461–470 of 579 posts
If only there was an alternative to the Apple app store like F-Droid is for Google Play...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No thanks. If I'm donating to a good cause, I don't want the App Mafia taking a 30% cut. That just reinforces this bad behavior.
It's sort of a convenience fee. I agree with your App Mafia take but my guess is folks that can't be troubled to use F-Droid probably weren't going to donate in the first place. For instance, D-Sub is available for free on F-Droid but costs something like ~$4 on Google Play. AndOTP is available on F-Droid, not sure about Wireguard but I'd assume so.
This is great solution to sustain the app developmant and spread the word about F-Droid!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Disallowing developers from using in-app billing for donations, while also barring them from linking to external donation platforms, puts open source projects in a difficult position, and appears to be overly hostile towards funding open source development. Google Play has been very clear about this[1]: > Fund solicitations > Examples: Donation solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status…
Sure, but why ? If the rules clearly said "no chess games", one could say "that ends the discussion of why chess games are denied", or you could further ask "but why are no chess games allowed?". Is it because Google plans on having their own Google-Chess someday and thus is preemptively preventing competition? Is there a technical or regulatory reason chess games aren't allowed? That's the question (at least for me)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears only non-profit organizations are allowed to use Google Play In-app Billing for donations, which is fine. But why are we forbidden from linking to an external page that lists other ways to support a project, such as Patreon? I think we should stop being apologetic, and begin to call out Google for the damage they are inflicting upon open source developers.
> If only non-profit organizations are allowed to use Google Play In-app Billing for donations Nobody is allowed to use Google Play's in-app billing for donations, and only organizations with a valid tax exempt status can link to an external page that lists donation options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Disallowing developers from using in-app billing for donations, while also barring them from linking to external donation platforms, puts open source projects in a difficult position, and appears to be overly hostile towards funding open source development. Google Play has been very clear about this[1]: > Fund solicitations > Examples: Donation solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status…
Sure, but why ? If the rules clearly said "no chess games", one could say "that ends the discussion of why chess games are denied", or you could further ask "but why are no chess games allowed?". Is it because Google plans on having their own Google-Chess someday and thus is preemptively preventing competition? Is there a technical or regulatory reason chess games aren't allowed? That's the question (at least for me)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow this line of reasoning at all. By all accounts, Microsoft should have been broken up. They were convicted of abusing their monopoly position in a court of law. It was a travesty of justice that it was not carried out. Had this happened, the new companies would have been vastly more competitive, and the current state of computing might have been much better.
It's hazardous at best to assume the state of something with so much variables. As for continuing being GAFA advocate (while still thinking they should be compelled to open up "Stores" to competition), vertical integration provides enough economy of scale to achieve ever greater complex things. Also, 1) you can't just "break-up" any GAFA. They're just gonna move out of State and be welcomed somewhere else, and 2) wha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh do come off it. This is bureaucratic bullshit at its' finest. We're talking about a hyperlink in the app. Linking to wireguard.com would be fine. How about if wireguard.com had a big donate button? How about if wireguard.com has 'Donate' in bold? I know you're not the person actually signing off on this - but to the one that is - fuck you. In bold. No-one is getting sued because of one step being removed in a hype…
It's not a lawsuit that people are afraid of. It's potential action from financial regulators, who are famously inflexible and disinterested in being nice to open source software developers in genuine financial need. Parties like Google and Apple are well aware of the potential consequences, and thus are similarly inflexible and disinterested in being nice to a fairly small group of use-cases that exposes them to an…
Sure, maybe the argument can be made, but come on. We all know this is so that Google can get their nice 30% cut, and cut off any alternate funding sources for Android apps. Otherwise, shady developers will just require a "donation" instead of a purchase. That is behavior that Google would be reasonable to police, but to claim that action from financial regulators is what's causing this is just silly.
Google Play In-app Billing does not support donations [1], so open source developers should be allowed to link to their own donation pages. Google Play policies do not spell out that linking to donation platforms such as Patreon is forbidden. Disallowing developers from using in-app billing for donations, while also barring them from linking to external donation platforms, puts open source projects in a difficult pos…
> Disallowing developers from using in-app billing for donations, while also barring them from linking to external donation platforms, puts open source projects in a difficult position, and appears to be overly hostile towards funding open source development. Google Play has been very clear about this[1]: > Fund solicitations > Examples: Donation solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status…
"Any individual or business processing transactions with Google payments must adhere to these policies."
These apps weren't using Google payments, and it is suspected that they were taken down for not using Google's payment systems (despite not being allowed to).