This is exactly the reason I would have never considered to build any apps. I have had couple of ideas but the risk is to big that a faceless corporation is going cancel your business without any reason and visibility.
I didn't downvote, but I assume people are because everything you can possibly do in life comes with some risk -- you need to evaluate the risk versus the benefit to decide whether to do something. Not even considering developing an app because of the risk of your app being banned seems like a fairly extreme overreaction.
It's kind of like saying, "I've never considered getting a job because the risk is too big that a faceless corporation is going lay you off without any reason and visibility."
That still doesn't change the underlying mechanics of the analogy though. It doesn't matter how many employers there are, if the worst case scenario is that you end up where you are now (jobless / no app)
The analogy would be more accurate if you could end up in a worse off position by taking the job / making the app, say through lost development time with no payoff
In an scenario with 2 employers, even ignoring market dynamics of an oligopoly/monopoly, once you are rejected by them you have nothing to lose.
The risk of your app being banned when there is only 2 marketplaces is way way higher than the risk of being laid off when there are many more companies.
IMO OPs argument breaks when they equate a bit of risk to a lot of risk, as if any risk amount were the same as any other.
An existential risk is typically considered any risk that has the potential to eliminate all of humanity or, at the very least, kill large swaths of the global population.
Being controlled by software restricts choice, while being wiped out by software eliminates choice altogether.
I agree and nothing I wrote conflicts with that assertion. The point is that it depends on the individual's perspective and the complexity of the issue at hand. Restricting choice is often an advantage because it saves us time in exchange for the risk of being (company, individual or humanity) wiped out by an exception to the rule.
Hmm typically I've heard the phrase existential risk alongside a qualifying / local scope phrase.
So something may be an existential risk to this company or this endeavour. Only a small fraction of usage of existential risk are globally scoped to humanity.
Google can also take your website out of their search results, or derank you a lot. That would effectively be a death penalty for many online businesses.
Fair point, though The Google's search matters less and less as the days go by.
But the difference with websites is that there's always an alternative. If The Google decides your site is wrongthink or their superior AI intelligence flags your site for infringing on your own copyright, there are countless other ways to make your site seen elsewhere.
Let's face it, nobody's going to sideload your mobile app without installing it through an app store unless your app is in the position to say F-U to The Google like Tik Tok, Twitter, Instagram, and so on. People will visit a website that's been posted on social media or linked on some blog, but they won't download an APK.
>The Google's search matters less and less as the days go by
The HN community is well aware that Google search result quality has fallen off a cliff and DDG's results keep getting better. But the vast majority of casual internet users still do (perhaps always will) use the former. The amount of people downloading APKs outside of the play store is as low as the amount of people looking up your business through non-Google search engines.
> The amount of people downloading APKs outside of the play store is as low as the amount of people looking up your business through non-Google search engines.
Outside of software developers, that's pretty doubtful. Judging by how many non-technical people I've spotted using DDG, I'd bet good money that there are more of them than those who would be willing to install a mobile app outside an app store. Even software developers are paranoid about doing that.
Also, the point is that at least your site can be seen even if it doesn't appear on a search engine. A business can post hyperlinks on Instagram, Reddit, Tik Tok, blogs, physical ads, and so forth. There's an option with websites. With apps, there's really no meaningful alternative unless you're a big player, and even the big players have largely bent over for Apple and The Google and their respective app stores. Sorry, the incredibly vast majority of people aren't going to explicitly turn on the Android setting to allow installing apps outside the Play Store and then install an APK off some website, and for iOS this isn't even as practical.
This is why I intentionally exclude my sites from Google's crawlers. That way, I never grow to depend on Google and don't worry about potential delisting.
Same. I would totally consider dropping web development and developing apps if Apple and The Google behaved more reasonably towards developers. I've heard enough stories, including those from people I know IRL, to stay the hell away from mobile development as a form of self-employment income.
I'm mostly there. I've developed a few apps, but none that I charged for. I wouldn't be willing to have anything of importance be at the mercy of any app store.
Yes. How do you think we did it in the bad ole days?
Don't fall for the propensity of Big Tech to scare you away from general purpose computing. If you're capable of writing, testing, and publishing an app in the first place, you have an obligation to educate the public about just what the nature of the sacrifices are that are being made by accepting a "walled garden" status quo for computing.
If you're only in it for the money, that may not matter to you I suppose. If you're dedicated to trying to bring the superpower that is general purpose computing to the public however, it's one of those bits of suffering you have to navigate for their best interest.
I am not talking about some imaginary good old days vs now but using a 3rd party install process vs the official one in the context of installing Android applications.
I think you would reach a fraction of the userbase with a 3rd party process due to several factors.
If you have to educate each potential user before you can turn it into an actual user, then necessarily your userbase is going to be smaller than if you didn't require that education step.
It might be, depending on what your goals are, but for a lot of developers who just want to make a good living off of their work (as opposed to becoming a millionaire), it's not really that important.
With his finally adding support for web push notifications, I think we are pretty much there already. What else is missing that’s needed for most apps?
I have an native app for both platforms which uses some of these because I can't do it with a webapp, I'd love for everything to be done in the browser.
Web Bluetooth
Web MIDI API
Magnetometer AP
Web NFC API
Device Memory API
Network Information API
Battery Status API
Web Bluetooth Scanning
Ambient Light Sensor
HDCP Policy Check extension for EME
Proximity Sensor
I haven’t tried iOS PWA push notifications yet, but I was under the impression that they should work similarly to the native ones. I agree that the standard is wonky, but if you develop a PWA with specific iOS polish, it might work well.
> After that ordeal I decided to build web apps only.
What services do you use to monetise them?
Coming from a very similar background, I have more than a decade of mobile experience (consultant -> CTO), but almost all of my personal projects are web apps. I just can't be bothered dealing with how much control app stores want over my work, plus the amount of bureaucratic bullshit involved.
Plus, the modern web stack is amazing in terms of short iteration cycles (<30s to push and deploy a new project, excellent dev experience with TS).
I built the Android app in 2013, and my best selling web app in 2021. The web app has just gotten beyond the $10,000 USD monthly recurring revenue metric.
Looked up your submission history and found your site pretty quickly. Bravo, my friend - you created a service I didn't even know people needed and you're completely rocking it. Great job!
Is your app something always used online? Is there a way to use the web app offline for those who are away from internet access but still want the functionality?
A lemon market can be worse than being banned from a market. When banned, at least you can start over or comply to get back in. When its a lemon market, there's no good market.
My observation is that the web has become a lemon market and I'm curious if I'm wrong about it.
Also, you can definitely get banned from the web, be it through being banned from the discovery channels or regulators. You can get banned from Twitter/Reddit/Google etc. and loose your your discovery channels and you can get banned from Gmail and lose your communication channels, you can get banned from Google/Apple/Twitter and lose your account providers.
I'm not saying Google shouldn't police their app store at all, I'm just saying that the current "algo-ban and blackhole" strategy is a losing game for content creators and I'd never get into it.
You're absolutely at risk of this.
If you're added to the big bad google blocklist that all major browsers use, which of course is automated, anyone visiting your website will get a big red screen saying "this is a scam please run away".
This happened to my own gitlab instance, which sees around 5 unique visitors a year, and it has happened to popular websites.
The only recourse is to report the issue to google, who, if they feel so kind, will unblock your domain again. Oh, maybe I didn't mention - this block applies to the entire domain. I had the gitlab on git.example.com, and so *.example.com and example.com were all blocked entirely, on all browsers, for everyone in the world. Yes, you can click on a button, and then a tiny link that says "im ok with getting shafted by this scam site" or some such shit.
Very true, the majority of my new users find my web app through Google search. If Google decided to remove me from their search results I would lose a large amount of revenue.
Out of curiosity, does Google also cross-link with the dev‘s Google account? Domain A gets punished, then all other Domains of the dev get punished too? (eg when connected via ads or search console)
No idea, but fairly easy to test - seems to me like it flags self hosted stuff like gitlab as it looks like a phishing site is targeting gitlab users. Not sure what triggers it, but that's the only needed preconditions i know of
>>"After that ordeal I decided to build web apps only."
I agree with this, I think for reasons of independence that web browsers should be the platform for mobile as much as possible, not os specific apps.
Perhaps one day foss non-corporate smart phone operating systems will become more accessible to non-technical users, but until then web browsers are the best bet to prevent centralization/control by corporations on software distribution
Google can't exactly fix the DMCA like the dev may want, but its fake appeal process is infuriating. You can appeal the takedown to Google but no human will ever validate that the DMCA notice even makes sense.
Filing a counter notice is your only option but it also hands over your personal details to whoever filed the DMCA takedown request for a potential lawsuit. This turns the DMCA mechanism into an excellent doxxing system for anyone publishing anything onto Google's platforms.
Perhaps even worse is the insinuation, or sometimes even lie, that appeals are verified by humans. They're either not passing by any humans or they're not being verified. If an actual human had read the DMCA takedown in the first place, this whole saga never would've happened.
I do wonder, if you are in Europe, you would have a claim for violation of artists' "moral rights"?*. One of those legal rights is to be published under a pseudonym or anonymously.
*I don't think it's something really recognised in the USA.
I can't speak for any other countries, but here in the Netherlands software doesn't follow the "normal" copyright rules. For example, ripping CDs is perfectly fine but copying software requires permission from the developer. Programmers also can't apply for compensation from the private copy levy (the thing that makes us pay €6 on top of every phone so we can legally use it to play music).
This utterly ridiculous special case (as well as the plain corrupt private copy levy) doesn't necessarily exist anywhere else, but it does show that you can't just assume uniformity of copyright law.
Last time I was looking into it, the DMCA required that the subject was taken down _before_ you did the verification of the claim. So the DMCA basically is required to be an automatic process.
as it is written, the DMCA strongly favours the accusing party, and there's minimal blowback from a fraudulent claim. It has got to be one of the worst pieces of legislation to have been written and enacted.
In the case of a proper DMCA takedown (as opposed to something like YouTube's pre-DMCA report system), you can (and should) sue the person who issued a fraudulent takedown for damages caused by the takedown.
The post you replied to wasn't particularly complaining about the initial takedown (required, as you say, by the DMCA), but the terrible appeals process when this is applied to a spurious claim.
Oh, for sure! The takedown itself must happen immediately because of the unbalanced nature of the DMCA.
However, the verification doesn't need to be an automatic system. Google would not be at fault if they took down the page, had someone competent enough investigate the takedown, and then make a decision. The current system doesn't even start a real investigation until you object and even then the investigation isn't exactly thorough.
Google's entire process is opaque and open to dodgy behaviour. I had an app which was growing really well with about 5-10k downloads a day growing at about 20% a week and an average rating of 4.8 stars over a few thousand reviews. Suddenly this is tanking overnight and when we look into the data, we have twice as many new uninstalls per day as we do downloads a day. Next to no uninstalls from existing users, no change in the ratings, and no technical outages. It looked like a bot farm was just installing and immediately (as in less than a minute later) uninstalling the app over and over again. Google decided that this meant the app was bad, and we went from position 2-5 for our main keywords to not even in the top 50 overnight. I tried appealing, and tried getting information, but Google did absolutely nothing about it.
Its more that Google's implementation of the DMCA is broken. They have automated take downs and have a completely broken appeal process. They certainly aren't the only company failing to deal with the DMCA correctly. There are clauses in the DMCA specifically targetted at false claims, if those were enforced we might start to see a change in the system but as is the DMCA is misused too often.
I’ve recently submitted a valid DMCA against a play store app (that was simply a web view embedding my app without authorization, claiming it as theirs) and weirdly enough they emailed back saying they will not be acting on it.
So now they’ve abandoned their safe harbor and I’ll have to file a claim against Google, instead of them just doing the right thing.
The DMCA as a law is horribly written. The law is the reason why companies like Google behave the way they do. Change the law to something less retarded and there's a chance fewer problems will occur.
I think there might be more to this story. This app is what people generally use to sideload apps on a locked Google TV device such as the Google Chromecast. One such commonly sideloaded app is SmartTube, an unofficial YouTube client with no ads and SponsorBlock included:
So because the application can load a URL that can be loaded in any browser, the application should be banned? Time to ban all browsers then I guess...
Besides, Google claimed that the application was collecting email addresses while the app technically couldn't collect email addresses.
If they want to ban something, setup proper rules like "No browsers allowed" and then ban the apps under those rules, instead of trying to hide the real reason for the ban.
I'm not saying what they did was in any way justified, just providing context that seems to be missing from the reporting: to sideload e.g. SmartTube you need an app like this first, and it must be available from the Play Store. Google has an incentive to disrupt this under any pretense as it costs them ad revenue.
Rather than a financial penalty, how about this? What if the consequence of a bogus takedown were that the work you own and claimed was being infringed upon immediately and permanently became public domain? (For takedowns where the lie is that you don't actually own copyright of the work you claim, that part is what's supposed to carry the penalty of perjury, so we should just start enforcing that.)
To be fair on the second complaint, if the first thing your app does is display a web view of a page that requests an email address (even if just for a mailing list), I might also say a claim that it doesn't collect that information is incorrect. It's too easy to just say the site is unaffiliated because you used a different entity name for the site and circumvent their controls, and it may be unclear to people whether an email address is required for full functionality.
The alternative to marking the form to indicate they collect personal information would be to load a different web page by default that doesn't try to collect email addresses.
I underatand how when you're mad at a company it can be hard to give the benefit of a doubt about other actions and use that think about them rationally, but I think that's all that was required in the second case.
Well they recently unbanned my youtube/youtube music account too after writing to them a second time, its been about a few months without those accounts. They said it doesnt violate their policies after saying it did the last time. Are there any grounds to sue them for this?
Well they recently unbanned my youtube/youtube music account too after writing to them a second time. They said it doesnt violate their policies after saying it did the last time. Are there any grounds to sue them for this?
I asked them to tell me the name of the iOS app they believed I copied. They named the iOS version of my Android app.
They basically accused me of copying myself because the Android version was under my company's name while the iOS version was under my name.
Google unbanned the app, but sales dropped to $1000 a month.
After that ordeal I decided to build web apps only.
It's kind of like saying, "I've never considered getting a job because the risk is too big that a faceless corporation is going lay you off without any reason and visibility."
The analogy would be more accurate if you could end up in a worse off position by taking the job / making the app, say through lost development time with no payoff
The risk of your app being banned when there is only 2 marketplaces is way way higher than the risk of being laid off when there are many more companies.
IMO OPs argument breaks when they equate a bit of risk to a lot of risk, as if any risk amount were the same as any other.
Being controlled by software restricts choice, while being wiped out by software eliminates choice altogether.
So something may be an existential risk to this company or this endeavour. Only a small fraction of usage of existential risk are globally scoped to humanity.
But the difference with websites is that there's always an alternative. If The Google decides your site is wrongthink or their superior AI intelligence flags your site for infringing on your own copyright, there are countless other ways to make your site seen elsewhere.
Let's face it, nobody's going to sideload your mobile app without installing it through an app store unless your app is in the position to say F-U to The Google like Tik Tok, Twitter, Instagram, and so on. People will visit a website that's been posted on social media or linked on some blog, but they won't download an APK.
The HN community is well aware that Google search result quality has fallen off a cliff and DDG's results keep getting better. But the vast majority of casual internet users still do (perhaps always will) use the former. The amount of people downloading APKs outside of the play store is as low as the amount of people looking up your business through non-Google search engines.
Outside of software developers, that's pretty doubtful. Judging by how many non-technical people I've spotted using DDG, I'd bet good money that there are more of them than those who would be willing to install a mobile app outside an app store. Even software developers are paranoid about doing that.
Also, the point is that at least your site can be seen even if it doesn't appear on a search engine. A business can post hyperlinks on Instagram, Reddit, Tik Tok, blogs, physical ads, and so forth. There's an option with websites. With apps, there's really no meaningful alternative unless you're a big player, and even the big players have largely bent over for Apple and The Google and their respective app stores. Sorry, the incredibly vast majority of people aren't going to explicitly turn on the Android setting to allow installing apps outside the Play Store and then install an APK off some website, and for iOS this isn't even as practical.
This really only applies to iOS.
Don't fall for the propensity of Big Tech to scare you away from general purpose computing. If you're capable of writing, testing, and publishing an app in the first place, you have an obligation to educate the public about just what the nature of the sacrifices are that are being made by accepting a "walled garden" status quo for computing.
If you're only in it for the money, that may not matter to you I suppose. If you're dedicated to trying to bring the superpower that is general purpose computing to the public however, it's one of those bits of suffering you have to navigate for their best interest.
I think you would reach a fraction of the userbase with a 3rd party process due to several factors.
It might be, depending on what your goals are, but for a lot of developers who just want to make a good living off of their work (as opposed to becoming a millionaire), it's not really that important.
Way to go ! Not everything can be a web app right now, but it's getting closer every year.
https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/
I have an native app for both platforms which uses some of these because I can't do it with a webapp, I'd love for everything to be done in the browser.
Web Bluetooth
Web MIDI API
Magnetometer AP
Web NFC API
Device Memory API
Network Information API
Battery Status API
Web Bluetooth Scanning
Ambient Light Sensor
HDCP Policy Check extension for EME Proximity Sensor
WebHID
Serial API
Web USB
Geolocation Sensor (background geolocation)
User Idle Detection
What services do you use to monetise them?
Coming from a very similar background, I have more than a decade of mobile experience (consultant -> CTO), but almost all of my personal projects are web apps. I just can't be bothered dealing with how much control app stores want over my work, plus the amount of bureaucratic bullshit involved.
Plus, the modern web stack is amazing in terms of short iteration cycles (<30s to push and deploy a new project, excellent dev experience with TS).
About the same really.
My observation is that the web has become a lemon market and I'm curious if I'm wrong about it.
Also, you can definitely get banned from the web, be it through being banned from the discovery channels or regulators. You can get banned from Twitter/Reddit/Google etc. and loose your your discovery channels and you can get banned from Gmail and lose your communication channels, you can get banned from Google/Apple/Twitter and lose your account providers.
I mean, I get like 100 views, but that's ok for me.
The reason I'm saying this is because it feels like for the first time in a long time there is alternatives to "big web"
This happened to my own gitlab instance, which sees around 5 unique visitors a year, and it has happened to popular websites.
The only recourse is to report the issue to google, who, if they feel so kind, will unblock your domain again. Oh, maybe I didn't mention - this block applies to the entire domain. I had the gitlab on git.example.com, and so *.example.com and example.com were all blocked entirely, on all browsers, for everyone in the world. Yes, you can click on a button, and then a tiny link that says "im ok with getting shafted by this scam site" or some such shit.
I have an Android app published under a company name, while iOS is under my personal name due to the hassle of getting it published under a company.
I agree with this, I think for reasons of independence that web browsers should be the platform for mobile as much as possible, not os specific apps.
Perhaps one day foss non-corporate smart phone operating systems will become more accessible to non-technical users, but until then web browsers are the best bet to prevent centralization/control by corporations on software distribution
Filing a counter notice is your only option but it also hands over your personal details to whoever filed the DMCA takedown request for a potential lawsuit. This turns the DMCA mechanism into an excellent doxxing system for anyone publishing anything onto Google's platforms.
Perhaps even worse is the insinuation, or sometimes even lie, that appeals are verified by humans. They're either not passing by any humans or they're not being verified. If an actual human had read the DMCA takedown in the first place, this whole saga never would've happened.
*I don't think it's something really recognised in the USA.
This seems to conflict with German "impressum" requirements https://www.ionos.co.uk/digitalguide/websites/digital-law/a-...
This utterly ridiculous special case (as well as the plain corrupt private copy levy) doesn't necessarily exist anywhere else, but it does show that you can't just assume uniformity of copyright law.
However, the verification doesn't need to be an automatic system. Google would not be at fault if they took down the page, had someone competent enough investigate the takedown, and then make a decision. The current system doesn't even start a real investigation until you object and even then the investigation isn't exactly thorough.
I’ve recently submitted a valid DMCA against a play store app (that was simply a web view embedding my app without authorization, claiming it as theirs) and weirdly enough they emailed back saying they will not be acting on it.
So now they’ve abandoned their safe harbor and I’ll have to file a claim against Google, instead of them just doing the right thing.
Before regulating AI, maybe we should consider regulating Artificial Stupidity.
I'll show myself out
https://smartyoutubetv.github.io/
I'm not surprised Google is eager to take it down under any pretext, and not so eager to restore it.
Besides, Google claimed that the application was collecting email addresses while the app technically couldn't collect email addresses.
If they want to ban something, setup proper rules like "No browsers allowed" and then ban the apps under those rules, instead of trying to hide the real reason for the ban.
That way, they will take more time to think it trough.
There should be some sort of jury (to call it something) that is not as expensive/slow as a trial.
The alternative to marking the form to indicate they collect personal information would be to load a different web page by default that doesn't try to collect email addresses.
I underatand how when you're mad at a company it can be hard to give the benefit of a doubt about other actions and use that think about them rationally, but I think that's all that was required in the second case.
Google and Co can't be trusted, just because it's their operating system is a awful argument.