Live data from Hacker News

Banned for Life

medium.com

21–30 of 294 posts

Re: Banned for Life

#21

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…

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.

Re: Banned for Life

#22
post #12

> I continued to be an Apple fan until they announced the “walled garden” and the app review process for iOS. I am totally against having to get permission from a corporation to write and sell apps (...). All Apple products are banned in my household to make a statement about programmer freedom. > Now my Google play account and Google Wallet account are both banned for life. I’m no longer able to write Android apps e…

The rule is explicit: it's called trademark law. You can't just copy the name and logo of another company, append " TV" and distribute it publicly. This is an official app of The Verge: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Ios&appID=54251... This is OP's unofficial app: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=c... It's pretty clear that this is prone to cause confusion, even with the discla…

Quotes from 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"

"Why didn’t you give the apps a different name?

Well since Google was silent about the exact reason for suspension, I didn’t know what I needed to do. Was it the app name? Probably, but I didn’t know for sure."

If Google does not inform you in detail that it was the trademark that was violated, they have no right to ban you on that reason.

Re: Banned for Life

#23
post #12

> I continued to be an Apple fan until they announced the “walled garden” and the app review process for iOS. I am totally against having to get permission from a corporation to write and sell apps (...). All Apple products are banned in my household to make a statement about programmer freedom. > Now my Google play account and Google Wallet account are both banned for life. I’m no longer able to write Android apps e…

The rule is explicit: it's called trademark law. You can't just copy the name and logo of another company, append " TV" and distribute it publicly. This is an official app of The Verge: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Ios&appID=54251... This is OP's unofficial app: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=c... It's pretty clear that this is prone to cause confusion, even with the discla…

The only thing that seems odd here is that Google appear to be proactively defending other companies' trademarks. Shouldn't the Khan Academy or Vice have been the ones to send the takedown notices? Or perhaps they did behind the scenes and this manifested itself in the app bans.

Re: Banned for Life

#24
post #4

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…

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.

Here's a copy of the app information, copied by some app discovering site: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=c...

Re: Banned for Life

#25
post #21

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…

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.

Re: Banned for Life

#26
"Google could have, and still could block my gmail"

They have a different revenue generation business model for gmail.

My son's account was blocked, couldn't figure out why, and they wouldn't say. I suspect some kind of data mining thing where watching more than 5000 blitzwinger videos on youtube "proves" you're a kid or a teen. He does like his video games...

He falls into that gap between being old enough to have an account per google's rules, but young enough to not have his own credit card or a drivers license (they'd accept a scanned copy of his DL, but he's not 16 yet) so the only option to reinstate his account was to get Dad (me) to charge 50 cents on his CC to "prove" he's of legal age.

So part of the gmail business model is to hold kids (teens) accounts hostage with a threat of permanent deletion until Dad pays 50 cents. I'm not annoyed at the 50 cents, gmail is worth a large multiple of that. I am annoyed that at a random time long after BAU was initiated, they felt like charging us for fun.

It is possible the gmail biz model of randomly applied fees could be applied to play store / wallet accounts.

Not sure if OP would have flown off into as much of a rage for a $50 reinstatement fee, or if he'd be like me, pissed off at the "business agreement" being unilaterally rewritten at a later date. Either way, the gmail biz model does appear to be superior to the play/wallet/app store biz model, at least GOOG would get some revenue, however little.

I assume based on evidence Google dropped the "don't be evil" motto a long time ago.

Re: Banned for Life

#27
Summary: No sympathy for the blog author, but its still terrifying how broad Google's ban-hammer can be if you run afoul of them.

Re: Banned for Life

#28

The author used others people's content and spammed with play store with official sounding apps, then ignored warnings to stop. Got caught and punished for it, now Google won't let him do it again. Honestly, it just sounds like Google were doing the right thing and protecting it's users from low quality spam apps.

So banning him from using Google Wallet to BUY anything ever again is a proportional response? O.o

Re: Banned for Life

#29
post #7
post #4

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.

Agreed - the whole thing reads like a giant whine, to me. The author has zero concept of what he's done wrong, which is astounding to me.

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?

Re: Banned for Life

#30
I wouldn't call the OP blameless but there is a lesson here: it is dangerous for a professional software developer to become too invested in one technology or platform, especially with a capricious corporate overlord behind it.
Post reply on HN