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

Your app is not compliant with Google Play Policies: A story from hell

sylviavanos.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–197 of 197 posts

Re: Your app is not compliant with Google Play Policies: A story from hell

#191

Post by dwohnitmok »

jevoten wrote: post #189
viraptor wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know in general, but they don't know exactly which check they tripped and why. That makes it harder to hunt down the detected part.

But you wouldn't tell them which check exactly - you only tell them "spamming/malware".

But that's not really any more specific (imagine this same article where "is not compliant with Google Play Policies" is replaced with "was flagged as spamming/malware," not much changes) plus for any false positive it's likely to make any developer even more angry ("you thought my app was malware?!").

Re: Your app is not compliant with Google Play Policies: A story from hell

#192

Post by jevoten »

dwohnitmok wrote: post #191
jevoten wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you wouldn't tell them which check exactly - you only tell them "spamming/malware".

But that's not really any more specific (imagine this same article where "is not compliant with Google Play Policies" is replaced with "was flagged as spamming/malware," not much changes) plus for any false positive it's likely to make any developer even more angry ("you thought my app was malware?!").

Why would anything have to change about this article? The developer wasn't accused of spamming or malware. You seem to be saying that if an app fails any Google policy, then that is the same as if it was spamming or malware?

Re: Your app is not compliant with Google Play Policies: A story from hell

#193

Post by dwohnitmok »

jevoten wrote: post #192
dwohnitmok wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not really any more specific (imagine this same article where "is not compliant with Google Play Policies" is replaced with "was flagged as spamming/malware," not much changes) plus for any false positive it's likely to make any developer even more angry ("you thought my app was malware?!").

Why would anything have to change about this article? The developer wasn't accused of spamming or malware. You seem to be saying that if an app fails any Google policy, then that is the same as if it was spamming or malware?

My point is that if the developer is given an answer of "spamming/malware" it's not much more useful than "not compliant with Google Play policies" ("spamming" alone is useful, you can check whether messages are being sent, "malware" is just far too broad). To check whether "spamming/malware" is more informative than "not compliant with Google Play policies" you can just plug it into the OP and see if any of the behavior would be different, but I can't see anything that would look different, which suggests "spamming/malware" is not really any more specific than "not compliant with Google Play policies" from the viewpoint of a developer saddled with that message.

And because it's so vague, even if a developer were not to get that message (e.g. as in this case) it still doesn't narrow down much in the negative direction either.

Re: Your app is not compliant with Google Play Policies: A story from hell

#194

Post by jevoten »

dwohnitmok wrote: post #193
jevoten wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anything have to change about this article? The developer wasn't accused of spamming or malware. You seem to be saying that if an app fails any Google policy, then that is the same as if it was spamming or malware?

My point is that if the developer is given an answer of "spamming/malware" it's not much more useful than "not compliant with Google Play policies" ("spamming" alone is useful, you can check whether messages are being sent, "malware" is just far too broad). To check whether "spamming/malware" is more informative than "not compliant with Google Play policies" you can just plug it into the OP and see if any of the beha…

You misunderstand me. I'm trying to say that not every Google Play policy is something malware or spam is interested in violating.

Let me give a hypothetical example: Suppose there are color contrast requirements, to make buttons easy to distinguish. If your app is too desaturated, and buttons are hard to make out, the reviewer can tell you that you must make your app more colorful, and that information won't help malware or spammers one bit.

Or for a non-hypothetical example: How does it help spammers or malware to know that their app mustn't contain "free" in the title?

Or suppose they institute a policy where you're not allowed to re-implement functionality provided by the Google Play store (Google worked hard for that lock-in!), or make apps that are substitutes for ones provided by Android itself, or apps that break DRM.. how would being told you've violated one of these policies, help malware writers and spammers?

Re: Your app is not compliant with Google Play Policies: A story from hell

#195

Post by heavyset_go »

MrDresden wrote: post #178
heavyset_go wrote: post #162

Maybe we shouldn't be relying on Google and Apple to decide what we can run on our phones and tablets. Maybe we shouldn't let Apple and Microsoft decide what we can run on our computers, either.

I agree with the sentiment, however you are not forced to run Google's Android on your phone if you don't want to. It is just the most convenient OS to run (as it comes preloaded). For the PC's (yes, an Apple laptop/desktop is a personal computer) you can always install Linux. Try it, it's great!

Software freedom is not just about being able to run Linux. Being able to run Linux doesn't help the billions of people who will never use anything other than the stock OS that ships on their phones, tablets or computers.

I bought a model of a phone that doesn't have LineageOS support because apparently it's a weird carrier model. The base model has AOSP support, though. Didn't realize that until a few months into ownership, and by then it was too late to return. I'm stuck with Google's Android.

I've been running Linux for like 19 years now.

Re: Your app is not compliant with Google Play Policies: A story from hell

#196

Post by dwohnitmok »

jevoten wrote: post #194
dwohnitmok wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that if the developer is given an answer of "spamming/malware" it's not much more useful than "not compliant with Google Play policies" ("spamming" alone is useful, you can check whether messages are being sent, "malware" is just far too broad). To check whether "spamming/malware" is more informative than "not compliant with Google Play policies" you can just plug it into the OP and see if any of the beha…

You misunderstand me. I'm trying to say that not every Google Play policy is something malware or spam is interested in violating. Let me give a hypothetical example: Suppose there are color contrast requirements, to make buttons easy to distinguish. If your app is too desaturated, and buttons are hard to make out, the reviewer can tell you that you must make your app more colorful, and that information won't help ma…

Ah I see what you mean. Yes that makes sense.

Re: Your app is not compliant with Google Play Policies: A story from hell

#197

Post by MrDresden »

heavyset_go wrote: post #195
MrDresden wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment, however you are not forced to run Google's Android on your phone if you don't want to. It is just the most convenient OS to run (as it comes preloaded). For the PC's (yes, an Apple laptop/desktop is a personal computer) you can always install Linux. Try it, it's great!

Software freedom is not just about being able to run Linux. Being able to run Linux doesn't help the billions of people who will never use anything other than the stock OS that ships on their phones, tablets or computers. I bought a model of a phone that doesn't have LineageOS support because apparently it's a weird carrier model. The base model has AOSP support, though. Didn't realize that until a few months into ow…

Ofcourse it doesn't serve the vast majority of users any good. If it would then Linux wouldn't be in minority use on desktops/laptops.

However there is a clear difference between there being the possibility to run alternative OS's on a device vs there being a convenient method to switch to something else.

Most Android devices do not force the user to use the stock OS. PC's do not care what OS they run. This runs contrary to your initial comment on users being dictated on what can and can not be run on the hardware.

Since, for the mobile industry at least, the business model doesn't revolve around simply selling hardware (Apple as well as Google makes most of their mobile earnings through the stores and ads after all) I can fully understand that that flashing with other OS's isn't supplied as an easy one click selection by the manufacturer. Why should it?

The fact that your new phone is only supported by some of the alternative software but not the one you want to use is no judgement on the manufacturer.

Not every piece of hardware should be supported by every piece of software.

Let it also be known I have run Linux for 18 years, along with various AOSP devices and other funky Linux mobiles over the last 10.

Post reply on HN