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

FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 293 posts

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#201

Post by InGoodFaith »

martin1975 wrote: post #181
jonas21 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When was the last time they did anything good? Oh I dunno... how about that time they solved protein folding? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4

that's great. Whom has been impacted by this and how, in more detail? I would say Google Maps is far more impactful and good than any protein folding....

This seems a bit disingenuous considering that progress and advancement in certain fields might not show a direct benefit until years down the line.

It's a building block that might pave the way for something else.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#202

Post by thayne »

Apple does the same sort of thing. Even if you allow your customers to make an in-app purchase through apple, you can get your app flagged for having a link to your website in your app, if your website also has a way to pay. This sort of behavior is clearly predatory.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#203

Post by rahimnathwani »

For folks suggesting a PWA would solve this problem: the Language Transfer app caches audio files. PWA on all platforms have a storage limit (some % of free storage on the device). So it might not work for folks who tend to keep only a couple of percent space free on their phones.

Of course, there are other ways to use LT on your phone (download the files and play them with any audio player). But the app has a nice clean interface that reduces distractions, which is important because you need to tap 'pause' pretty often to get the best out of the experience.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#204

Post by badsectoracula »

dylan604 wrote: post #185
proactivesvcs wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft are already inferring that arbitrary software is dangerous - SmartScreen's behaviour for unsigned code works against FOSS because a project (or person) has to pony up money to pay for a certificate.

maybe this is something that can be part of a give/take relationship. allow for FOSS to be part of the signing/notrization software as long as the FOSS is truly not-for-profit (no free software for install, but doesn't work without lots of in-app purchases, ads, etc). At least offer FOSS software devs a lower cost entry for dev accounts??

Even though most users aren't developers, the "Freedom" in Free Software is about user freedom not developer freedom (which is also a point that trips some developers who claim that licenses like MIT, zlib, etc are more free - they see it from the developer's side instead of the user's side).

You shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run any software on your own devices and especially you shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run software you or your friend made modifications to.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#205

Post by DannyBee »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #165
DannyBee wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'all are too optimistic. I will predict for you the future of that, based on the past. The next people in line who control most devices are the carriers. They will set up app stores that are required on their phones (since the laws will not prevent this). Each will have exclusive apps that require their app store be installed (and will not be available on other phones). Things will be a mishmash. Nobody will be actu…

> They will set up app stores that are required on their phones (since the laws will not prevent this). It does prevent this. All apps and app stores included with the device must be disableable is in the language of the bill.

Errr, no they don't. Yes, they must be disable-able. It does not require the phone maintain the same functionality, etc. For example, Verizon makes visual voicemail only available on the verizon store. You can disable it, you can remove it.

That won't get you the functionality!

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#206

Post by DannyBee »

hypothesis wrote: post #106
DannyBee wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'all are too optimistic. I will predict for you the future of that, based on the past. The next people in line who control most devices are the carriers. They will set up app stores that are required on their phones (since the laws will not prevent this). Each will have exclusive apps that require their app store be installed (and will not be available on other phones). Things will be a mishmash. Nobody will be actu…

> Nobody will be actually happy. I’ve heard people say that about true compromise… It seems like there are extremes, carriers were abusing their positions before Apple came up with iPhone and app store and wrangled power away from carriers. Now they have lived long enough to become the villain… it might be time to reset matrix again and work towards a better outcome.

The natural state of these things is one where someone is abusing it, whether carriers or someone else.

I don't actually disagree with your assessment of what happened, but i don't have the hope people here do. I have watched the ebb and flow too many times, and lived in DC too long :)

I also think the hope is amazingly misplaced. Rarely, if ever, do complex systems like this change in the desired way as a result of trying to "fix them" directly. Sometimes they change, sometimes the inertia keeps them in the same state. But it rarely, if ever, does this kind of change have the intended effect.

They even teach this in complex system theory.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#207

Post by dylan604 »

badsectoracula wrote: post #204
dylan604 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe this is something that can be part of a give/take relationship. allow for FOSS to be part of the signing/notrization software as long as the FOSS is truly not-for-profit (no free software for install, but doesn't work without lots of in-app purchases, ads, etc). At least offer FOSS software devs a lower cost entry for dev accounts??

Even though most users aren't developers, the "Freedom" in Free Software is about user freedom not developer freedom (which is also a point that trips some developers who claim that licenses like MIT, zlib, etc are more free - they see it from the developer's side instead of the user's side). You shouldn't need permission from a 3rd party to run any software on your own devices and especially you shouldn't need permi…

Yes, but it's Apple we're talking about, so I'm moving past this part of the conversation. As a dev, you should want the least resistance to getting users running your code. If that means playing by the OS vendor's rules to get something signed that says "I'm not a crook", then that's what it takes. Should it? That's valid but beyond the scope of my comment and thought exercise.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#208

Post by squarefoot »

gowld wrote: post #166
squarefoot wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from protection against profiling, it sends the message that users are aware of alternatives. Enough people doing that should in the long run discourage Google from bullying publishers that would have other means for distributing their software. I agree that it's not easy, and needs a lot of people jumping to alternative app stores before something could change, but I don't see other ways since it's clear that…

Aurora isn't an alternative App Store. It's an alternative Play Store client .

Mine was a broad statement, just by searching for alternatives you tell Google you know that they exist. You can use Aurora today and move to a different store tomorrow, or go straight there just now. Either way, you send the message that you know there is a world out there, and you know how to choose, which is what advertisers hate the most, because they want to be the ones that make you decide if and when you should switch to a product.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#209

Post by RHSeeger »

jfrunyon wrote: post #107
RHSeeger wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand what you're saying here, I would guess that it's seen as bypassing the intent of the rules, if not their specific wording. If I put an app up on the app store for free, then link to my site and ask for donations, I am effectively using the app store for free. The app in question is effectively setup to say "you don't need to pay for this app, but we would really like you too"... and then the paymen…

If Google's intent is to ban donations to an app creator, then why does it explicitly say "if they require or accept payment for access to features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods"? Frankly it seems to me that the intent of the rules is to specifically allow asking for payment/"donation" outside of Play so long as nothing in your app is affected by it.

I read the intent as disallowing the use of the app store to distribute an app that you make money on, without paying for the use of the app store. It seems as simple as that. And "this app is free, but please come give me money for it" is a way of doing just that.

Re: FOSS app removed from the Play Store for linking to the project's website

#210

Post by MikeUt »

jonas21 wrote: post #35
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #3

This is outrageous. Google definitely lived long enough to become a villain. It is incredible how much goodwill they've lost in the past decade. When was the last time they did anything good ?

> When was the last time they did anything good? Oh I dunno... how about that time they solved protein folding? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03348-4

You mean the time they bought the company that solved protein folding.
Post reply on HN