Google set to purge the Play Store of low-quality apps
androidauthority.com
androidauthority.com
there already had been a pattern of google discriminating against such apps
and from a pure monetary sense it makes sense, while for most users such no-nonsense apps are preferable they make little money for Google and compete with apps which do
in a certain way google has motivation to feature _especially_ consumer hostile apps using all kinds of dark patterns to trick, blackmail or outright scam people into paying more
such a bias is probably illegal under the recent (EU) digital markets act as but that is even more motivation for google do kill a lot of such useful apps now before it's more strictly enforced
F-Droid exists, fortunately. That's where I go if I want simple apps without any BS. Vinyl for music playback, AntennaPod for podcasts, Tusky for Mastodon, etc
Upd. they renamed: https://github.com/FossifyOrg
Also, almost all of F-Droid is no-nonsense, so I don't have to spend time trying to choose the least sleazly looking app like I would have on other stores.
As someone who just wrote an app so my users can use my service (https://www.deadmansswitch.net) more easily, though, I'm a bit miffed at the fact that it might be removed.
I wish there was a cryptographic solution that ensured that messages would be stored in an encrypted vault, re-encrypted every time I check in, and in a way that would take 60 days to decode to cleartext if I don't check in.
Ha, yeah, I'd rather look in F-Droid first, because I know I'd have to sift through a fuckton of garbage of maybe-malware or for-sure-adware (full 10 second video ads whenever you click on anything) if I look in the Play Store.
Sure maybe I'm exaggerating, and the truth is the Play Store experience is not that bad, but it's my perception.
Epic Games has power to distribute outside Play store. Also DJI, the drone manufacturer is exclusively distributing outside. People are ready to go hoops to get access to these apps.
Google might not be gatekeepers, but there’s no practical way to opt out of having them poking around in your phone.
You do have to buy a Pixel, ironically the only phones with good enough manufacturer support for Graphene to support them. And be willing to spend 10 minutes clicking through the installer. But it's quite an upgrade from a stock Google image.
Now you need to be a professional developer with all the relevant infrastructure (a company, a public phone number, dozens of people for testing, fifty policy/regulation to comply with, ...)
That does not appear to be what this article is about - this is about apps that don't do anything/crash/only have text or a single wallpaper
I could not be more disgusted by this change. This attitude rules so much of what happens now. Web specs are like, oh, only 0.1% of websites use this feature after 2 years: we can ignore it. That's a huge number, and the timeframe, the expectation that either tech is adopted & loved within months or its not worthwhile is horrendous, so greatly demeans human effort & the nature of how meaning builds.
We have to get back to expecting sometimes the larger changes being slow & tectonic.
I pay for a few very niche calculator apps that I wouldn't even be able to find 20 people interested without putting in some effort and asking for friends to ask their friends.
There's a saying, only one of 10k people affected by a bug will report it. Getting early testers is a bit like that, although not as bad as 1/10k.
The value of a no-nonsense free app is that it isn't trying to exploit something off of you.
I'm not really enthusiastic about subscribing to a company's newsletter or being advertised a weight loss secret thar doctors don't want you to know
What google will actually remove: The configuration utility used to update the firmware and configure your home battery system. -- because it wasn't updated for the very latest android api released three weeks ago.
Random hurdles seem to favor bad actors over niche legitimate tools because the bad actors just become the foremost experts at working the system, while other players have better things to do with their time.
Like (likely open source, hobby produced) no-nonsense (cost) free apps which provide some basic functionality and nothing more but also nothing unwanted (no tracking ads etc.).
Or in general apps without ads (google is known to already discriminated against such ads in various ways).
so as a consumer I have all right to complain
and as a producer too as this might also e.g. affect cheap but not free apps, the marked you can reach with 3rd party app stores is size wise a joke
It is silly how many hoops single hobbyist developer has to jump through just to keep their app on the Play Store. Want to provide transit timetables app with publicly available GTFS data? You need to keep proving to Google after each update that you do not represent government and are not affiliated. And they keep asking for privacy policy even in rare case your app actually do not collect any user data and actually works fully offline.
And to make matters worse, there is no easy way to close developer account and just leave Play Store for good.
What would be really nice is if they cared when developers push breaking or otherwise trashy updates. I've completely dialed automatic updates because of it. The number of times an app updates and everyone including me tries 1 star reviewing to no avail is too high. Especially with the inability to backdate apks without losing all the on-device data
Source: Gave up on trying to be a vigilant netizen and reporting to the black hole.
They won't be though, they make Google money from the IAP.
What? Is that a common problem? And where are those text-only apps anyway? I have installed Termux and some vim app and a few interactive fiction games that are all text. Are those somehow causing trouble by not having enough graphics to look high quality enough for Google?
> Apps that are static without app-specific functionalities, for example, text only or PDF file apps
Apps where the user can interact with text in some way (like IF games or terminals) don't seem like they'd be affected.
[1]: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
Similarly, if you build a system that unintelligent people can use, intelligent people have that much more brain power not used up fucking with the system. There are plenty of smart people who don't mind Apple forbidding them from running certain software: they're not interested in running that software in the first place, and it eliminates entire classes of malicious or undesirable software that they simply don't have to worry about.
That's why many of the smartest people I know are all-in on the Apple ecosystem. See graph:
NOOOOO! Muh user freedoms!
------
/ \
-- --
/ \
-- --
/ \
/ \
/ \
Just buy / \ Just buy
Apple ---- ---- Apple
---- ----They _barely_ seem to enforce them. The App Store could probably get a 50% culling with little impact.
There’s TONS of broken garbage, scam apps, least effort apps, blatant ripoffs of blatant ripoffs.
I really liked the idea of a curated App Store when Apple first announced it. In my mind I’ve never lived up to it. Not fully open, not well maintained. The worst of both worlds.
Example: Google is not any more of a true believer in RCS than anyone else, they literally won’t even bother implementing it in google voice, and their proprietary encryption extensions render it worthless as an interop thing. The point of RCS is to get the EU to mandate RCS support, and sit back and enjoy being the new google-themed iMessage. Embrace, extend, extinguish.
It’s funny to me that people don’t see the rug-pull coming, or that they publish these articles volunteering their own self-identification as a useful idiot who didn’t see it coming.
Your link would, in a sane world, be read as an epitaph or cautionary tale, rather than a slightly puzzled curiosity. Imagine your own reaction if someone had published such an article about apple and not google - how could you have made such a comical error in judgement to trust a giant that would crush you for a nickel, without a second thought?
We’re in this Orwellian place in our discourse though where the language itself is redefined to only apply the harms to the things android don’t like. I had someone tell me yesterday that I was wrong and there was nothing user-hostile about Sony Xperia android phones self-destructing their camera firmware if you unlocked the bootloader, and in fact that I had it diametrically opposite and apple was the apex of user hostility.
I don’t think he’s wrong either. I think that’s how android users think now. Google’s carefully focus-grouped manipulation of the language has legitimately convinced people that user-hostility is some kind of uniquely apple phenomenon, and that “right to repair” means only the right to implement this one exact business model for repair, as opposed to the general goals of long service life and keeping phones out of landfills, etc.
We let google redefine the language in the ways that best accomplish Google’s means and it’s just going to take you all another 15 years to realize you’re still being useful idiots. And even 15 more years still won’t get most of them to admit there’s some pluses to the other side too.
Sad to see fanboyism overtake reason, always. And people don’t tend to consider that fanboyism can be just as much about hatred of the alternatives as support for the thing itself.
See also: every HN thread around nvidia. User-hostility and Linux functionality is solely defined as the things AMD does better at, the fact amd still can’t get working hdmi 2.1 drivers after 5 years or their driver crashing under supported configs running the opencl demo projects doesn’t count. Or when AMD tried to buy their way to FSR exclusivity and lock the competition out of the market, because “FSR works everywhere so it’s better for you in the long run”.
I don’t know how we got to “embrace extend extinguish is good when it’s google, and anti-user when it’s apple” or these other brands but here we are. People are very, very, very susceptible to this “second mover” thing where a competitor gets outlapped, promises they’ll have a free open alternative with hookers and blow, it sucks but all the complaints are dismissed with “it’s free/it’s getting better”, and the solution that works is dismissed as being overly expensive and user-hostile. And it’s all really just embrace-extend-extinguish with libre-themed window dressing. These things are not user-hostile, and they’re good business, and as soon as there’s enough traction the “libre” rug gets pulled and we go back to rcs-with-google-encryption or whatever.
I’m being harsh and blunt but it keeps happening. Stallman-baiting is a thing and you guys just keep falling for it. Is having a commercial relationship with well-defined bounds really that offensive? Is installing altstore to sideload really that offensive?
If you search HN stories by popularity for "Google" and "Apple" on the first page you get:
Apple: 10 positive, 10 neutral, 10 negative.
Google: 2 positive, 10 neutral, 18 negative.
Not even close, but that pretty much aligns with my personal experience on the site.
> Is installing altstore to sideload really that offensive?
Yes. AltStore is a gross hack and will most likely be patched out by Apple if enough people start using it.