181–190 of 274 posts
I don't mean that as a troll but an observation - you see this over and over with Google: if the problem requires someone other than a shut-in with tremendous technical talent, they do a poor job of it (customer service, enterprise, support, ...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am from India and credit cards are still not that mainstream here. And it is same situation. Everyone has a debit card but Apple and Google both refuse to accept them for their stores (last time I checked, same with Windows Phone, though Microsoft at least accepts them for Windows, Office and Skydrive stuff!)
>> "Everyone has a debit card but Apple and Google both refuse to accept them for their stores" I use debit cards with both stores and have for years. I used to use Maestro (which is being fazed out but still accepted) and now I use Visa Debit.
Because last time I tried, Debit card didn't work for Google Apps (can't say about Android as I don't have a device myself. But several friends have Android and they didn't have any success with debit cards, though they have "free" apps now, thanks to piracy!) and Apple has never accepted it.
In fact, last time I called bank to tell that my card was not working for international payments, they plainly said that they don't support Paypal or international payments. To this day, when I try to pay via my debit card, international websites don't accept it! Though I think government/reserve bank has some role in it. In 2009 or 2010, they reduced Paypal to fraction of its usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Internet Explorer bundling was only illegal because Microsoft was abusing one monopoly (Windows) to kill the competition in another market (Browsers). Android doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market, so they are far from having a monopoly on App Stores. A developer has alternatives to publish his or her apps.
You are right, but whatever the details, Google behaviour is unfair both to its customers and to its suppliers. They (together with Apple) are using their dominant position to control this marketplace, to the detriment of everyone but themselves. Full credit to them for creating these markets in the first place. They deserve to be rewarded. However, there is a line (however fuzzy) that they should not cross. If they…
I'm not fundamentally opposed to regulations, but I really dislike it when people throw around the term as if it was pixie dust that solves anything. Creating good and fair regulations is not simple nor easy, and bad ones do more damage than the lack of thereof.
And in the end, they're freakin' apps, not medical devices. Just let people make their own damn decisions.
I know Google's policy on this, but I completely understand where the developer is coming from. Google has been taking a collective shit on every developer out of its list of seller countries[0], which is ridiculously short and hasn't been expanded in god knows how long, and even then, there were only a handful of countries added. On Google's page about seller countries they say: "We're working hard to add more count…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being downvoted, but you're right, when you publish an app on the store you legally sign a contract, and the contract specifies what you can and cannot do. Don't like the rules? Don't publish on the play store and let people download the app from you website. It's perfectly doable. Moreover, an official warning was issued more than an year ago reminding play store developers that all IAP should go thought the…
Google isn't a store though. They are a distribution channel, who happened to build their own self-checkout lanes after several checkout lanes were already installed, then put caution tape up in front of the other ones. Google needs developers, just like developers need Google (if you're developing for Android and don't mind making waaaaaayyyy less than if you were developing for iOS :p).
1)The "Play Store" is, like the name says, a store, just like every single store is a distribution channel.
2)While I understand that for some it may look unfair, a contract is a contract, you cannot sign and then ignore the rules of a contract because it's "unfair". You just don't sign it.
3)On iOS the app will not have been accepted in the first place and maybe (I'm just supposing) the developer didn't want to buy a mac, buy an iPhone, learn objective c and pay 100$ a year to make the app for iOS. :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> They aren't and they don't. They are a store like any other and the store owner can decide not to sell your products without a good reason if they want to. On Android there are several alternative stores (most notably Amazon) not to mention apps can be installed directly by downloading the APK without any device modification. It's the same as with internet explorer on windows back in the day. google play is preins…
The Internet Explorer bundling was only illegal because Microsoft was abusing one monopoly (Windows) to kill the competition in another market (Browsers). Android doesn't have a monopoly on the smartphone market, so they are far from having a monopoly on App Stores. A developer has alternatives to publish his or her apps.
So that whole "don't be evil" thing was just a crock of shit? Good to know. Thanks, Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right, but whatever the details, Google behaviour is unfair both to its customers and to its suppliers. They (together with Apple) are using their dominant position to control this marketplace, to the detriment of everyone but themselves. Full credit to them for creating these markets in the first place. They deserve to be rewarded. However, there is a line (however fuzzy) that they should not cross. If they…
"Regulation" is a general term, and meaningless in this case. What rules exactly would you like to see imposed? Should Google have to allow every payment processor? What if some are scammers? Is Google responsible to blocking them? What oversight should exist to ensure they don't "unfairly" block some? I'm not fundamentally opposed to regulations, but I really dislike it when people throw around the term as if it was…
I'd like to see Google forced to provide a minimum level of support to their customers and suppliers. For example, if they decide to cut someone off (as in this case) then they must explain their decision with a certain minimum level of detail. I'd also like to see a formal appeals system, possibly with an independent ombudsman as a court of final appeal.
This kind of enforced service level is common in the UK. Banks, utilities, insurance companies, etc. all have similar conflict resolution regimes. Usually paid for by the industry itself, via (mandatory) fees.
Obviously in Google's case, their profit per customer can be very low, so I think if would be reasonable to expect complainants pay for the cost of failed appeals. That would keep a tight lid on frivolous complaints, but provide a fair avenue for more serious grievances to be resolved.
Far more importantly, it would encourage Google to pay closer attention to their day-to-day automated communications, which currently feel like half-finished student projects. I'm pretty sure that with the right incentives, Google could resolve 99% of the ill-feeling against them by simply putting more effort into this part of their business.