“On August 31, we’ll start rolling out these requirements for anyone creating new Play Console developer accounts. In October, we’ll share more information with existing developers about how to update and verify existing accounts.”
Source: happened to me and all of my apps despite them being Free Software and offline-only. Here's one of the emails they sent me about it: https://i.imgur.com/dVzQj2p.jpeg
Notice how they open with “Hi Developers at [my first and last name]” – developers, plural, and “at” like they only expect me to be a company and not a single person.
cyral · 3h ago
The DUNS number thing is such a disaster even for companies with it. We had a the account under a DUNS of a subsidiary but somehow they wanted us to upload verification docs for the main company, of course not matching exactly how they expect, and there is no way to change it without jumping through a bunch of hoops. Similar issues at Apple. Eventually they let us verify the account with "company letterhead" as if that proves anything (despite them insisting the letterhead needs to say dev@company.com instead of support@company.com, again proving nothing really)
For both Apple and Google it's one of those processes where the support doesn't even really seem to understand how it works (they probably don't know what automated emails are being sent, and what the dev side looks like). They would randomly close cases for "no response" immediately after they replied, ask us to upload something despite their being no way to upload it, tell us to ignore the "your account will be closed email" because it actually won't be (wrong again), etc.
DUNS own lookup page doesn't even let you look up by DUNS number (so we could figure out what company some ancient number was associated with). I bet it's because you have to pay for one of their "solutions" to do this.
jll29 · 3h ago
It seems like to Google, "customers" will only ever be anonymous data points in an A/B test.
They would have gone down quickly if they hadn't "borrowed" Overture's business model of paid ads.
They have no culture of valuing the customers, or (like Amazon) obsessing about what they need.
Apple is at least slightly different: hardware customers and high-value employees are treated okay from what I hear, but devs are left alone.
Indie developers bring both Apple and Google a lot of revenue indirectly, but they don't really have much of a lobby (maybe they should unionize/hire a lobby firm together).
maxoakland · 1m ago
Indie developer lobby is a great idea
arghwhat · 3h ago
Validation issues happen all the time for subsidiaries when the parent company likes to own/manage things. Always fun when e.g. EV certificate validation (sigh windows update stuff) calls the parent company reception and asks for the manager listed as owner, and they just go "who?".
geraldcombs · 1h ago
The One Weird Trick I learned was to to get a company attorney to write a professional opinion letter saying that you are indeed authorized to get a cert on behalf of your company.
ToucanLoucan · 32m ago
Incredible experience with this: our App Store account was from an acquired company that was no longer doing business. The Apple representative requested documentation that the no longer in use LLC was in fact, no longer in use.
When I requested what documents they might think a defunct LLC was creating that would prove it was defunct, they didn't have an answer. Same as others we ended up just making a new fucking developer account.
Hell of a first project as a team lead.
eitally · 1h ago
This happens to Google Cloud partners all the time, too, when there are acquisitions, mergers, or DBAs where the legal business entity changes even though the practical relationship stays the same (with the same people, same contact details, same billing/payment accounts, same contract terms, etc). It's extremely irritating.
827a · 3h ago
Yeah, DUNS numbers are super easy IME for companies to get, but its hell after that. We had some crazy problems with the App Store where our legal address with DUNS didn't match what we provided Apple, even though we had updated it with D&B, but Apple's systems weren't pulling in that update, Apple told us to talk to D&B, D&B told us to talk to Apple... we ended up literally just making a new corporation and starting from scratch.
huxley · 3h ago
The last time I dealt with that they were still updating DUNS batch data via an FTP
robotnikman · 2h ago
That's still a common way for businesses to exchange information with each other
CoastalCoder · 2h ago
If it's secure and frequent, e.g. daily, I'd think that approach is good enough.
shakna · 2h ago
FTP is not secure.
And when companies say they use FTP to exchange data, they don't tend to mean SFTP. They really do mean FTP.
ddingus · 1h ago
Ah the specter of EDI!
I first encountered Electronic Data Interchange in the early 90's. The small shop I worked for at the time had no idea and just wanted to make the parts they quoted and send them when done.
The EDI request came in a box, with external modem, a paper with phone number and directions and then a smaller box with PROGRESS database software for MSDOS in side and a handful of disks containing the EDI system.
Good lord that was painful! I just plowed through it and all that pain completed a check box at Honeywell, who then sent us jobs electronically!
Yes, via FTP.
The CAD they were sending was Computer Vision and it was a full on solid model representation! At the time we were running CAD from the early enlightenment, CADKEY 3.5 for MSDOS!
Our best micro computer lacked the storage to handle the uncompressed file, which arrived on another handful of floppies that formed a multi part. Zip file, which uncompressed totaled about 40 megabytes and change! Entire systems only had 20!
The CAD system failed to translate the data too. 16bit pointers lacked the range needed. They had me fetch a patch a day or two later and it took a few hours to do.
300 kilobytes of wireframe CAD, and the parts we made were basically 5 percent of that data!
Crazy times!
zoky · 1h ago
> FTP is not secure.
FTP can be as secure as any other protocol. Enabling encryption on the server side is generally as simple as installing a certificate and turning on an option. And most FTP clients will default to using encryption if it is available; for the clients that don’t do that, it’s just another server option to require clients to use encryption.
> And when companies say they use FTP to exchange data, they don't tend to mean SFTP. They really do mean FTP.
Because SFTP is a different and entirely unrelated protocol. The encrypted version of FTP is sometimes known as FTPS, but it’s really just a variant of FTP. So it would be inaccurate to call it SFTP, but referring to it as simply FTP doesn’t imply a lack of security.
shakna · 1h ago
FTPS is not secure.
The AUTH command is generally sent before encryption of the connection is made.
Its also vulnerable to a huge swathe of timing and weak hash attacks.
But... When I said FTP, I meant FTP. I meant neither SFTP nor FTPS.
xorcist · 49m ago
FTP can absolutely be secure. But it doesn't need to be if the transferred data is.
These links tend to be important, and it's not uncommon to see both rented wavelengths and VPNs being used. And out of band key exchanges.
No knowledge about this specific situation however.
echelon · 3h ago
Both Apple and Google need to be regulated. Their vice grip on app distribution, app defaults, search defaults, payments defaults, user credential saving defaults, messaging defaults, browser defaults, and then their brutal taxation of almost all web e-commerce and businesses is beyond the scale of whatever Standard Oil had.
You cannot do business on the Internet without paying the Apple and Google toll. They control all the points of ingress and egress, and they tax everything that moves.
It'd be bad enough if they were just charging money, but they also make you jump through hoops to design software their way, do unplanned upgrades to their cadence, prevent you from deploying emergency hot patches, prevent you from updating software dynamically, prevent you from knowing your own customer, etc. etc. etc.
And they're happy to sell your competitors ads to outrank you for your own trademark.
These companies need to lose their control over this. Web distributed apps must become the norm.
You can't tell me that with sandboxing, signature scanning, and some clever heuristics, that we can't make mobile completely safe for free and open distribution.
MatthiasPortzel · 3h ago
This requirement is the result of EU regulation.
Lammy · 2h ago
It's Google's decision to enforce it worldwide. I'm not in Europe, and most of my apps' users were not in Europe.
daedrdev · 1h ago
Are you sure Europe wont sue you for europeans using it with a VON or europeans outside europe using it? Because I am not sure they wouldn't sue.
ghurtado · 1h ago
Weird flex, but OK.
Lammy · 1h ago
Do you think I somehow personally chose where my apps would be more popular or less popular? If they wanted to cut off my apps in only European regions due to European regs it would be disappointing but understandable.
ghurtado · 1m ago
> disappointing but understandable.
It's amazing to me that there are some people that will go to these lengths to defend the profits of one of the largest corporations in the world.
At no point does it even occur to you that Google are already bending you over a table with their cut, and you're already white knighting for them even in a completely hypothetical situation.
Do you have very strong investments on Google? Otherwise, I really can't explain why an entrepreneur would ever think the way you do.
achierius · 2h ago
It's really hard to know that for sure. Why risk antitrust lawsuits or European fines because you tried to do the bare minimum?
yieldcrv · 2h ago
yeah for real, if you have a holding company for the one asset, the app, these stores make it a nightmare to manage some normal best practices
redbell · 2m ago
I saw many solo devs recommend switching to an LLC company to avoid the hassle Google introduced since late 2023, but it doesn't seem to be an easy task either. I've already witnessed two experiences:
It's not just getting a DUNS number. You also need to consent to having your home address (no PO box or virtual mailbox, needs to be a physical address for your "business") listed publicly on the DUNS website and on all your Google Play Store app pages.
Other app stores are similar, so probably it's some dumb government regulation.
jonas21 · 2h ago
> so probably it's some dumb government regulation.
Yeah, they need to show your address and phone number to comply with the EU's Digital Services Act.
There's more info here (from Apple's docs, but the same applies to Google):
I created a free, offline, opensource app on Google Play, no monetization or payments, as an individual. When this change rolled out I was required to verify my identity and set up a payment profile or else my app and account would be deleted.
After I went through half of the process, they showed a "here's what your users will see on the play store listing under 'About the developer' section!" This included my full legal name, personal email address, and country, which is enough information to find my home address and other information in public registries. This app serves an online community that can be quite crazy and I was absolutely not going to doxx myself to them. I decided I had enough of Google so I gave the app away to a company
bcye · 1h ago
- email address is just the one associated with the Google account, it sucks if you started the application on your personal google account, but you can still change it
- you need a payment profile to pay the account fee + verify your identity, the last part is probably very important for anti-spam
- I can understand that legal name + country can be considered doxxing, but I think it's highly relevant information for users
Of course these requirements could be relaxed for low-risk applications (i.e. no INTERNET permission), but I think it's understandable there is so few of them nowadays that it is not a priority.
rpgwaiter · 22m ago
In what way is knowing the full legal name of a developer relevant to end users? I work in the App Store analytics space and even I have never once thought “I wonder what the full legal name and address of the app developer is. I’d love to drive to their place physically or mail a letter 1800s style to discuss their app”
The most I’d ever wonder about is maybe their country of origin.
olalonde · 2h ago
No it wouldn't be "fair" and it's not just if you want to monetize your app. D-U-N-S number is required for developer account creation regardless of whether you plan to monetize or not.
bcye · 1h ago
I'm referring to the developer address for individual accounts, is there a misunderstanding? DUNS is only required for organizations.
cyberax · 3h ago
Home address? They asked me for an address in a commercially zoned district.
streptomycin · 3h ago
They didn't explicitly ask for a home address, just a physical address. But for a hobbyist dev, home address is probably all you have so effectively that's what they're asking for. Or for you to rent an office somewhere, which I guess is what they wanted you to do by asking for a commercially zoned adddress.
odo1242 · 3h ago
There’s even more than that, actually: if you’re an individual developer you also need 10 people to beta-test your app for 2 weeks, along with having your home address listed online. Google really doesn’t wan’t anyone who isn’t a company developing apps for Android lol
bugfix · 2h ago
12 people, actually. And it's down from 20 individual testers requirement from when they introduced this policy last year.
asdfman123 · 1h ago
Yeah. I wanted to make an Android productivity tool that helped me but I didn't want to bother (then) 20 of my friends to test it.
Huge hurdle if you just want to build an app.
georgemcbay · 1h ago
Ran into this myself late last year. Registered as an individual developer for a free, non-monetized app and had to find 20 people (they reduced the number since) to sign up (and remain signed up) as beta testers for a 2 week period to get the app listed.
Luckily I was able to hit that number (the app is a stat tracking app for the game Destiny 2, so I was able to get beta testers via posting on a subreddit filled with Destiny 2 PvP players). But it took way longer and was way more of a burden compared to getting the same app listed on both the Apple App Store and the Microsoft Windows Store (the app is written in Kotlin/Compose Multiplatform and was relatively easy to make multiplatform).
If I didn't happen to be an Android "main" myself (creating a vested interest in wanting to make the Android version easily available) I might not have bothered with the Play Store hoops give how much of a pain in the ass it was compared to the other listings.
greatgib · 2h ago
Exactly, I happened to have long running apps, in the store, I didn't update them for some time but they were simple and working as designed, good for their job.
Suddenly there was this weird obligation to declare a company or disclose publicly info about me, so i did nothing and it expired, and they removed the app.
maxoakland · 4m ago
Oof. Here I was hoping they were removing the scams
mattmaroon · 2h ago
I did not know that and that’s preposterous, but I don’t think that is the only reason or even the biggest one.
The android store had a whole lot of garbage in it, and a lot of it was the kind that is easy to find and remove.
arghwhat · 3h ago
I haven't tried the specific flow for private individuals (seems to just be a radio button), but I do recall getting DUNS numbers as just filling in an online form with name and location and getting the number by mail, without any hoops for fees.
A bit silly to require for private individuals, and a bit annoying to have to go back and do, but not itself a big deal.
Lammy · 3h ago
> I do recall getting DUNS numbers as just filling in an online form with name and location and getting the number by mail, without any hoops for fees
Having to do it at all is the hoop, and more than zero hoops is too many. I got nothing out of having my apps on Google Play except the joy of sharing in what was at the time a new and exciting medium.
See Windows Phone for a great example of how it would have played out if Google hadn't successfully courted small-time devs like me and countless others. Corporate publishers would have never colonized Google Play in the first place if an audience wasn't already there. The way they addressed me makes it very clear that solo devs are no longer needed, so I will never submit to it on principle no matter how easy it's claimed to be.
Keyframe · 1h ago
Having to do it at all is the hoop, and more than zero hoops is too many.
For sure, but it's a KYC for companies. How else would you expect B2B dealings and compliance to go through? They could do tax ids per country, but with DUNS, compared to local tax id, they get global ultimate beneficial owner as well as other insights. Getting a DUNS is free and relatively fast, unless you're in a hurry then there's a faster route that costs some relatively cheap amount. It's a common ID for global companies, especially those with international supply chains to rely on as "the id number" for companies.
freeone3000 · 1h ago
> companies
I’m not a company
arghwhat · 1h ago
You read that wrong, you're the customer in Google's KYC (know your customer). They're the company.
axus · 50m ago
It can make sense when money is involved, but free apps without advertising shouldn't require it.
Google was persistent in making sure I'm "actively" developing apps on Play.
freeone3000 · 54m ago
Did I? B2B dealings, DUNS number… none of these are for individuals. Is it the intention that individuals cannot write software for phones anymore?
arghwhat · 2h ago
Going through hoops usually refer to an excessive effort.
Having to go through between zero (it you have needed the number before) and one free forms from a standard entity to get a widely recognized identifier used for many things is objectively not an excessive effort.
Sharing apps on app stores is a continuous commitment with various responsibilities like, such as ensuring safety of users through regular maintenance. If the idea if submitting one number is too much of a burden given the joy/finances you get out of it, then the rest of the maintenance responsibilities likely are too and maybe it's better to skip the publishing part.
Not sure what you're on about with corporate colonization. Colonizing implies forcefully taking what was rightfully someone elses. Also, in many places, making a company is just a form and standard practice even if you're just going to sell a single bogus app for 0.99 USD or whatever, so even individuals will be "corporations".
cosmic_cheese · 1h ago
While I believe some of the (App|Play Store) requirements with DUN numbers and such are overkill and unnecessary, I also agree that there’s maybe a bit too much of a tendency for devs (commercial and indie alike) to take advantage of less restrictive means of distribution to “dump and run”, where they toss a binary over the wall and forget the project even exists for long stretches of time, even as bugs and vulnerabilities accumulate.
This worked alright in the 90s and to a more limited extent in the 2000s, but from the 2010s onward it’s become more and more untenable except for the most simplistic of software, especially when it comes to anything dealing with the internet or externally sourced files. Regular maintenance and updates are an unavoidable fact of life for devs.
So I’m kind of two minds here. Lower resistance/barrier to entry can be good in terms of encouraging participation, but it also inevitably means a lot more neglected projects sitting around rusting. If there’s no effort to control that, platforms can easily become filled with rusty half-functional apps. The way that Apple/Google are attempting to do this is not great however because it’s too oriented towards companies.
No they were set out in the contract you agreed to when publishing which has commitments and grants entirely orthogonal to your source license. Plus certain moral obligations to society.
Your license text is only capable of adding supplementary rights, and you're responsible for ensuring that your source license is fully compatible with the contract at time of publishing.
If you just want to dump stuff, leave it on GitHub.
bcye · 2h ago
The linked source only mentions DUNS only being required for organization accounts, not individuals? And I've recently successfully created an account (albeit haven't published an app yet) without one?
calderwoodra · 59m ago
You need a DUNS number for iOS too, fwiw
watusername · 38m ago
Only for businesses, not individuals.
Source: I pay my yearly Apple tax and I have no DUNS.
sneak · 3h ago
I’m currently working with a startup that was just incorporated. We needed to join the Apple Developer Program to get APNS push certs to set up our MDM.
It took over five weeks to get our ADP membership approved, and that was with internal backchannels. We had to launch without MDM, all the laptops on mostly default settings.
These companies are making so much money from ads and rentseeking and IAP cancer that they have zero incentive to do anything else well. They know they have a monopoly position, so just like the public utilities charging you an extra $2 convenience fee to pay your bill, you’ll shut up and take it, because they are the only game in town.
You know it, and they know it, and they know you know it.
At least on Android you can install f-droid. On iOS they are the only game in town. There’s fuck-all that’s “insanely great” about not being able to install the programs you want to use (such as Fortnite).
It’s pure rentseeking.
pokstad · 1h ago
Apple App Store has been like this since the early days before IAP existed. It’s just how they operate.
moffkalast · 3h ago
> Assigned by Dun & Bradstreet
Uh huh, Google just blatantly requiring every app developer on the planet to register with some specific random company. Absolutely no corruption to see here, none at all.
This is the kind of shit why smartphone vendors can't be trusted with their own walled garden stores, the EU has not yet stomped them into mulch hard enough yet I see.
cowsandmilk · 2h ago
The irony of your comment thinking the EU is going to fight this.
The DUNS number is the European Commission standard for business identification; the choice of D&B isn’t random, it literally came from EU requirements.
quadrifoliate · 1h ago
Yeah, it's surprising how badly the EU as a government has fumbled the crucial job of business identification by outsourcing it to an American company.
And we keep wondering about why there are so few world changing companies coming out of Europe. Maybe they could start with one that handles business identification?
ikmckenz · 20m ago
> the EU has not yet stomped them into mulch hard enough yet I see
This is literally the result of EU "stomping"
pkaye · 2h ago
I thought this was an EU requirement?
jodrellblank · 2h ago
In what sense is that corrupt?
(“dishonest or illegal behaviour”, “the abuse of power or authority for personal gain or benefit”)
serial_dev · 2h ago
Gee, I wonder why.
Publishing on the Play Store for indie devs or hobby projects just doesn’t make any sense.
You need to jump though so many hoops and doxx yourself in the process, only to make basically no money with the apps, and even if you miraculously do, risk getting kicked out of their platform without any way to contact a competent human.
Even before all this, the general consensus amongst solo app devs was that “don’t waste your time with Android”, now add about a hundred hour of bureaucracy to even get started with your first app, the choice is obvious for many.
I was a long time Android user and switched to iOS because the apps there are just better, I honestly think that Google of running the Android ecosystem into the ground and only the big players will want to go though this mess.
As a Flutter developer, it makes me want to switch to other technologies, because if Android loses its appeal, Flutter, another Google product, offers basically nothing. On web, it scks, on iOS SwiftUI will always have an advantage, Android as discussed is in steady and fast decline, and who the hell needs Flutter desktop apps that have poor integration with the operating system…
shakabrah · 1h ago
Amen. I write Flutter at my day job and am working toward an exit ramp every day.
xdfgh1112 · 37m ago
And here I am writing flutter as a hobby and dreaming I could do it as a day job! That sucks
fidotron · 1h ago
I expect Google will attempt something highly amusing, like launching the Play Store on iOS in the EU, with the apps running via a port of the VM (and libraries) to iOS.
throwaway743 · 2h ago
Ugh I'm so fucking fed up with the Play Store and Admob, and how they have no meaningful recourse for solving issues or providing support. It makes me feel hopeless and helpless knowing I have little options outside of relying on them (don't have any apple devices to test on or build my app) and knowing they could give two shits. Especially seeing that their contact options for Admob have been broken for years now and they refuse to fix it or provide actual help. And there seems like there's no way to get them to budge, like even through our reps.
Fuck them. I hope they collapse.
fidotron · 4h ago
> One factor Google didn’t cite was the new trader status rule enforced by the EU as of this February, which began requiring developers to share their names and addresses in the app’s listing.
I'm usually very supportive of EU tech regulation, but to be honest I don't really want to put my name and address up on apps I throw up on the store
Would like to keep my identity separate to whatever projects I have usually, especially if they're ones that don't 100% align with the your own developer brand that employers might screen for
ragnese · 3h ago
I have the same mentality as you. But, rather than form an opinion on whatever EU regulation is being interpreted as "requiring" these steps from Google et al, I think I'm going to assert that it's a red herring.
The real issue, IMO, is that it's still too hard to distribute and install applications on my general-purpose computing devices! You can't be on Google's app store if you aren't a "real business" with a physical address and everything? Fine. Let's just distribute our apps on F-Droid, or by just releasing APKs in our GitHub pages, etc.
At least that's still possible with Android. But who knows how much longer they'll even allow that?
braiamp · 2h ago
Yeah, if you have a market that can be installed by the user without passing through a marketplace. The EU regulation gets blamed, but that's not the actual issue.
LPisGood · 2h ago
I think the issue may be thinking of your phone, running a non-open OS, as a general-purpose computing device.
whimsicalism · 2h ago
Presumably F-Droid is subject to the same regulatory requirements, so in this case it is directly the regulation to blame.
iAMkenough · 2h ago
F-Droid isn’t in the same business, and doesn’t sell apps, so it’s not subject to the same regulatory requirements.
o11c · 59m ago
F-Droid has apps with the "ads" anti-feature, so this probably applies to them.
phatfish · 1h ago
Yawn.
makeitdouble · 1h ago
That's probably where F-Droid is a better choice in the first place ?
Google Play (and the App store) assume by default commercial intent, and I'm sympathetic to stricter verification rules when there's money changing hands.
o11c · 50m ago
From what I can tell, this all should apply only to monetized apps (and I agree with that). If that's not actually the case, Google is using malicious compliance to misguide developers into hating the EU for daring to regulate them.
colechristensen · 1h ago
> I don't really want to put my name and address up on apps I throw up on the store
As a customer I really want the ability to sue someone who does me wrong, call them out publicly, or at least avoid their products. In no way is it reasonable that someone should want to stay anonymous while selling me something (or profiting off of it in one way or another). I really don't see a reason to make an exception for people who have free+offline+etc apps.
You're publishing software, you need to be identifiable.
xdfgh1112 · 36m ago
This punishes the people who release apps for free or open source. For the money generating app farms it doesn't slow them down at all.
stringtoint · 3h ago
Agreed. My 3 free apps, one with +100k downloads were also removed because of the EU ruling. Don't want my personal address and phone number to be more accessible to bad actors more than it already is. While I can somewhat follow the idea, the execution in practice has serious flaws.
tslocum · 3h ago
Several FOSS apps of mine were removed from Google Play because of this. I wrote about one solution for other affected developers here:
My personal phone number is listed on Google play because I could not get my business number verified. I tried for weeks.
cyral · 3h ago
Almost the same here until they let us verify by document. Can't receive texts to our support number, and also can't get the verification code by phone since there is a "Press 1 for ___" thing at the beginning of the call.
dusted · 3h ago
Yep, this is why I dropped out.
Aerroon · 4h ago
This effectively kills apps that are made by individuals or very small businesses that can't afford an office.
It's kind of incredible how the EU makes changes like this and then politicians scratch their heads about the weakness of European tech. You would think that the politicians would give some thought to that and make it easier/cheaper to fulfill these requirements, but nope. Either pay up for a company (hundreds of euros) and an office (hundreds of euros) or just have your information publicly available.
And when that information becomes publicly available you will be inundated with spam.
On top of that some services will then take Google street view pictures of your home and link all of that information together in an easily searchable database.
makeitdouble · 1h ago
> the EU makes changes like this
The actual change is not by the EU, but by Google who interprets a EU directive and decides how to apply it to its platform.
This is a big difference, in that the EU requires a verified _contact_ address for _traders_ operating on a marketplace.
From there Google deciding to blanket require onerous verification on anyone publishing any app is Google's call and they should get the blame for it.
For comparison you get a different application of the same rules on the AppStore, and none of that for F-Droid.
leonidasv · 3h ago
Apparently you can use a P.O. Box as address for this purpose[0] when registering for AppStore, which is substantially cheaper. However, Reddit says Google does not accept P.O. Boxes [1], so the only option is a "virtual" office address or something like that. A shame.
For me the really unreasonable change was the app testing requirements on non-corporate developers. Having to get 20 users to beta test an unlisted Android app for two weeks before getting it on the store is not a reasonable thing to require for hobby projects. I'm not sure I even know 20 Android users well enough that I'd feel comfortable asking for that level of engagement from them.
It's a particularly bad policy to launch with existing developers grandfathered out, because the policy probably looks really successful to start with due to the difference in new developer vs. old developer populations -- the entities who are right now making most of the quality apps aren't affected. What's being affected is the pipeline of new developers, but the effect of killing that pipeline won't become obvious for years.
DecentShoes · 1h ago
This is absolutely insane and will kill the app I'm making. Google has too much power.
Is there some commercial service I can just pay to do this?
aetimmes · 7m ago
It's called "20 BlueStacks instances in a trenchcoat"
xdfgh1112 · 34m ago
Same here, android already seems less profitable than iOS but this killed any interest I had in supporting android.
leesalminen · 2h ago
My app’s organization is outside the “west”. So in order to complete verification with Google I had to pay some subcontractor of Dunn&Bradstreet almost $500 to get the DUNS. Then I had to get an original certified copy of the organization’s registration from the national registry. Then have an official notarized translation to English and get all that apostilled (another $500 through a service).
Also, Google support refused to tell me what set of documents they would accept. I had to figure it out myself.
kylehotchkiss · 55m ago
Sounds like you just found a business - offer this to others, you could be the fourth party in the transaction!
dusted · 3h ago
Yeah, I dropped my apps from Play, couldn't find a way to avoid putting my personal address on there.. fuck that, I'm making something for free, and they force me to dox myself for it? Nah, I'm good.
brap · 2h ago
By “they”, you mean the EU?
healsdata · 1h ago
The EU regulations don't exclude P.O. Boxes. Google choose to add that requirement.
zmmmmm · 2h ago
Sounds like there are a range of reasons, but the bigger picture explanation is : Google no longer cares about incentivizing apps to be on the store.
The mobile OS wars are over: every company and dev that wants to do anything is locked into having to provide an Android and iOS app no matter how difficult it is, so all the incentives are for Apple / Google to insulate themselves from risk now by raising the bar on devs.
We need to start exercising the minimal rights / capabilities to ship alternative app stores on these platforms. Easier said than done.
xdfgh1112 · 32m ago
I dunno, many developers already choose to ignore android entirely because it's less profitable. Raising the bar will only encourage that. At least for me the dox your own address + onerous testing requirements make android extremely unappealing
I guess I could publish on fdroid but why bother? The android platform clearly doesn't care about me.
SchemaLoad · 1h ago
Web APIs are also more capable than ever before and can be added as icons on the home page. For an individual developer, you are probably better off just doing a web app.
aucisson_masque · 1h ago
Android already has many alternative app store. I believe there is nothing currently for paid app (beside OEM store like galaxy store or Huawei) but if there is a need it's absolutely possible to do.
Apple side on the other hand, good luck with that. Even in Europe they made the rules so strict the third party app store are basically dead.
kshri24 · 3h ago
Technology was supposed to get rid of most of bureaucracy and move the World towards automation. These FAANG companies have instead successfully integrated bureaucracy with technology and have made bureaucracy permanent. Instead of automating away bureaucracy these companies have automated away customer service.
SupremumLimit · 2h ago
It is a serious mistake to think that technology can remove bureaucracy. Indeed, technology by its nature makes bureaucracy a lot more rigid. Bureaucracy is about homogenising processes and erasing individual differences, and software reinforces these properties because it allows even less human input or deviation from the process. (That isn't true of all software, just software that is intended to somehow deal with large numbers of people uniformly.)
dmix · 3h ago
The lazy response to any new risk or problem is to just layer on new rules and processes. Large organizations always end up with those things defining their workplace culture (risk aversion, checkbox culture) and that worldview filters down to the decisions which impact customers.
whimsicalism · 2h ago
they do these things in response to governmental pressure.
staplers · 2h ago
"Never be deceived that the rich will permit you to vote away their wealth."
- Lucy Parsons
GeekyBear · 3h ago
Another factor:
> Google also just increased the target API level requirement for apps on the Google Play Store
We also saw established apps like iA Writer decide to get off the treadmill.
> In order to allow our users to access their Google Drive on their phones we had to rewrite privacy statements, update documents, and pass a series of security checks, all while facing a barrage of new, ever-shifting requirements.
Yup, this caused me months of work. Many people chose not to bother.
mullingitover · 4h ago
> Instead of only banning broken apps that crashed, wouldn’t install, or run properly, the company said it would begin banning apps that demonstrated “limited functionality and content.” That included static apps without app-specific features, such as text-only apps or PDF-file apps. It also included apps that provided little content, like those that only offered a single wallpaper. Additionally, Google banned apps that were designed to do nothing or have no function, which may have been tests or other abandoned developer efforts.
Sounds like it was a purge of zero value apps. Why was Google allowing these legions of unusable and/or garbage apps in their store in the first place? Someone padding their numbers?
ozim · 3h ago
Because we want people to be able to create trash apps and publish them.
Just like we want people to create trash blogs and trash websites so they can learn or just express themselves.
Having 3rd world devs making more todo apps is not optimal but they should be able to do that and publish them.
Preventing all of that also prevents good small time community apps because suddenly you have to pay money and can’t just do nice app for local communities.
mullingitover · 2h ago
> Because we want people to be able to create trash apps and publish them.
That's a moot point, though, since you don't need Google's app store to publish apps. You can just send whatever random APK you throw together to your friend, post them on your web site, etc. There's no reason to turn the Play Store into a dumpster.
If anything the fact that you can sideload on Android and install alternative stores means the Play Store should be at least as selective as Apple's store, if not more so, since failure to meet that store's standards doesn't mean the app can't be distributed elsewhere.
arielcostas · 2h ago
You need to if you want people to be able to discover your application or receive updates automatically (or with a single click) instead of having to reimplement the wheel with an update checker in your application, as well as logic to limit what countries/markets and devices you serve.
Especially when you consider the hassle for the average user of going into Chrome, downloading your APK, accepting the big scary messages that "the application comes from an untrusted source" and "sideloading applications can be dangerous" and then installing it. People barely even like going into Google Play to download stuff.
mullingitover · 1h ago
Other app stores can also automatically update.
If your app is so low effort that even the off brand app stores don't want to host it, I'm going to guess that you're probably also not overly concerned about sending your users automatic updates anyway.
> People barely even like going into Google Play to download stuff.
This might have something to do with the lack of curation, though. Hence, losing a bunch of apps is actually beneficial to the ecosystem. As that snippet was pointing out, lots of these apps were just basic wrappers for text/pdf, which is is what the web and/or built-in media viewer apps are for.
bongodongobob · 2h ago
Well PlayStation, Nintendo, etc don't just let anyone publish anything. I see no reason to force them to lower their standards for trash shovelware. As long as you can still sideload apps, it's their store and they can set their own standards.
brulard · 2h ago
Where do you set the bar for "good enough" app? It makes sense to allow shitty apps and let the reputation grow somehow.
maxoakland · 8m ago
This is phrased like a bad thing, but it’s actually a good thing. I’m an iOS user and I can tell you Apple is not doing a good job keeping the App Store free of scams. I’m guessing Google is doing a much better job and this is the result
mvieira38 · 2h ago
Good, I hope it dies off and we get to a state of decentralized app distribution just like PCs have. App stores suck, I don't need Google of all companies knowing every single one of the apps I have on my phone
pjmlp · 3h ago
It doesn't surprise me.
There are more apps than people care about.
Nowadays I only install games, or apps for services where I can't do otherwise.
The time for "there is an app for that" is long gone, and the push for developers to artificially update their apps for whatever was presented as great Google IO innovation, or be out of the store, can only lead to outcomes like this.
I imagine that the numbers on Appstore aren't much different.
neuroelectron · 2h ago
Same. I have a bunch of Apple devices now and the only apps I install are vlc, kindle and brave.
jonplackett · 1h ago
I’m an iOS dev coming to Android because I was lucky enough to recently make an iOS app that’s making enough money to be worth porting.
The developer experience of PlayStore is SO BAD compared to the AppStore - which isn’t even that good to start with.
It’s like all the software and websites are just made by people who don’t care at all if you use it or not.
phendrenad2 · 1h ago
I miss the freewheeling days of Android apps. You'd find all kinds of apps made by solo devs as a labor of love. Later, Google largely killed those apps by severely downranking them in the play store algorithm, and made searching in the play store "we'll show you what we want to show you, the filters do nothing", but you could still install a secondary app store in CyanogenMod and find those weird and fun apps. Is there any of this left? I've heard that the secondary app stores have fallen into disrepair.
delduca · 3h ago
I had an app on the Play Store, but I took it down. Bureaucracy isn’t for me.
anothereng · 1h ago
Google didnt let me keep my developer account because I couldnt verify address. The only ways they accept address is with bills that are not in my name so I couldnt verify my address. It's ridiculous given that I have an android phone a gmail account and they know where I live based on location data.
KoolKat23 · 1h ago
That's absurd, every other industry requires proof of address to be IN your name. What are Google doing :/ malicious compliance perhaps?
I don't get the new D-U-N-S number requirement. Actual scammers can easily jump through the hoops. It's the small independent devs that won't bother with the bureaucracy, especially those that do it for free.
daedrdev · 26m ago
Weren't the number of apps already down by like 60% since 2016?
ggm · 1h ago
How very American that the requirement to register is to obtain a private fee for service business identification, not some kind of institutionalised public interest registry.
Do people still actively care about phone apps? I avoid installing them whenever possible.
tomrod · 1h ago
F-Droid needs more apps!
mcv · 34m ago
Are there specific apps it's missing?
I don't think more is necessarily better.
theflyestpilot · 1h ago
wonder if PWAs will normalize under all this grip tightening.
braiamp · 2h ago
The real issue here isn't what the app store sets as requirements. It's that the users can't avoid it to get the applications (or doing so it too confusing).
mcv · 43m ago
I don't know if it's related, but I recently started using apps from f-droid. Maybe I should have done that much earlier, but necessity forced ky hand. I just can't find good apps on the Play Store anymore. Everything is enshittified. Even simple SMS apps have ads and in-app purchases. For what!?
F-droid apps are simply better these days.
nmstoker · 36m ago
What do you think maintains this difference on the F-droid side, given there are presumably lower barriers to entry with F-droid?
AtNightWeCode · 22m ago
Google has always been hostile towards indiedevs but they have become complete garbage. They do things like removing apps because they have "banned" keywords in the naming. Apps that been around for +5 years. Or you have to comply to some new bs. Or they tried to force you to use Google pay and so on.
Google play has always been totally corrupt. But it is even worse today. The amount of trash spreading through their own programs is massive and then they are banning apps that does not even claim any permissions.
As always with Google, money talks. If you are a small corp you are pretty much screwed. If you are a big client Google will call you and tell you how they fixed your issues before you even knew about them. I really hate working with Google and hope they get split up and destroyed in the anti-trust case. (Yeah, I know the corp is named Alphabet)
revskill · 3h ago
Too late. This google store is full of scams apps.
Ah no, it's intentionally made for scammers to boost the Google Play users.
So it's worth to kill itself. Your dirty marketing tacticts is cheap, human become more smarter these days.
“On August 31, we’ll start rolling out these requirements for anyone creating new Play Console developer accounts. In October, we’ll share more information with existing developers about how to update and verify existing accounts.”
Source: happened to me and all of my apps despite them being Free Software and offline-only. Here's one of the emails they sent me about it: https://i.imgur.com/dVzQj2p.jpeg
Notice how they open with “Hi Developers at [my first and last name]” – developers, plural, and “at” like they only expect me to be a company and not a single person.
For both Apple and Google it's one of those processes where the support doesn't even really seem to understand how it works (they probably don't know what automated emails are being sent, and what the dev side looks like). They would randomly close cases for "no response" immediately after they replied, ask us to upload something despite their being no way to upload it, tell us to ignore the "your account will be closed email" because it actually won't be (wrong again), etc.
DUNS own lookup page doesn't even let you look up by DUNS number (so we could figure out what company some ancient number was associated with). I bet it's because you have to pay for one of their "solutions" to do this.
They would have gone down quickly if they hadn't "borrowed" Overture's business model of paid ads.
They have no culture of valuing the customers, or (like Amazon) obsessing about what they need.
Apple is at least slightly different: hardware customers and high-value employees are treated okay from what I hear, but devs are left alone.
Indie developers bring both Apple and Google a lot of revenue indirectly, but they don't really have much of a lobby (maybe they should unionize/hire a lobby firm together).
When I requested what documents they might think a defunct LLC was creating that would prove it was defunct, they didn't have an answer. Same as others we ended up just making a new fucking developer account.
Hell of a first project as a team lead.
And when companies say they use FTP to exchange data, they don't tend to mean SFTP. They really do mean FTP.
I first encountered Electronic Data Interchange in the early 90's. The small shop I worked for at the time had no idea and just wanted to make the parts they quoted and send them when done.
The EDI request came in a box, with external modem, a paper with phone number and directions and then a smaller box with PROGRESS database software for MSDOS in side and a handful of disks containing the EDI system.
Good lord that was painful! I just plowed through it and all that pain completed a check box at Honeywell, who then sent us jobs electronically!
Yes, via FTP.
The CAD they were sending was Computer Vision and it was a full on solid model representation! At the time we were running CAD from the early enlightenment, CADKEY 3.5 for MSDOS!
Our best micro computer lacked the storage to handle the uncompressed file, which arrived on another handful of floppies that formed a multi part. Zip file, which uncompressed totaled about 40 megabytes and change! Entire systems only had 20!
The CAD system failed to translate the data too. 16bit pointers lacked the range needed. They had me fetch a patch a day or two later and it took a few hours to do.
300 kilobytes of wireframe CAD, and the parts we made were basically 5 percent of that data!
Crazy times!
FTP can be as secure as any other protocol. Enabling encryption on the server side is generally as simple as installing a certificate and turning on an option. And most FTP clients will default to using encryption if it is available; for the clients that don’t do that, it’s just another server option to require clients to use encryption.
> And when companies say they use FTP to exchange data, they don't tend to mean SFTP. They really do mean FTP.
Because SFTP is a different and entirely unrelated protocol. The encrypted version of FTP is sometimes known as FTPS, but it’s really just a variant of FTP. So it would be inaccurate to call it SFTP, but referring to it as simply FTP doesn’t imply a lack of security.
The AUTH command is generally sent before encryption of the connection is made.
Its also vulnerable to a huge swathe of timing and weak hash attacks.
But... When I said FTP, I meant FTP. I meant neither SFTP nor FTPS.
These links tend to be important, and it's not uncommon to see both rented wavelengths and VPNs being used. And out of band key exchanges.
No knowledge about this specific situation however.
You cannot do business on the Internet without paying the Apple and Google toll. They control all the points of ingress and egress, and they tax everything that moves.
It'd be bad enough if they were just charging money, but they also make you jump through hoops to design software their way, do unplanned upgrades to their cadence, prevent you from deploying emergency hot patches, prevent you from updating software dynamically, prevent you from knowing your own customer, etc. etc. etc.
And they're happy to sell your competitors ads to outrank you for your own trademark.
These companies need to lose their control over this. Web distributed apps must become the norm.
You can't tell me that with sandboxing, signature scanning, and some clever heuristics, that we can't make mobile completely safe for free and open distribution.
It's amazing to me that there are some people that will go to these lengths to defend the profits of one of the largest corporations in the world.
At no point does it even occur to you that Google are already bending you over a table with their cut, and you're already white knighting for them even in a completely hypothetical situation.
Do you have very strong investments on Google? Otherwise, I really can't explain why an entrepreneur would ever think the way you do.
https://x.com/stacy_siz/status/1875849200291975339
https://blog.jakelee.co.uk/publishing-on-google-play-without...
Other app stores are similar, so probably it's some dumb government regulation.
Yeah, they need to show your address and phone number to comply with the EU's Digital Services Act.
There's more info here (from Apple's docs, but the same applies to Google):
https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/manage-co...
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
After I went through half of the process, they showed a "here's what your users will see on the play store listing under 'About the developer' section!" This included my full legal name, personal email address, and country, which is enough information to find my home address and other information in public registries. This app serves an online community that can be quite crazy and I was absolutely not going to doxx myself to them. I decided I had enough of Google so I gave the app away to a company
- you need a payment profile to pay the account fee + verify your identity, the last part is probably very important for anti-spam
- I can understand that legal name + country can be considered doxxing, but I think it's highly relevant information for users
Of course these requirements could be relaxed for low-risk applications (i.e. no INTERNET permission), but I think it's understandable there is so few of them nowadays that it is not a priority.
The most I’d ever wonder about is maybe their country of origin.
Huge hurdle if you just want to build an app.
Luckily I was able to hit that number (the app is a stat tracking app for the game Destiny 2, so I was able to get beta testers via posting on a subreddit filled with Destiny 2 PvP players). But it took way longer and was way more of a burden compared to getting the same app listed on both the Apple App Store and the Microsoft Windows Store (the app is written in Kotlin/Compose Multiplatform and was relatively easy to make multiplatform).
If I didn't happen to be an Android "main" myself (creating a vested interest in wanting to make the Android version easily available) I might not have bothered with the Play Store hoops give how much of a pain in the ass it was compared to the other listings.
Suddenly there was this weird obligation to declare a company or disclose publicly info about me, so i did nothing and it expired, and they removed the app.
The android store had a whole lot of garbage in it, and a lot of it was the kind that is easy to find and remove.
A bit silly to require for private individuals, and a bit annoying to have to go back and do, but not itself a big deal.
Having to do it at all is the hoop, and more than zero hoops is too many. I got nothing out of having my apps on Google Play except the joy of sharing in what was at the time a new and exciting medium.
See Windows Phone for a great example of how it would have played out if Google hadn't successfully courted small-time devs like me and countless others. Corporate publishers would have never colonized Google Play in the first place if an audience wasn't already there. The way they addressed me makes it very clear that solo devs are no longer needed, so I will never submit to it on principle no matter how easy it's claimed to be.
For sure, but it's a KYC for companies. How else would you expect B2B dealings and compliance to go through? They could do tax ids per country, but with DUNS, compared to local tax id, they get global ultimate beneficial owner as well as other insights. Getting a DUNS is free and relatively fast, unless you're in a hurry then there's a faster route that costs some relatively cheap amount. It's a common ID for global companies, especially those with international supply chains to rely on as "the id number" for companies.
I’m not a company
Google was persistent in making sure I'm "actively" developing apps on Play.
Having to go through between zero (it you have needed the number before) and one free forms from a standard entity to get a widely recognized identifier used for many things is objectively not an excessive effort.
Sharing apps on app stores is a continuous commitment with various responsibilities like, such as ensuring safety of users through regular maintenance. If the idea if submitting one number is too much of a burden given the joy/finances you get out of it, then the rest of the maintenance responsibilities likely are too and maybe it's better to skip the publishing part.
Not sure what you're on about with corporate colonization. Colonizing implies forcefully taking what was rightfully someone elses. Also, in many places, making a company is just a form and standard practice even if you're just going to sell a single bogus app for 0.99 USD or whatever, so even individuals will be "corporations".
This worked alright in the 90s and to a more limited extent in the 2000s, but from the 2010s onward it’s become more and more untenable except for the most simplistic of software, especially when it comes to anything dealing with the internet or externally sourced files. Regular maintenance and updates are an unavoidable fact of life for devs.
So I’m kind of two minds here. Lower resistance/barrier to entry can be good in terms of encouraging participation, but it also inevitably means a lot more neglected projects sitting around rusting. If there’s no effort to control that, platforms can easily become filled with rusty half-functional apps. The way that Apple/Google are attempting to do this is not great however because it’s too oriented towards companies.
Your license text is only capable of adding supplementary rights, and you're responsible for ensuring that your source license is fully compatible with the contract at time of publishing.
If you just want to dump stuff, leave it on GitHub.
Source: I pay my yearly Apple tax and I have no DUNS.
It took over five weeks to get our ADP membership approved, and that was with internal backchannels. We had to launch without MDM, all the laptops on mostly default settings.
These companies are making so much money from ads and rentseeking and IAP cancer that they have zero incentive to do anything else well. They know they have a monopoly position, so just like the public utilities charging you an extra $2 convenience fee to pay your bill, you’ll shut up and take it, because they are the only game in town.
You know it, and they know it, and they know you know it.
At least on Android you can install f-droid. On iOS they are the only game in town. There’s fuck-all that’s “insanely great” about not being able to install the programs you want to use (such as Fortnite).
It’s pure rentseeking.
Uh huh, Google just blatantly requiring every app developer on the planet to register with some specific random company. Absolutely no corruption to see here, none at all.
This is the kind of shit why smartphone vendors can't be trusted with their own walled garden stores, the EU has not yet stomped them into mulch hard enough yet I see.
The DUNS number is the European Commission standard for business identification; the choice of D&B isn’t random, it literally came from EU requirements.
And we keep wondering about why there are so few world changing companies coming out of Europe. Maybe they could start with one that handles business identification?
This is literally the result of EU "stomping"
(“dishonest or illegal behaviour”, “the abuse of power or authority for personal gain or benefit”)
Publishing on the Play Store for indie devs or hobby projects just doesn’t make any sense.
You need to jump though so many hoops and doxx yourself in the process, only to make basically no money with the apps, and even if you miraculously do, risk getting kicked out of their platform without any way to contact a competent human.
Even before all this, the general consensus amongst solo app devs was that “don’t waste your time with Android”, now add about a hundred hour of bureaucracy to even get started with your first app, the choice is obvious for many.
I was a long time Android user and switched to iOS because the apps there are just better, I honestly think that Google of running the Android ecosystem into the ground and only the big players will want to go though this mess.
As a Flutter developer, it makes me want to switch to other technologies, because if Android loses its appeal, Flutter, another Google product, offers basically nothing. On web, it scks, on iOS SwiftUI will always have an advantage, Android as discussed is in steady and fast decline, and who the hell needs Flutter desktop apps that have poor integration with the operating system…
Fuck them. I hope they collapse.
Yep, it was probably that.
Would like to keep my identity separate to whatever projects I have usually, especially if they're ones that don't 100% align with the your own developer brand that employers might screen for
The real issue, IMO, is that it's still too hard to distribute and install applications on my general-purpose computing devices! You can't be on Google's app store if you aren't a "real business" with a physical address and everything? Fine. Let's just distribute our apps on F-Droid, or by just releasing APKs in our GitHub pages, etc.
At least that's still possible with Android. But who knows how much longer they'll even allow that?
Google Play (and the App store) assume by default commercial intent, and I'm sympathetic to stricter verification rules when there's money changing hands.
As a customer I really want the ability to sue someone who does me wrong, call them out publicly, or at least avoid their products. In no way is it reasonable that someone should want to stay anonymous while selling me something (or profiting off of it in one way or another). I really don't see a reason to make an exception for people who have free+offline+etc apps.
You're publishing software, you need to be identifiable.
https://rocket9labs.com/post/on-the-importance-of-f-droid/
It's kind of incredible how the EU makes changes like this and then politicians scratch their heads about the weakness of European tech. You would think that the politicians would give some thought to that and make it easier/cheaper to fulfill these requirements, but nope. Either pay up for a company (hundreds of euros) and an office (hundreds of euros) or just have your information publicly available.
And when that information becomes publicly available you will be inundated with spam.
On top of that some services will then take Google street view pictures of your home and link all of that information together in an easily searchable database.
The actual change is not by the EU, but by Google who interprets a EU directive and decides how to apply it to its platform.
This is a big difference, in that the EU requires a verified _contact_ address for _traders_ operating on a marketplace.
From there Google deciding to blanket require onerous verification on anyone publishing any app is Google's call and they should get the blame for it.
For comparison you get a different application of the same rules on the AppStore, and none of that for F-Droid.
[0] https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-connect/manage-co...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/FlutterDev/comments/1f4nmny/comment...
No comments yet
It's a particularly bad policy to launch with existing developers grandfathered out, because the policy probably looks really successful to start with due to the difference in new developer vs. old developer populations -- the entities who are right now making most of the quality apps aren't affected. What's being affected is the pipeline of new developers, but the effect of killing that pipeline won't become obvious for years.
Is there some commercial service I can just pay to do this?
Also, Google support refused to tell me what set of documents they would accept. I had to figure it out myself.
The mobile OS wars are over: every company and dev that wants to do anything is locked into having to provide an Android and iOS app no matter how difficult it is, so all the incentives are for Apple / Google to insulate themselves from risk now by raising the bar on devs.
We need to start exercising the minimal rights / capabilities to ship alternative app stores on these platforms. Easier said than done.
I guess I could publish on fdroid but why bother? The android platform clearly doesn't care about me.
Apple side on the other hand, good luck with that. Even in Europe they made the rules so strict the third party app store are basically dead.
> Google also just increased the target API level requirement for apps on the Google Play Store
https://tech.yahoo.com/phones/articles/google-plays-rules-ki...
We also saw established apps like iA Writer decide to get off the treadmill.
> In order to allow our users to access their Google Drive on their phones we had to rewrite privacy statements, update documents, and pass a series of security checks, all while facing a barrage of new, ever-shifting requirements.
https://ia.net/topics/our-android-app-is-frozen-in-carbonite...
Sounds like it was a purge of zero value apps. Why was Google allowing these legions of unusable and/or garbage apps in their store in the first place? Someone padding their numbers?
Just like we want people to create trash blogs and trash websites so they can learn or just express themselves.
Having 3rd world devs making more todo apps is not optimal but they should be able to do that and publish them.
Preventing all of that also prevents good small time community apps because suddenly you have to pay money and can’t just do nice app for local communities.
That's a moot point, though, since you don't need Google's app store to publish apps. You can just send whatever random APK you throw together to your friend, post them on your web site, etc. There's no reason to turn the Play Store into a dumpster.
If anything the fact that you can sideload on Android and install alternative stores means the Play Store should be at least as selective as Apple's store, if not more so, since failure to meet that store's standards doesn't mean the app can't be distributed elsewhere.
Especially when you consider the hassle for the average user of going into Chrome, downloading your APK, accepting the big scary messages that "the application comes from an untrusted source" and "sideloading applications can be dangerous" and then installing it. People barely even like going into Google Play to download stuff.
If your app is so low effort that even the off brand app stores don't want to host it, I'm going to guess that you're probably also not overly concerned about sending your users automatic updates anyway.
> People barely even like going into Google Play to download stuff.
This might have something to do with the lack of curation, though. Hence, losing a bunch of apps is actually beneficial to the ecosystem. As that snippet was pointing out, lots of these apps were just basic wrappers for text/pdf, which is is what the web and/or built-in media viewer apps are for.
There are more apps than people care about.
Nowadays I only install games, or apps for services where I can't do otherwise.
The time for "there is an app for that" is long gone, and the push for developers to artificially update their apps for whatever was presented as great Google IO innovation, or be out of the store, can only lead to outcomes like this.
I imagine that the numbers on Appstore aren't much different.
The developer experience of PlayStore is SO BAD compared to the AppStore - which isn’t even that good to start with.
It’s like all the software and websites are just made by people who don’t care at all if you use it or not.
I don't get the new D-U-N-S number requirement. Actual scammers can easily jump through the hoops. It's the small independent devs that won't bother with the bureaucracy, especially those that do it for free.
I don't think more is necessarily better.
F-droid apps are simply better these days.
Google play has always been totally corrupt. But it is even worse today. The amount of trash spreading through their own programs is massive and then they are banning apps that does not even claim any permissions.
As always with Google, money talks. If you are a small corp you are pretty much screwed. If you are a big client Google will call you and tell you how they fixed your issues before you even knew about them. I really hate working with Google and hope they get split up and destroyed in the anti-trust case. (Yeah, I know the corp is named Alphabet)
Ah no, it's intentionally made for scammers to boost the Google Play users.
So it's worth to kill itself. Your dirty marketing tacticts is cheap, human become more smarter these days.