Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse • Hacker News Board

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#181

Post by waqf » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:01 AM UTC

r2sk5t wrote: post #167

We had this issue and went back and forth with Google for weeks with no progress. It was infuriating, since the peeps on the other end just cut and pasted responses. Then, we hashed the Contacts before uploading them and our app was immediately approved. Subsequently, they decided to ding us on this permission "QUERY_ALL_PACKAGES", which we needed for inviting people you know to our app. Since we were so beaten down,…

I don't want you to query my packages and I don't want your help to invite people I know to your app. That sounds like a feature that was made for your benefit, not for mine.

So it seems that Google made your app better for me as a user. Congrats Google indeed.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#182

Post by naikrovek » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:24 AM UTC

mixedCase wrote: post #69

naikrovek wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not exactly true, though of course I don't have numbers. maybe that is something you just don't see a lot, but that happens often?

Look up the Epic/Fortnite situation and the only conclusion from its development and Epic's decisions is that it almost never happens and unless your market is exclusively techies you'd be foolish to consider it viable as your sole release channel.

is that why Epic required you to sideload the game for the first couple of years of its life? because no one sideloads?

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#183

Post by LocalH » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:25 AM UTC

bakugo wrote: post #78

secretsatan wrote: post #40

I kinda sorta see google’s side. There are just too many shady operators out there who will swear blind they’re completely honest, and maybe they are, but they also employed a third party to write code or maybe just imported a 3rd party lib (i am in no way saying this is the case) As to, why don’t they look at the code? bugger that being standard practise, i’m not handing over my code to google or apple. Even if they…

So why not just remove the Contacts API entirely then? If it exists, "shady operators" can misuse it. Oh and, camera apps made by "shady operators" could be sending your pictures to questionable places so why not remove the Camera API as well? And we can't forget that "shady operators" could be snooping through your files so let's remove the filesystem API too. Actually now that I think about it, any app could be mal…

Welcome to iOS 1

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#184

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:28 AM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #171

Of course Google isn't going to look at the code. Most Google App Store apps are not open source, so why would that be a workflow at all? You have to evaluate those same deliverables that are downloaded to the user. To be able to infer properties of the build application from the source code review, it has to be shown that the two correspond; the shipped, built version comes from the code that was reviewed. Poring ov…

[deleted]

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#185

Post by tiagod » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:33 AM UTC

tourist2d wrote: post #142

grishka wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? One example: everyone did sideload Pokemon Go in 2016 because its availability on Google Play was very limited for a very long time.

So why didn't Pokemon Go pull out of Google Play? Your only example is from 6 year and keep the 30% which Google takes? You only have one example from 6 years ago and people only sideloaded there only because it wasn't available on Google Play. The one example you provided proves the opposite of what you wanted lol

"One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens"...

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#186

Post by jeremyjh » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:35 AM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #171

Of course Google isn't going to look at the code. Most Google App Store apps are not open source, so why would that be a workflow at all? You have to evaluate those same deliverables that are downloaded to the user. To be able to infer properties of the build application from the source code review, it has to be shown that the two correspond; the shipped, built version comes from the code that was reviewed. Poring ov…

It’s a VOIP phone - it has to actually have the number.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#187

Post by Brian_K_White » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:38 AM UTC

Why does the api and the permission exist if there is no such thing as a legitimate use of it?

Oh right, Google Maps and Gmail and who knows what else can have full access to those same contacts.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#188

Post by zerocrates » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:46 AM UTC

lhobas wrote: post #94

donmcronald wrote: post #50

> We even sue governments for protecting the privacy of our users. Lost in translation?

No: Voys is a Dutch company with a South African counterpart. Their Dutch entity sued the Dutch government for not providing enough clarity on how mandatory call logs get processed on the government side.

I think they meant that the text "We even sue governments for protecting the privacy of our users" probably should have been "We even sue governments to protect the privacy of our users," or "...for not protecting the privacy...," etc.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#189

Post by mixedCase » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:54 AM UTC

naikrovek wrote: post #182

mixedCase wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up the Epic/Fortnite situation and the only conclusion from its development and Epic's decisions is that it almost never happens and unless your market is exclusively techies you'd be foolish to consider it viable as your sole release channel.

is that why Epic required you to sideload the game for the first couple of years of its life? because no one sideloads?

They tried to make it its main distribution channel to avoid having to pay Play Store fees. They ceased doing it because it was much harder to acquire customers via sideloading despite the product being motherhugging Fortnite than it was to pay the tax on every "micro" transaction.

Re: Google is forcing us to make our open source VoIP app worse

#190

Post by CountHackulus » Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 1:57 AM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #162

savy91 wrote: post #133

We develop a banking app for families (parents and kids). 2 weeks ago we had to remove the possibility to pick phone contacts to invite other family members because Google claimed we were uploading contacts to our servers (which we did not). We appealed and it did not work. We then complied with their request and added to the privacy policy they we have access to the contacts and we might process them, and yet Google…

I don't think google did anything wrong here (at least in the first half), afaik android app privacy permissions don't differentiate between "app has access to contacts locally" and "app has access to contacts remotely". Probably because this would require thorough code review every time you shipped an update to ascertain as opposed to just identifying whether you accessed a specific API or not.

Of course that would be impossible to differentiate, but adding it to the privacy policy is what Google requests. Adding it and still having it refused can absolutely be blamed on Google.