171–180 of 294 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What this shows is how anti-user closed app eco-systems are. Some users probably found his app very useful but can't use it because lawyers.
You'd have the same problem if you were on the open web and the company sent a DMCA takedown request to your hosting company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: wrong thread. I would gladly pay for Google support, and I've stated as much in the past. I have paid for Microsoft support, and it was a great experience. Microsoft is (or was) as big or bigger than Google, and used by a significant fraction of the population. So, it can be done. Google doesn't want to do it.
Did you reply to the wrong comment? The discussion here is about whether the content owner should make a polite request to the creator of an infringing app rather than filing a takedown notice with Google. Google's lack of support is legendary, but not relevant.
I agree that the original content owners shouldn't have to contact the creators (it would be nice though, most are way too overzealous).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. That's a bit ridiculous. If that was $500,000 of work, I should be a billionaire.
To be fair, he claimed that those he would have charged out each of those apps at 50K for custom development time. I don't know if he has the pipeline, infrastructure, etc. to actually bill out clients for Android apps at that rate, but that doesn't sound like an extremely high number to me for custom software work. You are confusing $500K worth of "work" with $500K worth of billing. A common problem in our industry.
$50,000 seems pretty exorbitant for a "simple" app that does nothing more than embed YouTube videos.
$50,000 for the literally 5 minutes of work involved in changing the channel ID and app name is downright comical.
There's no way to spin this as $500,000 worth of work. I don't care what his billing rates are. (And I suspect his billing rates aren't very high to begin with — he doesn't strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed.)
Furthermore, the author's ignorance of trademark really doesn't win them any points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright and trademarks don't seem to be his strength, I doubt that he licensed the pictures on http://distantfutu.re/page/team.html .. But because he grew up "in the 70s/80s", these are public domain to him.
Does he need a license to use those images in Reunion (or wherever his server is)? It looks like it could be a fair-use under USC too? Styling yourself as DeNiro in Taxi Driver might even class as parodical and so be an allowed use? But your general point in your first clause stands.
It does not mean you have the right. (Like in countries like Korea, or Australia, where you do have the right).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for _petronius, but what makes this guy obviously different from me is: * he thinks that an icon which links to something on the web is an "app", whereas I think that an app is something which contains a significant amount of program logic. * he thinks that changing the configuration (like YT channel id) generates a whole new app. This is like claiming that, at your Unix command line, "grep foo" is a di…
> Google only holds power over those swaths of people who surrendered some aspects of their lives to Google No. Google wallet is, as of now, an unacceptable payment processor for me. Its existence, however, precludes other competitors from entering the space. As such, even if I do not use Google services, its power still affects me. For a reduction to the absurd, imagine Google wallet a payment processor monopolist,…
Amazon and Paypal are still both way bigger than Google Wallet is. I sincerely doubt that anybody looking to get into the payment processing industry is saying "crap, we can't do this because Google already does". They're worried about competing with Paypal. Hell, even Bitcoin is accepted at more places than Google Wallet is, from my own life experiences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
I very nearly stopped at this point: "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.
He was warned. Repeatedly. What the hell else did he want? An overt act of divine intervention?
What he wanted is stated clearly in the article: "I emailed Google back and asked them to tell me exactly what I need to change to be compliant with the rules. Is it the icon? The name? The disclaimer? What? Google refused to give me any additional information. So, I just left the app in the suspended state and never attempted to update it since I really didn’t know what I needed to change".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do, but I don't think Google is ethically obligated to let this guy post spammy apps that are closely named to companies he doesn't officially work with. I've been a professional Android developer for 2+ years and a user for longer than that. I'm 100% in support of Google banning this guy from the Google Play store. One of the major misunderstandings about the Play Store is that there "are no rules" in compariso…
> They do, but I don't think Google is ethically obligated to let this guy post spammy apps that are closely named to companies he doesn't officially work with. But Google is ethically obligated not to punish the guy by closing associated services (GWallet). It is also ethically bound to treat the customer as good-intentioned, and bound to explain the basis for suspension. Google failed on both counts.