
Open-source apps removed from Google Play Store due to donation links - regecks
https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2019-October/004596.html
======
dang
We merged a similar thread, "AndOTP Removed from the Google Play Store Due to
Donation Link", into this one. Perhaps we'll update the title to cover both.

[https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396](https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269542](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21269542)

~~~
hanniabu
Hmm, any idea how Google automatically catches a donation link? I feel like
there's so many ways to do it that they must only be catching a handful.

~~~
Trellmor
My app also got taken down some months ago. I had a menu entry called Donation
that linked to a web page containing a PayPal donation button. I'm guessing
they are just looking for the string Donation in your app.

~~~
mimi89999
What app was it?

------
dessant
Google Play In-app Billing does not support donations [1], so open source
developers should be allowed to link to their own donation pages. Google Play
policies do not spell out that linking to donation platforms such as Patreon
is forbidden.

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/](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.

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268389)

~~~
krn
> 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 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.

[1]
[https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en](https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en)

[2] [https://i.imgur.com/MEut6yC.png](https://i.imgur.com/MEut6yC.png)

~~~
tolmasky
Sure, but _why_? If the rules clearly said "no chess games", one could say
"that ends the discussion of why chess games are denied", or you could further
ask "but why are no chess games allowed?". Is it because Google plans on
having their own Google-Chess someday and thus is preemptively preventing
competition? Is there a technical or regulatory reason chess games aren't
allowed?

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.

~~~
bdcravens
Their house, their rules.

~~~
a3_nm
Smartphone app stores are a duopoly, so I don't think Google should have total
freedom to decide what they allow and what they don't.

~~~
nybble41
There are at least three, actually, since Amazon also runs their own store
which can be installed on any Android device. Samsung has another one
specifically for Samsung devices, and there's also F-Droid though that might
not count as a "store" since it doesn't handle payments. Anyone else can start
their own the same way. Only the Apple devices are restricted to apps from
their vendor-specific app store.

------
dessant
WireGuard was reinstated after Jason has submitted a new version which _does
not_ contain a donation link. The issue has not been solved, and Google did
not yet contact maintainers to clarify whether they would be allowed to have a
donation link in WireGuard.

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....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wireguard.android)

~~~
neonate
> Google has reversed its decision to remove an app that contains a link to a
> donation page

Are we sure that this is a decision reversal, as opposed to just reinstating
one (or a few) apps?

~~~
dessant
This is why it is important to continue questioning their actions, a bunch of
other open source apps remain taken down, or were forced to remove their
donation links. The issue of donation links in apps must be clearly addressed
by Google.

------
black_puppydog
The very same thing happened to manyverse (android ssb client) the other day.
Got de-listed, resubmitted without donation page, now it's back up.

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?

~~~
segfaultbuserr
The strangest fact is, those donation pages only have some links, there is no
in-app payment. I don't understand what Google is thinking about when they
banned donations...

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.

~~~
Vogtinator
That way google gets a cut of the donation.

~~~
segfaultbuserr
Oops, it's not a good idea! I now see the motivation behind it!

~~~
toxik
This is the reason Apple started doing this way back. Sad to see Google follow
suit. I guess the bottom line is the bottom line...

~~~
manojlds
I thought this was a Apple only thing and Google doesn't do this. For example,
you cannot buy Audible books frim iOS apuo but can from the Android app.

~~~
anchpop
You can, but I don't think you're supposed to direct your users to put their
credit card info in, that all needs to be handled somewhere outside the app
(with a message like please sign in on our website). Which seems very
blatantly anticompetitive to me.

Now that I think of it, Uber has you put your credit card in. I'm not sure why
that's allowed

~~~
themacguffinman
It's allowed because Play Store in-app billing is only required for digital
goods & services fulfilled by the app, not physical goods & services fulfilled
outside your device. Uber isn't selling you app functionality, they're selling
you the physical service of transportation, so they're exempt.

Quote from policy [1]:

Developers offering products within another category of app downloaded on
Google Play must use Google Play In-app Billing as the method of payment,
except for the following cases:

\- Payment is solely for physical products

\- Payment is for digital content that may be consumed outside of the app
itself (e.g. songs that can be played on other music players).

[1] [https://play.google.com/about/monetization-
ads/payments/](https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/payments/)

~~~
anchpop
Oh, what if the donation link added you to a list of contributors to the
website. Seems like that would be "digital content that may be consumed
outside of the app itself" which might be a workaround. Google might ban it
anyway of course

------
dessant
It's unfortunate that the developer resubmitted the app without the donation
link, open source projects having a donation link in their apps does not
violate Google Play policies.

> 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.

[https://play.google.com/about/monetization-
ads/](https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/)

~~~
zx2c4
It indeed is unfortunate. But what other recourse did we have? The first
objective, before we even consider donations or anything, is to make our
software available and functional to our users. So we had to resubmit. And
it's not like the resubmission process is instantaneous; as of writing, the
app _still_ isn't back in the store.

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.

~~~
dessant
Donations are not supported by in-app purchases, and I'm sure this doesn't
mean open source apps are not allowed to sustain themselves by showing a
donation link. Or if that is Google's _unwritten_ policy, people must make
their voices heard, this abusive behavior cannot be accepted.

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.

~~~
bipson
I think what you are proposing is to make an ideological fight out of this
issue, that is exactly what the author describes as "a huge time-drain that
does not make the app better" and exactly the opposite of what he meant with
"choose your battles".

Let me say that I think you're morally right, but it is probably not a
reasonable choice of actions for the author and the users of the app.

~~~
dessant
There is no need for an ideological fight, because there is no written Google
Play policy against donation links in apps. This is most likely a mistake made
by the reviewer or an automated system, and I believe they should follow up on
it to sort things out.

~~~
mcherm
> I believe they should follow up on it to sort things out. reply

I'm sure you believe that.

Do you work at Google in a position to supervise app reviews? Because if you
do, then you can help straighten this out.

If you don't, then it is hopeless. Technically, Google has the right to drop
any app for any reason whether it is fair or not (so suing them or something
isn't an option). OP already followed the ONLY channel that Google provides
(an "appeal" handled, I presume, by a bot that generally issues quick,
automated rejections. Sure, I __wish __Google had a better policy, with some
sort of genuine appeal policy which included genuine human review, followed a
consistent policy, and most likely had a public record of decisions... but
they don 't.

~~~
adambyrtek
I wouldn't assume up front that any action is hopeless. There are many
Googlers on this forum and issues like that get forwarded and discussed
internally. Google has Open Source Programs Office which used to have a lot of
clout inside the company, at least at the time when I worked there.

------
segfaultbuserr
I use WireGuard daily since 2017, and it's one of my most favorite computer
programs in the entire world - robust, reliable, state-of-art cryptography,
and seamless integration into the system.

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.

~~~
neop1x
Me too. Just donated. Awesome software.

------
iamleppert
In an ironic twist, our app that Google supported via Summer of Code was
removed.

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.

~~~
ummonk
As crazy as this policy is, firing and publicly shaming an employee is not the
right response to a poor decision by an employee.

~~~
jmsmistral
I feel it is. It's an effective platform for (positive) change, in this case.

~~~
jraph
I think this is a bad decision, but I don't want to live in a world in which
people risk their privacy by making poor decisions.

We just need processes to learn and avoid doing mistakes twice, and shaming is
a poor way to do it.

If I risked being ashamed when making decisions, I would probably avoid
decisions altogether. This would be awful. The discussed decision is not even
out of law.

What we can do though, is to tell people we know and love about F-Droid and
suggest them to only fall back to the Play Store if they don't find what they
want, and that they should be aware that by doing so, they enter the jungle
and that this jungle follows Google's arbitrary rules, some of which are not
in their own interests.

------
gorgoiler
Ugh, app stores!

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/](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!

~~~
dewey
> No one needs them for discovering new software.

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.

~~~
im3w1l
In what sense will it be ok? Isn't a lot of the stuff in appstores spyware
nowadays?

~~~
dewey
While there is generally always some small percentage of apps that don't do
what they promise and slip through the review I think I can be reasonably sure
that if I download something from the macOS / iOS app store it'll do what they
say.

I trust it enough to believe it won't start crypto mining in the background or
connect to random servers and sending the content of my computer somewhere.
For the average user it's probably the better option than downloading the top
Google result and just executing it.

~~~
im3w1l
Uh, what are you talking about? Phoning home with your data (mainly phonebook
and location data) is exactly what a lot of apps are doing.

Sure, they wont do crypto mining, but that's because it would drain your
battery quickly, and people would notice and uninstall.

~~~
dewey
As I said, it can happen but I'd assume it's done a lot less than on the
"open" internet where there's no repercussions. At least in the App Store the
developer would get thrown out, people would post it in the reviews or report
to the App Store moderators.

Isn't the whole point of sandboxing and the permission systems exactly
preventing phonebook and location data misuse? Especially location tracking
prevention was a pretty big part of the iOS 13 announcements.

~~~
im3w1l
The permission system does work and is a great achievement. Along with battery
monitor and the ability to easily and cleanly uninstall any app.

------
trulyrandom
Apparently andOTP was removed for the same reason a couple of days ago:
[https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396](https://github.com/andOTP/andOTP/issues/396).

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](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android).

~~~
bubblethink
>(for the time being)

Why do you have that caveat ? You can use f-droid forever.

~~~
pcr0
I'm on an unrooted phone and F-Droid doesn't do auto-updates or even "update
all". I have to remember to open F-Droid once in a while to click "Update" and
then "Install" for each app, one-by-one.

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.

~~~
eythian
fdroid periodically automatically checks and notifies of updates to apps. You
can also "Update all", using the button of the same name, but you will have to
press install for each, due to the way Android works, which is a bit of a
pity.

------
RedComet
Ah yes, the multi-billion dollar megacorp trying to prevent goodwill
donations. Dear regulators: BREAK UP GOOGLE.

~~~
panopticon
To play devil's advocate, I'm sure Google's intent is to prevent garbage apps
from spamming or tricking users into paying money and the resulting PR
backlash from having an app store full of shady apps.

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](https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/75724?hl=en)).

~~~
dmix
Nothing like opaque, zero due process take downs which change day-to-day
unexpectedly until you wake and find your app is no longer in the Play Store.

There has to be a better way to handle these sorts of things.

Were they even notified beforehand?

------
esotericn
$50 sent, thanks Jason, no thanks Google.

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.

~~~
alias_neo
I too made a "fuck Google" donation to the WireGuard project today, after
seeing an update and then the app disappearing entirely.

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".

------
jrockway
I am not sure why it needs to be called a donation. Just let the in-app
purchase unlock some cosmetics in the app like games do. You weren't going to
deduct the donation from your taxes anyway.

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.)

~~~
dessant
Open source developers shouldn't be forced to lock away additional
functionality in their apps, or resort to special tricks just to be able to
receive donations for their projects.

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.

[1] [https://github.com/sponsors](https://github.com/sponsors)

~~~
_-david-_
>Open source developers shouldn't be forced to lock away additional
functionality in their app

The additional feature can just be text that says thanks for the money, feel
free to give us more money in the future.

~~~
phkahler
Better yet, just charge a dollar for the app. Link from the primary website to
the app store, so people can buy the right one.

~~~
dTal
No thanks. If I'm donating to a good cause, I don't want the App Mafia taking
a 30% cut. That just reinforces this bad behavior.

~~~
kgersen75
so the App Mafia is supposed to host your app for free? provide the bandwidth
to download it for free ? give visibility to your app thru search in the store
for free ?

at some point someone gonna pay for the datacenters, the wires and all these
stuff needed for software distribution.

Try running your own site on your own servers and paying for the data traffic
and then do the math.

30% is ok

~~~
megous
Ok, let's do the math:

Say app has 10MiB, 100,000 downloads is ~1TiB, 1 have a 1GiB/20GiB VPS with
that monthly bandwidth which I pay $1/month.

So distributing 100,000 copies costs $1.

I'll give Google $1 for distribution of 100000 copies of my app. Fair?

Yeah, I'll give Google a bit more for payment processing, perhaps. But actual
distribution costs nothing really, for most apps.

~~~
kgersen75
you completely ignore the #1 cost: human cost to setup your vps, manage it,
backups and whatnot etc. you gotta take all costs into account.

not every developer is willing to learn and spend time configuring & managing
a server. that's not the same skill set.

~~~
megous
Human cost is not really very well measurable.

First we're talking about the free app for a good cause, so you're already
providing an app for free, so you've assumed some sacrifice for others for
whatever reason, and setting up a website for it may be comparatively
negligible part of the whole cost to you in terms of time.

In my case I would have already had an infrastructure and knowledge how to
host things, so it might take a few minutes to put some new files up on a
machine used for other projects. Additional costs being pretty much 0.

And there may be benefits (even if I didn't have the knowledge and infra) like
learning something new, or now having an infrastructure and knowledge that
helps you save expenses or time in the future. So that would offset the costs.
You can't just look at costs alone.

------
djsumdog
The Apple/Play stores are essentially a totally broken implementation of
something that had existed for over a decade before: package repositories.
It's embraced and extended Linux/BSD package/ports trees, except without
things like the ability to add a 3rd party repository with other authors
signing keys, pin certain versions, etc.

[https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-
fragmentation/#packag...](https://battlepenguin.com/tech/android-
fragmentation/#package-management)

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.

~~~
Steltek
Don't conflate Apple's monopoly with Google's store. Anyone can go install
F-Droid or Amazon or whatever on their Android phone. The only thing stopping
people is satisfaction with the status quo and/or ignorance.

However, Apple totally rules their walled garden, with some added gross
exploitation to boot (recent "Sherlocking" story for Luna Display).

~~~
Pxtl
I have to say, I'm really disappointed how few open-source projects are even
_on_ F-Droid. It feels like every time I hear about a new OSS android app, I
look for it on F-Droid and find it's only on the Play Store.

~~~
panpanna
It's partially on fdroid.

It's not always trivial to submit new apps and ensure it compiles correctly on
their build servers. Same goes for updates, which can be silently dropped due
to any number of tool issues.

If you are a front or backend developer please consider investing a weekend or
two helping fdroid improve their systems.

~~~
rjzzleep
Are these issues documented anywhere? Otherwise it's kinda hard to fix.

------
zimbatm
The problem of donation links from Google's perspective is that they are not
getting their 30% cut. You might think that this is unfair, but the app is
using their distribution platform.

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.

~~~
black_puppydog
I can even go along your last point. But it's a different argument to say
"going through google is more efficient" or to say "you can't _not_ go through
google". Frankly, they're using their market dominant position to force free
developers into a distribution model that serves them as the payment
processor. I'd not go so far as to argue those are separate businesses, but
it's really a blatant abuse of their power.

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."

~~~
Spivak
Why is it an abuse of their power? Google and Apple are essentially saying
that if you use their store as a sales funnel then they take a 30% cut, and
they enforce that by being the sole payment processor on the store.

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.

~~~
black_puppydog
1\. most open source software is not even _close_ to breaking even via
donations. so "making more money" really is a misleading way to portrait the
situation. 2\. I hope we can agree that "if you use their store as a sales
funnel then they take a 30% cut" is at least a _use_ of their power. The fact
that there's no recourse, no (practical) competition for the distribution, and
that they're not acting in agreement with their "official" stance on free-as-
in-beer or free-as-in-speech software makes it an _ab_ use in my book. The
thing is, they don't officially say "we only host apps that make _us_ money,
not at all. They say they're just platforms, facilitating exchange, blabla.
Also, see point 1: "sales funnel" for projects that maybe (!) manage to break
even on their hosting costs is not the right term to use here.

This is an old claim by now, but these platforms matter a lot today, and since
we only have two of them, and they are not in direct competition (users cannot
switch at will) they really should be treated as the monopoly infrastructure
that they are. What that means concretely is subject to negotiation within
society. In _my_ opinion blackmailing the devs of an application that is
essentially written and maintained as a service to the public, for free, by
volunteers, is a shit move to say the least.

~~~
chrisseaton
> In my opinion blackmailing the devs

I don’t know what you think the verb ‘to blackmail’ means, but nobody has been
blackmailed or anything like it in this situation.

~~~
lightedman
Correct, the more precise term here is extortion, and I can speak to that
having had to face that exact criminal charge before. It follows pretty much
every required element of the crime.

------
hawski
I like the way that the author of Simple Mobile Tools [0] made donations.
Applications are free and open source, but there is a paid app Simple Thank
You [1].

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...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/cluster?clp=igM4ChkKEzkwNzAyOTYzODgwMjI1ODkyNjYQCBgDEhkKEzkwNzAyOTYzODgwMjI1ODkyNjYQCBgDGAA%3D:S:ANO1ljIN7-U&gsr=CjuKAzgKGQoTOTA3MDI5NjM4ODAyMjU4OTI2NhAIGAMSGQoTOTA3MDI5NjM4ODAyMjU4OTI2NhAIGAMYAA%3D%3D:S:ANO1ljIS1ys)

[1]
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobi...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplemobiletools.thankyou)

~~~
postsantum
This is against policy. Not sure if it is enforced though

[https://play.google.com/about/spam-min-functionality/min-
fun...](https://play.google.com/about/spam-min-functionality/min-
functionality/)

~~~
sp332
I think it's pretty common though, for example buying a "key" separately from
the main app.
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.keramidas....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.keramidas.TitaniumBackupPro)

------
hnarn
> Sorry for the inconvenience. I'm sure many users are just as annoyed as I
> am. In the interim, luckily F-Droid has our app.[1]

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.

[1]:
[https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android/](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.wireguard.android/)

~~~
degenerate
Even if the Play Store and F-Droid both disappeared, the replacement could be
a community-run open directory of APKs sorted by version. At least we have
options on Android.

~~~
cesarb
> directory of APKs sorted by version

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).

------
Santosh83
A general comment: the need of the hour is to educate the billions of
'ordinary' computer users about the basics of software, privacy, security and
trust. We must not fall into the narrative being parroted around off-late that
considers end-users as pretty much dumb content consumers who should not be
expected to ever know even the minimum about the underlying tech and therefore
every decision needs to be made for them by a small minority of corporations,
govts, and the tech elite acting as gatekeepers and overseers. This is a
dangerous road to go down unwittingly. Too much de facto power is concentrated
in the hands of the few while the rest are gradually trained into normalise
being helplessly manipulated and told to defer to authority.

~~~
orbital-decay
I've tried to educate many people on a personal level and failed miserably
almost every time, being perceived and dismissed as an evangelist for some
weird ideology they don't care about (and I took it very slow and tried
really, really hard not to sound as one). Maybe they are right, after all? Who
am I to dictate or even influence what they should care about, especially if
they don't experience that clearly. People never become tech literate until it
bites them in the ass. They have to face the consequences, that's how it
works.

Meanwhile in 2019, most people still find "nothing to hide" attitude perfectly
reasonable.

~~~
bonoboTP
But it is actually an ideology... It's the same as why people don't care about
climate change or other far removed things from everyday life.

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.

~~~
orbital-decay
Funny that the same could have been said about actual literacy several hundred
years ago. Who ever needs to be able to read and write in their everyday life?
Why should I care? It's a thing far removed from everyday life, unless you're
a trader or a priest or a scholar or some other expert. Today you can't
imagine an adult person being unable to read, in most of the world.

Except the tech is already there, and you use it with or without
understanding. You use a credit card, electricity, Internet and other
communications, some kind of computing device, your entire life depends on it.
And IT shapes your life way more than any other tech, so it probably makes
sense to get a grasp on the general concepts at least. No need to become an IT
expert, similarly to how there's no need to become a Shakespeare to be
literate. And yes, being tech illiterate can fuck you up very visibly and
personally, for example by losing money from a stolen credit card.

~~~
bonoboTP
I think a better metaphor is driving. In many countries, like the US, driving
is extremely widespread and most adults cannot function in the job market
without being able to drive.

However only a minority of them knows how cars work under the hood. Most
people understand the pedals and the steering wheel and that's it.

Same in tech. People understand there are screens, there are buttons you can
click, text input fields you can type things in with the keyboard, on/off
switch, sleep/standby, etc. All the things needed to operate it.

> for example by losing money from a stolen credit card.

I'm in Europe and I don't know anybody who had this happen to them, nor is
identity theft a thing here. And this is mostly about phishing and social
engineering anyway, not about understanding the tech background of package
managers and digital signatures.

------
chrisballinger
I guess this will get lost in the noise, but a few years ago Apple relaxed its
restrictions on IAP donations and allows developers to offer a "tip jar" where
IAPs don't unlock any specific features. I've been shipping a free and open
source app with a donate button on the App Store since mid-2017 [1].

1\. [https://chatsecure.org/blog/sustainable-open-source-
starts-w...](https://chatsecure.org/blog/sustainable-open-source-starts-with-
you/)

~~~
wavefunction
Does Apple take their customary cut? I am not interested in "donating" to
Apple.

~~~
diminoten
Ever use a credit card to make a donation anywhere?

~~~
allworknoplay
Apple's cut is a hell of a lot more than 2.9% + $0.30.

~~~
diminoten
Never said it wasn't? Just pointing out how silly this stance is.

~~~
catalogia
Balking at the difference between 30% and 3% is just as silly to you as
balking at the difference between 3% and 0%?

~~~
diminoten
Yes, because the balk is at the concept not the amount.

~~~
catalogia
Busting somebody's balls because they're not abstracting away something as
significant as 27% seems unreasonable. It shouldn't surprise you that somebody
who dislikes giving 30% to apple would be proportionally less concerned about
giving 3% to Visa.

~~~
diminoten
It's hardly unreasonable; if their problem is, as they've said, "giving money
to Apple", then it's not the amount, but the fact that Apple gets a cut at
all.

And none of this is surprising, merely inconsistently applied logic. I fully
understand what is happening here, clarifying statements will not help.

~~~
catalogia
> then it's not the amount

Says you, but obviously that's not how most people approach matters like this.
Most people can reasonably be assumed to think that differences in degree,
particularly an order of magnitude apart, are very relevant. At best you're
being a pedantic pain in the ass, hassling people for not explicitly stating
that a difference in degree is being considered, when such considerations
should be reasonably assumed even when not explicitly stated.

~~~
diminoten
Says me? No. Says the person I replied to. Their outrage wasn't sparked by the
size of the payment, but that payment went to Apple at all.

Nothing is reasonable about what you're writing, not one thing. At best _you
're_ being absurdly pedantic yourself, and hiding behind a throwaway no less.
At worst you're trolling. I'm guessing it's the latter, so stop trolling.

------
unnouinceput
Quote: "They said it was because we're in violation of their "Payments
Policy", presumably because we have a link inside the app that opens the
user's web browser to wireguard.com/donations/"

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>.

~~~
Spivak
I mean you're being sarcastic but this is how basically every other app
accepts payments to support the developer. There are plenty of "buy me a
coffee" buttons in free apps.

------
edhelas
My social-network/IM app ([https://movim.eu/](https://movim.eu/)) got also
removed from the Play Store because I had a link to the F-Droid app.

The Android app is basically a web-view pointing to one of the many instances
of the social network
[https://nl.movim.eu/?login](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.

~~~
kragen
That's interesting — not a donation page, but an F-Droid page (which as far as
I know doesn't accept donations)? When did this happen?

~~~
smileybarry
That's probably due to the "can't link to other stores" clause. There's a
reason you have to manually go to Amazon.com to download their app store, you
can't advertise or link to a third-party app source via a Google Play-
delivered app.

------
tjpnz
As far as moneitisation is concerned it really feels as though Google want you
displaying _their_ ads or have you funnel your users through _their_ checkout
process. Anything else seems to result in apps getting flagged for violating
policies around payments or deceptive advertising.

------
Crazyontap
A lot of people justify Google and Apple's 30% because they provide an app
store and distribution.

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.

~~~
sjwright
"Android is Android because of these apps" but "Fuck Apple"?

I don't understand.

~~~
Crazyontap
I said:

> 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.

------
michielderhaeg
I would like to point out how the PPSSPP project circumvents this problem.
It's an open-source PSP emulator.

They have the a free version available on the Play Store here:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.pps...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.ppsspp)

They also have a "Gold" version available:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.pps...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ppsspp.ppssppgold)

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.

------
reacharavindh
This is really unfortunate. If Google is ready to arm twist a popular project
like Wireguard, smaller indie open source apps stand little to no chance than
to bend over. This App store gatekeeping should be illegal. Selling the
hardware/OS and marketplace by the same person is more like online
dictatorship at this time.

~~~
Hamcha
Honestly. I'm fine as long as sideloading 3rd party shops is not actively
sabotaged. I tend to search stuff on fdroid first and Play store later, and
that's something I just can't do on iOS.

------
EGreg
One of our apps ([https://Yang2020.app](https://Yang2020.app)) were rejected
by Apple for the same reason - having a Donate link. Ultimately we removed the
link on native apps (kept it on the Web) and the app was accepted.

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?

~~~
EGreg
Screw the rules, I have cryptocurrency!

------
h4waii
Who do you trust more, to secure their infrastructure? Google or F-Droid / a
bunch of volunteers who may or may not be very security-conscious?

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.

~~~
vsviridov
At least read up on how f-droid does their reproducible build infrastructure
before you spread FUD.

~~~
h4waii
What about my comment is FUD?

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?

------
jerrac
After reading so many similar stories, here is what Google/Apple/etc should,
in my opinion.

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.

------
Tepix
If only there was an alternative to the Apple app store like F-Droid is for
Google Play...

~~~
nyuszika7h
AltStore is a thing, assuming you have a Mac...

~~~
virgilp
Apple can still shut it down, and you can bet they will if it gets any sort of
popularity.

> 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?

------
opan
I have been disappointed in the Play Store for a while now. Last I checked,
they don't display licenses either, so you can't easily tell what's free
software. I get everything from F-Droid these days, and on my primary devices
I never even install the google apps after flashing LineageOS.

------
ur-whale
One thing I've found to be true throughout my career: the culture and ethos of
organizations is usually a _direct_ consequence of the culture and ethos of
the leader who built it initially, and remains as such loooong after said
leader is gone.

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.

------
peignoir
All of these really motivates me to push for decentralized projects. If the
future Is basically full of gate keepers choosing what apps can be used or not
and we don’t have any platform allowing freedom then it would be a very sad
future indeed

------
sofaofthedamned
Donated via PayPal. Thanks for your work, would be great to see it in the
kernel soon.

------
quirkafleeg3
And yet games with hundred dollar microtransactions stay up fine. It's almost
as if Google turn a blind eye to that which makes them richer. oh wait, that's
exactly what it's like. The bastards.

------
billfruit
Though easy to phrase it as a moral problem, I think the matter requires an
unemotional analysis. At first hearing it looks like shutting down avenues by
which open source app developers can gather donations, but perhaps the measure
was targeted at shady money laundering operations.

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.

------
ganitarashid
Just link to:

[http://www.google.com/search?q=wireguard+donate](http://www.google.com/search?q=wireguard+donate)

Problem solved.

------
drtz
I've been a regular Wireguard user for the last year and love it. Google just
gave me the motivation to finally make a donation.

Thanks for the great work!

------
fastbmk_com
No idea why, but this app offers purchases via good old Bank Cards, without
any Google mediation.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.navigation...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.navigation.offlinemaps.gps&hl=en)

------
Animats
Recently, new versions "Simple ..." line of open source apps from
"simplemobiletools.com "on the F-Droid app store have started popping up
requests for donations. Those now need to be checked.

------
izacus
For anyone else publishing mobile apps: Neither Apple nor Google allow
bypassing the store's purchase system by linking to external donation pages.
No matter the app type, it will result in rejection.

~~~
tyfon
I wonder what would happen if you link your your home page and you have a
donation link there.

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.

~~~
bagacrap
Break up the tech giants? How is that going to result in having 5 Androids and
6 iOSs? The nature of the technology and market is what drives consolidation.
It's a testament to the quality of both platforms that we even have two
options.

~~~
tyfon
It was a generalised statement of how they now have too much power to decide
what can and can not be put on our devices.

And before the "android can sideload" argument, how many normal people are
going to do that with all the dark pattern warnings that google displays when
you try to enable the feature.

------
legohead
[https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-
conduct/](https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct/)

"Do the right thing"

------
bogwog
> I appealed using their website appeal form. Thirty minutes later (was this
> automated, unlike the manual app review process?), I received a rejection of
> the appeal.

Google in a nutshell.

------
aneutron
Again making a case for alternative app stores. Yes having a centralized
software repository has its benefits, but it's starting to show it's limits
...

------
ddtaylor
This is Google wanting their 30% cut. It's that simple.

------
WomanCanCode
Now, if only Google can remove the apps that can be downloaded and installed
on youtube video interface. Those pesky apps can be install even by little
children.

------
nullandvoid
I would much rather donation links than the horrendous ad spam that comes with
most apps.

But of course this impact googles bottom line so the sane approach goes out
the window

------
villgax
So if a Facebook profile or article inside an app has a donation link it
should get de-listed? All of Facebook fund raising should get burnt as well?!!

------
zxter
So... what is next? Mentioning/linking patreon profile in YouTube videos could
also be bannable if one disable ads in their videos?

------
Andrew_nenakhov
Uh oh, we have open-source app on Google play with Patreon banner. Seems like
we have to expect trouble soon. Thanks, Google!

------
ur-whale
It's really time for a decentralized / distributed version of the play store
to replace the Google provided one.

------
BlueTemplar
What is a FOSS app even doing on the Play Store ?!? Didn't these devs get the
memo about the GAFAM boycott ??

------
Fnoord
Can we just stop distributing "donation-ware" FOSS and use F-Droid for that
instead? It is not as if Google Play Store is a credible source anyway given
all the hostile content (for both privacy and security). Today I learned they
even remove the orig. signature [1]

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268717](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21268717)

~~~
yladiz
Why? Google Play Store has a much larger audience and so the apps will be seen
by many more people. Many people use Android and they also should be able to
use FOSS apps, regardless of the platform’s privacy and security issues. Is
there a reason to not join the Play Store besides something philosophical?

~~~
mplewis
This OP is about an app being dropped from the Play Store because they're
asking for donations. That's a pretty good reason.

------
emrhzc
Totally right move! I'd rather see genital enhancement ads than those
disgusting, immoral donation links.

------
sly010
In other news, my Pixel 3 with Google Fi keeps reconnecting to Google's VPN
without asking me permission.

------
amelius
It's one thing if a government regulates a market, yet another thing if a
company regulates it ...

------
camhart
A bit of a tangent, but does anyone know how Netflix gets away with not doing
in app payments?

------
dvh
Does patreon link count?

------
mongol
Would linking to Patreon also be against terms and conditions?

------
hohohmm
Please make wireguard available in App Store China region.

------
dubb20
in the same time there are dozens of free "Zodiak" and "Calendar" trial apps
that charge 100+ usd a month after the first week....

------
interhacker
The title reads like a not the onion post

------
jumbopapa
How does AndOTP compare to FreeOTP+?

------
tazeg95
And so... What ? They removed some of my apps to for this reason.

------
sm4rk0
Our freedoms are being taken away one by one by those who say they are
protecting our freedoms just because of capitalism -> money -> greed.

~~~
sm4rk0
Because "there's no free lunch" in capitalism.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/dhir1i/in_th...](https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/dhir1i/in_the_us_we_design_our_public_facilities_with/)

------
carlos22
The question should be: When will society accept that capitalism always will
kill any form of "don't be evil". There is no choice.

------
chx
Deleted. Wrong thread.

~~~
tadzik_
Wrong thread? :)

~~~
chx
Yes. Absolutely. Let me see whether I can delete it.

------
tcd
Unsurprising - Google obviously wants you to be within their walled garden.
You could probably add an in-app purchase but this has been a known thing for
a while now.

------
peterwwillis
A lot of these threads feel like complaining that McDonalds doesn't offer more
sauces, or that they don't let you leave their store with the sauce. It's
their store, it's their sauce. I don't think you can even claim monopoly,
because nobody _needs_ to use these devices. We can still use dumb phones for
voice and texting, and regular computers for the internet.

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.

------
supergilbert
When is an alternative Android play store coming?

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.

~~~
phoe-krk
F-Droid already exists.

~~~
supergilbert
Yes but none of my friends and family who own an Android device know about it.

I'm talking about a mainstream alternative android store. The design of
f-droid is not appealing enough.

~~~
moviuro
1\. F-Droid can't be published on Google Play Store, because they're an
"alternative market".

2\. Please, make it appealing for you and others!
[https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidclient](https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidclient)

~~~
zoobab
FTP was fine. Plus it was easily mirrorable.

------
yccheok
Google (Or Apple) is pretty serious regarding their app stores rules and
regulations.

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.

~~~
oarsinsync
> 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.

Source: [https://play.google.com/about/monetization-
ads/](https://play.google.com/about/monetization-ads/)

------
irjustin
I know this will be against deeply against HNews but I'm open to discussion.

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.

~~~
esotericn
You're stating, essentially, that anyone who wants to publish FOSS software
with a donation link should be forced to go through some convoluted procedure
and register as a charitable organization. (where? in the US? in their
specific region? does it matter? how much time will it take for them to figure
out? is this even possible in all regions? does this require ongoing effort
e.g. accounting, document submission, general bureaucracy?)

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.

~~~
irjustin
True, I'll agree that going non-profit is a nightmare.

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.

~~~
esotericn
Sure, there is very little distinction. I'd argue that both are donations.
Pay-as-much-as-you-want (if $0 is an allowable price) represents a donation
with a slightly different funnel.

The for-profit vs non-profit distinction is immaterial to me; the distinction
is between actually paying for products (e.g. buying an ingame item or support
or a subscription or whatever; some sort of 'contractual' thing), and
literally giving money away with no strings attached.

Google's particular funding model for their App Store is a different kettle of
fish entirely - they can decide that apps beginning with the letter A pay a
90% fee and that's just how it works.

~~~
irjustin
To purely play devil's advocate, there are a number of 'home restaurants'
(operate out of my home) that are pay-what-you-want and operate quite
profitably. I believe 100% they should be taxed (i'm totally conflating taxes
and apple/google profit share but it's a form of a network fee?).

Through this discussion I do wish there was an exception for FOSS for
individuals at a legal level.

I can 100% agree though that the fees which google/apple charge are
extortionist.

~~~
esotericn
How taxation is collected is a completely different issue and has a trillion
nuances.

