Is the cost of losing not-quite exclusivity on Android worth the benefit of gaining a foothold in Apple land?
Probably.
Do I think Google made that decision consciously and this is part of their scheme?
No, I think they screwed up the way that they do all the time, won't apologize for it, and if they decide to reverse themselves this time, they could still un-reverse their judgement after any future update, or just because Google is incompetent that way.
I was glad they walked back on Dragonfly and (effectively) killed AMP.
In the process they did lose me as a user of their free products though. And they lost me as a developer, I no longer opt for building with their tools, including Chrome, Android, Angular, GCloud, etc.
I switched to Duck Duck Go on mobile as a direct result of AMP. So not only did AMP fail, but Google lost most of the eyeball time they were getting from me and they're not getting it back any time soon.
Yeah that was what made me switch to DDG from GSearch as well in late 2018.
I use the terminal theme in DDG, and it's become the canonical SERP in my mind. When I do !g every now and then, it feels like GSearch has become AltaVista with a dash of MySpace.
perhaps this is whoosh, but I thought Google wasn't releasing their model weights or source code, at least for a lot of things.
like with WaveNet, it was easy to train but computationally infeasible to run the way they published the paper. then it turns out there's a trick that makes playing it forward far more efficient, which Google later acknowledged using internally, but didn't disclose.
What kind of trick? At a glance wavenet looks like you could reuse most of the computation from earlier timesteps (would gave to take a closer look to see if it'd actually work), but I assume you're talking about something less obvious?
that's great. Whom has been impacted by this and how, in more detail? I would say Google Maps is far more impactful and good than any protein folding....
Large organizations can do both good and terrible things.
Google still serves are huge portion of search traffic which pretty clearly is a good thing. Youtube has an incredible wealth of tutorials & educational content. Deepmind is pushing the boundaries of what is possible. Various OSS projects continue to be pushed out. Gmail has been an amazing free resource for millions etc.
Yeah, google does awful shit every day but it's worth remembering that Maps, Search and YouTube are world-changing resources.
All three have their problems (especially that third one) but they have done an incredible amount of Good in the world and they continue to do so every day.
The world changing resource is OpenStreetMap. Google Maps is just an asset to better track users.
As for YouTube, it is technically marvellous, but since they started censoring and silencing one side of a political spectrum, YT turned into a propaganda machine, no less.
I enjoyed your pedantry :) that’s fair enough, but I maintain that without Maps it would not exist in its current state as a reliable alternative to it. Just like I maintain that without Google Search we would not have Bing.
If "that's fair enough" is dismissive to you, I hope I never end up having to break up with you!
You're not the person I was replying to, I don't have to justify myself to you. If you want me to be graceful, you can come watch me at the rink instead.
I just wanted to point out how wrong you were, and how petulant your reaction was when it was pointed out (several times), just in case it may help open your eyes. Obviously it didn't.
Well, I disagree. The first web client that OSM had been, of course, very different: there wasn't smooth scrolling, etc, which were added after Google Maps did it.
However, a nice and smooth client with drag and zoom was a rather obvious thing to do: a lot of computer games had maps in them as early as in late 1980s, like Sim City and many others, where you could zoom, drag along etc, and it wasn't done in OSM rigth from the start mostly due to pitiful state of web browsers and web standards of the time. So I think that even without Google Maps, OSM would have evolved to have great usability, just as it did in our timeline.
You're wearing so many layers of rose-tinted glasses that you're probably Redshift-compatible.
There were some nice unique things back then. It also sucked a lot. By the standards of back then we're living in pretty much a utopia. We have devices that Star Trek barely thought of. Seriously, I have a tablet that can speak to almost anyone anywhere in the world, instantaneously, translate into any language (imperfectly), look up any information, access to an encyclopedia tens of thousands of times larger than the most complete ones of just two decades ago, the ability to find free videos teaching me how to do anything, and that's all just the tip of the iceberg.
If I were to talk to someone in 2000 and list the shit we can do in just twenty years there is zero chance they would believe me. And it's not like the internet didn't exist back then. I was on it, as were many others on HN. Those who remember, remember that it mostly sucked.
What we have today sucks in different ways. But it's also accessible to billions of people, which is billions more than back then. That "nightmare" you're talking about is fixable, and it's certainly not fixable by "going back" to anything. You know there were also ads back then and they were just as awful as today, right? There were just less places where they could end up.
I appreciate this comment a lot. It's much easier to be nostalgic for a simpler time, if only because the problems were simpler (also with the benefit of hindsight).
I don't share that view. While there are things that I'd really miss in 2000 era Internet today like Wikipedia, GitHub and maybe YouTube, the only thing that really sucked was the IE monopoly (almost like Chrome today) and the Internet connections themselves. Only a few years after that DSL/cable became commonplace and since then the only thing different today is that websites became a lot more bloated and slow.
If you told me in 2000 about the things you listed I'd tell you you're a slowpoke, that's obviously coming and most things were actually already there like SIP, ICQ, IRC, translator software, browsers, etc. existed on the smartphones of the day. What wasn't there was the adoption by the masses, but the tech was there.
> Google definitely lived long enough to become a villain.
I hate to break this to you but google was born a villain. Nobody innately good has to remind themselves "Don't be evil". Imagine walking down the street and meeting a stranger constantly repeating "Don't be evil" to himself?
Being able to group people into "good" and "bad" ones is convenient. It means you only need to find out once if someone is a "good" or "bad" person and once you have decided that someone is "bad" you can justify any of your own behavior towards them. But just because it is convenient does not make it true. People are people. Choices are bad or good or more likley somewhere in between. Nobody is innately good or bad - while some poeple my be wired to be more selfish than others, the choices they make throughout their lifes are as much dictated by the circumstances they are made in and by the experiences made before them as they are by the neurological makeup of the person.
I really hope Epic wins the lawsuit against Apple and that the laws being announced in the US Senate/House get passed. I also hope the EU start pushing against this kind of stuff more.
Which is why Apple’s volunteered to run on-device surveillance programs. Between their lobbying power and the holy grail of utter surveillance, the governments will never stand for the basic rights of the people.
I think there are a couple of different pieces of legislation, and the "allow multiple stores without discriminating" one is a bit more recent so they may not have seen that one yet.
Forcing the stores to have all the apps would be bad - swamped in shitty malware.
Stopping the stores from demanding that all apps have no method of payment except via their payment services (and its 30% cut) would be good. It would solve the situation in TFA at least.
It seems like there are extremes, carriers were abusing their positions before Apple came up with iPhone and app store and wrangled power away from carriers. Now they have lived long enough to become the villain… it might be time to reset matrix again and work towards a better outcome.
The natural state of these things is one where someone is abusing it, whether carriers or someone else.
I don't actually disagree with your assessment of what happened, but i don't have the hope people here do.
I have watched the ebb and flow too many times, and lived in DC too long :)
I also think the hope is amazingly misplaced.
Rarely, if ever, do complex systems like this change in the desired way as a result of trying to "fix them" directly. Sometimes they change, sometimes the inertia keeps them in the same state.
But it rarely, if ever, does this kind of change have the intended effect.
>> Sometimes they change, sometimes the inertia keeps them in the same state. But it rarely, if ever, does this kind of change have the intended effect.
There are three major national carriers (a fourth launching soon), and an absolute glut of smaller MVNOs which offer devices on their own terms. Most of both the national carriers and the MVNOs will also allow you to bring your own device, which as long as isn't running Android, is probably not encumbered by malicious code.
Even if the horrors you suggest are true, consumers would have options to get around them, whilst right now, a single monopoly, Google, controls the entire playing field, and actively attacks anyone who tries to offer a path around (Epic, for instance).
The "ISP bogeyman" issue constantly feels hollow in tech circles considering there's a ton of actual competition in the provider space, and a complete and unassailable monopoly in the tech platform space.
Google admits it tries to prevent sideloading as much as possible in their own court filings with Epic. Their own managers called the experience "abysmal", and they considered buying Epic to prevent them from doing it. Also they sent Project Zero out to portray Epic as "insecure" in a bunch of hit pieces across the media.
AOSP is not meaningfully existing on any device sold today.
The fact you can hack your device doesn't change the monopoly Google operates that 99.9% of Android devices are trapped in.
> Google admits it tries to prevent sideloading as much as possible in their own court filings with Epic.
[citation needed]
I know what you're referring to and I know you're being wholly disingenuous.
> AOSP is not meaningfully existing on any device sold today.
AOSP is technically sold on every device since that's what every single Android version *AND* skin is based on.
If you want to do something that isn't supported by the oem, then do it yourself. Nothing stops you from being able to do so which is the entire damn point.
> The fact you can hack your device doesn't change the monopoly Google operates that 99.9% of Android devices are trapped in.
An unlockable bootloader isn't a hack. Try again.
For an IT Consultant, you're remarkably ignorant when it comes to the reality of Android.
> An unlockable bootloader isn't a hack. Try again.
Several apps rely on successful SafetyNet verification to start functioning. A unlocked bootloader will trip this and apps stop functioning. Current solutions to overcome this is a cat and mouse game.
After the first time it takes a whole whopping, astounding, IMPOSSIBLE.... 4 steps. Open browser, download APK, open APK, click Install.
IMPOSSIBLE, I TELL YOU!
Don't even need to enable Developer Options in Android. No iOS developer cert needed. No host computer or one week expiration like Apple does it.
And guess what? Sideloading has always been possible on Android. Always.
This looks like something Google is doing to make it too difficult to sideload? ("Google tries to prevent sideloading as much as possible" I believe was said) Well, shit, whoever finds this difficult should not be sideloading apps in the first place.
> Several apps rely on successful SafetyNet verification to start functioning. A unlocked bootloader will trip this and apps stop functioning. Current solutions to overcome this is a cat and mouse game.
However, this doesn't change the fact that unlocking the bootloader on a device where a bootloader can be unlocked... is NOT A HACK.
Safetynet as a consequence of unlocking the bootloader is a known trade off. Security vs the ability to modify the system files. Seems completely fair to me.
The way you guys go about this, how you get so much wrong in the process that the disingenuous replies barely mask that your contempt lies with Google regardless of how anything is actually done.
You created an account to jump into a thread where you merely propagated the previous user's fallacies? Really?
My Japanese work phone came bundled with "app pass" an app store with a monthly 350yen subscription cost. I didnt even know it existed till I saw some brief toast overlay about it updating successfully.
https://kuronekoblog.com/6169/
Errr, no they don't. Yes, they must be disable-able.
It does not require the phone maintain the same functionality, etc.
For example, Verizon makes visual voicemail only available on the verizon store.
You can disable it, you can remove it.
My opinion is that Google, and Apple are Bundling/Tying at multiple levels, and using monopoly power in a way that stifles the market, and impedes innovation.
If Epic wins, it will set a bad precedent and we will all lose as a result. The the government should not compel what a company, or individual, can say or publish; this result would do just that. If I want to build a platform that does not enable or allow other potentially malicious software repositories, it should be my right to do so; I should be able to charge what I like for the privilege. Like it or not, the "selling point" of Apple's walled garden to some is that it is locked down. If you don't like what Apple chooses to do, there are millions of other options that don't include Apple, or Google, at the table.
If we start letting the government legislate the software that we are "allowed" to write or use, then what remaining freedoms we have left will be gone. Creating laws, or bad precedents in court, in knee-jerk response to Epic's temper tantrum is not how we solve these issues, considering that Tim Sweeney tried to bring "open source" into this debacle when Epic has a history of being hostile towards it.
This is sad, but I do think I see the issue here. You are loading the website in your own app so it is considered part of the app experience. If you load the website externally using the mobile browser it shouldn't be an issue.
Nope, it's an external link and even it wasn't it would be a lame excuse.
What if a webpage links to google.com, does that count as providing access to violence and pornography?
This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google. I cannot believe how at the rate the world is changing (pace wise, with each new technological breakthrough) the law simply cannot keep pace.
We've allowed AI systems unfettered, unrestricted access to our lives. AI is being deployed with absolutely no oversight (Apple's CSAM comes to mind), I'm not even sure there are any laws at all. How can apple just deploy a new system without having to first go through the courts? We all know at some point someone will lodge a suit against them for an inaccurate match...
Decisions like this must be deferred to a human, who creates a record and is capable in case anything untoward happens. AI seems exempt from any liability (this is probably why so many places are deploying such systems, as a society it seems we've decided that no matter what good or bad may happen "AI" gets a free pass and no human will likely go to jail, even if your self driving car kills you).
The fact you can be deprived due to a mistaken software error is one of the most awful things in our society, and this has happened far too many times for it to go ignored time and again.
But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time.
How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN before we DEMAND action be taken?
Isn't it safer to assume it is until proven otherwise?
A developer has their app removed, perhaps their livelihood, and Google can't be fucked to sign off who made the decision?
If it was a human I expect to know who, and who I can write to so it can be reviewed, by another human. I want to know how I can contact a human for support and not some useless AI chat bot that seem to be all the rage these days (looking at you Amazon...)
But yes, it's happened so much by AI you just assume these days...like a YouTube takedown for example by a bot.
Ask yourself a tricky question, if you can answer you're an AI. AI's don't actually know when they don't know something. It's called the "softmax curse", causes them to have Dunning–Kruger.
Can you please elaborate why you would think this is a mistake and Google should side step the app store rules applied to all businesses? This income is clearly taxable. The play store offers a 50% discount for small apps.
Is it because the payment is optional (and doesn't unlock new features) that make you think this should be except from Google's rules (and potentially taxes?)?
> Can you please elaborate why you would think this is a mistake and Google should side step the app store rules applied to all businesses?
I don't think anyone is arguing for this app in particular to get an exception from the rules. People are arguing that this rule is ridiculous and that nobody should have to follow it as it's currently written.
Apparently this isn't how Google sees it, but I'd say yes, giving people a way to donate on your website where your website is linked to from the app under "About" or "More Information" is clearly different from offering an app for purchase, or with in-app purchase, on multiple fronts.
The first is that it's a donation, not a purchase, and changes nothing about the app.
The second is that there's no mention of donation anywhere in the app, and the website/about/more info link does go to a website with more info.
If you instead, like Google, decide that this still counts, you end up the in the (in my opinion, clearly wrong) situation where Google either controls what you put on your independent website, or Google disallows you from linking to your website/portfolio in the app you made.
That sounds quite draconian to me. I wonder if adding an in-app purchase that says "donate w/cut to Google" would appease them.
it seems you're spiritually correct but google is trying to remove the payment loophole that apple enforces as well so I'm curious if we can pressure them both to allow donation links even if normal payment options are banned...
Correct me if I'm wrong. From the screenshot[1] it looks like the donation is made through Paypal, not Google's merchant services. My understanding is the app just links to a website. If there's any tax evasion going on it has nothing to do with Google.
Taxes are entirely beside the issue - that's between the original developer and the IRS. The Play Store policy has always been about in-app purchases, and few people would describe a donation as "purchasing" anything.
I agree with you on the taxes issue (and can’t imagine how the opposing argument would go).
I disagree with you on the funding the app developer angle. If you seek funding in a way supported, even indirectly, by the app’s availability in the Play Store, Google wants its cut. If you don’t want that support, you’re free to go it alone without the store.
"Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment. Play-distributed apps must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment if they require or accept payment for access to features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods."
Can you explain which of those categories this payment ("The app doesn't provide any special features to people who donate; it's just a way to help support the project.") falls under?
While I understand what you're saying here, I would guess that it's seen as bypassing the intent of the rules, if not their specific wording.
If I put an app up on the app store for free, then link to my site and ask for donations, I am effectively using the app store for free. The app in question is effectively setup to say "you don't need to pay for this app, but we would really like you too"... and then the payment is handled outside the play store. Arguing over whether it should be called payment or a donation doesn't really change the fact that is it the user giving money to the developer because of the app; the app they got on the play store. That's the behavior that the rule in intended to avoid.
If Google's intent is to ban donations to an app creator, then why does it explicitly say "if they require or accept payment for access to features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods"?
Frankly it seems to me that the intent of the rules is to specifically allow asking for payment/"donation" outside of Play so long as nothing in your app is affected by it.
I read the intent as disallowing the use of the app store to distribute an app that you make money on, without paying for the use of the app store. It seems as simple as that. And "this app is free, but please come give me money for it" is a way of doing just that.
The screenshot says that the violation is on the other part of the policy:
"Google Play's billing system must not be used in cases where:... payments include peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and tax exempt donations;"
That is, according to the screenshot in the GitHub PR, the app was removed for using the Google Play billing system when they shouldn't be using it. It was not removed for failing to use the Google Play Billing system when they should have been.
I have no idea how they might have been using Google Play billing. There is no billing code on GitHub that I see. Maybe they turned on billing on the Play Store accidentally, or maybe the screenshot has the wrong policy violation.
I don't think anyone is saying this has anything to do with the payment being optional or the app being Open Source. Google's interpretation of its rules (assuming that this isn't just a mistake) is that an app can't link in-app to any source or page if there's a way to get from that page to a payment processor.
Imagine if you went into Walmart, bought an Android phone, and then when you turned the phone on Google wasn't allowed to show you any links in the Android OS to their support pages because technically you can navigate from the support pages to the online Google store and then buy another phone from them directly without giving Walmart a cut.
I don't think Google would call that a reasonable restriction, I think Google would call that anticompetitive.
> Imagine if you went into Walmart, bought an Android phone, and then when you turned the phone on Google wasn't allowed to show you any links in the Android OS to their support pages because technically you can navigate from the support pages to the online Google store and then buy another phone from them directly without giving Walmart a cut.
No, imagine if you went into Walmart, picked up an item for free and then used PayPal to sidestep Walmarts margin. And then threw a giant fuss because Walmart stopped stocking that free item.
That would be a problem if that was what was happening here. But it's not what's happening here, so it's not a problem :)
Google is listing the app as free. Separately, on a website via a page that is not linked from the main app in any location, you can donate to the developer. The developer is not linking to or steering the user towards that donation page in the app or in the app description, they're just linking to their code repository, which is clearly important for an Open Source app to do. If Walmart gave me a product for free, and separately I donated some money to the person who originally made that product, Walmart wouldn't really have much justification to complain.
The analogy you're proposing doesn't really make sense to me. Are you arguing that any method of donating to the developer at all outside of the Play Store is intrinsically stealing from Google? Are you arguing that the developer is stealing from Google by not hiding their donation pages on other platforms that exist outside of the app?
> This is absolutely outrageous and disgusting from Google
This is Google. At this point this is expected behaviour from one of the Big Tech Tyrants, Over [0] and over [1] and over [2] again [3] multiple [4] times [5]. Unless we seriously break it up, they will never change and the suspensions will continue.
Like Facebook, when you are banned by their AI moderation tools, there is little redemption and it's unlikely they will give the account back; since you don't even own it.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted -- the top comment and highest rated replies are bikeshedding about AI, you're actually showing that this is a pattern of shitty behaviour by Google.
> How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN before we DEMAND action be taken?
I completely agree with you, but do realize that the majority of hacker newses are coders (not even programmers) who would never take responsibility for their shoddy work. Heavens forbid they, or their management, be held personally liable for their mistakes. They won't even call defects, "defects"--they're just "bugs"! Whoopsies!
What could they be hiding in all that proprietary code--incompetence, malice, or both?
The word bug has nothing to do with someone's stance on "defects". This term has been in use (with the same meaning) for longer than computers exist. It also has no connection to bugs as in animals. But what do I know, I'm just a shoddy coder.
I'm sorry for being nitpicky but have you even skimmed the article? It has nothing to do with AI: a human visited their website and decided asking for donations there violates the Play Store ToS. I mean your comment is perfectly fine, it simply has nothing to do with the article.
I bet most of the people reading these comments could actually write such a script in under 30 minutes, it has nothing to do with AI.
Edit: To be fair I can't imagine a situation where it would ever make sense. The link-depth in this case was 2. This is just bad behavior on the part of Google.
Just like the claim that a human visited the site and found a donation subsite.
What's more likely? That someone at google checked the links in a small relatively unknown app or that an automatic process scanned the links in the app, something what is the main business of Google next to advertising?
A human did this. See the screenshots on the post - there's a screenshot of the home page, followed by a screenshot of the donation page, followed by a screenshot of PayPal. Quoting TFA:
> That's right; someone at Google reviewed this app, visited the LT website, scrolled to the very bottom of the page, and clicked through twice to find a way to contribute funds to the project. Our app isn't allowed to link to the homepage of the project's own website unless we completely remove our users' ability to discover a way to give us money."
So that's the answer to your question. AI is irrelevant here because existing processes that are performed by humans are unaccountable or unjust, too.
(This is my problem with "AI foom" doomsaying, by the way: we've clearly gotten to a point without AI where groups of humans, acting in individually rational ways, have built a monstrous system that nobody can either understand in its entirety or effectively oppose. We got there centuries ago, for that matter, at least as far back as when the phrase "invisible hand" was invented. The problem here is not that we have moved accountability from a human to an AI, it's that we've moved accountability from a human to a corporation, and it is quite obviously unjust to hold the individual anonymous Google reviewer responsible for accurately following the instructions of their minimum-wage job, but we also have no way to find the PM or exec who wrote these policies and they probably don't even know what the impact of those policies is.)
Please don't fulminate or call names on HN, regardless of how you feel about app store policies. Instead, please make your substantive points thoughtfully. All this is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time.
HN has had tons of threads on these general topics. They are heavily discussed in this forum and spend plenty of time on the front page.
Maybe some such threads have been flagged—most likely that would be because users get tired of repetition. If you've developed the impression that the topic is somehow being suppressed, that's probably because you've overgeneralized from a few data points (or one) that you saw on some occasion(s).
Here we go again. Another month, another ban. They are the problem and they will never change. Their behaviour affects everyone and they do not care since they will just point to their guidelines and ban you.
Can you finally see that Google (YouTube), Apple, Microsoft and Facebook are NOT your friends?
Would Google also be able to negatively influence such an app if the app was a PWA? Publishing PWA on Play Store might still lead to the same outcome, but what if it is just an independent PWA and is "installed" through the phone's browser? Of course you would loose some discoverability though, but are there other disadvantages? (provided the app is even feasible as a PWA)
Well, personally I use Firefox. Although I do have a suspition that Google has found some way of keeping Firefox experience on mobile inferior in some way. Just speculating.
There is an obvious internal conflict of interest in Google. Donation based app being banned are a result of that conflict of interest.
But this is just a tip of an iceberg.
While sometimes Google does something to patch the issue, it can not on itself fix it. Because it is caused by a core flaw of the company business model.
It supports two competing platforms where only one earns money and gives control. It renders Google to be incapable of supporting both app creators and open web properly.
What is the difference between Aurora Store and Google's Play store?
Unlike Google's Play Store, Aurora Store doesn't track your downloads or the apps you use. We respect your privacy. Aurora Store is also unaffected by Google marking your device as uncertified or lacking of necessary Google apps. Play Protect is not present, as this is a Play Store only feature.
Do I need Google Play Services to use Aurora Store?
No. Aurora Store was built to access the Google Play store without any kind of Google services. It doesn't matter if you use it with or without Google Play Services/MicroG.
Is it safe to use Aurora store?
Aurora Store is fully open-source and verified by F-Droid. If you're asking about the safety of the apps in the store, those are the exact same ones the Play Store would load and display. A lot of dangerous stuff seems to sneak past Google though, so as a rule of thumb, don't download anything which you're unsure about.
Also, I want to tell you it gets better, I had problems getting sleep too for nearly a decade and it started really catching up with me as I entered my thirties (appetite, energy and cognitive issues for example). Turning screens off, limiting stimulants, not partying as much and keeping a regular wake up time _really_ helped me.
How does this help? The Aurora Store is just an alternative Play Store client. If Google removes an app from the Play Store, it'll be gone from this too.
Aside from protection against profiling, it sends the message that users are aware of alternatives. Enough people doing that should in the long run discourage Google from bullying publishers that would have other means for distributing their software.
I agree that it's not easy, and needs a lot of people jumping to alternative app stores before something could change, but I don't see other ways since it's clear that Google has no intention to listen to their users.
Mine was a broad statement, just by searching for alternatives you tell Google you know that they exist. You can use Aurora today and move to a different store tomorrow, or go straight there just now.
Either way, you send the message that you know there is a world out there, and you know how to choose, which is what advertisers hate the most, because they want to be the ones that make you decide if and when you should switch to a product.
That is wishful thinking. Do you think anyone at Google reads through all of the search queries? Or do you think the search terms for alternative app stores will start trending sufficiently to catch Google's attention?
This may also be relevant to those wishing to switch. In the part of the FAQ concerning using your own account to login.
>However, you may want to be careful as Google retains full rights to block any account under their Google Play Terms of Service §4 (opens new window), because using Aurora Store clearly violates their terms of services. Being banned means that the very Google account you used to sign in with will be blocked forever. It might be worth using a dummy account for that reason.
I don't know how often using aurora store has actually resulted in a ban though.
>attempt to, or assist, authorize or encourage others to circumvent, disable or defeat any of the security features or components that protect, obfuscate or otherwise restrict access to any Content or Google Play.
Am I reading this correctly in that, this seems to me like just telling people about something like Aurora is against the terms of services and can get you banned whether you use it or not?
As in, even the gp comment technically breaks that rule just by posting that Aurora FAQ?
I've always considered TOS's an abberation of contract law myself.
I've had many professional contracts with both private and commercial clients. In none of those cases was I ever allowed to provide a contract where I could just decide whatever I want, whenever I want and the customer is forced to agree otherwise...fuck them...and I still get paid.
The TOS are subject to change but at least here (France) tout have to be informed about the change and you can leave the contract at no cost of you do not agree.
Interesting that that google search only gave me spam for 1.5 pages. Wikipedia being at the bottom of the second page. (I use F-Droid, I was just curious. Usually a DuckDuckGo user. Search done from Germany)
The developer is asking people to optionally pay for his app. From a tax perspective, the dev would owe taxes on this income, since he is not a not-for-profit legal entity.
Since these payments are considered taxable income, I am not sure why they would think they could avoid Google's rules just because they are a "small one-man shop".
The simple solution here is to add in-app purchases like every other "small one-man shop" and not ask for noncompetitive advantages and accept Google's 15% cut [0].
I'd never heard of them, but judging by their website it looks like they produce apps for iOS, for Android and also have a webapp. Should they be required to remove an optional donation link from their website even though it might not have anything to do with Android at all? How does this involve Google exactly?
It sounds like they are asking for donations on their website, not through the app. Do the terms of service really extend past the app to the website for the project?
Is there any particular reason the author paying rent via donations is different from any of us paying rent from our work? You decided to use Googles distribution platform and infrastructure while not sharing the revenue - fully knowing it is illegal in the Play Store to accept payments outside of the platform.
Basically you attempted to steal the efforts Google invested in creating and promoting Android, it’s development tools and infrastructure - and they banned you for it.
Sorry but this is why we need regulation and fast. We need by default other app stores on all operating systems (similar to search engines Google were forced to advertise)
Google should have to compete on merit and if somebody doesn't want to give Google/Apple a cut, too bad.
These platforms should probably not be placed under the control of such large entities, Android/iOS should be split into their own organisation .
Google/Apple can then pick their OS or appstore, not both.
I don't think they mean a race to the bottom _price_ as the problem.
More like race to the bottom quality, security, spyware, malware, shitty ripoff of other people's work promoted over the original, fake bank apps, fake WhatsApp when you wanted the real one, etc.
Your Linux distro is not in a race to the bottom on any of these things. It works in a completely different way from an app marketplace on a money-handling device. And you know you are running Linux, you know what you're getting.
We should have multiple app stores. But don't be under any illusion that it can only turn out like Linux distros. I would expect some terrible "stores" just like there are some really dodgy apps, some of them installed on users' devices without their knowledge.
"Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment. Play-distributed apps must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment if they require or accept payment for access to features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods."
You're right, GP should have been more explicit: these aren't payments subject to Google Play's "us-only" policy.
> Is there any particular reason the author paying rent via donations is different from any of us paying rent from our work
Patently, yes:
-- "donation" means one can get the product independently of any money transfer;
-- «paying from work», «charging for apps», «require or accept payment for access to features or services», means that getting the product is conditional to money transfer.
"Donation" is not "payment".
In fact, I do not quite understand on which contractual reason the ban happened.
As they are, app stores are crap. They are a huge control mechanism to stiff competition.
For those of you who are old enough: Imagine if in 2000, Microsoft released "Windows Me" with something similar (for PC) to what Apple or Google are doing in the current dominant computing device form factor (Mobile). It just would not have been tolerated. Adobe, Netscape, Autodesk, Corel and others having to pay Microsoft a 15% cut for their software? Netscape? Opera? Apple having to pay 15% of the revenue from Apple Itunes? That's crazy...
A Microsoft operating system was on 97% of all computing devices in the year 2000, even higher if you narrow the definition to something like "home computer".
I'm old enough to remember that in 2001, Microsoft got in trouble just for shipping Windows with IE preinstalled. Which seems like an awfully quaint concern by 2021 standards.
Compare the situation to ISPs. There's Comcast, Cox, Charter, etc., but a given location is often only served by one of them, so they don't actually compete with each other. Similarly, nobody has a choice between those two app stores. iOS users can't use the Google Play Store, and Android users can't use the Apple App Store.
They have a monopoly in their markets, which is "on their OS". The exact definition of their markets, in particular if it's "on their OS" or "on phones in general", is one of the major points of contention in the case
I'm not sure if this is written somewhere, but from personal experience: "you can't place a url whose content contains a direct link to a donation service (paypal, patreon, etc) nor in your app nor in the play store description".
Placing a link to a site which contains a link to another site with the actual donations links is fine...for now.
App ecosystems can't work properly if they're weakened by LEAs. People would just not use them if they know they're being watched. I'm not saying the majority would switch to Linux phones either (like Librem 5 & Pinephone), simply that the two dominating app-stores (Play & Apple Store) would be phased out and people would probably fund independent FLOSS app stores to replace them.
In the end, the people will speak out and respond to back-doors. In-fact we need FLOSS app stores right now (Similar to F-Droid[0], but baked in as the default store), and they need to be funded properly & they need sound economic incentives to continue. No more 'free' apps where you pay for them with your data. It's possible to have FLOSS apps that are not gratis where people pay for them with money, not their data.
(The reason I suggest we switch to FLOSS app stores is that the apps can easily be checked for back-doors or malicious code since the code is open source. It makes the apps readily available for audits too)
The App stores have become a cartel and I'd love to see their unscrupulous behavior challenged in court. (Epic is doing that, but your case is easier to sympathize with).
From looking at the report, I'm not sure I understand this decision. The referenced policy is about in-store or in-app purchases, primarily of digital content, and a free donation is not "purchasing" anything.
(Even taking this precedent at face value, it could impact any app that prominently features links to websites where donations are asked for, which seems quite unreasonable.)
They had to follow through a bunch of not-so-prominent links on the website to discover the donation page. Whatever that is, I don't think it qualifies as "lazy".
Contact your Congresspeople and ask them to support and vote for the Open App Markets Act as soon as possible: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/11/apple-g... (The primary goal of this bill is to prohibit Google and Apple from punishing app developers from soliciting payments outside of their platforms.)
Also, consider hooking up with the Coalition for App Fairness, who may be able to help draw more visibility to your issue: https://appfairness.org/
The only solution to constant abuse by app market actors is legal action.
To the person that reviewed this app in Google Play – you are disgusting! You seriously scrolled down on their homepage and you took screenshot of their donate button? That is absurd... How can you end your day of work and think "I did a good job today"...
I'd urge anyone who finds this behaviour unacceptable to contact the UK's CMA - the regulator responsible for competition.
They have an ongoing investigation into Google and Apple's practices with regards to app stores (and mobile platforms in general) [1], and have been looking for evidence on the topic of competition in app stores, and dominance.
While the UK is just one country, the CMA has a wide mandate to act on competition matters and has announced their preliminary findings on the merger of Facebook and Giphy, which (in short) recommend a forced sale of Giphy to prevent potential future anticompetitive moves, such as through terms of service. They have a particular current interest in digital markets, and are forming a new unit specifically to deal with tech antitrust issues (the digital markets unit)
While the CMA public consultation on the Apple/Google mobile platforms work has closed, their investigation team can be contacted via the email inbox listed at [1]. When engaging with regulators like this (for anyone not familiar), it is helpful if you explain why a particular move has harmed you, and can give examples or any available evidence about it, and explain the impact that it has had on you, and the impact on the wider ecosystem as a result.
I'm sure other regulators are looking into this, but for those who are unhappy about this situation, I'd urge you to contact a regulator. If your own national regulator isn't looking into it, there's no reason not to contact the UK one (or indeed any other), and explain your concerns and help them with finding evidence - often for policy and enforcement teams, getting evidence together is the hard part of their job, and I can say from experience they do read their emails.
Every time I see a headline like this I think, "ok, let's dig deeper here and find out what actually happened." But no, in this case, this is actually what happened, and it's complete garbage. In fact it's even worse than the headline.
The article is wrong, and this is explained in the Talk page. There's no source for the claim that the motto has been removed.
What's linked is a clickbait article about how they moved the phase from the opening statement to the closing statement in the Code of Conduct. That says nothing at all about its use as a motto.
292 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 275 ms ] threadProbably.
Do I think Google made that decision consciously and this is part of their scheme?
No, I think they screwed up the way that they do all the time, won't apologize for it, and if they decide to reverse themselves this time, they could still un-reverse their judgement after any future update, or just because Google is incompetent that way.
When was the last time they did anything good?
In the process they did lose me as a user of their free products though. And they lost me as a developer, I no longer opt for building with their tools, including Chrome, Android, Angular, GCloud, etc.
err, what? I still regularly get AMP links from news.google.com
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27192685
I use the terminal theme in DDG, and it's become the canonical SERP in my mind. When I do !g every now and then, it feels like GSearch has become AltaVista with a dash of MySpace.
Oh I dunno... how about that time they solved protein folding?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4
like with WaveNet, it was easy to train but computationally infeasible to run the way they published the paper. then it turns out there's a trick that makes playing it forward far more efficient, which Google later acknowledged using internally, but didn't disclose.
But more often than not they release a lot of their weights and/or research code.
It's a building block that might pave the way for something else.
Large organizations can do both good and terrible things.
Google still serves are huge portion of search traffic which pretty clearly is a good thing. Youtube has an incredible wealth of tutorials & educational content. Deepmind is pushing the boundaries of what is possible. Various OSS projects continue to be pushed out. Gmail has been an amazing free resource for millions etc.
They are also doing terrible things as well.
All three have their problems (especially that third one) but they have done an incredible amount of Good in the world and they continue to do so every day.
As for YouTube, it is technically marvellous, but since they started censoring and silencing one side of a political spectrum, YT turned into a propaganda machine, no less.
It’s just not all black and white.
GP said: "without Google Maps it would not exist." It's not pedantry to note that's the opposite of the truth.
Like i said, i appreciated the comment, it was pedant for a very valid reason. Yours, less so.
Your dismissive tone all around is pretty jarring too.
You were factually, categorically wrong (twice now). That happens. You may want to accept it gracefully it and go on with your day.
You're not the person I was replying to, I don't have to justify myself to you. If you want me to be graceful, you can come watch me at the rink instead.
I just wanted to point out how wrong you were, and how petulant your reaction was when it was pointed out (several times), just in case it may help open your eyes. Obviously it didn't.
However, a nice and smooth client with drag and zoom was a rather obvious thing to do: a lot of computer games had maps in them as early as in late 1980s, like Sim City and many others, where you could zoom, drag along etc, and it wasn't done in OSM rigth from the start mostly due to pitiful state of web browsers and web standards of the time. So I think that even without Google Maps, OSM would have evolved to have great usability, just as it did in our timeline.
Hard disagree there, a single company dominating search is not a good thing.
The alternative isn't necessarily "there's five competing high quality google search competitors".
There were some nice unique things back then. It also sucked a lot. By the standards of back then we're living in pretty much a utopia. We have devices that Star Trek barely thought of. Seriously, I have a tablet that can speak to almost anyone anywhere in the world, instantaneously, translate into any language (imperfectly), look up any information, access to an encyclopedia tens of thousands of times larger than the most complete ones of just two decades ago, the ability to find free videos teaching me how to do anything, and that's all just the tip of the iceberg.
If I were to talk to someone in 2000 and list the shit we can do in just twenty years there is zero chance they would believe me. And it's not like the internet didn't exist back then. I was on it, as were many others on HN. Those who remember, remember that it mostly sucked.
What we have today sucks in different ways. But it's also accessible to billions of people, which is billions more than back then. That "nightmare" you're talking about is fixable, and it's certainly not fixable by "going back" to anything. You know there were also ads back then and they were just as awful as today, right? There were just less places where they could end up.
That's not to say it was a better time.
If you told me in 2000 about the things you listed I'd tell you you're a slowpoke, that's obviously coming and most things were actually already there like SIP, ICQ, IRC, translator software, browsers, etc. existed on the smartphones of the day. What wasn't there was the adoption by the masses, but the tech was there.
IMO it's a failing of society not so much google that they don't have serious competition in this space.
I hate to break this to you but google was born a villain. Nobody innately good has to remind themselves "Don't be evil". Imagine walking down the street and meeting a stranger constantly repeating "Don't be evil" to himself?
Apple and Google have too much control.
House reps probably aren't setting their legislative agenda about monopolistic power based off of what the intelligence community would like the most.
"Why use another store, when Google and Apple are required by law to have all apps?"
They aren't going to force Google and Apple to have all apps?
Stopping the stores from demanding that all apps have no method of payment except via their payment services (and its 30% cut) would be good. It would solve the situation in TFA at least.
That isn’t at all what is being proposed
I will predict for you the future of that, based on the past.
The next people in line who control most devices are the carriers.
They will set up app stores that are required on their phones (since the laws will not prevent this).
Each will have exclusive apps that require their app store be installed (and will not be available on other phones).
Things will be a mishmash.
Nobody will be actually happy.
The carriers also have great lobbyists, and are really great at doing this kind of thing.
It will take a long time to undo it.
I’ve heard people say that about true compromise…
It seems like there are extremes, carriers were abusing their positions before Apple came up with iPhone and app store and wrangled power away from carriers. Now they have lived long enough to become the villain… it might be time to reset matrix again and work towards a better outcome.
I don't actually disagree with your assessment of what happened, but i don't have the hope people here do. I have watched the ebb and flow too many times, and lived in DC too long :)
I also think the hope is amazingly misplaced. Rarely, if ever, do complex systems like this change in the desired way as a result of trying to "fix them" directly. Sometimes they change, sometimes the inertia keeps them in the same state. But it rarely, if ever, does this kind of change have the intended effect.
They even teach this in complex system theory.
The Monkey's Paw, I take it.
Even if the horrors you suggest are true, consumers would have options to get around them, whilst right now, a single monopoly, Google, controls the entire playing field, and actively attacks anyone who tries to offer a path around (Epic, for instance).
The "ISP bogeyman" issue constantly feels hollow in tech circles considering there's a ton of actual competition in the provider space, and a complete and unassailable monopoly in the tech platform space.
Google has never restricted sideloading. Android 12 even enables sideloading further by allowing third party app stores to auto update.
AOSP exists. Third party roms exist. All of the devices sold by Google can be unlocked to install third party roms.
LineageOS doesn't exist because 'a complete and unassailable monopoly' allows them to.
AOSP is not meaningfully existing on any device sold today.
The fact you can hack your device doesn't change the monopoly Google operates that 99.9% of Android devices are trapped in.
[citation needed]
I know what you're referring to and I know you're being wholly disingenuous.
> AOSP is not meaningfully existing on any device sold today.
AOSP is technically sold on every device since that's what every single Android version *AND* skin is based on.
If you want to do something that isn't supported by the oem, then do it yourself. Nothing stops you from being able to do so which is the entire damn point.
> The fact you can hack your device doesn't change the monopoly Google operates that 99.9% of Android devices are trapped in.
An unlockable bootloader isn't a hack. Try again.
For an IT Consultant, you're remarkably ignorant when it comes to the reality of Android.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/6/22612921/google-epic-antit...
> An unlockable bootloader isn't a hack. Try again.
Several apps rely on successful SafetyNet verification to start functioning. A unlocked bootloader will trip this and apps stop functioning. Current solutions to overcome this is a cat and mouse game.
https://www.xda-developers.com/bypass-safetynet-hardware-att...
> Google admits it tries to prevent sideloading as much as possible in their own court filings with Epic.
Your citation?
Still shows that sideloading is possible.
Derp.
That's not preventing sideloading. Some one time steps remind the user that there are risks to sideloading something that can't be trusted.
Like I said to the other guy, I knew what he was referring to and it was wholly disingenuous to make the claim that he did.
Sideloading. Is. Not. Prevented.
It is cautioned against.
Big difference.
The article claims 15+ steps, which is absolute bullshit.
-- 1) Open Chrome.
-- 2) Find and Download APK. https://i.imgur.com/ZFZb1uE.png
-- 3) Accept warning and Open APK.
-- 4) Go to settings. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/R8FzTzP.png
-- 5) Toggle Install Unknown Apps for Chrome. (This only has to be done once) https://i.imgur.com/K0ADO2q.png
-- 6) Click back (This only has to be done once)
-- 7) Click install. https://i.imgur.com/xVSndex.png
-- Done. https://i.imgur.com/fyasTK9.png
On no. That was really hard.
After the first time it takes a whole whopping, astounding, IMPOSSIBLE.... 4 steps. Open browser, download APK, open APK, click Install.
IMPOSSIBLE, I TELL YOU!
Don't even need to enable Developer Options in Android. No iOS developer cert needed. No host computer or one week expiration like Apple does it.
And guess what? Sideloading has always been possible on Android. Always.
This looks like something Google is doing to make it too difficult to sideload? ("Google tries to prevent sideloading as much as possible" I believe was said) Well, shit, whoever finds this difficult should not be sideloading apps in the first place.
> Several apps rely on successful SafetyNet verification to start functioning. A unlocked bootloader will trip this and apps stop functioning. Current solutions to overcome this is a cat and mouse game.
However, this doesn't change the fact that unlocking the bootloader on a device where a bootloader can be unlocked... is NOT A HACK.
Safetynet as a consequence of unlocking the bootloader is a known trade off. Security vs the ability to modify the system files. Seems completely fair to me.
The way you guys go about this, how you get so much wrong in the process that the disingenuous replies barely mask that your contempt lies with Google regardless of how anything is actually done.
You created an account to jump into a thread where you merely propagated the previous user's fallacies? Really?
It does prevent this. All apps and app stores included with the device must be disableable is in the language of the bill.
That won't get you the functionality!
My opinion is that Google, and Apple are Bundling/Tying at multiple levels, and using monopoly power in a way that stifles the market, and impedes innovation.
This is some good stuff on some of these issues https://www.justice.gov/atr/chapter-5-antitrust-issues-tying...
If we start letting the government legislate the software that we are "allowed" to write or use, then what remaining freedoms we have left will be gone. Creating laws, or bad precedents in court, in knee-jerk response to Epic's temper tantrum is not how we solve these issues, considering that Tim Sweeney tried to bring "open source" into this debacle when Epic has a history of being hostile towards it.
I don't think they are.
> If you load the website externally using the mobile browser it shouldn't be an issue.
The screenshots look like browser and not some in-app website view.
Most obvious indicator is the 40 other tabs they have open in their browser on the top right.
We've allowed AI systems unfettered, unrestricted access to our lives. AI is being deployed with absolutely no oversight (Apple's CSAM comes to mind), I'm not even sure there are any laws at all. How can apple just deploy a new system without having to first go through the courts? We all know at some point someone will lodge a suit against them for an inaccurate match...
Decisions like this must be deferred to a human, who creates a record and is capable in case anything untoward happens. AI seems exempt from any liability (this is probably why so many places are deploying such systems, as a society it seems we've decided that no matter what good or bad may happen "AI" gets a free pass and no human will likely go to jail, even if your self driving car kills you).
The fact you can be deprived due to a mistaken software error is one of the most awful things in our society, and this has happened far too many times for it to go ignored time and again.
But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time.
How many more times must threads like this be posted to HN before we DEMAND action be taken?
See you next month ;).
A developer has their app removed, perhaps their livelihood, and Google can't be fucked to sign off who made the decision?
If it was a human I expect to know who, and who I can write to so it can be reviewed, by another human. I want to know how I can contact a human for support and not some useless AI chat bot that seem to be all the rage these days (looking at you Amazon...)
But yes, it's happened so much by AI you just assume these days...like a YouTube takedown for example by a bot.
Is it because the payment is optional (and doesn't unlock new features) that make you think this should be except from Google's rules (and potentially taxes?)?
I don't think anyone is arguing for this app in particular to get an exception from the rules. People are arguing that this rule is ridiculous and that nobody should have to follow it as it's currently written.
The first is that it's a donation, not a purchase, and changes nothing about the app. The second is that there's no mention of donation anywhere in the app, and the website/about/more info link does go to a website with more info.
If you instead, like Google, decide that this still counts, you end up the in the (in my opinion, clearly wrong) situation where Google either controls what you put on your independent website, or Google disallows you from linking to your website/portfolio in the app you made.
That sounds quite draconian to me. I wonder if adding an in-app purchase that says "donate w/cut to Google" would appease them.
[1] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1474671/129396236-...
I disagree with you on the funding the app developer angle. If you seek funding in a way supported, even indirectly, by the app’s availability in the Play Store, Google wants its cut. If you don’t want that support, you’re free to go it alone without the store.
This clearly isn't Ubisoft.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
"Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment. Play-distributed apps must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment if they require or accept payment for access to features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods."
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Can you explain which of those categories this payment ("The app doesn't provide any special features to people who donate; it's just a way to help support the project.") falls under?
If I put an app up on the app store for free, then link to my site and ask for donations, I am effectively using the app store for free. The app in question is effectively setup to say "you don't need to pay for this app, but we would really like you too"... and then the payment is handled outside the play store. Arguing over whether it should be called payment or a donation doesn't really change the fact that is it the user giving money to the developer because of the app; the app they got on the play store. That's the behavior that the rule in intended to avoid.
Frankly it seems to me that the intent of the rules is to specifically allow asking for payment/"donation" outside of Play so long as nothing in your app is affected by it.
"Google Play's billing system must not be used in cases where:... payments include peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and tax exempt donations;"
That is, according to the screenshot in the GitHub PR, the app was removed for using the Google Play billing system when they shouldn't be using it. It was not removed for failing to use the Google Play Billing system when they should have been.
I have no idea how they might have been using Google Play billing. There is no billing code on GitHub that I see. Maybe they turned on billing on the Play Store accidentally, or maybe the screenshot has the wrong policy violation.
Imagine if you went into Walmart, bought an Android phone, and then when you turned the phone on Google wasn't allowed to show you any links in the Android OS to their support pages because technically you can navigate from the support pages to the online Google store and then buy another phone from them directly without giving Walmart a cut.
I don't think Google would call that a reasonable restriction, I think Google would call that anticompetitive.
No, imagine if you went into Walmart, picked up an item for free and then used PayPal to sidestep Walmarts margin. And then threw a giant fuss because Walmart stopped stocking that free item.
Google is listing the app as free. Separately, on a website via a page that is not linked from the main app in any location, you can donate to the developer. The developer is not linking to or steering the user towards that donation page in the app or in the app description, they're just linking to their code repository, which is clearly important for an Open Source app to do. If Walmart gave me a product for free, and separately I donated some money to the person who originally made that product, Walmart wouldn't really have much justification to complain.
The analogy you're proposing doesn't really make sense to me. Are you arguing that any method of donating to the developer at all outside of the Play Store is intrinsically stealing from Google? Are you arguing that the developer is stealing from Google by not hiding their donation pages on other platforms that exist outside of the app?
This is Google. At this point this is expected behaviour from one of the Big Tech Tyrants, Over [0] and over [1] and over [2] again [3] multiple [4] times [5]. Unless we seriously break it up, they will never change and the suspensions will continue.
Like Facebook, when you are banned by their AI moderation tools, there is little redemption and it's unlikely they will give the account back; since you don't even own it.
Once again, these tyrants are NOT your friends.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26488655
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25693679
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22334537
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24984408
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275
[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25964226
That old saying about patriots and tyrants comes to mind...
I completely agree with you, but do realize that the majority of hacker newses are coders (not even programmers) who would never take responsibility for their shoddy work. Heavens forbid they, or their management, be held personally liable for their mistakes. They won't even call defects, "defects"--they're just "bugs"! Whoopsies!
What could they be hiding in all that proprietary code--incompetence, malice, or both?
Edit: To be fair I can't imagine a situation where it would ever make sense. The link-depth in this case was 2. This is just bad behavior on the part of Google.
> That's right; someone at Google reviewed this app, visited the LT website, scrolled to the very bottom of the page, and clicked through twice to find a way to contribute funds to the project. Our app isn't allowed to link to the homepage of the project's own website unless we completely remove our users' ability to discover a way to give us money."
So that's the answer to your question. AI is irrelevant here because existing processes that are performed by humans are unaccountable or unjust, too.
(This is my problem with "AI foom" doomsaying, by the way: we've clearly gotten to a point without AI where groups of humans, acting in individually rational ways, have built a monstrous system that nobody can either understand in its entirety or effectively oppose. We got there centuries ago, for that matter, at least as far back as when the phrase "invisible hand" was invented. The problem here is not that we have moved accountability from a human to an AI, it's that we've moved accountability from a human to a corporation, and it is quite obviously unjust to hold the individual anonymous Google reviewer responsible for accurately following the instructions of their minimum-wage job, but we also have no way to find the PM or exec who wrote these policies and they probably don't even know what the impact of those policies is.)
> But as I've said on HN before this thread will eventually disappear in a few hours until next time.
HN has had tons of threads on these general topics. They are heavily discussed in this forum and spend plenty of time on the front page.
Maybe some such threads have been flagged—most likely that would be because users get tired of repetition. If you've developed the impression that the topic is somehow being suppressed, that's probably because you've overgeneralized from a few data points (or one) that you saw on some occasion(s).
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Can you finally see that Google (YouTube), Apple, Microsoft and Facebook are NOT your friends?
But this is just a tip of an iceberg.
While sometimes Google does something to patch the issue, it can not on itself fix it. Because it is caused by a core flaw of the company business model.
It supports two competing platforms where only one earns money and gives control. It renders Google to be incapable of supporting both app creators and open web properly.
I wrote about it lately:
https://tomaszs2.medium.com/ups-we-broke-the-web-again-sorry...
[0] https://github.com/language-transfer/lt-app/issues/24
https://auroraoss.com/
https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS
From the Aurora Store FAQ:
What is the difference between Aurora Store and Google's Play store?
Unlike Google's Play Store, Aurora Store doesn't track your downloads or the apps you use. We respect your privacy. Aurora Store is also unaffected by Google marking your device as uncertified or lacking of necessary Google apps. Play Protect is not present, as this is a Play Store only feature.
Do I need Google Play Services to use Aurora Store?
No. Aurora Store was built to access the Google Play store without any kind of Google services. It doesn't matter if you use it with or without Google Play Services/MicroG.
Is it safe to use Aurora store?
Aurora Store is fully open-source and verified by F-Droid. If you're asking about the safety of the apps in the store, those are the exact same ones the Play Store would load and display. A lot of dangerous stuff seems to sneak past Google though, so as a rule of thumb, don't download anything which you're unsure about.
Google will always insist you meant <App> android and show you those results instead, which of course is the play store version if it exists.
https://i.imgur.com/2vWBEG4.png
https://i.imgur.com/3R6JzvB.png
The search results even gave me the correct name of the app in f-droid that is named differently. (firefox > fennec)
“Snapchat hdroid” also suggests “Snapchat Android” though, so it doesn’t seem targeted against f-droid specifically
Also, I want to tell you it gets better, I had problems getting sleep too for nearly a decade and it started really catching up with me as I entered my thirties (appetite, energy and cognitive issues for example). Turning screens off, limiting stimulants, not partying as much and keeping a regular wake up time _really_ helped me.
Best of luck to you.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
>However, you may want to be careful as Google retains full rights to block any account under their Google Play Terms of Service §4 (opens new window), because using Aurora Store clearly violates their terms of services. Being banned means that the very Google account you used to sign in with will be blocked forever. It might be worth using a dummy account for that reason.
I don't know how often using aurora store has actually resulted in a ban though.
Here's the google play ToS:
https://play.google.com/intl/en-us_us/about/play-terms/index...
Am I reading this correctly in that, this seems to me like just telling people about something like Aurora is against the terms of services and can get you banned whether you use it or not?
As in, even the gp comment technically breaks that rule just by posting that Aurora FAQ?
That's fairly intense if so.
I've had many professional contracts with both private and commercial clients. In none of those cases was I ever allowed to provide a contract where I could just decide whatever I want, whenever I want and the customer is forced to agree otherwise...fuck them...and I still get paid.
Nobody wants to lose his milky cow.
Since these payments are considered taxable income, I am not sure why they would think they could avoid Google's rules just because they are a "small one-man shop".
The simple solution here is to add in-app purchases like every other "small one-man shop" and not ask for noncompetitive advantages and accept Google's 15% cut [0].
[0] - https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2021/03/boosting-d...
Mincing words to make your argument is kinda frown upon here.
Besides, Google has to maintain the App Store to keep their OS afloat.
Google should have to compete on merit and if somebody doesn't want to give Google/Apple a cut, too bad.
These platforms should probably not be placed under the control of such large entities, Android/iOS should be split into their own organisation .
Google/Apple can then pick their OS or appstore, not both.
More like race to the bottom quality, security, spyware, malware, shitty ripoff of other people's work promoted over the original, fake bank apps, fake WhatsApp when you wanted the real one, etc.
Your Linux distro is not in a race to the bottom on any of these things. It works in a completely different way from an app marketplace on a money-handling device. And you know you are running Linux, you know what you're getting.
We should have multiple app stores. But don't be under any illusion that it can only turn out like Linux distros. I would expect some terrible "stores" just like there are some really dodgy apps, some of them installed on users' devices without their knowledge.
- on F-Droid, an app store dedicated for OSS software
- on Samsung Store, an app store preinstalled on most Android phones sold in US and other western world
- on Amazon store
- on Huawei app store
- on their own webpage as a downloadable APK
But what they really want is to use Googles distribution system while not paying the margin.
You're right, GP should have been more explicit: these aren't payments subject to Google Play's "us-only" policy.
Patently, yes:
-- "donation" means one can get the product independently of any money transfer;
-- «paying from work», «charging for apps», «require or accept payment for access to features or services», means that getting the product is conditional to money transfer.
"Donation" is not "payment".
In fact, I do not quite understand on which contractual reason the ban happened.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/app-store-competition-targeted-...
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/11/tech/apple-google-app-sto...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/11/22620454/apple-google-app...
For those of you who are old enough: Imagine if in 2000, Microsoft released "Windows Me" with something similar (for PC) to what Apple or Google are doing in the current dominant computing device form factor (Mobile). It just would not have been tolerated. Adobe, Netscape, Autodesk, Corel and others having to pay Microsoft a 15% cut for their software? Netscape? Opera? Apple having to pay 15% of the revenue from Apple Itunes? That's crazy...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....
Placing a link to a site which contains a link to another site with the actual donations links is fine...for now.
In the end, the people will speak out and respond to back-doors. In-fact we need FLOSS app stores right now (Similar to F-Droid[0], but baked in as the default store), and they need to be funded properly & they need sound economic incentives to continue. No more 'free' apps where you pay for them with your data. It's possible to have FLOSS apps that are not gratis where people pay for them with money, not their data.
(The reason I suggest we switch to FLOSS app stores is that the apps can easily be checked for back-doors or malicious code since the code is open source. It makes the apps readily available for audits too)
[0] https://f-droid.org/
The App stores have become a cartel and I'd love to see their unscrupulous behavior challenged in court. (Epic is doing that, but your case is easier to sympathize with).
(Even taking this precedent at face value, it could impact any app that prominently features links to websites where donations are asked for, which seems quite unreasonable.)
Also, consider hooking up with the Coalition for App Fairness, who may be able to help draw more visibility to your issue: https://appfairness.org/
The only solution to constant abuse by app market actors is legal action.
They have an ongoing investigation into Google and Apple's practices with regards to app stores (and mobile platforms in general) [1], and have been looking for evidence on the topic of competition in app stores, and dominance.
While the UK is just one country, the CMA has a wide mandate to act on competition matters and has announced their preliminary findings on the merger of Facebook and Giphy, which (in short) recommend a forced sale of Giphy to prevent potential future anticompetitive moves, such as through terms of service. They have a particular current interest in digital markets, and are forming a new unit specifically to deal with tech antitrust issues (the digital markets unit)
While the CMA public consultation on the Apple/Google mobile platforms work has closed, their investigation team can be contacted via the email inbox listed at [1]. When engaging with regulators like this (for anyone not familiar), it is helpful if you explain why a particular move has harmed you, and can give examples or any available evidence about it, and explain the impact that it has had on you, and the impact on the wider ecosystem as a result.
I'm sure other regulators are looking into this, but for those who are unhappy about this situation, I'd urge you to contact a regulator. If your own national regulator isn't looking into it, there's no reason not to contact the UK one (or indeed any other), and explain your concerns and help them with finding evidence - often for policy and enforcement teams, getting evidence together is the hard part of their job, and I can say from experience they do read their emails.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-ecosystems-market-study
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/facebook-s-takeover-of-gi...
The FTC has the Bureau of Competition[3].
Each individual state has an Attorney General office that will hear these types of complaints, and some of them have explicit antitrust divisions[4].
[1] https://www.justice.gov/atr
[2] https://www.justice.gov/atr/report-violations
[3] https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competi...
[4] https://www.naag.org/issues/antitrust/
"Don't be evil"
You know something is not well
https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
What misinformation?
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
What's linked is a clickbait article about how they moved the phase from the opening statement to the closing statement in the Code of Conduct. That says nothing at all about its use as a motto.