying much.
What else would you call the Play Store on which the vast, vast majority of Android users acquire apps? Please don't bring up F-Droid or the Amazon App Store as alternatives, that's just a joke compared to the sheer volume of app installs (and more importantly, purchases) on the Play Store.
Just because alternatives are not as popular as the default store does not make it anywhere close to being a walled garden. I'm not sure you understand what the term means.
My general take on Google is not that their policies are bad, but that they’re arbitrarily applied with very little recourse for redress. It is incredibly common for people to have issues with Google products that are only resolved by getting ahold of someone on Twitter. CPGGrey getting banned by YT for impersonating himself comes to mind.
CGP Grey
At least you got an explanation. The last day I ever wrote a line of code for iOS was when I realized they removed my app without notification of any kind, no explanation. I didn't bother asking for an explanation. I was already displeased with Apple's treatment of developers, and it was only from constant requests from friends for some of my apps on iOS that I finally gave in and jumped through all of Apple's hoops like buying a Mac and iPod for development. At least now I can tell them the type of company their giving their money to.
Granted Google isn't a lot better. When I first got an Adroid phone one of the first apps I tried to download was a flashlight app. I found it quicker to just write my own than to wade through all of the existing apps that were out right spyware asking for permissions to everything on the phone. So that was my first app added to Google Play. Years later I get notified it's been removed because it didn't have a privacy policy. Yet all of those other "flashlight apps" requiring access to your full browser history, text messages, e-mails, etc. are fine because they have a privacy policy that essentially states their policy is no privacy.
By the time that happened, most phones had a built in flashlight app, but I wanted to see what it would take to satisfy Google. Just adding "this app doesn't collect any data" wasn't good enough, it had to be a legaleaze document to guarantee no one would read it. No privacy policy generator I found had a "I don't collect anything" option, so I ended up with one stating I may collect data when I don't.
Granted Google isn't a lot better. When I first got an Adroid phone one of the first apps I tried to download was a flashlight app. I found it quicker to just write my own than to wade through all of the existing apps that were out right spyware asking for permissions to everything on the phone. So that was my first app added to Google Play. Years later I get notified it's been removed because it didn't have a privacy policy. Yet all of those other "flashlight apps" requiring access to your full browser history, text messages, e-mails, etc. are fine because they have a privacy policy that essentially states their policy is no privacy.
By the time that happened, most phones had a built in flashlight app, but I wanted to see what it would take to satisfy Google. Just adding "this app doesn't collect any data" wasn't good enough, it had to be a legaleaze document to guarantee no one would read it. No privacy policy generator I found had a "I don't collect anything" option, so I ended up with one stating I may collect data when I don't.
It's depressing, isn't it?
All the hard, honest work doesn't count. Users are hypnotized by these mega corps and will do as told. They will straight up abuse us developers for not measuring up to the insane hoops they make us jump through. Did you see the comments at the top suggesting I siphon sensitive data without the user's consent? Absolute madness
If this has changed anything in me is that from now on, I will spend 1,000,000% more effort into advocating users to not use Google Play. No legitimate, long-term app can afford to rely on it
As for iOS, we'll have to pray things change because there isn't an an equivalent F-Droid in the Apple world
Anyway, it's nearly 2AM, my app is still removed, and I feel I shouldn't be posting this
Thanks for sharing
All the hard, honest work doesn't count. Users are hypnotized by these mega corps and will do as told. They will straight up abuse us developers for not measuring up to the insane hoops they make us jump through. Did you see the comments at the top suggesting I siphon sensitive data without the user's consent? Absolute madness
If this has changed anything in me is that from now on, I will spend 1,000,000% more effort into advocating users to not use Google Play. No legitimate, long-term app can afford to rely on it
As for iOS, we'll have to pray things change because there isn't an an equivalent F-Droid in the Apple world
Anyway, it's nearly 2AM, my app is still removed, and I feel I shouldn't be posting this
Thanks for sharing
I don’t see this as too much an issue. Sure, you have a privacy policy accessible in your app, but
A) Google doesn’t know that
B) People in the Play store can’t read it before downloading.
All Google is asking is that you put the privacy policy in the store page. Seems reasonable.
A) Google doesn’t know that
B) People in the Play store can’t read it before downloading.
All Google is asking is that you put the privacy policy in the store page. Seems reasonable.
I think in any sort of reasonable business model, there would be fore-warning before access is cut off completely. I have no opinions on this app or the validity of the business (either positive or negative), but I think it's worrisome that google or apple can potentially kill your business with no recourse.
From the article:
> My app correctly offered a privacy policy link in its Google Play listing
I think that counts as being able to read it before downloading?
> My app correctly offered a privacy policy link in its Google Play listing
I think that counts as being able to read it before downloading?
Not quite - people could see it on the Play Store and in the app BEFORE login.
After data siphoning has started however, the Privacy Policy wasn't available to the users anymore. Which is... funny.
After data siphoning has started however, the Privacy Policy wasn't available to the users anymore. Which is... funny.
> My app correctly offered a privacy policy link in its Google Play listing
The author should consider removing their blog from the Google-owned property they are currently using, lest it also get removed with no prior warning.
> The author should consider removing their blog from the Google-owned property they are currently using, lest it also get removed with no prior warning.
I don't think Google has a reputation for deleting critical blog posts -- can you reference any stories?
Don't get me wrong, there are many reasons to host your own blog. But fear that Google will remove content critical of Google seems pretty far fetched to me.
On topic: It seems unfortunate that there is no grace period for the developer to resolve a minor issue like missing links to a privacy policy.
disclaimer: I work for Google (on something unrelated).
I don't think Google has a reputation for deleting critical blog posts -- can you reference any stories?
Don't get me wrong, there are many reasons to host your own blog. But fear that Google will remove content critical of Google seems pretty far fetched to me.
On topic: It seems unfortunate that there is no grace period for the developer to resolve a minor issue like missing links to a privacy policy.
disclaimer: I work for Google (on something unrelated).
Once in a while there's something about Google removing critical content from their properties here on HN, but well, there is no public data to make-up one's mind, so everybody just assumes their default instance.
Anyway, Google is quite famous for removing all kinds of unrelated things from the people it deemed worth removing something. So, I'd say the odds of the OP's blog being removed is rather high, just not for the reason you assumed it is.
Anyway, Google is quite famous for removing all kinds of unrelated things from the people it deemed worth removing something. So, I'd say the odds of the OP's blog being removed is rather high, just not for the reason you assumed it is.
Yep, unfortunate
I usually rank Google higher than Apple in terms of developer friendliness but funny enough something similar happened on my iOS version and Apple did give me the chance to fix it before they took any further action
Back when I moved websites I forgot to change the priv. policy's link on their iOS App Store. They pointed this out to me and I immediately fixed it.
Fingers crossed that this will be resolved soon
I usually rank Google higher than Apple in terms of developer friendliness but funny enough something similar happened on my iOS version and Apple did give me the chance to fix it before they took any further action
Back when I moved websites I forgot to change the priv. policy's link on their iOS App Store. They pointed this out to me and I immediately fixed it.
Fingers crossed that this will be resolved soon
> 2) App stores have reached a size that can now be considered a "para-web". The 2 companies that police them (Google and Apple) don't have the resources to offer a solid experience for neither users nor developers.
Of course they have the resources, it would just cut into their margin. This is a case where I think only regulatory action works; either that or app stores need to take a back seat rather than being a primary part of the os.
If you think about the amount of control that an app store affords you, I think most of these companies would be happy to run an app store even at a loss. What I don't think is reasonable is the amount of anti-competitive leverage it gives them. I don't think it's in any sense safe to start a business that depends on these platforms, even if it can work most of the time. I think that's a case where regulation really is reasonable.
Of course they have the resources, it would just cut into their margin. This is a case where I think only regulatory action works; either that or app stores need to take a back seat rather than being a primary part of the os.
If you think about the amount of control that an app store affords you, I think most of these companies would be happy to run an app store even at a loss. What I don't think is reasonable is the amount of anti-competitive leverage it gives them. I don't think it's in any sense safe to start a business that depends on these platforms, even if it can work most of the time. I think that's a case where regulation really is reasonable.
Convert these private markets into open markets.
Tort, fair and impartial judiciary, right to sue, transparency and accountability, etc.
Reforming (reinventing) these private markets is notably absent from the current efforts to reign in Big Tech. A weird omission.
Tort, fair and impartial judiciary, right to sue, transparency and accountability, etc.
Reforming (reinventing) these private markets is notably absent from the current efforts to reign in Big Tech. A weird omission.
> Convert these private markets into open markets.
> Tort, fair and impartial judiciary, right to sue, transparency and accountability, etc.
Getting more lawyers involved might make things more fair.
It'll definitely take longer than 7 days, and certainly cost a LOT more! :D
Getting more lawyers involved might make things more fair.
It'll definitely take longer than 7 days, and certainly cost a LOT more! :D
Was the Privacy Policy linked on the Play Store listing description as well?
IIRC, there was a recent change in the last 12 months or so to require a link to the privacy policy on the listing.
You should be able to file an appeal and get it reinstated using this form:
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
IIRC, there was a recent change in the last 12 months or so to require a link to the privacy policy on the listing.
You should be able to file an appeal and get it reinstated using this form:
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Yes, it was
I will wait for the re-submission to go through (up to 7 days) before I file an appeal. I know it's crazy long but better to follow due process
I will wait for the re-submission to go through (up to 7 days) before I file an appeal. I know it's crazy long but better to follow due process
A lot of hackernews seems really dedicated to the idea that Google and Apple should decide what software we get to make and sell. Why are people so gung ho to be under the corporate boot like this?
A lot of people agreed with that Steve Jobs letter about Flash in 2010. Some of that feeling may still linger.
In retrospect, that darn letter and the usual Jobs media fawning was probably the first domino that led to the web being completely marginalized on iOS in favour of Apple-approved apps.
In retrospect, that darn letter and the usual Jobs media fawning was probably the first domino that led to the web being completely marginalized on iOS in favour of Apple-approved apps.
flash is not the open web. it was a proprietary plugin.
Didn't say it was the open web. The web in general wasn't all that open. You couldn't run Netflix on your PC without a Microsoft Silverlight plugin. Today, it's Widevine for Android. Both proprietary and closed source.
Adobe made Flash plugins available for iOS, Android, WebOS and Blackberry. There was none of the anti-competitive moat building that Apple and Google engaged in to win the app war and squeeze out every other vendor.
The death of Flash meant that there was no universal, un-walled app store that was OS-agnostic.
Adobe made Flash plugins available for iOS, Android, WebOS and Blackberry. There was none of the anti-competitive moat building that Apple and Google engaged in to win the app war and squeeze out every other vendor.
The death of Flash meant that there was no universal, un-walled app store that was OS-agnostic.
Some are direct, or indirect, shareholders, or stand to own shares in the future.
Maybe some of them are invested in the status quo.
They took our 3 games I had published with them. It sucks. I think I'm not up to date with their new AD api or my games were not configured to properly display ads for people below 13 years of age. This whole thing happened exactly when my old computer failed (my developer key and projects are there in this computer, which I cannot access right now).
We have approached a technology evolution segment where Facebook pages replace small business websites as discoverability is simply better than on own blog as small players are SEO handy capped.
Same goes for devs with indie games,they need to be on high traffic platforms to survive.
YouTube videos as well.
The above-mentioned are fb, google and apple, they can all cut you off the platform with almost no way to speak to a human for case review.
The e commerce platforms have a bit less of an irreversible way of doing things and you can get hold of human support.
I am not sure what is the right way to go on about, but maybe force some companies to offer human operated support?
Same goes for devs with indie games,they need to be on high traffic platforms to survive.
YouTube videos as well.
The above-mentioned are fb, google and apple, they can all cut you off the platform with almost no way to speak to a human for case review.
The e commerce platforms have a bit less of an irreversible way of doing things and you can get hold of human support.
I am not sure what is the right way to go on about, but maybe force some companies to offer human operated support?
You might get human support in ecommerce but most of the time they cant help you and keep sending you the same bullshit emails requiring you to send in a “plan of action”, which doesnt make any sense when you don’t really know why you got banned.
> Are we expected to be available 24/7/365 to act on Google's unforeseeable impulses?
Almost all software nowadays involves some back-end with 24/7/365 availability, which means that unplanned outages can occur at any time. It sucks, especially for small or one-person operations, but it's the game many of us are in.
Almost all software nowadays involves some back-end with 24/7/365 availability, which means that unplanned outages can occur at any time. It sucks, especially for small or one-person operations, but it's the game many of us are in.
Consider contacting your state's Attorney General office, and the US Attorney General office. Many states' AG offices have antitrust divisions[1].
The US Dept. of Justice also has an Antitrust Division[2], along with a page that details how and why[3] to get in touch with them:
> Information from the public is vital to the work of the Antitrust Division. Your e-mails, letters, and phone calls could be our first alert to a possible violation of antitrust laws and may provide the initial evidence needed to begin an investigation.
The FTC has the Bureau of Competition[4], as well.
This is a good example of how innovation, competition and small businesses are being stifled by the anticompetitive behavior of the mobile app distribution cartel.
[1] https://www.naag.org/issues/antitrust/
[2] https://www.justice.gov/atr
[3] https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations
[4] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competi...
The US Dept. of Justice also has an Antitrust Division[2], along with a page that details how and why[3] to get in touch with them:
> Information from the public is vital to the work of the Antitrust Division. Your e-mails, letters, and phone calls could be our first alert to a possible violation of antitrust laws and may provide the initial evidence needed to begin an investigation.
The FTC has the Bureau of Competition[4], as well.
This is a good example of how innovation, competition and small businesses are being stifled by the anticompetitive behavior of the mobile app distribution cartel.
[1] https://www.naag.org/issues/antitrust/
[2] https://www.justice.gov/atr
[3] https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations
[4] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competi...
Thank you
I will review all these and submit them if appropriate
Do you know if these apply to me? My jurisdiction is the UK, even though I guess the app is distributed globally
I will review all these and submit them if appropriate
Do you know if these apply to me? My jurisdiction is the UK, even though I guess the app is distributed globally
In the UK there's the Competition and Markets Authority[1].
I think it's still worth it to file reports or complaints with the US federal government's antitrust divisions for a few reasons:
- Multiple bodies of government have been gearing up to take on this issue and issues like it, and any evidence of anticompetitive behavior can be used in investigations, legislation and enforcement of antitrust laws.
- While Google is an international company, it's based in the US and if regulators enforce existing antitrust laws in the US, it's more likely that policy will affect how Google does business internationally versus just in the UK.
- There are antitrust laws that US-based companies must follow internationally[2], and the FTC is generally the body that enforces those laws.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-...
[2] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/does-what-happens-outsi...
I think it's still worth it to file reports or complaints with the US federal government's antitrust divisions for a few reasons:
- Multiple bodies of government have been gearing up to take on this issue and issues like it, and any evidence of anticompetitive behavior can be used in investigations, legislation and enforcement of antitrust laws.
- While Google is an international company, it's based in the US and if regulators enforce existing antitrust laws in the US, it's more likely that policy will affect how Google does business internationally versus just in the UK.
- There are antitrust laws that US-based companies must follow internationally[2], and the FTC is generally the body that enforces those laws.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-...
[2] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/does-what-happens-outsi...
Thank you. I will dedicate all of tomorrow to this
Does anyone have advice on how to safely "decouple" your personal @gmail.com account from your Android and GCP developer account?
I'd like to delete my GCP and Android developer account, but I'm worried the process will inadvertently delete my personal gmail as well.
Shame on me for using it to login in to these types of accounts in the first place :(
I'd like to delete my GCP and Android developer account, but I'm worried the process will inadvertently delete my personal gmail as well.
Shame on me for using it to login in to these types of accounts in the first place :(
The best time to have your email on a personal domain was ten years ago, the second best time is now.
Trivial to register a domain, setup Fastmail, and then download all your Gmail one-off and then ongoing. Over the next year or two, correct the email address people have.
Trivial to register a domain, setup Fastmail, and then download all your Gmail one-off and then ongoing. Over the next year or two, correct the email address people have.
I used my personal email to create an Apple Developer account. Then, when I stopped paying for that account - I was unable to use the free level Apple Developer services.
So now, I would have to setup a whole other Apple ID and configure that in XCode, Expo, etc. in order to just install a program on my own device.
I contacted Apple about this a few times but nobody I was able to get in contact with was able to help me and I don't even think they understood the issue to begin with.
So now, I would have to setup a whole other Apple ID and configure that in XCode, Expo, etc. in order to just install a program on my own device.
I contacted Apple about this a few times but nobody I was able to get in contact with was able to help me and I don't even think they understood the issue to begin with.
> App stores have reached a size that can now be considered a "para-web".
I agree with this statement. Apple app store and Google play store have a near universal monopoly on the software users can install on their phones. Phones must constitute of a large majority of all software that is run by end users. Hence, the usual argument about the stores being a "private platform" do not apply.
Google and Apple must treat it as a public square, where everybody has a right to host their apps. If their app is doing something illegal, let the courts sort it out.
If managing these stores seems to be an unsustainable task to them, they are free to shut down the stores and let people install whatever software they like on their phones.
Unless this happens, the vast majority of the population will never experience the liberty that computers afford.
I agree with this statement. Apple app store and Google play store have a near universal monopoly on the software users can install on their phones. Phones must constitute of a large majority of all software that is run by end users. Hence, the usual argument about the stores being a "private platform" do not apply.
Google and Apple must treat it as a public square, where everybody has a right to host their apps. If their app is doing something illegal, let the courts sort it out.
If managing these stores seems to be an unsustainable task to them, they are free to shut down the stores and let people install whatever software they like on their phones.
Unless this happens, the vast majority of the population will never experience the liberty that computers afford.
A bit tangential, but I cannot figure out what does the OP app actually do
https://www.groupsapp.online
Is it for E2EE chat? For shared diagrams? For shared calendar? It seem to do everything, including... turning B&W photos into colors?
Cannot figure this out.
https://www.groupsapp.online
Is it for E2EE chat? For shared diagrams? For shared calendar? It seem to do everything, including... turning B&W photos into colors?
Cannot figure this out.
I often wish I could just maintain a couple dozen apps that do very specific things instead of one. I am quite certain it would also be way more profitable. People are quite ok with paying $1 for single use things, like zipping files or turning B&W pictures to color
But maintaining any app on the app store is so time consuming that I just don't have the time for it
Regarding your question, the app's main purpose is to work collaboratively on shared organigrams and family trees. It also includes an E2EE chat that I developed purely as a hobby (no chance competing against Whatsapp or Signal). That is the free bit
I monetize by offering optional features like shared calendars, document drives and cloud photo galleries. Apologies if the app's purpose isn't clear and thanks for the hint seems I might need to simplify)
But maintaining any app on the app store is so time consuming that I just don't have the time for it
Regarding your question, the app's main purpose is to work collaboratively on shared organigrams and family trees. It also includes an E2EE chat that I developed purely as a hobby (no chance competing against Whatsapp or Signal). That is the free bit
I monetize by offering optional features like shared calendars, document drives and cloud photo galleries. Apologies if the app's purpose isn't clear and thanks for the hint seems I might need to simplify)
Its a good idea to offer an alternative download for your app on your website for authenticated users. The users will have to uninstall the app to side load your private version but with a small user base this is manageable.
I got caught a bit last year when I released a version that had a terrible bug in it, then google play were taking 7 days to review apps due to covid.
I wish there was a way to make your private app the same as the google play app so it didn't require uninstallation despite being signed with the same key, but that results in an installation error.
I am sure google have some handwavy security fable around why this doesn't work, but their processes can be a massive risk to your business and you need to manage it somehow, so uninstall and sideload is unfortunately all that is possible.
I got caught a bit last year when I released a version that had a terrible bug in it, then google play were taking 7 days to review apps due to covid.
I wish there was a way to make your private app the same as the google play app so it didn't require uninstallation despite being signed with the same key, but that results in an installation error.
I am sure google have some handwavy security fable around why this doesn't work, but their processes can be a massive risk to your business and you need to manage it somehow, so uninstall and sideload is unfortunately all that is possible.
Last year Google silently held up one of our apps for over six weeks, not responding to any questions or entreaties. Then one day they approved it.
We never heard why.
We never heard why.
"Now available on the App Store and Google Play"
I first heard those words on a TV commercial sometime in 2010. For the decade prior, it would have been "visit site dot com to learn more".
Since 2010 I wonder how many hours worth of ads have aired that drill into consumers' heads the idea that applications live exclusively on app stores. The web may as well not exist, because it's outside the walled garden.
I first heard those words on a TV commercial sometime in 2010. For the decade prior, it would have been "visit site dot com to learn more".
Since 2010 I wonder how many hours worth of ads have aired that drill into consumers' heads the idea that applications live exclusively on app stores. The web may as well not exist, because it's outside the walled garden.
>I agree that it should always be accessible (which it is via the "website" button)
Smells fishy to me. What if I include a link to google.com, where the user can just google AppName + "privacy policy" to find the policy? How far can you be removed from a link to the policy and still be ok?
Smells fishy to me. What if I include a link to google.com, where the user can just google AppName + "privacy policy" to find the policy? How far can you be removed from a link to the policy and still be ok?
why were you collecting private data without notifying the user? some severe violations like this prompt immediate removal imo
I wasn't
All data collected (email address which can be masked and name and surname which can be made up) was properly stated in the privacy policy
All data collected (email address which can be masked and name and surname which can be made up) was properly stated in the privacy policy
This is jeopardising startups a lot.
Just wantend to ask, in light of Google pulling an Apple in a couple months and preventing users from installing random APKs, is anyone working on a sideloading mechanism of some sort? I'd like my apps to remain out of their capricious, purposefully labyrinthic and failure prone stewardship for as long as possible
>Google pulling an Apple in a couple months and preventing users from installing random APKs
This is the first I've heard of this, unless you're confusing this with the idea of them requiring developers to upload Android App Bundles instead of APKs to the store. Do you have a source?
This is the first I've heard of this, unless you're confusing this with the idea of them requiring developers to upload Android App Bundles instead of APKs to the store. Do you have a source?
Can Android App Bundles be installed unsigned? And are they not the official standard from here onwards?
I don't have a very in-depth knowledge of Android App Bundles, but my impression was that the developer is that the developer uploads the AAB and Google generates an APK from it and delivers that to the user. From what I recall, there was never an announcement that sideloading APKs was going away.
As a user, I wouldn’t want Google to continue to distribute an app that doesn’t fulfill all their privacy requirements.
As a developer, it’s mildly annoying to have to resubmit. But it’s not exactly the end of the world, is it?
I’m reasonably certain the app stores as middlemen have made life easier for small developers by several orders of magnitude. And part of the reason is that customers trust them. Being rather strict, including measures that may seem harsh to you, the developer, who knows you are a decent person, is probably unavoidable to keep the customers’ trust.
As a developer, it’s mildly annoying to have to resubmit. But it’s not exactly the end of the world, is it?
I’m reasonably certain the app stores as middlemen have made life easier for small developers by several orders of magnitude. And part of the reason is that customers trust them. Being rather strict, including measures that may seem harsh to you, the developer, who knows you are a decent person, is probably unavoidable to keep the customers’ trust.
As I mentioned there should be a warning before a removal, or alternatively resubmitting shouldn't take up to 7 days. I fear having upset many users :-(
I woke up at 7AM this morning to an "App removed" alert
I woke up at 7AM this morning to an "App removed" alert
Meanwhile developers complain that the app store cut is too high for small devs.
Heads up. If a big tech co is not going to make back money from you - the amount of careful human review by well paid folks is going to be minimal because the scale of cheap / free users is so high.
Heads up. If a big tech co is not going to make back money from you - the amount of careful human review by well paid folks is going to be minimal because the scale of cheap / free users is so high.
And this is EXACTLY why people are fighting against google and apple exclusively controlling the stores on the respective platforms.
Edit: yes, i know you can add a 3rd party "store" to android, but it doesnt have the same rights as the google store, and its certainly not a user friendly process.
Edit: yes, i know you can add a 3rd party "store" to android, but it doesnt have the same rights as the google store, and its certainly not a user friendly process.
You just tried to call out people complaining about the cut they take right now with the logic that leads to piss poor service (terrible take but let's roll with it)
Right now OP is getting piss poor service.
So how does A relate to B in the context of this post? You think there's worse than the current 0 percent warning and support they got, or...
Right now OP is getting piss poor service.
So how does A relate to B in the context of this post? You think there's worse than the current 0 percent warning and support they got, or...
Would devs do a more standard Sony/Playstation type agreement?
Something like maybe $10K per year base, and then extra to get an app certified etc? Similar cut in the end?
There are models that allow for better service- problem is they tend to be expensive for smaller devs
Something like maybe $10K per year base, and then extra to get an app certified etc? Similar cut in the end?
There are models that allow for better service- problem is they tend to be expensive for smaller devs
I hate when people make comments that assume no one will call them out on obvious BS.
I was part of Nintendo's dev program in the Wii days, grand cost was 0 dollars a year. NOA lent us dev kits worth thousands of dollars and we had direct forum access to software developers working for Nintendo.
Sony and Microsoft will do similar.
You're talking about arrangements where Sony is acting at least in-part as a publisher, not indie titles going up on their shop as is comparable.
I was part of Nintendo's dev program in the Wii days, grand cost was 0 dollars a year. NOA lent us dev kits worth thousands of dollars and we had direct forum access to software developers working for Nintendo.
Sony and Microsoft will do similar.
You're talking about arrangements where Sony is acting at least in-part as a publisher, not indie titles going up on their shop as is comparable.
I don't complain about the fee, I just don't want to hear about the app store at all and distribute my software freely without unwanted middleware which don't add value.
For me as a user it adds a lot of value.
If there's really some value added, you have nothing to worry about, it should survive by itself.
So they need to take a huge cut to provide awful service regardless? Huh?
For many (most) small developers, they are not taking a "huge" amount of money.
One developer at apple is around 300K, or around $600K with overhead.
Many of these smaller apps pay maybe $100 + a tiny bit of sales which are small. You call this "huge" money. This is not. Apple will provide global distribution / accessibility etc for almost nothing (they also will give you xcode etc etc as part of your $100). Devs want gold plate expert service but don't want to pay for it.
Have you been involved in any tech to tech co deals? The amounts apple is taking here are tiny - to apple they are zero for small devs.
One developer at apple is around 300K, or around $600K with overhead.
Many of these smaller apps pay maybe $100 + a tiny bit of sales which are small. You call this "huge" money. This is not. Apple will provide global distribution / accessibility etc for almost nothing (they also will give you xcode etc etc as part of your $100). Devs want gold plate expert service but don't want to pay for it.
Have you been involved in any tech to tech co deals? The amounts apple is taking here are tiny - to apple they are zero for small devs.
Almost sounds like they’re providing a utility, and should be regulated
I guarantee bad actors would remove unpermitted functionality right before the review, and put it back after.
There's a reason even restaurant food safety inspectors don't tell the restaurant when they're coming. But on the other hand, restaurant food safety inspectors do usually give you a chance to correct the violation before shutting you down (depending on severity anyway).