141–150 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He also claims to have done $500,000 of development for the eco system for Google in the spirit of Open Source with the development he had done before being banned.
Yeah. That's a bit ridiculous. If that was $500,000 of work, I should be a billionaire.
In reality he only provided about as much value as people found in the app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He also claims to have done $500,000 of development for the eco system for Google in the spirit of Open Source with the development he had done before being banned.
Yeah. That's a bit ridiculous. If that was $500,000 of work, I should be a billionaire.
You are confusing $500K worth of "work" with $500K worth of billing. A common problem in our industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judging by the names of the apps/wrappers (if they were same in the store) from here http://distantfutu.re/page/portfolio.html he is lucky to not get sued at the same time as well. He's even argumentative about trademark infringement in his post. I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.
On top of that, you can only use a .re TLD if you are a EU citizen or a company that resides in the EU... http://www.afnic.fr/en/products-and-services/the-re-tld/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime? The 'whine' was about being banned for life because of novice mistakes made without bad faith. How is one supposed to learn the ropes? It's like learning to drive in a country where driving schools didn't exist and the full extent of traffic laws applied to you. How possibly could the author learn what he was doing wrong?
> The question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime? Well yeah, repeated trademark infringement / impersonation; if Google wasn't strict about that kinda thing, the owners of those brands would sue them for millions, just as much as they were with Youtube. They're similarly strict with Youtube videos for that matter.
Is that impersonation? Basically his app let you have a "bookmark" that opened a YouTube provided channel.
Sure he seems to be naive about the trademark issues (but interestingly never mentions how much money was made, if any) but Google were highly flawed in their customer service/developer relations [as usual]. The trademark issue isn't entirely clear cut (but I wouldn't want to try and defend it in court) as it's descriptive of what it is. There's an exhaustion of rights angle too - like being able to sell Nike shoes and call them Nike shoes as long as they are really from Nike. My point I suppose is it's not entirely without complexity.
Google, how hard is it to have a pro forma response that says "You can not use other business names or trademarks, which you don't have a license for, as part of your app name.".
"There is a guide and it's pretty clear: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... - For example, if your app displays the brand, icon, or title from another app [...] your apps can be suspended and your developer account terminated."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I was painting him as "different" from me, or even making it about him vs. me at all. The onus is on you, the person using the service, to understand what terms and conditions you have agreed to abide by when using that service. If Google fail to uphold their end of the agreement and you lose revenue, you can seek remedy through legal means (although, obviously, that's a pretty crap position to be in); i…
>>but ultimately they have no legal obligation to be any of those things, and in business your legal obligations are your only obligations. So businesses don't have any ethical obligations then? Cool.
One of the major misunderstandings about the Play Store is that there "are no rules" in comparison to Apple's App Store. That's not the case. Apple filters up front, Google deals with terms & conditions violations after you are already published.
Now, I think the negative here is that he conflated his personal accounts with his publishing accounts. I generally recommend against that, even if you are a hobbyist developer.
The author used other people's content, packaged them into an app, and then repeatedly submitted the same app (with one minor modification -- the use of someone else's content) to the Play store. 'Beta' apps or apps that you write for close friends/family can be distributed via other means than the main app market. This article admits that he ignored all of the warnings he was given, and now accuses Google of unfair…
"I thought I was doing these guys a favor. The apps I wrote would have cost about $50,000 each if I had charged for my time. I basically donated $500,000 to the Android community. That’s how I saw things." This is where i stopped reading - the author is a bit delusional.
"All Apple products are banned in my household to make a statement about programmer freedom."
Sorry kids, to increase freedom I'm taking away your iPhones and you have to use Samsung.
There must be a Franklin quote there, somewhere ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it amazing that everyone here seems to be a lawyer or extremely well versed in the rules while agreeing with them. What's wrong with packaging other people's content as long as you're not profiting from it? If the content owner wants it removed there should be a way to request that while not negatively affecting the developers account. Plus the whole 3 strikes rule seems a bit too strict for me especially if i…
>What's wrong with packaging other people's content as long as you're not profiting from it? Say I made a show and sell DVDs of the show for $20 to cover all the costs of the show. When you buy the DVD you agree to not reproduce them so that I can continue to sell more copies to cover the cost of the show. You then start reproducing them and selling them at your cost(no profiting right?) which is about $0.05. Obvious…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judging by the names of the apps/wrappers (if they were same in the store) from here http://distantfutu.re/page/portfolio.html he is lucky to not get sued at the same time as well. He's even argumentative about trademark infringement in his post. I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.
> I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong. Google not making it entirely clear in their hellbanning email what he did wrong makes the hellbanning double unfair in my opinion.
https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html
> Impersonation or Deceptive Behavior: Don't pretend to be someone else, and don't represent that your app is authorized by or produced by another company or organization if that is not the case. Products or the ads they contain also must not mimic functionality or warnings from the operating system or other apps. Products must not contain false or misleading information in any content, title, icon, description, or screenshots. Developers must not divert users or provide links to any other site that mimics or passes itself off as another app or service. Apps must not have names or icons that appear confusingly similar to existing products, or to apps supplied with the device (such as Camera, Gallery or Messaging).
The OP's apps clearly violate the "title, icon" provisions above. Google even sent him an email about it listing the exact reason in the email, but yet that too is still not enough?
What is it people in this thread want? Do Google personally need to go around OP's house, sit him down, and explain through the developer agreement line by line?