Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 293 posts

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#211

Post by heavyset_go »

g_p wrote: post #66

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 o…

The US Dept. of Justice has an Antitrust Division[1], along with a page that details how and why[2] to get in touch with them.

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/

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#212

Post by bobcall »

sgtfrankieboy wrote: post #5

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. Apple and Google have too much control.

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.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#213

Post by sterlind »

nbardy wrote: post #147
jonas21 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When was the last time they did anything good? Oh I dunno... how about that time they solved protein folding? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4

Or the other reams of world class machine learning research and model weights they've released freely.

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.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#214

Post by grawprog »

jcranberry wrote: post #117
squarefoot wrote: post #18

Tell Google how you feel about that by searching "google app store alternatives", then installing Aurora Store. 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 ma…

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…

>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?

That's fairly intense if so.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#215

Post by altitudinous »

My unpopular but realistic opinion as a successful financially app dev is - just post a Google compliant link to a payment system. Take the 15% hit. The payment link is likely to be more direct and user friendly, so you will likely end up earning more even after the 15% cut. Having a link to a website and then having users have to scroll to the bottom in order to donate means you are likely to be earning near $0 from it anyway.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#216

Post by JohnFen »

dylan604 wrote: post #207
badsectoracula wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though most users aren't developers, the "Freedom" in Free Software is about user freedom not developer freedom (which is also a point that trips some developers who claim that licenses like MIT, zlib, etc are more free - they see it from the developer's side instead of the user's side). You shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run any software on your own devices and especially you shouldn't need permi…

Yes, but it's Apple we're talking about, so I'm moving past this part of the conversation. As a dev, you should want the least resistance to getting users running your code. If that means playing by the OS vendor's rules to get something signed that says "I'm not a crook", then that's what it takes. Should it? That's valid but beyond the scope of my comment and thought exercise.

As a dev, I also want to avoid supporting practices that I believe are harmful to my customers.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#217

Post by QuizzicalCarbon »

scrollaway wrote: post #195
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually , OSM was launched before Google Maps, in August 2004, while Google Maps were launched only in February 2005, six months later.

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.

Now you’ve got me missing AltaVista.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#218

Post by kyrra »

nousermane wrote: post #111

Another example of arbitrary playstore rules killing a FOSS app - playstore version of termux is stuck on a 2-year-old release (0.101) and can't run on Android 10 at all. If you install from F-Droid - latest version is available (0.117) and works on Android 10, too. https://github.com/termux/termux-app/issues/1072 https://wiki.termux.com/wiki/Termux_Google_Play

Googler opinions are my own. I know nothing about the space.

At least skimming the termux issue here is that it was done for SELinux policy changes in trying to improve security of application running on Android. Is that correct? Then the app store is trying to enforce this newer policy via forced API upgrades.

As you said, you can at least still side load if you would like?

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#219

Post by Dracophoenix »

DannyBee wrote: post #206
hypothesis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody will be actually happy. 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.

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…

>> 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.

The Monkey's Paw, I take it.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#220

Post by thebean11 »

DannyBee wrote: post #95
sgtfrankieboy wrote: post #5

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. Apple and Google have too much control.

Y'all are too optimistic. 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 actu…

I think this is a stretch, and forcing Apple to allow sideloads is a more likely outcome.
Post reply on HN