Why is Google allowing this popular app to violate so many Google Play rules? | Hacker News Reader

Why is Google allowing this popular app to violate so many Google Play rules?

reddit.com

211 pointschei0aiV84 comments

From their own post:

> SongFlip has been banned from Google Play several times in the past for Intellectual Property infringement. After his developer account is banned, the developer keeps on creating new developer accounts to reupload this app. Below is a list of past package names this app has been uploaded under, which have since been banned:

com.seven.songflip

com.fungames.songflip

com.unicornlabs.firetunes

So really Google isn't allowing it, this person just keeps on signing up.

Does Google not have an app approval process when a developer wants to submit an app to the store? Surely the resubmission of a banned app would be detected at that step?

Android dev here: There is virtually no submission review. As long as the bundle ID is correct I could upload pretty much whatever I wanted, the only things they check for are matching bundle ID's, correct version numbers, basically anything that could damage the Play store in some technical fashion. Everything else is up for the users to report, which is why the Play store is FLUSH with garbage apps.

Windows Phone doesn't seem a ton better, the only ones that have any handle on crapware are Apple, and even then it isn't as good as it used to be.

iPhone user here. You must not have an iPhone or iPad. The App Store is littered with crapware.

It's a control / scale issue. Apple clamps harder on apps that infringe on its rules (it appears they have humans in the loop doing some active checking, if "My app got banned for ridiculous reasons" stories that hit HN periodically are to be believed). But Apple's developer base is so much larger that the amount of work needed to control against crap is proportionately higher.

It's true that there is crapware in the iOS app store, but this app would face at least some pain there. Since there's app review, you couldn't have the app taken down then just upload it again without waiting through the long process of app review.

I have both. I'm not saying it's the Eden of apps (Like I said, especially recently the App Review seems very lax) but the ratio of crap to useful apps is much better in the App Store in my experience.

There is surely a way to determine if one app is substantially similar to a previously banned app, eg. by fuzzy comparing the binary, or running it and comparing screenshots.

If you do that, you'll wipe out hundreds if not thousands of "Candy Crush" and "Bejeweled" clones.

This plan keeps getting better.

And that would be bad because...?

Just because you don't like an app doesn't mean it doesn't or can't provide value and deserves to be removed.

What if an app provides negative value? Right now every successful app has a few dozen knockoffs that are deliberately confusingly similar, and functionally identical or inferior; it makes discovery considerably more difficult, especially if you're looking for something that isn't a hit or a ripoff of a hit.

I'm pretty sure nobody is advocating for warez or exact copy apps, but you need to be careful drawing that line.

Just because to you it's "just another bejeweled clone" doesn't make it so. A layperson would probably think that HN is "just another reddit", and that's not any more valid.

Luckily (or unluckily depending on which side you are on) we already have laws that define this for us. Trademark, copyright, and patents. For better or for worse, that's legally what we have to work with.

Not bad, as such. I'm all for someone writing an app that adds value/entertainment and makes them some money. But at the same time.. how many do we really need?

As many as a fully-informed, rational-acting market will bear.

So, something other than the Google Play store, you mean?

So we'll never know, because such a thing has never existed.

Or suing developers who intentionally violate the ToS in a repeated manner like this. Make it financially far more costly to screw Google and the users over than it is currently profitable.

It sounds like the people being screwed are SoundCloud and possibly some of the musicians who use it, not Google or the millions of users downloading the app. So if someone should sue, it should probably be them.

If the Play Store gets the reputation for being the wild, wild west it's bad for Google's developers and thus their business.

Yes. OP is literally "soundcloud_musician" on Reddit complaining about copyright infringement that's not taking place.

However forced ranking, deep linking, and previous ban evasion are all real concerns for Google's reputation as a corporate friendly gatekeeper.

Or just matching the title. Because that seems to be pretty constant.

Matching using the developer's bank details, name and/or address shouldn't be too difficult.

Setting up new bank details, fake names and/or addresses isn't difficult either.

Some people cheat wherever and whenever they can.

Which countries, that Google allows bank deposits to, don't bother checking your identity when opening a bank account?

Probably none but what banks share your address with whoever asks? You can open a new checking account with your bank online and get a new P.O. box and as far as Google is concerned you are a different person/company.

There isn't a way for a normal company to verify the name who registered a bank account. They can verify your claim to have access to it, but not the actual name on the account.

The bank account can be on the name of a business and they can just keep creating new companies.

Setting up a bank account under an assumed name is pretty blatantly illegal in most countries.

Google could hold the money for X days (30? 60?) and ensure they respond to complaints within that time so if a new app appears and people complain it can be taken down and the money not sent on. That would prevent the ToS breaking developers from profiting.

Very few companies match sensitive info like cc numbers, account numbers etc.

My guess is that it would allow an attacker to get account numbers belonging to existing customers??

And here one of the many huge flaws of Google's lazy approach to gate-keeping it's app ecosystem is exposed.

Hell, who WOULDN'T do that for $30,000 daily ad income.

Both as a user and a developer, I would prefer a lenient, lazy approach over an over-zealous over-pedantic approach.

I find that statement weirdly irreconcilable. Can you really be a naive user and a developer worth his mettle? I get your point, but there is a huge chasm between what users think is good for them and the actual capacity they have to not harm themselves.

I get that you as a "power user" are probably not interested in the restrictions and rules that the Apple ecosystem "imposes", but there is a humongous gap between you who is probably very competent and skilled at protecting yourself from all the numerous and plentiful risks that the Android system exposes you to; and the other end of the spectrum, the 99.99% of users who couldn't protect themselves even if they wanted to and wantonly download and install and follow prompts (if they read them at all) to expose themselves.

I find it rather ironic and rather reckless really from the developer perspective too that you seem to totally eschew all the risk considerations that Apple takes into account, just ignoring the business decisions they make. It is unarguable that the Apple ecosystem is not astronomically more secure and safe and a better user experience than Android for 99.999% of users.

You may be upset that you don't have access to low level device or OS features, but ultimately those are also largely security restrictions and in no way there to annoy you. What you should ask yourself is why the devs like you seem to be wholly unappreciative that Apple doesn't leave massive, humongous, gargantuan security and privacy vulnerabilities just gaping wide open all over their OS and devices. It's rather telling that people with your kind of mentality have no understanding for practical considerations and justifiable limitations and boundaries.

Sure, I'm not a huge fan about all of Apple's decisions, but conversely, your type of mentality is the equivalent of saying that there should be no guards in prisons and bank vaults should be open to the outside 24/7 where everyone can take out money on the honor system.

OT but arguably, the world could possibly be a better place if we didn't have prisons or banks at all.

So we'd all have to keep our money under our mattress, and the punishment for any crime would be death?

To address some of your arguments (the others are quite orthogonal to my original point) :-

>I find it rather ironic and rather reckless really from the developer perspective too that you seem to totally eschew all the risk considerations that Apple takes into account, just ignoring the business decisions they make.

I am not advocating for the abandonment of all security in favour of freedom. And I think there a better balance of security, convinience and freedom is possible than that currently provided by Apple. Still there is a certain trade-off involved between freedom and security. We have to compromise on one to gain the other. Given the choice, I would rather sacrifice a bit of security for greater freedom than vice-versa. (which is ultimately why i chose the android ecosystem over Apple's)

>It is unarguable that the Apple ecosystem is not astronomically more secure and safe and a better user experience than Android for 99.999% of users.

I will agree that from a security and privacy perspective iOS is miles ahead of Android. But i can argue that the iOS doesn't provide a better user experience for 99.99% of users. I will give just one example from my country India (there are many more). Here we are undergoing a explosive growth of smartphone usage driven by low-cost android devices. A lot of this growth is driven by poorer users from rural areas. The thing is even if they could afford Apple devices, they would get a sub-par experience to that provided by Android. Why? Because they often lack the necessary literacy, connectivity or bankability needed to utilize the Apple ecosystem (Or even the Play store for that matter). Instead they use apps like Xender and bluetooth to share music, apps, videos, etc. It is an entirely decentralised, p2p, shadow ecosystem operating in parallel to the playstore-ecosystem. Sure, it is rife with piracy (one of the main considerations behind Apple's locked-down model) and is riddled with insecurity. But i would argue that benefits far outweigh the risks. And isn't bringing the benefits of technology to the poor, one of the professed goals of Silicon Valley?

Which brings me back to my original point- Android's lenient security model allows for new and novel uses of technology that wouldn't have otherwise been possible.

Have you done it?

Which would you prefer, a locked-down walled-in garden, ensuring you can only run a certain piece of software if company x tells you you can; or a more open marketplace that everyone can take part in, that occasionally has bad apples?

Neither. I prefer a completely open non-marketplace aka PC minus Windows 10. Phones in their current iteration are the death of device freedom. Sure there are work arounds for some things but they're band-aids on bullet wounds.

It's a death of device freedom that is on-track to have over 2 billion adopters this year.

Sounds a lot like "device freedom" isn't a feature people actually want.

Only because they don't know what it is, nor largely that it exists, nor what it means for them to not have it.

Most of the big tech companies prey on ignorant users these days in the most insidious and pernicious ways for their profits - to a far greater extent than the seemingly innocent things like making a quick buck because someone doesn't know how to snap in a DIMM.

EDIT: Nor any viable alternative in the same form factor.

No. The existence of marketplaces have absolutely nothing to do with device freedom.

The "mysteriously" qualifier seems to be sarcasm by the part of the original submitter on reddit. He seems to be implying that, by being a former Google employee, this person is getting a pass or using inside information to skirt around the system.

Quoting from the post:

> Here is proof SongFlip was released by someone who used to work for Google:

> His Linkedin and Google+ Profiles list prior employment by Google: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertdo and https://plus.google.com/+RobertDo/about

> He mentions he created SongFlip here: http://www.meetup.com/The-Brooklyn-iPhone-and-iPad-Developer...

> His Twitter shows extensive SongFlip testing: https://twitter.com/robertdo

> His company "Hype Reactor, Inc.": http://www.bizapedia.com/ca/HYPE-REACTOR-INC.html

> The "Hype Reactor, Inc." developer account shows SongFlip was uploaded to it before being removed: https://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/publisher/hype-reactor-inc...

The conclusion of his post seems to be in line with that:

> My question is why is Google allowing SongFlip to break so many rules? Could it be the case that the SongFlip creator, who is a former Google employee, is using contacts within Google to prevent it from being taken down despite so many violations? We can only speculate...

> By mysteriously allowing it to continue breaking rules and violate intellectual property and ignoring all reports against the app, Google has allowed it to quickly become the #16 Overall app in the USA, which means it is making over $30,000 per day in ad revenue and is as popular as Spotify (#14 Overall app).

I think that anyone could probably do the same things that SongFlip is doing. The dev is just slipping through unnoticed because Google isn't particularly vigilant about making sure bans stick because it'd be an annoying overhead and would block some people from getting to upload that might make great apps.

As for the ToS violation clause I think that's there for when they receive complaint from the 3rd party, they don't want to go through every app and figure out all the 3rd party application it's using and how then go to each of those sites and parse their ToS. Does Apple even do that in their review process? That'd be a hell of a lot of work.

"The "mysteriously" qualifier seems to be sarcasm by the part of the original submitter on reddit. He seems to be implying that, by being a former Google employee, this person is getting a pass or using inside information to skirt around the system. "

Considering Robert was a product marketing manager, and thus, would not have had access to much, it's a pretty silly guess.

He'd have access to people. He might know some of the people who's heads would need to look the other way for this to happen.

???? Not really, they aren't even in the same org and are in buildings far far away from each other .... It's unlikely he would have ever met them

But it's clearly not banned quick enough if he can get to #16 and have >1M downloads. I can't believe that happened in a few days. Every reupload would start from 0 users.

Google could still take legal action against them.

Repeatedly signing up for new accounts after being banned is trespassing on private property, and I'm fairly sure Google could sue for TOS violations if they wanted.

But why can't Google tell it's the same damn app that they've banned?

There could be a couple of problems at work here:

1: Google is only banning developer accounts, not the violating developer themselves (policy problem).

2: Google is trying to ban the actual developer, but failing at identity assertion (technical/data problem).

Mods, can you please change the title to identify the app? The current title is linkbait.

That would be fraudulent advertising.

Basically the poster suggests that because SongFlip was created by a former Google employee that it's getting special treatment.

My guess - as a former google employee he may have knowledge of the inner workings of the company and can upload/create the app in such ways that he can maximize pre take down times.

Googlers and Xooglers receive no special treatment. No current Googler would risk getting fired to help a Xoogler. No conspiracy theory required.

> Googlers and Xooglers receive no special treatment. No current Googler would risk getting fired to help a Xoogler. No conspiracy theory required.

Unless the person knows he is a future Xooglers. Come on, corruption is everywhere and employees do bad things all the time. The employee(s) may be paid for doing that.

> No current Googler would risk getting fired to help a Xoogler.

You think out of 60K employees, there's not a one that would take that risk for $15K a day? I don't think you're cynical enough.

Yea, a special treatment of banning it already 3 times.

And being allowed to come back.

Yes, they are "being allowed to come back" just like drug dealers are "allowed to come back" from jail and sell more drugs on the streets

No. Under a sane system, these attempts at resubmitting an app that is clearly someone trying to get around being banned would be caught.

You have way too much faith in "the system"

I don't think Google even cares about these things. Its kind of like the usual Google fail of "allowing" spammy link farms to rise in their search results. The problem is algorithmic solutions suck compared to basic human judgement on a lot of things. This happens to be one of those things.

What is the difference between the Apple process and the Google process such that Google has this problem and Apple does not?

Or is this also a problem that occurs on the Apple store?

Google allows everything by default, and only takes down apps later if they become a problem, whereas Apple reviews everything that is published beforehand.

Google approve everything and relies on stakeholders policing.

Apple is black box which you should pray to not reject it for whatever reason and get incomprehensible rejection message in your mailbox.

Apple has a clear set of published guidelines - in almost all apps are reviewed without problems.

Occasionally when a new rule is introduced, there is uncertainty on both sides about how it is to be interpreted leading to stress for developers.

Sounds like capitalism and free market against communism and state interventionism. Wonder which one is the most enjoyable..

Well, the vast majority of new apps come to Apple first, and the vast majority of money made on apps is on iOS.

Stakeholders have absolutely no power to do any policing, though.

And Apple's rejection messages are far from incomprehensible. They point to what you need to change.

Well they do have responsibility to police - if app x infringes company y content it is up to y to notify google. Same as with any breaking of guidelines.

As a person that has had dealings with apple submission process and dev accounts - lets agree to disagree. These people wanted credit card information faxed to them.

It looks like the app has been removed from the AppStore again. The linked URL[0] for the app returns "URL not found" now on the play store.

[0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hypermedia...

i'm involved in this Android ban game myself, i don't think this guy is pulling connections with old Google colleagues. i noticed myself Google getting a bit slower banning accounts of previous indiscretions. they'll have another wave soon and knock out loads of apps and accounts.

i'm also skeptical that OP in that reddit thread is really a soundcloud musician. more likely he's a jealous Android dev and snitching on his competition!

If Googlers read HN, and if the rumors of a popular Google-Internal Meme Generator are true, I suspect this problem may go away soon.

> popular Google-Internal Meme Generator

Never heard of this before. So Google (allegedly) have their own 4chan-alike service internally?

They do.

http://gizmodo.com/5946769/google-workers-make-internal-meme...

Eric Schmidt talked about it in his book 'How google works'

to poopsintub:

earlier you wrote "Here I am using images I have a right to use, but they banned me anyway." (Which I thought was informative). You got downvoted, and replied in frustration to yourself writing "Someone can't leave a comment on here without being down-voted by the same asshole every time? Fucking tools." But quickly deleted both comments.

Not before I started writing the response below to it though. I hope you see it!

>Here I am using images I have a right to use, but they banned me anyway.

>>Someone can't leave a comment on here without being down-voted...

Your handle is poopsintub - HN isn't reddit, which is a very good thing. Here in general commentators need to be more substantive and civil in all of their comments. (Which is what makes this place good.)

I would suggest making a more normally-named account (I'm only referring to the name you chose here, not the content of your posts.) By the way I had a glance at your posting history, it's substantial and good. HN has a policy about being civil, so anyone who even glances at your username will see that you are already not being civil, since poopsintub can't be part of civil discourse - a politician can't say those words on TV at all. This is probably what causes you to attract downvotes anytime you don't make a clearly informative post. (I don't think there's anything wrong with any of your posts at all, I looked through two pages, it's 80% very good and a few kneejerk reactions you might want to tone down but I didn't see anything that bad.)

I'm not a moderator here just a commentator like you. If you said something even slightly controversial (you really haven't) you might get so many downvotes that you would be hellbanned, so that nobody sees your posts except you. That really shouldn't happen.

So I would suggest picking a more neutral name and toning down the discourse a little. For example, in writing this comment I went from "make a normal account" to "I would suggest making a normal account", and adding the other information to make it more informative. Hope this helps.

> making over $30,000 per day in ad revenue

I wonder where he pulled that number from.

It's probably based on speculation due to the download numbers. Come to think of it, most of his theories are based on speculation.

most likely from a part of his body not suitable to mention here. :) But, if you get kicked out of the play store for breaking the rules, don't you also lose any funds you have earned through google?

I guess he could use mobile ads from a third party that doesn't care about the app changing names.

Not a great submission. How is something so poorly written getting this many points? Do people just need some moneyhate as a rally point today?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com