Google un-bans Downloader app, but developer still mad about “broken” DMCA | Hacker News Reader

Google un-bans Downloader app, but developer still mad about “broken” DMCA

arstechnica.com

230 pointsisaacfrond96 comments

I had an app that was making about $10,000 USD a month. It was taken down by Google because apparently I copied some other developer's iOS app.

I asked them to tell me the name of the iOS app they believed I copied. They named the iOS version of my Android app.

They basically accused me of copying myself because the Android version was under my company's name while the iOS version was under my name.

Google unbanned the app, but sales dropped to $1000 a month.

After that ordeal I decided to build web apps only.

> After that ordeal I decided to build web apps only.

Way to go ! Not everything can be a web app right now, but it's getting closer every year.

With his finally adding support for web push notifications, I think we are pretty much there already. What else is missing that’s needed for most apps?

I think browser push notifications are considered a bit of a failed standard. Lots of browser's don't support them e.g. iOS browsers.

I haven’t tried iOS PWA push notifications yet, but I was under the impression that they should work similarly to the native ones. I agree that the standard is wonky, but if you develop a PWA with specific iOS polish, it might work well.

Is there a writeup about how they work? Is there a message broker server that the browser stays connected to?

Last time I tried, working with local files and folders was slow, not well supported and awkward. But I may lag.

WebKit published a list of things they don't/won't add support for, so you can count them out on iOS.

https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/

I have an native app for both platforms which uses some of these because I can't do it with a webapp, I'd love for everything to be done in the browser.

Web Bluetooth

Web MIDI API

Magnetometer AP

Web NFC API

Device Memory API

Network Information API

Battery Status API

Web Bluetooth Scanning

Ambient Light Sensor

HDCP Policy Check extension for EME Proximity Sensor

WebHID

Serial API

Web USB

Geolocation Sensor (background geolocation)

User Idle Detection

So are the web apps having better returns?

Better expected returns, from the sounds of it, since they’re not at risk of being arbitrarily sin-binned without recourse.

You're absolutely at risk of this. If you're added to the big bad google blocklist that all major browsers use, which of course is automated, anyone visiting your website will get a big red screen saying "this is a scam please run away".

This happened to my own gitlab instance, which sees around 5 unique visitors a year, and it has happened to popular websites.

The only recourse is to report the issue to google, who, if they feel so kind, will unblock your domain again. Oh, maybe I didn't mention - this block applies to the entire domain. I had the gitlab on git.example.com, and so *.example.com and example.com were all blocked entirely, on all browsers, for everyone in the world. Yes, you can click on a button, and then a tiny link that says "im ok with getting shafted by this scam site" or some such shit.

Very true, the majority of my new users find my web app through Google search. If Google decided to remove me from their search results I would lose a large amount of revenue.

Out of curiosity, does Google also cross-link with the dev‘s Google account? Domain A gets punished, then all other Domains of the dev get punished too? (eg when connected via ads or search console)

No idea, but fairly easy to test - seems to me like it flags self hosted stuff like gitlab as it looks like a phishing site is targeting gitlab users. Not sure what triggers it, but that's the only needed preconditions i know of

A lemon market can be worse than being banned from a market. When banned, at least you can start over or comply to get back in. When its a lemon market, there's no good market.

My observation is that the web has become a lemon market and I'm curious if I'm wrong about it.

Also, you can definitely get banned from the web, be it through being banned from the discovery channels or regulators. You can get banned from Twitter/Reddit/Google etc. and loose your your discovery channels and you can get banned from Gmail and lose your communication channels, you can get banned from Google/Apple/Twitter and lose your account providers.

I added a fediverse plugin to my wordpress blog and then just boost it when I post.

I mean, I get like 100 views, but that's ok for me.

The reason I'm saying this is because it feels like for the first time in a long time there is alternatives to "big web"

I'm not saying Google shouldn't police their app store at all, I'm just saying that the current "algo-ban and blackhole" strategy is a losing game for content creators and I'd never get into it.

I built the Android app in 2013, and my best selling web app in 2021. The web app has just gotten beyond the $10,000 USD monthly recurring revenue metric.

About the same really.

Thanks, how this compares to the iOS app?

Is your app something always used online? Is there a way to use the web app offline for those who are away from internet access but still want the functionality?

No it requires an internet connection to use my app. I could make an offline version, but it's not something many users are asking for.

Looked up your submission history and found your site pretty quickly. Bravo, my friend - you created a service I didn't even know people needed and you're completely rocking it. Great job!

This is exactly the reason I would have never considered to build any apps. I have had couple of ideas but the risk is to big that a faceless corporation is going cancel your business without any reason and visibility.

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. It's an existential risk.

An existential risk is typically considered any risk that has the potential to eliminate all of humanity or, at the very least, kill large swaths of the global population.

Being controlled by software restricts choice, while being wiped out by software eliminates choice altogether.

I suspect you may be being a little too literal here. It is an existential risk to the software development house.

I agree and nothing I wrote conflicts with that assertion. The point is that it depends on the individual's perspective and the complexity of the issue at hand. Restricting choice is often an advantage because it saves us time in exchange for the risk of being (company, individual or humanity) wiped out by an exception to the rule.

Hmm typically I've heard the phrase existential risk alongside a qualifying / local scope phrase.

So something may be an existential risk to this company or this endeavour. Only a small fraction of usage of existential risk are globally scoped to humanity.

It’s an existential risk to a business’s survival

I didn't downvote, but I assume people are because everything you can possibly do in life comes with some risk -- you need to evaluate the risk versus the benefit to decide whether to do something. Not even considering developing an app because of the risk of your app being banned seems like a fairly extreme overreaction.

It's kind of like saying, "I've never considered getting a job because the risk is too big that a faceless corporation is going lay you off without any reason and visibility."

The comparison would be IMO more accurate if there were only 2 employers in the world.

That still doesn't change the underlying mechanics of the analogy though. It doesn't matter how many employers there are, if the worst case scenario is that you end up where you are now (jobless / no app)

The analogy would be more accurate if you could end up in a worse off position by taking the job / making the app, say through lost development time with no payoff

In an scenario with 2 employers, even ignoring market dynamics of an oligopoly/monopoly, once you are rejected by them you have nothing to lose.

The risk of your app being banned when there is only 2 marketplaces is way way higher than the risk of being laid off when there are many more companies.

IMO OPs argument breaks when they equate a bit of risk to a lot of risk, as if any risk amount were the same as any other.

Eh, you can still put them on an external website.

This really only applies to iOS.

Do you think that you can easily reach the same userbase with a 3rd party installation process as the official app store one?

Yes. How do you think we did it in the bad ole days?

Don't fall for the propensity of Big Tech to scare you away from general purpose computing. If you're capable of writing, testing, and publishing an app in the first place, you have an obligation to educate the public about just what the nature of the sacrifices are that are being made by accepting a "walled garden" status quo for computing.

If you're only in it for the money, that may not matter to you I suppose. If you're dedicated to trying to bring the superpower that is general purpose computing to the public however, it's one of those bits of suffering you have to navigate for their best interest.

If you have to educate each potential user before you can turn it into an actual user, then necessarily your userbase is going to be smaller than if you didn't require that education step.

Right, but is that actually important?

It might be, depending on what your goals are, but for a lot of developers who just want to make a good living off of their work (as opposed to becoming a millionaire), it's not really that important.

I am not talking about some imaginary good old days vs now but using a 3rd party install process vs the official one in the context of installing Android applications.

I think you would reach a fraction of the userbase with a 3rd party process due to several factors.

Google can also take your website out of their search results, or derank you a lot. That would effectively be a death penalty for many online businesses.

Fair point, though The Google's search matters less and less as the days go by.

But the difference with websites is that there's always an alternative. If The Google decides your site is wrongthink or their superior AI intelligence flags your site for infringing on your own copyright, there are countless other ways to make your site seen elsewhere.

Let's face it, nobody's going to sideload your mobile app without installing it through an app store unless your app is in the position to say F-U to The Google like Tik Tok, Twitter, Instagram, and so on. People will visit a website that's been posted on social media or linked on some blog, but they won't download an APK.

>The Google's search matters less and less as the days go by

The HN community is well aware that Google search result quality has fallen off a cliff and DDG's results keep getting better. But the vast majority of casual internet users still do (perhaps always will) use the former. The amount of people downloading APKs outside of the play store is as low as the amount of people looking up your business through non-Google search engines.

> The amount of people downloading APKs outside of the play store is as low as the amount of people looking up your business through non-Google search engines.

Outside of software developers, that's pretty doubtful. Judging by how many non-technical people I've spotted using DDG, I'd bet good money that there are more of them than those who would be willing to install a mobile app outside an app store. Even software developers are paranoid about doing that.

Also, the point is that at least your site can be seen even if it doesn't appear on a search engine. A business can post hyperlinks on Instagram, Reddit, Tik Tok, blogs, physical ads, and so forth. There's an option with websites. With apps, there's really no meaningful alternative unless you're a big player, and even the big players have largely bent over for Apple and The Google and their respective app stores. Sorry, the incredibly vast majority of people aren't going to explicitly turn on the Android setting to allow installing apps outside the Play Store and then install an APK off some website, and for iOS this isn't even as practical.

But every time the EU tries to do something about it in Europe, it is derided here as stiffing innovation...

This is why I intentionally exclude my sites from Google's crawlers. That way, I never grow to depend on Google and don't worry about potential delisting.

I do not rely on google/facebook for any incoming revenue at all either.

Same. I would totally consider dropping web development and developing apps if Apple and The Google behaved more reasonably towards developers. I've heard enough stories, including those from people I know IRL, to stay the hell away from mobile development as a form of self-employment income.

I'm mostly there. I've developed a few apps, but none that I charged for. I wouldn't be willing to have anything of importance be at the mercy of any app store.

> After that ordeal I decided to build web apps only.

What services do you use to monetise them?

Coming from a very similar background, I have more than a decade of mobile experience (consultant -> CTO), but almost all of my personal projects are web apps. I just can't be bothered dealing with how much control app stores want over my work, plus the amount of bureaucratic bullshit involved.

Plus, the modern web stack is amazing in terms of short iteration cycles (<30s to push and deploy a new project, excellent dev experience with TS).

The didn’t send a warning or anything to give you the opportunity to explain the misunderstanding? Doesn’t that give you a good argument to sue them?

Only if you have more money for lawyers than Google

And are wanting to have all your Google accounts banned for life.

I wonder how much money it unjustly costs other people for every dollar Google saves on support personnel costs.

sounds like a lawsuit?

Thanks for the fear-by-proxy ;)

I have an Android app published under a company name, while iOS is under my personal name due to the hassle of getting it published under a company.

>>"After that ordeal I decided to build web apps only."

I agree with this, I think for reasons of independence that web browsers should be the platform for mobile as much as possible, not os specific apps.

Perhaps one day foss non-corporate smart phone operating systems will become more accessible to non-technical users, but until then web browsers are the best bet to prevent centralization/control by corporations on software distribution

Google can't exactly fix the DMCA like the dev may want, but its fake appeal process is infuriating. You can appeal the takedown to Google but no human will ever validate that the DMCA notice even makes sense.

Filing a counter notice is your only option but it also hands over your personal details to whoever filed the DMCA takedown request for a potential lawsuit. This turns the DMCA mechanism into an excellent doxxing system for anyone publishing anything onto Google's platforms.

Perhaps even worse is the insinuation, or sometimes even lie, that appeals are verified by humans. They're either not passing by any humans or they're not being verified. If an actual human had read the DMCA takedown in the first place, this whole saga never would've happened.

Last time I was looking into it, the DMCA required that the subject was taken down _before_ you did the verification of the claim. So the DMCA basically is required to be an automatic process.

as it is written, the DMCA strongly favours the accusing party, and there's minimal blowback from a fraudulent claim. It has got to be one of the worst pieces of legislation to have been written and enacted.

Not to mention anti-circumvention provisions that change the definition of "own".

In the case of a proper DMCA takedown (as opposed to something like YouTube's pre-DMCA report system), you can (and should) sue the person who issued a fraudulent takedown for damages caused by the takedown.

The post you replied to wasn't particularly complaining about the initial takedown (required, as you say, by the DMCA), but the terrible appeals process when this is applied to a spurious claim.

Oh, for sure! The takedown itself must happen immediately because of the unbalanced nature of the DMCA.

However, the verification doesn't need to be an automatic system. Google would not be at fault if they took down the page, had someone competent enough investigate the takedown, and then make a decision. The current system doesn't even start a real investigation until you object and even then the investigation isn't exactly thorough.

I do wonder, if you are in Europe, you would have a claim for violation of artists' "moral rights"?*. One of those legal rights is to be published under a pseudonym or anonymously.

*I don't think it's something really recognised in the USA.

> One of those legal rights is to be published under a pseudonym or anonymously.

This seems to conflict with German "impressum" requirements https://www.ionos.co.uk/digitalguide/websites/digital-law/a-...

As much as I like the "code is a form of expression so code is art" movement, I don't think that's legally the case.

Isn't "code is art" table stakes for having copyright apply?

I can't speak for any other countries, but here in the Netherlands software doesn't follow the "normal" copyright rules. For example, ripping CDs is perfectly fine but copying software requires permission from the developer. Programmers also can't apply for compensation from the private copy levy (the thing that makes us pay €6 on top of every phone so we can legally use it to play music).

This utterly ridiculous special case (as well as the plain corrupt private copy levy) doesn't necessarily exist anywhere else, but it does show that you can't just assume uniformity of copyright law.

Google's entire process is opaque and open to dodgy behaviour. I had an app which was growing really well with about 5-10k downloads a day growing at about 20% a week and an average rating of 4.8 stars over a few thousand reviews. Suddenly this is tanking overnight and when we look into the data, we have twice as many new uninstalls per day as we do downloads a day. Next to no uninstalls from existing users, no change in the ratings, and no technical outages. It looked like a bot farm was just installing and immediately (as in less than a minute later) uninstalling the app over and over again. Google decided that this meant the app was bad, and we went from position 2-5 for our main keywords to not even in the top 50 overnight. I tried appealing, and tried getting information, but Google did absolutely nothing about it.

Its more that Google's implementation of the DMCA is broken. They have automated take downs and have a completely broken appeal process. They certainly aren't the only company failing to deal with the DMCA correctly. There are clauses in the DMCA specifically targetted at false claims, if those were enforced we might start to see a change in the system but as is the DMCA is misused too often.

They don’t get sued for DMCA and they don’t get bothered by disgruntled victims of false positives. Sounds like an absolute win! /s

> They have automated take downs and have a completely broken appeal process

Before regulating AI, maybe we should consider regulating Artificial Stupidity.

ASS! Artificial Stupidity eventS...

I'll show myself out

Weirdly enough, it’s not automated.

I’ve recently submitted a valid DMCA against a play store app (that was simply a web view embedding my app without authorization, claiming it as theirs) and weirdly enough they emailed back saying they will not be acting on it.

So now they’ve abandoned their safe harbor and I’ll have to file a claim against Google, instead of them just doing the right thing.

The DMCA as a law is horribly written. The law is the reason why companies like Google behave the way they do. Change the law to something less retarded and there's a chance fewer problems will occur.

I think there might be more to this story. This app is what people generally use to sideload apps on a locked Google TV device such as the Google Chromecast. One such commonly sideloaded app is SmartTube, an unofficial YouTube client with no ads and SponsorBlock included:

https://smartyoutubetv.github.io/

I'm not surprised Google is eager to take it down under any pretext, and not so eager to restore it.

So because the application can load a URL that can be loaded in any browser, the application should be banned? Time to ban all browsers then I guess...

Besides, Google claimed that the application was collecting email addresses while the app technically couldn't collect email addresses.

If they want to ban something, setup proper rules like "No browsers allowed" and then ban the apps under those rules, instead of trying to hide the real reason for the ban.

I'm not saying what they did was in any way justified, just providing context that seems to be missing from the reporting: to sideload e.g. SmartTube you need an app like this first, and it must be available from the Play Store. Google has an incentive to disrupt this under any pretense as it costs them ad revenue.

Companies that send DMCA takedowns should be financialy liable for fake/wrong ones.

That way, they will take more time to think it trough.

Rather than a financial penalty, how about this? What if the consequence of a bogus takedown were that the work you own and claimed was being infringed upon immediately and permanently became public domain? (For takedowns where the lie is that you don't actually own copyright of the work you claim, that part is what's supposed to carry the penalty of perjury, so we should just start enforcing that.)

They already are. You're given all the details of the DMCA claimant in the DMCA claim itself, so that you can sue them.

I mean that you don't need to sue them.

There should be some sort of jury (to call it something) that is not as expensive/slow as a trial.

It's not broken, it's working as intended, giving more power to large corporations.

To be fair on the second complaint, if the first thing your app does is display a web view of a page that requests an email address (even if just for a mailing list), I might also say a claim that it doesn't collect that information is incorrect. It's too easy to just say the site is unaffiliated because you used a different entity name for the site and circumvent their controls, and it may be unclear to people whether an email address is required for full functionality.

The alternative to marking the form to indicate they collect personal information would be to load a different web page by default that doesn't try to collect email addresses.

I underatand how when you're mad at a company it can be hard to give the benefit of a doubt about other actions and use that think about them rationally, but I think that's all that was required in the second case.

Governments should demand open app stores for Android and iOS.

This is already a thing. See the Digital Markets Act: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/about-dma_en

100% agree but it won't fix this problem, which was also introduced by the government.

Well they recently unbanned my youtube/youtube music account too after writing to them a second time, its been about a few months without those accounts. They said it doesnt violate their policies after saying it did the last time. Are there any grounds to sue them for this?

Grounds to sue? No. A good reason to stop using Google products wherever possible? Yup

This type of behaviour should encourage all users to have a third party app store ecosystem similar to how we have with browsers.

Google and Co can't be trusted, just because it's their operating system is a awful argument.

Well they recently unbanned my youtube/youtube music account too after writing to them a second time. They said it doesnt violate their policies after saying it did the last time. Are there any grounds to sue them for this?

I think the Developer of the app is frustrated.

Google is also broken

yes I agree with you. You are right that the developers still made broken DMCA but we work with protectional team they do not made such mistake.

I think the Developer of the app is frustrated...

At least someone is

Reply on news.ycombinator.com