Open-source apps removed from Google Play Store due to donation links
lists.zx2c4.com
lists.zx2c4.com
Wireguard had 50k+ installs according to its (now dead) playstore page: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kSsZsb...
AndOTP had 10k+ installs: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:buaKcF...
An update on the WireGuard situation: they have reinstated the app _without_ the donation link. From what I can tell from talking to Google insiders, there has been no change in policy. Officially, Google has not communicated at all with us about it, so we're not sure what's up. But at least our app is available again to users, which is great.
Disallowing developers from using in-app billing for donations, while also barring them from linking to external donation platforms, puts open source projects in a difficult position, and appears to be overly hostile towards funding open source development.
Google must clarify their position on whether they allow donation links in apps published on Google Play. The app takedowns [2] of the last few days show that this is a significant development, and it is of great importance for all open source developers.
It's best to publicly document the messages you receive during app takedowns, since app store policies are often vague, it's easy for reviewers to make mistakes, and having a clear reference for these decisions also helps the public assess the validity of the takedown.
[1] https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/
> Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing:
> One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations.
Google Play has been very clear about this[1]:
> Fund solicitations
> Examples: Donation solicitations from parties without a valid 501(c)(3) tax exempt status clearly displayed to the public; solicitations from parties without valid proof of exempt tax status or proof of registration with the relevant country's regulatory bodies and authorities; and political organizations that have registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC)
For instance, Wikipedia displays an external "Support Wikipedia" link in the main menu of its Android app[2] without violating Google Play's terms and conditions.
That's the question (at least for me) here: why are (non-tax-exempt) donations not allowed, beyond the tautological response of "because the rules say so"? I'm not familiar with the regulations around this area, so for all I know there's a great non-Google reason for this and Google just wants to avoid the hassle of conforming to some law. Or maybe donations is a feature they want to eventually support in Google Play and they don't want to have to force a bunch of apps in the future to switch once they add it (which would be a more disappointing reason). Perhaps they're afraid that it would create a loophole where people could get around the 30% cut since psychologically it feels shitty for someone to middle-man a donation, but then if they made donations Google-tax free, everyone would just choose "donation" and they'd have to police this.
Likely this is Google avoiding additional regulatory complications/KYC. It's cumbersome to prove you're not enabling money laundering or funding terrorist organizations if you're an arbitrary money sink.
But I'd expect better than Google, a business with an astounding $836B market cap. They could just buy a company that primarily handles this sort of money flow (e.g. Streamlabs)
But why are we forbidden from linking to an external page that lists other ways to support a project, such as Patreon?
I think we should stop being apologetic, and begin to call out Google for the damage they are inflicting upon open source developers.
Since those are examples I hope this also covers tax-exempt charities in other jurisdictions.
I switched to the german site and it still only refers to american laws.
As far as I can tell (though I am no expert) it would be very difficult or impossible for an open source project to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exemption. And even if it was, the cost in both time and money to obtain such a status would not be worth it for small open source projects.
"Any individual or business processing transactions with Google payments must adhere to these policies."
These apps weren't using Google payments, and it is suspected that they were taken down for not using Google's payment systems (despite not being allowed to).
Are the developers using google payments for other things/apps? Because in the context of these specific apps they are not using Google payments, so the policy wouldn't appear to be applicable.
This is the problem of developing free software on a non-free platform. They have absolute control of your work under their own terms, no matter how ridiculous they are. I never understood why the google play store is a socially acceptable idea for free software developers.
Ok, I had to stop there. They have no claim to this as long as they distribute within the store. It would be nice if google allowed this, but there is no obligation. App Stores are monopolies and should be regulated to allow open distribution.
Aside from that it should highlight problems with app stores as a model for software distriubtion in general, although I don't have much hope that this will happen in the immediate future.
That there even exists such a rule is ridiculous and unacceptable in my opinion.
Several other open source apps are still missing from Google Play, including andOTP.
While WireGuard was bought back online, version 0.0.20191013 was briefly made available (with a donation link) before it got updated to version 0.0.20191016. Again, the current version of WireGuard does not contain a donation link.
This is the original version of the post, which has become inaccurate minutes after it was posted:
> WireGuard has been reinstated [1], and the donation link is in the app menu (version 0.0.20191013).
> Google has reversed its decision to remove an app that contains a link to a donation page, likely because of public scrutiny.
> I'm hopeful that people will continue to seek answers for why Google has begun to remove these open source apps, there are several of them mentioned in this thread alone. Please don't allow this to go unnoticed, the future of a bunch of less popular open source projects may depend on how this issue is perceived by the public, and addressed by Google.
> [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wireguard....
(slightly expanded version at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20829422)
Are we sure that this is a decision reversal, as opposed to just reinstating one (or a few) apps?
I haven't received any further emails from Google (yet?), so I'm still uncertain as to whether I have any sort of green light to republish a version with the link.
Too often they refuse to listen when there isn't an angry mob at the door.
How google tries to claim any sort of support for open source is beyond me. What open source app doesn't need a donation link? Those approved and funded by google don't, okay. But other than that?
I just wish F-Droid had a better design but I guess that's just the nature of OSS. It always looked a bit shady and out-of-date, which probably hurts it's popularity.
Wait. I suddenly understand something I've seen previously...
There is a workaround! You simply upload two versions of the app, the free edition and the supporter edition. The support's edition is a paid app. You can ask the users who want to support you to install the paid app in your free app. The program itself is still 100% free and open source, there is no functionality restrictions in the free app, the donation notice can be turned off - just as a way to encourage donations. And it's nothing against the rules of the store.
They're thinking that they're a monopoly and can do whatever the hell they want without needing to justify themselves?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269542
This is ridiculous. May as well only publish open source apps on F-Droid and similar.
Do I have that option?
> Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing:
> One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations.
But anyway, now what? Let's say things return to normal, but we still want to put the silly link in the app. Our appeal was rejected. We could send letters, I suppose. Perhaps this article on HN will get the attention of the right people? We could appeal the appeal, maybe. And then appeal the appeal for the appeal. At what point does this become a waste of energy that could be spent coding and improving the app in other ways? It's hard to know where to draw the line and which battles are worth fighting. I'm happy to hear folks' opinions on the matter.
I certainly agree, though, that it is unfortunate.
I would resubmit the app with the donation link and continue to document and share what happened. Please do not allow them to set a precedent with a popular project like WireGuard.
It's important to share every detail of the issue, the messages you received, your replies, and the policy links you were given about the alleged policy violations.
You can look at r/videos and see how many examples there are, the link in [1] provides quite a few...
So hey, go get people to repost across social media, maybe get a nice trendy hashtag going like #freewireguard and maybe their "AI" (or PR department) might actually do something useful.
Because to me, I've noticed more and more companies only reverse decisions or backpeddle once there's enough shit flying at them (See Blizzard recently, for example).
[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/search?q=flair%3AYouTube%2BD...
> Donations to 527 designated tax exempt organizations are also permitted.
So if Wireguard becomes a proper tax exempt organisation it would be ok.
If you want donations but aren't tax exempt there is basically no way to do it. However you could easily work around it by offering something trivial like a badge (games can use IAP to purchase trivial things like hats). The downside is that Google take their 30% cut.
[0] https://developer.android.com/google/play/billing/billing_ov...
AKA follow the money.
just to stir the pot and see what happens.
A donation is not a purchase.
I've never donated to WireGuard before, and I didn't think about donation (I installed WireGuard from my package manager and didn't realize a donation link exists), until now.
Just donated 25 USD.
Thanks Jason. No thanks, Google.
Whoever came up with this policy and started enforcing it at Google is completely tone-deaf, needs to be fired and publicly called out so we can set an example as a community that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated.
We have contacted engineering leadership at Google and they are in the process of figuring out who it is internally.
No one needs them for discovering new software. You go to the app store to get a specific piece of software you already know about and whose reputation you’ve already verified.
No one needs them for code signing. If you want the real firefox.apk you can download it from https://firefox.com/ and notice a lack of SSL alarms going off. What’s the code signing for — to let me know that HTTPS works?!
All I really want is an OS facility that only executes code that has been installed explicitly by me, and always in a sandbox. That’ll stop that dodgy email from executing r00t.sh via an exploit in my mail client.
App stores and code signing popups are proxies for that kind of OS facility, but I’d rather it was just part of the OS explicitly.
App stores leave me with all sorts of unwanted properties, namely Google / Apple throwing their unwanted opinion around. Search for Instagram in the iOS App Store: the top UI element is “InstaMap”, thanks Apple!
There's also people that don't know that they need "Firefox", they just want a browser. Or a tool to print envelopes or crop an image. So they search in the app store and they know it'll probably be okay.
If you search for this online you'd get a bunch of SEO spam sites, shady tools among other things. At least due to the developer fee and reviews there's at least some barrier of entry (Also if it's not perfect).
> App stores leave me with all sorts of unwanted properties, namely Google / Apple throwing their unwanted opinion around. Search for Instagram in the iOS App Store: the top UI element is “InstaMap”, thanks Apple!
Apple's search is notoriously bad and the perfect case to apply Hanlon's razor.
Bad plan, both on iOS and Android. You should not be installing random apps unless you vet them first.
People keep going back to the "users are stupid" argument, but (particularly on Android) the app store does not protect users. Installing random apps or trusting the first app that shows up is a terrible thing to teach dumb users to do.
If you want to protect users to the point where they don't need to think at all, you need to be way more locked down than iOS/Android currently are -- you need Nintendo Switch levels of moderation, vetting, and sandboxing. The problem is that very few people (dumb users included) want that level of vetting for a smartphone.
I live in a city now and no longer have my own tools/garage, but I know enough about my car to know the shop down the street was trying to screw me when they did a bait in switch, wanting to charge $950 for an alternator repair (and claimed my battery; less than a year old was bad). I called around, towed it to another shop and paid less than half of that...and the battery was perfectly fine.
I should have checked the reviews on the first shop because they were some pretty bad ones. Now I know better, but there are a ton of people who just accept it, maybe because they're car was already towed there and they simply don't know any better.
I so badly wish I could agree with you :)
Sadly, observing the non-tech folks around me, some of which don't even know what an app is, and some of which think the only apps they'll ever use on their phone is the ones it came loaded with ... it's not true.
What is needed is an android app. store that is decentralized / distributed, where the "trust" of an app is a consensus-based score and that has the popularity of whatsapp.
Androids app sandbox is pretty leaky. It has a massive surface area, and the chances of finding exploits to get out of it to find root are high. Also, even from within the sandbox, there are lots of evil things you can do (for example, start on boot, and go fullscreen and use all the ram so the back and home button SystemUI process gets killed and your app is unkillable.).
The 'badness' of the android app model is a big chunk of the reason Google wants to be gatekeeper - otherwise android apps could just load and unload like webpages do. That and profit.
The most popular third party rooting services don't seem to support past Android 8.
Clearly it isn't easy to root these things.
"Isn't just clicking _next_ until the app starts?"
But we have fdroid and the GNU/Linux ecosystem is going to eat android’s lunch anyway.
As mentioned in the announcement, you can switch over to F-Droid (for the time being) to get the latest version: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android.
Why do you have that caveat ? You can use f-droid forever.
I understand that it's probably Google's fault for not providing APIs/permissions but it's still terrible UX. I only use F-Droid when an app isn't available on the Play Store.
As evidence of this, Google does allow donations if the publisher is a 501(c)(3) (see https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en).
There has to be a better way to handle these sorts of things.
Were they even notified beforehand?
If this is really an attempt at preventing garbage apps from spamming or tricking users, this is both overly broad (many false positives) and badly targeted (many false negatives). Why is it that iOS doesn't have this policy, and has significantly fewer garbage apps?
Maybe if Google were to allow third party app stores, folks could choose the one that fits their ability to evaluate the sophistication of apps themselves. For example, some folks might want to pay for extra security checks on the apps they use, while others want to install anything and everything under the sun.
Oh right, it's because Google wants me to have some kind of "pro" app that is effectively a license, that they can get their 30% cut of.
They don't give a damn about fraud via this method. They want their money.
I'm pretty sure they just want their cut.
A small amount relative to the value that you're giving to the world, but hopefully a few pints won't go amiss.
Fuck gatekeepers.
I'd love to use the F-Droid version but it's not up-to-date, and isn't published by Jason, so it's not signed by him either.
Publishing it on the website with a built in update-check might be one solution I'd be happy with, it'd only need a text file hosted on the website and a check, perhaps each time WG is activated to see if there is an update. Modern Android versions can be toggled to allow installing software from external sources, so the app could "install itself".
Cheers
I am curious how this ends up working out. Google takes a cut of the donations now... but the process of buying is probably easier. So maybe it will increase donation revenue, and make it easier to support free software.
(Taking a step back; it is pretty weird to have apps opening links to web pages that take your credit card number. The app store operators are right to view that with suspicion because I'm sure that for every legitimate open source project, there are a million phishing scams.)
Google could make a positive impact by introducing new features that help users seamlessly fund their favourite open source apps, right from their Google accounts. GitHub has recently introduced a similar initiative called GitHub Sponsors [1].
> Taking a step back; it is pretty weird to have apps opening links to web pages that take your credit card number.
There is nothing weird about accepting payments outside of Google Play, and it is allowed if the payment does not result in buying a product that is used within the app. Buying a movie ticket, or operating an online store with a third-party payment processor are perfectly fine use cases which are allowed on Google Play.
The additional feature can just be text that says thanks for the money, feel free to give us more money in the future.
> Open source developers shouldn't be forced to lock away additional functionality in their apps
I don't think functionality was what was suggested. Literally cosmetics. A nice banner that says thanks for supporting the project would likely be sufficient.
Edit: Although I agree it shouldn't be required. As a workaround it doesn't seem too bad though.
Until some morning when suddenly, they're not!
Annoying how hard it is to be independent of FAANG control.
Doesn't Google take a whopping 30% cut of the purchase price for both in-app purchases or direct purchase of the app itself? That's a pretty big bite out of the donation.
Unless I’m mistaken, this is only possible if you’re donating to a registered charity. Many view open source as more noble, but OSS developers don’t magically get a different rule book :)
(I don’t disagree with your perspective here, but the prevailing sentiment in this thread seems to be that OSS developers should get a different rule book.)
This is not tax advice; consult a tax professional for your own personal situation.
I contribute to projects that are committed to never locking away features behind licenses or in-app purchases, because most open-source projects in that space eventually went down that route.
At the bottom of an “About” page:
Paypal: email-adress
Venmo: open-source-proj-maker
BTC/ETH: <address>
If someone is not a 501(c)3 org and just a solo person, why do donations have to go through a particular website link?
It seems like the same thing (getting money) can be accomplished without needing to use links from an app.
My immediate thought at reading the title "So sell a supporter animation that plays in an about menu".
It's possible to make open source applications and still ask for payment on Google Play, either as the asking price, subscription or by adding in-app payments for donations. This is the right way to do it, and will probably also have a much better return since the payment workflow is much easier.
Arguing that this is somehow related to software quality, safety or whatever is pure BS> There is simply no other explanation for this than "it will make us money and we can get away with it."
Basically Google and Apple both know that people will make more money by listing in their stores and taking a 30% cut than not listing at all.
Might be convenient and great for Googles revenue, but it's the wrong way to do it if your priorities are to reduce the projects platform-dependence and to support the project with your full donation.
Usually, once I decide to contribute money to a project I want them to be as free as possible and I want them to get as much of that money as possible. Independent from the specific app store I pulled it from.
I think it's wrong that the Google Play Store treats donations like purchases.
That's also how I was thinking about doing "donationware" on a mobile app store.
Side note: They are also available on F-Droid.
[0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/cluster?clp=ig...
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobi...
https://play.google.com/about/spam-min-functionality/min-fun...
Has more than 100K downloads. i.e made at least 100K after Google cut.
Thank heavens there's an alternate way of distributing apps on Android. Say what you want about Android vs. iOS, but at least there's an alternative if you as a consumer have a beef with Google Play.
Something like that already exists. I had to use one of these directories once to install an older release of Signal on a relative's phone (newer releases of Signal don't work on older phones, older releases of Signal aren't compatible with the current Signal server, but there's a single version in the middle which both works on older phones and is compatible with the current Signal server; unfortunately, that phone hadn't yet updated to that release before a newer release went out).
I have worked in this industry for long enough to know that even assuming a minimum of knowledge at all is a bad idea. You can fight this fight as you want, but this comment has nothing in it to convince be otherwise.
Meanwhile in 2019, most people still find "nothing to hide" attitude perfectly reasonable.
For the normal, everyday non-tech user, they see that all their friends use these apps and nothing has ever happened to them. The FBI didn't come knocking, they weren't fired from their jobs or anything like that.
From their point of view, why should they care about repositories, digital signatures etc., when they just want to use Instagram, Snapchat, Whatsapp and so on for some after-work (or during-work) fun / brain-swithoff. They just post some silly pictures or watch some Youtuber videos.
All these concerns about privacy just don't reach the everyday reality and real-life concerns of people and is in effect an ideological thing, similar to rejecting proprietary software on the desktop due to moral and political beliefs.
> They have to face the consequences, that's how it works
The consequences (app creators changing their practices and policies) will be spread over everyone, not on individual users. As long as their friends and society keeps using it, most people will as well. If it slowly dies out, people will use whatever is new. Most people are not that much attached to using these apps, just use them out of boredom or to interact with others. They'd easily move on if that's how things evolve.
I have had the exact same experience. I've long given up trying to explain anything to normies, including anything related to privacy.
I really pains me to say this, but the bleating masses are the bleating masses, and getting them to internalize anything typically takes a generation.
That's what we do in every other domains, what's the difference here ?
We need to drop the attitude that technology is a new scary thing it's not. Technology is an extension of our selves we have been using it for thousands of years to expand our ability.
Pen and paper was the old technology if you don't know how to use it you are illiterate, if you don't know how to use the new technology you are still just illiterate.
The baby boomer attitude of "I can't be arsed to improve as a person so every one else has to dumb it down for me" is unacceptable.
And do note that there was a point in history when even basic literacy belonged to a small few who argued in exactly the same manner than tech people do today, i.e., that most people will never be able to understand basic science and maths, and we cannot hope for any better than to be benevolent dictators. Later history proved the hollowness of those claims. Today the majority in most of the developed and some of the developing countries are basically literate and what their grandparents couldn't imagine doing, they do effortlessly today. I don't see a single reason why computer sector should be any different. I'm not talking about a deep understanding of computers, just basic literacy that would obviate the excuse for tight, walled gardens and locked down devices.
And I'm happy with these stores and couldn't care less about your cyberpunk libertarianism.
This isn't 1984. The moment they seriously misbehave, the law will come at them, and customers will leave. Therefore they don't.
You're indulging in fantasies because you would like to believe that what interests you is all-important. That's normal: all epidemiologists belief we should talk about the flu a lot more.
But it's just a tiny slice of what matters. So don't disparage people as stupid just because they spend their energy and time with more important things than recompiling kernels.
1. https://chatsecure.org/blog/sustainable-open-source-starts-w...
C'mon people, is Google we talk about, you know, those who bow to might $$$ only. You should've made a donation link INSIDE google, so they can charge their 30% before you get the money, that's how you keep your app in their store </sarcasm>.
The Android app is basically a web-view pointing to one of the many instances of the social network https://nl.movim.eu/?login.
Regarding the time (and also money) spent to publish the APK on the Play Store and the hassle it is to discuss with the Google moderation team I didn't bothered putting it back.
But Android is Android because of these apps. Without them it would be like the Windows phone which was nice but didn't get enough apps on it and so it failed.
These companies depend on our apps as much as we depend on their app store for distribution.
Fuck apple for starting this walled garden and creating a parasitic relationship rather than a symbiotic relationship.
So how do you decide what a fair cut is? Over the course of a month, given all your app and system usage, and all the pieces of software you've touched or relied on, what percent of the engineer hours required for that stuff to work came from Google/Apple vs coming from third party app makers? Is that how you decide the split? Because I have a feeling the time it took to build the 15 third party apps I might touch in a month don't come close to the level of effort required to have built the system and first party apps.
I don't understand.
> Fuck apple for starting this walled garden
IIRC apple started it and now all the big players are following suite.. including even Windows 10 which has it's own app store and similar cut.
They have the a free version available on the Play Store here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.pps...
They also have a "Gold" version available: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.pps...
These two apps are functionally identical, only difference is the logo and that the "Gold" version costs money.
So if you want to contribute some cash to this project, you just buy the "Gold" version. Other open-source projects could adopt this model too to evade this policy.
The price you pay however, is that a part of the money goes to Google. Which is obviously the reason why donation links are not allowed in the first place.
However, before doing this, we corresponded with Apple Developer Support / App Review Team and asked them about the Acceptable Business Models of their developer guidelines, which states:
(vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase.
They scheduled a “specialist” to call us from Apple and discuss this. However when they called a few days later, they repeatedly declined to give a single example of how this paragraph would ever apply. We tried asking many different ways, but they kept saying we would need to submit the app with the business model to get it reviewed. They would not give a single example of an app they approved with this business model. I personally was on the phone and said that we simply wanted to be compliant and it was very expensive to build something just to be rejected, so we wanted guidance about their policies. But the representative did not know anything. I asked if anyone else on their team knew but they basically said no.
So Apple seems to have certain “platitudes” in their Guidelines which companies can’t take advantage of.
Has anyone here seen a single exception to the 30% cut? I know ApplePay may be used to purchase “real-life” items and where you can’t afford to pay 30% less to the vendor. But what about services, like booking time with a teacher? What about digital services such as hosting a videoconference? Apple takes a 30% but you have to pay Twilio. That means any web-based app would cost 30% less!
We were hoping that maybe there can be some link to buy things with Ethereum and since Apple doesn’t offer that facility we can try to argue that we need transactions to be non-reversible etc. Doesn’t Apple allow apps that allow the user to send and receive bitcoin payments to some address? BOOM!
Another thing we can do is micropayments, maybe, and tell users how they can purchase credits elsewhere. But that last part is against Apple’s rules, isn’t it?
Not to downplay the effort that F-Droid contributors (or any Android FOSS groups) make, but it's a very legitimate concern.
Would an attacker have an easier time infiltrating Google or a member of F-Droid the development community?
Are users of F-Droid higher value than users of Google Play, to warrant a direct attack? If one wants to pick off users who are fairly technically inclined, other developers, system administrators, etc...F-Droid is a pretty good place to start.
Regardless of the fact that builds are reproducible, F-Droid has infrastructure. How is that infra secured? How are the servers that store signing keys secured? How are the build servers accessed? How is the access secured?
Okay, so the builds are reproducible -- is someone maintaining a concurrent system that verifies reproducibility and provides notification of a collision when things don't match up with built and served binaries?
If an automated process blocks/bans/rejects something, then the message to the developer MUST say "Our automated scanner discovered..."
Any time something is blocked/banned/rejected, the message to the developer MUST explain exactly why. In the case of this article: "Your update was rejected due to a link to a third party payment system. This violates section N of our terms. The link we detected was <insert link here>."
There should be two kinds of appeal processes. Automated, and manual. You should be able to appeal or resubmit to the automated process as often as you need to.
The manual process should involve real time communication between the developer and an appeal agent. Via phone or chat. To prevent the system from being overloaded, only allow developers a few free appeals, then start charging a fee.
Developer accounts should only be fully banned after multiple manual appeals and the appeals agent determining that the developer is operating in bad faith. Automated processes should never be able to fully ban an account. It must involve a real person. Full bans also must include a detailed email to the developer explaining exactly why they have been banned.
The biggest, and most important, change these companies really need to make is including exactly WHY something happened. No more of these general "you violated our TOS" without any explanation of how the TOS was violated messages.
> Testut imagines Apple could disable the ability to sync over Wi-Fi, but that would just mean plugging in your phone once a week to continue using AltStore
How about limit the number of disable WiFi syncs and force you to plug in once every 8 hours?
Signing up as developer, paying the fee and building the app yourself is probably the better option. Even if you have to rebuild it every xx days.
Well guess what ... the android team at google and the entire android ecosystem is the brainchild of Andy Rubin, who has recently been outed publicly as a total asshole (and who everyone at Google knew was a total asshole since pretty much the start of Android).
All the things wrong with Android, including the iron-fisted management of what can and cannot run on the platform ("I know, I'm squeezing your balls til you pass out, but don't worry, it's for your own protection") can easily be traced to him.
Perhaps the right thing to do is for Google to offer a discounted cut to legit open source apps, from the usual 30% to a lesser value or entirely waive it off so that they can still seek contributions through Google play billing.
http://www.google.com/search?q=wireguard+donate
Problem solved.
Thanks for the great work!
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.navigation...
Some examples are purchases that can be used outside the app, eg. cross platform purchases and things like transportation and finance.
> Here are some examples of products not currently supported by Google Play In-app Billing:
> One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations.
How deep does it have to be before they cut you off? Can you link to a page that is only linking to another page where the donation happens? How much extra text would you need to "pass inspection". I find these kinds of arbitrary rules very unsettling. It's definitely time to break up the tech giants.
It is odd that they remove this though, I use at least two more open source apps that asks for a donation and will send me to their donation page if I click.
Spamming users with notifications is also against the rules and everybody does it anyways.
Both are lying to you and everyone else. They instead demand their private tax while lying to you about it beforehand.
"Do the right thing"
Google in a nutshell.
But of course this impact googles bottom line so the sane approach goes out the window
> Google Project Zero researchers find 100 ZERO-DAY vulnerabilities in unofficial app store "FDroid"
Because that way, we can install these applications from F-Droid, by default. That allows us to cope out of the network effect of Google Play Store, allowing the more fair F-Droid (which specifically allows donation-ware) to increase its network effect.
https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/dhir1i/in_th...
https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-fragmentation/#packag...
We could go on about how regular users wouldn't understand or care and blah blah blah and we'll keep getting software that's neutered, tracks us and becomes more like the proverbial car with the hood welded shut; where people who know about cars have to attach several sidecars just to keep our vehicle doing what we want it to do.
However, Apple totally rules their walled garden, with some added gross exploitation to boot (recent "Sherlocking" story for Luna Display).
F-Droid/Amazon/whatever can't automatically update installed apps unless the phone is rooted. It's not an even playing field - Google has a de facto monopoly on Android.
Personally, I do all my own maintenance and love to look under my hood. My wife? She’d drive a car until it was devoid of oil or coolant and the block seized up without even batting an eye lash. I’m not passing judgement here, just offering a more realistic viewpoint.
The same is true for users of apps. There’s a reason the stores have grown to be so successful, and a reason the Google store is evolving to be more and more like Apple’s.
I don’t think that they are perfect, but I also would never consider the open source package systems to be perfect either. Everything has a trade off, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
In fact this capability even enabled the community of these OSes to support the platform much longer than Nokia intended to. They made emulators, enabled hidden functionality (like FM Radio), even the bootloader was unlocked so you could go and install Android -but drivers were not open-source- if you wanted. It was liberating.
Too bad it got killed prematurely, and from its ashes Windows Phone was born.
You have to accept that these are commercial products for commercial gain. They are not a product of or for a community. Massive corporations use these systems to create products that drive their revenue. They will do whatever works for the majority; the fact that a minority wants certain kinds of changes does not impact their bottom line, so why should they consider it? They do not care about your outrage or opinions, they care about cash.
To all the entrepreneurs reading this: please create one. To all the VCs reading this: please fund one.
It's badly needed. I heard Huawei is working on one but I wouldn't bet on it.
I'm talking about a mainstream alternative android store. The design of f-droid is not appealing enough.
Google owns the app store. So, developers should abide rules imposed by Google although the rules do not seem reasonable all the time.
My suggestion is, developer can still implement in-app billing, removing "donation" wording. For the in-app item, make it as good-to-have feature like "unlocking additional app color theme".
With such, he will still abide the rule, yet able to get his monetary reward.
> One time-payments, including peer-to-peer payments, online auctions, and donations.
I don't see anything wrong with this. Charging vs Donations, I don't see what the difference is. It's people paying money for good/services/software. The primary difference is the open ended pricing model.
Google, Apple put up networks and there's value in that network. Whether someone chooses to release their app for free or charge money for it, that app is dictated by the network fees. This network is extremely powerful in terms of its distribution reach. Does it warrant 30%? That's what the market is willing to put up with, but if we're debating 30% - it should be for the whole network not just because someone has an open ended pricing model.
If this app is registered as a non-profit (which it did not look like based on the website?) then I am 100% in the wrong and do believe the app should be able to operate under different pricing schemes.
At a philosophical level - what is the difference between a free-to-use app that has open ended pricing vs a FOSS with donations?
If there is a difference, let's discuss it.
This is simply not how the real world works. If it ever does, you've created a dystopia.
Google are being bureaucratic twats here. There's plainly and obviously a difference between WireGuard and the 10,000,000th iteration of some bullshit F2P casual game, and there's obviously a distinction between donations and purchases - the intent of the user, for one.
That they put prole-tier support on the case and 'accidentally or otherwise' sling the banhammer at pivotal pieces of software is their problem to figure out.
But again, what is FOSS with a donation link vs free-to-use software with pay-as-much-as-you-want.
One sounds like a non-profit while the other sounds like a for-profit.
Perhaps if you can directly show your software is FOSS via licensing etc that there should be a special exemption?
Seems like there needs to be a sole-proprietier non-profit... but man that seems like rife for abuse.
the question is whether or not it is right for google to act as a gatekeeper here. i think not.
Considering the amount of donations I got, it would have been much more profitable to clean toilets, to just go begging in the streets, collect bottles from public trash cans for the deposit, or just sell my body.
In fact let's have a look how much I got during the past 12 months for 250 hours of work:
$0.
Had I been working as someone who climbs onto roofs and cleans the dirt off of them I would have gotten this much for that in this country:
$16500
And then, as a cherry on top, you now demand that a giant monopoly, which is trying very hard to soak up as much of people's data as possible - without paying them for it! - should get a cut from donations for my work which I genereally give away for free.
Now I can understand that you did not know this when you wrote down your opinion!
But given that you do now, do you understand how insulting this feels? :) It actually itched me so much that I created this account solely for the purpose of telling you, and I would be very happy if you could change your mind :)
100% open source does not pay money for the vast majority of people, and thank you for your contributions to the community.
I also hope you understand that I get that FOSS donations won't make a liveable wage. At the same time, we want to be thanked for our contributions to the community - I get that.
My point is - by throwing up a donation link, we're circumventing their process. What's the difference between throwing up a donation link vs a Apple/Android pay link in app? It's the network fees. We're trying to avoid those because we feel they're unfair (which they 100% are).
If the Apple/Android pay fee was the same as the donation link, the majority of the time, we be using Apple/Android pay. Why not?
We want the benefits of the Apple/Android distribution network without paying their fees because "We belong to FOSS".
It's a major failure of governments to allow monopolies.
Charging: Person paying gets something in return Donating: Person paying does not get something in return
>The primary difference is the open ended pricing model.
What does "an open ended pricing model" mean?
Agreed, donations do not necessarily mean I receive anything in return and I purely want to support like clean water efforts in 3rd world countries, but policing the difference seems unrealistic.
But that seems like it should be a special non-profit category. I think I'm beginning to convert to a 'middle' ground that there should be a sole proprietor non-profit, but that seems insanely hard to police.
https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/
Also on the value prop front, worth noting a variety of digital app stores at scale have found operation costs 12% to 18% fees before the hands on “40% rejection” level of oversight that Apple is providing to end users.