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

“Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 259 posts

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#231

Post by immibis »

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #186
izacus wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the people up in this very thread demand it?

Regardless of what people in this thread demand (which I think is unlikely given the example), why would it be in anybody's interest (besides the developer) for Google to allow an app that commits trademark infringement at best (and, as implied, is probably some vehicle to steal confidential information like online banking credentials)?

It seems to be the "government is either big or small" false-dilemma argument, applied to Google.

That (wrong and stupid) argument goes like this: "We can't make it illegal to poison the water, because that would make the government big, and big governments do bad things like eugenics/Mao's Great Leap Forward/the Holocaust. Better to leave the water being poisoned, to avoid any risk of that happening!"

In this case it's "We can't require Google to ban obvious trademark infringements, because that would make Google's app store review onerous, and onerous review processes block legitimate apps like Netflix and Fortnite. Better to leave the trademark infringements there, to avoid any risk of those apps getting blocked!"

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#232

Post by ashoeafoot »

anilakar wrote: post #57

Our company just got a warning that we have sixty days to release something on Play or have our developer console account closed. The email made it pretty clear that Google wants developers to continuously push new versions to customers. We have no new features nor bug fixes in backlog. There is nothing to update. The only purpose of our software is to control hardware that our company makes. Nobody uses it for fun,…

Its just a proof of a working company behind the app ? add a lorem ipsum string with a reference on it, inc version and re release?

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#233

Post by areyourllySorry »

fluidcruft wrote: post #196
p_ing wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it should be up to people to judge for themselves, not the platform! If you download an App using MSFT Edge on Windows, it will warn you (MoTW). If you download an App using any browser on macOS, it will warn you (also MoTW). But if you grab apps via the App Store, there's no warning. Is that also unfair? While it's been many years since I did hands on end user support, or even worse, support for family friends bac…

You get warnings when you install apps from Microsoft Store? Play Store isn't a web browser.

edge exe/msi downloads, not store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_of_the_Web

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#234

Post by saghm »

p_ing wrote: post #153
saghm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like showing those numbers already conveys the information you find useful; the question isn't whether the number of users is informative, but whether it's reasonable for Google to bucket apps into groups of competitors and then choose a threshold of minimum number of users to avoid actively discouraging additional users. I'm not opposed to the idea of owners of app marketplaces taking a more active step in…

You're going off the premise that I'm an average user who would otherwise stare blankly at a zsh terminal. Those warnings in the Store aren't meant for you or I.

That's exactly the problem in my opinion; most people will see the warnings and immediately just backtrack without investigating further, and in their shoes, that's not necessarily the wrong decision. I honestly think that having a warning like this isn't a bad idea, but that the heuristic being chosen for when to show it isn't a very good one, and as others have pointed out, it's a metric that benefits larger entrenched players at the expense of smaller competitors. It's hard for me to imagine that this isn't intentional, and that makes it even harder for me to trust that this is actually the correct heuristic to use given the obvious incentives they have for picking it.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#235

Post by godelski »

fluidcruft wrote: post #207
godelski wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scorpions gonna scorpion But I'm not willing to let that be the answer. It's a thought terminating clique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

One man's cliche is another man's razor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor

Mine is Hume's Guillotine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#236

Post by saghm »

reddalo wrote: post #180
saghm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on another comment on this thread, it sounds like maybe the easiest way would have been to leave all those apps up without updating them, and then hopefully get a 60-day warning that you can ignore.

I did ignore it and I got my developer account banned. They didn't even refund my 15 $.

That's incredibly frustrating, and I wish I were more surprised that it's somehow easier for someone to get banned when they don't want to than it is for someone else to intentionally close their own account

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#237

Post by xigoi »

mcny wrote: post #148
kazinator wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since they have 60 days to release something , they should have a dummy application which does nothing, but which just increments its version number.

I am not sure I quote ---- Limited Functionality and Content We do not allow apps that only have limited functionality and content. Here is an example of a common violation: Apps that are static without app-specific functionalities, for example, text only or PDF file apps Apps with very little content and that do not provide an engaging user experience, for example, single wallpaper apps Apps that are designed to do…

Clearly Google has no problem with apps that are just a WebView wrapper over a website, so they could just create one of those. I think there are automated tools for that.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#238

Post by tremon »

pluto_modadic wrote: post #98
vineyardmike wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we don't need any new apps that do similar things to existing apps" I’m not a “Googler who may be responsible”, but my understanding is that Apple does this too… and Google App Store has a reputation for being lower quality. I assume it’s because unoriginal apps at some point are just “polluting” the market and making it harder to find higher quality products. Which is generally what users want. Some things are red…

quoting from a nice piece: https://lmnt.me/blog/app-stores-and-payment-methods.html "It still blows my mind how little the App Store has improved over the last decade. It’s barely changed. Almost every bad thing about the App Store still exists. And almost every good thing that happened for app distribution and payment methods is just the result of regulation."

It's almost as if monopolies are bad for innovation. Who would've thunk.

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#239

Post by izacus »

immibis wrote: post #231
GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of what people in this thread demand (which I think is unlikely given the example), why would it be in anybody's interest (besides the developer) for Google to allow an app that commits trademark infringement at best (and, as implied, is probably some vehicle to steal confidential information like online banking credentials)?

It seems to be the "government is either big or small" false-dilemma argument, applied to Google. That (wrong and stupid) argument goes like this: "We can't make it illegal to poison the water, because that would make the government big, and big governments do bad things like eugenics/Mao's Great Leap Forward/the Holocaust. Better to leave the water being poisoned, to avoid any risk of that happening!" In this case i…

I love your comparison becuase it aptly shows how you demand Google to do the job of government which is utterly abhorrent to me. Just without oversight a government has.

(Usually while also complaining how Google can't be trusted too :P)

Re: “Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps

#240

Post by izacus »

immibis wrote: post #230
izacus wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they should just outright ban the apps of the developer in the article? :P

They should ban - and file criminal charges against - the developer who uploads a Bank of America app but isn't Bank of America. They should not do that against developers who upload their own non-fraudulent apps. Why is this concept difficult to understand? Asking seriously. I don't get why these types of questions even come up. Google already claims to manually review all apps, so they know the Bank of America app…

Quite simply: Because you can't have one without the other and you're living in a dream world if you think that your kind of outcome is even possible with a setup where a private megacorporation takes over the role of prosecutor, court and police.

No matter how you scream, if you demand Google play the cop, they'll play the cop in the easiest, cheapest possible way in situations where anything is unclear. The situation in this very topic was exactly caused because Google is trying to play a cop while crushing small devs underneath their anti-fraud measures.

There are no better outcomes in this situation. Not on Play Store, not on AppStore, not on any other store. Megacorps can't be cops, courts and enforcers at once and do a good job of it.

Let's talk more when you decide that perhaps policing should remain in hand of governments where it belongs.

Post reply on HN