This is why I switched to Android, just for Google now to pull the rug from under my feet again ...
Like most coders, I also prefer the permissive MIT/Apache/BSD licensing for most software projects but incidents like these make me question the direction we are heading towards. They raise fundamental questions about freedom itself - looking at the broader picture, is having a restrictive kind of freedom (GPL) often more beneficial than having full permissive freedom (MIT/Apache)?
What leverage does a community of engineers have to insist on anything? Android could be entirely closed source. So could Chrome.
It would be naive to assume that the power dynamics in our society can be fundamentally altered by a 10 line software license.
You're right that broadly speaking, there is very little that could be done to stop this but having a culture of "everything GPL" in an organization definitely helps. For example, Sun was farsighted enough, though they couldn't stop Oracle from acquiring MySql, Oracle was still forced to keep MySql under GPL and they were able to salvage MariaDB too.
Similar was the case with Java. Oracle tried everything in its power to control its use and direction including legal means, it's only thanks to GPL that alternative implementations like OpenJDK and Amazon Corretto still exist. We can't even imagine the state of these software today if Sun hadn't licensed them under GPL originally but used some other permissive license instead!
I don't know much about Android's history but if Dalvik was created exclusively by Google and they had no intention of open sourcing it fully... it'd be akin to a closed source Java app on top of the open source OpenJDK... which would be allowed.
Unless, maybe the EU, enforce a right to repair and tinker we'll be at the mercy of these companies with their walled gardens.
Of course, Stallman strongly eschews the ambiguity and misdirection inherent in the phrase open source, and in this particular instance the considered use of 'free' or 'freedom' is precisely what we're now all upset about the impending loss of.
Anyone who is already running a rooted Android or otherwise customized OS isn't affected by this, only developers who want to distribute their app to users.
The era when people paid an affordable fee for software they could use however they wanted was much better. But it got squeezed out by free software on the one side and serf-ware on the other.
The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is rotten.
Edit: then again maybe it's unfair of me to blame the decline in paid for software on open source.
The trap was there all along and developers fell right into it.
Charging for free and open-source software is not only possible, but encouraged Stallman himself.
But that wouldn't hold up if games were released under a FOSS license. There would be nothing stopping me (maybe trademark law? I'm sure there are workarounds) from setting up "SteamForFree", rehosting every game with the same user experience as Steam, and offering access for a small monthly fee to cover hosting costs and make a tidy profit.
I'd like to offer source code, allow modifications for personal use, while prohibiting redistribution and certain types of commercial use (e.g. companies over $x million in revenue). That's a pretty fundamental mismatch between what I feel comfortable with in order to protect my income and what FOSS licenses allow.
I do think though that disallowing "certain types of commercial use" is a poison pill that would prevent your project from getting any significant adoption.
I think a better option would be something like GPL but with the "you can redistribute copies of this to anyone you like without paying me" part stripped out. (Maybe replaced with a provision that allows transferring your license to someone else, but then you're not allowed to use it afterwards.) The goal being to protect consumer freedom to exercise ownership rights over their software (including the ability to modify it) without simultaneously trying to abolish the copyright system and killing your own funding mechanism in the process.
Remember that people regularly walk into small businesses and spend 15 minutes talking to an expert asking questions about the products they sell. As soon as they get quoted a price of $120 they scoff and order it from Amazon because it's $20 cheaper. Consumer price sensitivity is... extreme.
You see the same effect mirrored in illicit distribution of copyrighted works. Sharing movies increases box office revenue. Sharing albums increases music sales.
The people who get a copy for no charge weren't going to buy a copy in the first place. When you expose them to the product, some percent go on to become fans, advertising the work, and perhaps giving money to support it.
Read through my past comments from last year to find more info.
And it's not a service, it's a copy. Customers are explicitly allowed to resell it, and they have. And I still earn enough cash to continue developing it.
And I have the search engine top hits. And I have thousands of social media comments linking to my website. Copying a business isn't just about copying the product. They have to copy my reputation, too. And my sales channels.
Stop being so afraid. Selling free software is good, and sustainable, and those who think otherwise are extremely naive, ignorant, or with ulterior motives.
There's no doubt putting up your source code makes your business much easier to copy. If I spent a year building something sophisticated with the intent of selling it, why would I give someone else, with possibly more resources to market, a free competition? It may have worked out for you, but I think so non nonchalant saying "its not a problem ever" is rather bold.
This is a known problem even in the hardware space, where Chinese companies will copy an existing problem 1:1 and flood the amazon market with 20 different listings.
No, it's not. Under capitalism, if Amazon could just take your book and start selling it without paying you a cent then nobody would be incentivized to write books anymore. That's the entire point of copyright.
I don't know what your business is, maybe you really carved out a niche that works for you, but it's not built on top of solid principles. I think you've just been lucky enough not to catch the wrong kind of attention because the more successful you are, the more economical it is for someone to invest resources into stealing your lunch.
If you deal with the typical consumer base then the single most important thing is always going to be the price and that's the one thing you'll never be able to compete on.
> Copying a business isn't just about copying the product.
You're really getting your wires crossed here. This "wisdom" is used to show that you can't win by simply copying someone else's winning idea. A reseller isn't copying your business, they're just reselling your product.
And the entire point of copy/left/ is to make the code a public good, a commodity. Everyone owns the code I write, and everyone is entitled to make a business from it.
If they have better marketing than me, earning a lot more money than me with the verbatim program, that sounds like my software was priced wrong and I should set the price higher. How high -- $50,000/copy? Who knows. If someone wants to make themselves my distributor, they /should/ get paid for that.
That kind of competition -- yes, it is competition -- would inspire /cooperation/. That would give both of us, the distributor and myself, incentive to work together to maximize both of our profits.
Another example is with my program itself. It's a desktop application, a local management client for a tablet that otherwise must use its manufacturer's cloud service. I am directly competing with the manufacturer. When I receive money for my program, $12/year, they loose a customer of their service, -$36/year. BUT -- many, and I mean MANY of my customers told me they would have returned their $500 tablet were it not for my software, after using which, made them keep the hardware. I estimate that my software has saved the manufacturer over $500,000 in returns.
That means: my software has /increased/ the total value of my competitor, and we are /both/ making profit. My software literally expanded their market.
And if a distributor of the verbatim program wants to expand /my/ market, I'm all for that. But I don't think they will, because /they know/ that anyone else can do exactly what they're doing. They need to add something of value. Sometimes, marketing can be value, sure. More value is derived from the program itself -- that's why people buy it in the first place. Not because of its marketing, but because of its function.
And if they improve my program, the function, they MUST release the complete corresponding source code, and they MUST do so granting forwards the same copyleft privileges I gave them. And that means I can, and will, take their improvements and merge them back into my original product. And since I have the first mover advantage, the reputation, the search engine hits, the community engagement, I will probably win.
And if I don't win, the user /does/. They get a better product at a better price. That's the WHOLE POINT of free software, that it's good for the user, not for the developer. It's the kind of software I use myself, so I elect to write it, too. It's the world I want to live in.
You have an obsolete understanding of the world, a misunderstanding of the motivations of free software, and are totally wrong about the dynamics of selling free software.
> If someone wants to make themselves my distributor, they /should/ get paid for that.
I have to admit you're the first person I've ever talked to who would be happy to let others commercially exploit the fruits of their labor without any sort of compensation, while actively trying to make a living from that labor yourself, fascinating!
> That kind of competition -- yes, it is competition -- would inspire /cooperation/. That would give both of us, the distributor and myself, incentive to work together to maximize both of our profits.
If you really want to call that "competition" it's unfair competition, more specifically free riding. You make the software, they sell it for cheaper and keep all the money, that's the premise of my concern because your license allows it. They don't really have an incentive to work with you because their goal is rapid exploitation of their victims.
> When I receive money for my program, $12/year, they loose a customer of their service, -$36/year.
Categorical error. You didn't make that money by exploiting their labor, you made that money by making a better product with your own labor. That is real competition unlike the scenario we're discussing.
> That means: my software has /increased/ the total value of my competitor, and we are /both/ making profit. My software literally expanded their market.
Sure, the OEM makes the tablet and you make the software which is an obvious symbiotic relationship. It's also a categorical error because it's not comparable to the scenario we're talking about.
> But I don't think they will, because /they know/ that anyone else can do exactly what they're doing.
Why would they care? It's not like they're investing any real effort into it. They just need to make a few sales to offset the ~30min cost of setting up a cron job and creating a listing.
> And if they improve my program
They won't, that's not the type of actor I'm concerned about.
> And if I don't win, the user /does/. They get a better product at a better price. That's the WHOLE POINT of free software, that it's good for the user, not for the developer.
That's a really weird take on the free-riding problem. Yes the user wins for a few months before you go out of business - that is generally bad for users because it means the end of support.
> You have an obsolete understanding of the world
Yes, clearly. This is the first time I've read about a story like yours and I've read a dozen stories about high profile projects being forced to relicense from AGPL to BSL/SSPL or another non-free license, stories of people having their projects cloned and having their lunch stolen overnight.
People would rather watch ads than spend $1 to remove them, they'll visit a small business to get extensive advice and then buy from Amazon because it's 10% cheaper, they'll buy a terrible quality $2 gadget from Temu over a locally manufactured, high quality gadget for $10, but you want me to believe that given the choice, most people wouldn't take a "75% off" deal in a heartbeat...
What's fascinating is that you just described every employee, ever. At this point, I'm giving up on you. Consumers are price sensitive? Please, they buy Funko Pops and Frappachinos by the millions. It's not about cost, it's about convenience and authenticity. People will pay for convenience, for software that does what they want, from its official source.
It's cheap to sling bullshit like yours and costly to refute it. It's costlier to build a cash-positive business selling copies of free software, in the face of that code, and binary builds, being available -- by others, for no cost -- in various package mangers and popular source repositories.
You're just wrong, dude. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm tired, and done, arguing with you.
Really, employees do work "without any sort of compensation"? Are you even listening to yourself?
Stop projecting, if you don't want your arguments to be scrutinized then don't engage in debate.
Thanks for your work! I have enjoyed RCU and now use it regularly for backups, file transfer, etc. I'm glad to hear that it seems to be sustainable.
Every open source product that takes in real money sells services and support, or they sell closed "premium" features. Oh, and the third bucket, philanthropy.
More generally, they want to have a contract for services with someone. That's what's really meant by "support". Not merely being able to call tech support, but having people backing their services. The really big places have their own engineers, and the really small places can't afford it, but the middle-sized places would rather pay you to support them as needed, than hire someone on their side dedicated to managing your product.
The illusion of support can also sell just as well as actual support. Just see Oracle vs Postgres...
We need a non corporate model of software development, something like worker owned coops.
I think without open source something similar might have happened to a lot of software, but instead of becoming Open, they'd become gratis (free/zero cost), or almost so. The heart of the matter is that software has near-0 cost of distribution, so making 1 trillion is basically the same cost (to the developer) as making 1 unit. So since developers have free economies of scale, they are highly incentivized to lower the price to capture most of the market, I think. Software also requires relatively little maintenance, it doesn't rot[1] -- good software basically lasts forever with some minor up-keeping. Add in competition, and the tendency is for cost to go to near 0, at least for relatively popular software. But then there are two problems:
(1) If the company goes under, the software is lost, or rather it could be reverse engineered with huge difficulty and some information loss about the actual code.
(2) The incentives are still not well aligned with users. The makers are incentivized to rely on advertisements, get (and sell) user data, make their software addictive, and more.
On (1), FOSS software guarantees the source will be available and can be ported to new systems, basically becoming a common good. On (2), the incentives are very well aligned for FOSS, development can become a community effort, and in the rare case a developer would turn to collecting and selling user data or dark patterns, the software can be forked for example. In particular Open source funded by grants, donations and community/voluntary work is very aligned with public interest.
I get the downside that it could be unfair that developers aren't being paid as much, but I believe it wouldn't be much of a difference in income (for those kinds of software), and we can and should as a community donate to open source efforts (and since it's clearly in the public benefit I think governments, companies and all sorts of organizations would be wise to do so).
Finally, you're basically still free to create and sell closed source software, you just have to compete with community and volunteer efforts. I think it's well within your right (and it might make sense in some cases, say niche software). But I think it's worth considering carefully wether it's best for the product, for you and for the community to have it closed or open.
(also, indeed you can sell FOSS, but to be honest I don't know of many success stories in this regard (anyone share some examples?); I know arduino which is open software/hardware was very successful selling their genuine boards/having a pay request on download that you can dismiss. On Linux package managers make this difficult, although Flathub recently added donation buttons!).
[1] There are some issues popularly called "software rot", but it's basically some relatively minor (compared to the rot of many physical goods) compatibility issues when interacting systems change.
I'd argue what you describe as "half-hearted" is actually more true to open source and libre software than restrictive licensing.
And we would have been in a better position to lobby for this if unions were widespread in the tech industry, which they are not.
Seeing him walk my steps 15 years later has been eye opening for the brutal cultural change.
They’re socially conditioned to assume that anything free is a scam or illegal, that every tool is associated with a corporation, and that learning itself is going through certain hoops (by the uni, the certificator or whatever) so that you get permission to earn money a certain way.
As more doors get closed, I fear this process will solidify.
My hope is that LLMs will help open source developers provide reasonable alternatives to the gatekeeping and spyware that corporations are now making their bread and butter. Example: Recent tried to use Unity LTS for a small project - the software is a joke now, basic functionality is broken out of the box. A couple of hours with an LLM and I had all the features I needed using a more lightweight library, monogame. Not an operating system, but I'm hoping the pattern will continue as LLMs get more proficient at code - the moat of "this is hard and laborious to do" will be drained.
For example, try to learn from an online resource and you’ll see that the most popular sources (YouTubers, twitchers, etc) are all preparing a rug pull to a non free resource, slipping undisclosed ads as content or straight up selling snake oil.
I grew up assuming that a random guy on the internet had always genuine intentions, even those who were assholes. Now the default is either a paid account, a bot, or someone trying to grind for personal gain. Everything’s adversarial.
To be fair, there are also legit reason for why it evolved this way. It's mainly for quality and reliability. There is so much crappy sloppy work from unqualified workers, and it used to be even worse.. The easy available free knowledge really helped to rise the standard even for people without proper education in an area.
There's the obvious fact that tech has become the new path to high salaries, and culture changes when people are pursuing the money rather than the trade.
There's the centralisation and capture of resources - app stores in mobile, message boards moving to reddit then being astroturfed, hardware closing to repairs for water resistance/ form factor reasons...
There's also the death of piracy limiting access to resources. Apps, courses and books were files pirated massively, online services kinda stopped that.
I don't think free/open source resources failed to catch up in quality, but I do think they failed to soften friction and remove the barrier of access. Consider mastodon vs twitter, creating a website vs a facebook page, sideloading an app vs app stores, reading a manual vs an influencer course.
It always is.
> There's the obvious fact that tech has become the new path to high salaries, and culture changes when people are pursuing the money rather than the trade.
There is nothing new about this. Education and skills have always been a path to salaries. Even a thousand years ago, craftsman and artisans had a better career than any random farmer. And with education, there is will always follow standardization and certification at some point, because where money flows, scam grows, and societies have to protect their interests.
This is all nothing new, or harmful by itself. The problem is that all those legit interests, can also be too overprotective or even abused for someone's greed. It's always a balanced battle between legit interests and someone's greed. But many countries seem far to much leaning to the greedy and abusive side at the moment.
> There's also the death of piracy limiting access to resources. Apps, courses and books were files pirated massively, online services kinda stopped that.
Piracy is not dead. It's always been a battle of life and death of individual sources.
And yet, it continues to decline year over year.
Piracy is technically illegal, but that didn’t stop us.
Made sense to me at the time and they were really into "Android should be open source" vibe, so I supported it.
10 years later, I'm also rugpulled. Their vision has dramatically shifted into trying to build a walled garden on top of Android, but now they are haunted by their open source roots, and the walled garden is just a really tall pile of bricks laid around it.
So many times we've been promised things, only for them to be delivered in a half-baked state with half of the parts open source while other parts were closed only to Google and Google approved apps.
So many times the issue trackers for different parts of the platform ecosystem have changed, that some issues are impossible to debug without using web archive. And just as many times, they have been closed, ignored for years or unnoticed, being ping-ponged among team members until they forget about it.
Yet, even with all of the closed and privatized parts of the ecosystem, they are still not able to deliver on an ecosystem promise.
They control my email, my photos, my cloud, my browser, my phone - yet cannot keep a single thing properly in sync. Still, I download something and I do not know where it went. Still, I cannot Airdrop things without a 3rd party service. Still, I take a photo only for it to appear on the cloud 5 minutes later. Still, I cannot have a "sandbox" account for testing that just works, but have to juggle multiple accounts, causing their auth system to break 80% of the time when testing.
As a developer, I do not plan to support Android anymore. I recently got an iPhone, and am now fully switching to it. Even tho I am long on $GOOG stock, because the money printer go brrr, I will be spending that money in the Apple's ecosystem from now on.
If you don't want to be bitten, get out of the snake pit.
Aside from that, the masses don't care or know about any of this. A couple of HN users don't make a dent in the revenue of any large company. What we can do is work on alternative ecosystems or at least support the small companies and organizations who do with our wallets.
Abrupt abandoning of their Nexus line for overpriced Pixel hardware was the watershed moment. The exact moment when their executives decided to ride free on open source labor.
Well, it hardly works between Apple devices themselves to begin with (sending a bunch of pictures over to a 4 years old iphone works like 1 times out of 10 trial..). At least I can use regular old Bluetooth to send stuff to any kind of device from Android without the cruel gatekeeping of only Apple devices.
So yeah, both platforms have their own ways they suck in.
One of the things it works on is the PinePhone, so there's _some_ hope of at least one viable alternative happening:
https://archive.fosdem.org/2024/schedule/event/fosdem-2024-3...
I’m not necessarily advocating for this approach, just explaining why they do it.
Doesn’t the play store also charge a fee? It’s smaller from memory but it isn’t free
Also, I am highly suspicious that they check every app submitted to the app store with a human.
Doesn't seem like something they consider a positive though.
Ofc, being evil is subjective. But also this is the first excuse of evil players!
On Google Play I never, ever had any app be anything close to as successful as on iOS. I think I probably made less than 1/100th the amount I did on iOS back in the day.
IIUC, you can still load apps directly via adb. Is that not correct?
I can't entirely understand Google's announcement, but it almost sounded to me like they will forbid sideloading if you're not an "official" dev (gone through their hoops). I also saw something in their statement about wanting to support hobbyists. It sounded like an afterthought.
Paid provisioning: If you have paid the developer fee, a build will expire based on the amount of time left before that payment renews, so if you build and install an app a month before your developer fee renews, that build of the app (that you installed via Xcode) will stop working in 1 month.
In any case, to say you can't put your own apps on your phone without paying a fee is incorrect, which is the comment I was responding to.
At best you can install a demo.
I'm immortal because except for the few ways I can die, like old age, I'll live forever.
The tesla car is a vehicle traveling through space, technically a spacecraft it's just literally not what anyone thinks of when they mean spacecraft.
The prisoner reference is an allusion to the usual philosophical debate on how small man made borders need to be to be considered a prison, here's a nice blog post on some parallel thought's about it[1]. The main point being most people don't believe the borders of a country a prison or if they were stuck in a state, or smaller country, a district, a building, a room. If it's only a building then what of prison camps? refugee camps? A city with its' one road washed out? Australia's a fine island to be stuck on but marooned on a desert island and suddenly people are saying they're trapped.
You are literally saying a 7 day limit on a piece of software working still makes it count as what people consider an app and have been arguing that people are wrong for calling apple out on not letting you install your own apps for free. You're as technically correct as saying you can use a tesla car as a spacecraft.
[1] https://philosophersmag.com/philosophical-conversations-in-p...
edit: just remembered the immortal thing, fair enough, but then again highlanders are considered immortal even though chopping off their heads kills them.
It’s not worth further of my time to debate with this level of irrationality.
I can see why you have come to very fragile conclusions if your default is to assume what others say is irrational rather than researching or simply asking when you don't understand it (googling what you quoted verbatim even gives the context).
I have no problem with a store having a small admission fee - that's perfectly reasonable and they do have operational costs. It would be nice if they had some way to waive the fee for popular OSS to garner some god will with the devs.
Taking a 30% cut of revenue on the other hand ... both platforms are guilty of this
You need to pay $100 to execute code on a device that you own. Without a 7 day time limit. And only if you have the technical expertise to do so. This is not a fee for distribution/integration. This is feudal rent.
Yes, a world where you can sideload an app on an iOS device, without time limits, but you have still pay $100 to put it on the app store, is a much less shittier world, indeed.
It is very unreasonable.
For someone who is making money from it, sure, but that's exactly who this isn't about. The way they get screwed is by the 30%.
A fixed fee -- in any amount -- is screwing the people who aren't in it for the money. Because to begin with, it's not just the fee, it's the bureaucracy that comes with the fee.
You're a kid and you want to make your first app, but you don't have a credit card.
You live in a poor country and maybe the amount you can lose without noticing when you're rich isn't the same there. Or even if you can get the money, you may not have a first world bank account and the conglomerate isn't set up to take the local currency.
You're a desktop developer and you're willing to make a simple mobile app and give it away for free as long as it's not a bother. The money is nothing but the paperwork is a bother so you don't do it, and now the million people who would have used that app don't have it and have to suffer the spam-laden trash alternative from someone who is only in it for the money.
And suppose the amount is as trivial as you propose. Then why does a multi-trillion dollar conglomerate need that pittance from a million ordinary people?
Because the store gets spammed by million of bot applications ? Having a small fee for store review is probably a decent noise floor.
You can still develop apps on your devices without a dev license - the week long cert is annoying, they probably want to avoid people side-loading via this mechanism (which I am against FWIW).
But you can develop on your devices without paying 100$/year
They're a search engine company. They can't figure out how to put real apps on page 1 and spam apps on page 500?
Also, then why are they charging the fee if you use someone else's store?
> the week long cert is annoying, they probably want to avoid people side-loading via this mechanism
It seems like you understand their underlying motives, so then why are you defending them?
But I can also see the clutter argument. Windows app store has been and still is a nightmare to use.
It feels like we had a good system, but then lost it. I have no idea what it takes to get it back.
I don't understand the "clutter" argument at all. What does it matter if there are a billion apps? You already need a functioning system to show the better ones at the top whether the worse ones are 50% of the total or 99%.
On top of that, this isn't about their store anyway. They're charging this fee to the people not using their store.
> Windows app store has been and still is a nightmare to use.
The big problem with all of these is that they're charging too much. Apple takes 30% because they ban the alternatives. People only use Windows because they have dependencies on legacy software distributed outside the store, so Microsoft can't ban that or there would be no reason to use Windows. And when you don't have to use the vendor's store, they can't even get away with charging 15%, because it turns out platform stores are actually worthless.
Because people want platforms to provide both of two separate things. First, they want the long tail. They're a chemist or a mechanic or a photographer or a farmer and they want that half-finished app some grad student in Minsk wrote ten years ago that does the thing only people in their specific sub-specialty care about. And second, they want a curated list of apps so that when they're looking for a messaging app or a finance app it only shows the ones that don't steal their contacts and sell their financial records to data brokers.
The problem with platform stores is that they try to do both things at once, which isn't possible. Either the store has everything or it doesn't.
What you actually want is for there to be stores that only contain the curated stuff and simultaneously a reasonable means for ordinary people to install things from the long tail. Because sometimes you don't know which one to trust, which is when you want the store, and other times you know exactly what you want to install because this time it's your field and you and your colleagues are the experts, even though the store has no means to vet an app their reviewers don't understand and only 100 people in the world are using.
You can have a platform that gives you each one via different but each widely used paths. What you can't have is a store that curates the long tail.
Reminds me how in the 1970s and 1980s there used to be these ads in the back of magazines in which a person who supposedly became a millionaire sold pamphlets for $5 telling his secrets to success. The obvious question was why such a successful person would need $5 from poor people (unless that was one of his secrets to success, I suppose).
Okay, just so we're all on the same page: that 100 dollar fee IS NOT for publishing your app. That's not what that is. That's a separate thing with its own costs.
That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only.
It's just extortion. It cannot be justified. Apple does it because they can - there are zero technical reasons behind it.
This is incorrect.
You make it sound like you cannot even get started unless you pay a $100 fee. You do not need to pay Apple any fees to make an app and put it on your own device. You have to pay the fee once you want to distribute it on the App Store.
If you want to load the app on your own phone WITHOUT the app store, you MUST pay Apple 100 dollars.
Unless you want to rebuild the app every 7 days, which any reasonable human will conclude is a stupid ass arbitrary limitation.
Again, it cannot be justified with any technical means. Please, don't even bother trying.
Trying to get me on an "erm well akshually" level semantic argument means you're wrong, you know you're wrong, and now you're just being annoying.
Both of us can agree that the 7 day limitation is far too stringent to be a legitimate solution. So we will go ahead and pretend it does not exist, because for all intents and purposes, it doesn't.
> That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only.
Someone reading this would get completely the wrong information.
Because I can still see the words on my screen. To reiterate, semantic arguments are meaningless and do nothing to serve you. If anything, with each passing comment, I am doubting your human-ness, because I don't believe human brains typically act this way.
1) You can continue to install unsigned APKs via adb with the upcoming update.
2) Signing APKs for sideloading requires a Google development account which is a one time fee of $25, no yearly fees.
So still a free sideloading option available, and if you want to avoid adb it is a one time cost that is 1/4 the annual rate on Apple.
If you want to send your app to a friend to download and install it directly on their phone (without using a computer with ADB), you need to be Google-approved and register your app first.
2) Unless they decide to ban you (they can if you don't show any activity in the developer account for X months) and of course because you were verified you can't simply apply again and pay again, because you were banned!!!!
2) In regards to inactive accounts, from Google's policy page:
>If you have never submitted an app for review and the account is more than one year old, it’s considered inactive.
>If you have apps, the account is considered inactive if it is more than one year old, all published apps have fewer than 1,000 combined lifetime installs, the required contact details are not verified, and you have not used Play Console in the last 180 days.
>Google sends warning emails at 60, 30, and 7 days before actual closure, allowing time to take corrective actions.
While you are correct that this would lose you access to the developer account, inactivity for a year and ignoring multiple warning messages over a 2 month period gives you an opportunity to weigh your options. It doesn't even require app updates, just activity in the Play console.