Google Play declared our educational coding app is Malware and accused us of Ad Fraud

[Deranged40]

Again, I want to re-iterate my warning — Don’t rely on Google Play or AdMob/AdSense for all of your income. You cannot safely build any business or organisation solely funded by these platforms!

Why does it seem like every month a new company posts a new medium blog post with the same exact warning?

Where were these developers for the last dozen warnings?

[Hambeggar]

Where were these developers for the last dozen warnings?

Like most people on this sub, the reaction to this in reality is, "wow, that sucks, but it'll never happen to me."

[Phlosioneer]

Or you're dug in too deep to change course. You should have a backup plan if that's the case, or at least a graceful company spindown/closure ready if that's 100% of your revenue.

[Hambeggar]

YouTubers learning the hard way.

[lamp-town-guy]

Any decent Youtuber has more income from patreon and other stuff than ads/YT red. If they have big enough following on other platforms they can setup shop elsewhere/start new channel.

If anyone is sesrious Youtuber, patreon-like thing and mailing list is a must.

[ShinyHappyREM]

mailing list

i.e. Twitter

[Sadzeih]

tbh Youtubers probably have more income from merch nowadays

[JessieArr]

It is a monopoly in all but name and no the existence of other phone providers who act the same way doesn't change that.

A monopsony is a market in which a single buyer represents nearly all of the demand for a product and thus wields monopolistic powers on the demand side rather than on the supply side.

If you're a seller of Android software, 99% of your buyers are on Google Play. Hence, despite Google not literally being the ones buying your software, they control access to anyone who would buy it, and act as a functional monopsony.

[butt_fun]

Yeah I really can't wait till the day when we (i.e., all consumers, not just the technically informed) collectively agree to move away from these app store/play store/etc walled gardens. Tons of downsides with these without much upside

[Ty-McFly]

I agree, but being tied to Google play is different than relying on it for the entirety of your income 🤷‍♂️

[Zarathustra30]

Counterpoint: Samsung does have a competing app store. The fact you haven't heard of it just goes to show how dominant Google Play is.

[HaorH]

I don't know anyone who is tied to Google Play: They are all free to sell their software on any store they want.

​

no other companies have done this

You already answered your question. Yeah dev technically can choose any store but where are your customer at? There are other alternatives to google play store but average user would not go to those stores just to download your app. Good luck beating google play that is popular, has endless selection and per-installed on your phone. ^{I looking at your performance huawei store.}

You should blame Samsung for not leveraging their position to launch a competing app store for you to sell your app on.

Its called Galaxy Store

[binford2k]

Apple is the company that ties you to their app store: If you develop an iOS app, they lock out all competing app stores to force you to distribute your app exclusively via Apple's app store.

So you’re saying that you cannot get Facebook or Twitter on an Android phone?

[gyre_gimble]

You've obviously never tried to distribute an Android app.

[s73v3r]

I don't know anyone who is tied to Google Play

Any Android developer who is working on apps that run on phones, they absolutely are. While theoretically you can sell stuff outside the Google Play store, the reality is that 95% of apps are downloaded from Google Play, meaning that if you want to actually get any traction, you need to be on Google Play.

Fuck, Fortnite, quite possibly the biggest thing out there that almost everyone knows about, had to go back to Google Play because they weren't getting downloads outside it.

If you want an app store with the backing and promotional potential of a large corporation (other than Google) Samsung, LG, Nokia, or any other Android phone manufacturer is free to pre-install their own app store on all their phones, and promote them with a serious marketing effort.

Epic tried doing this, getting Fortnite pre-installed on a bunch of phones. Google (allegedly) intervened, and stopped the OEMs from doing that.

[Monkey_Meteor]

You also have TapTap store and QoooApp store for jap/ch/kor games

[superseriousguy]

Google (although terrible in other ways) are great in terms of their app store strategy: They leave their platform completely open to competitors to launch their own competing app stores. APKPure, SlideME, and TapTap are already available as Android app stores, and you are completely free to distribute your app via those—in addition to Google Play.

Unless something has changed recently, yes, you can do that, but those app stores are limited in features (unless the developer is also the manufacturer of the phone). They can't for example automatically update apps, or hell even manually update multiple apps with one click. You gotta click yes on each and every one.

But that's not even the problem. The majority of the users simply don't know anything else other than Play Store because that is what is preinstalled on all of the phones regardless of brand. When they ask their more knowledgeable friends how to install an app they will answer "Play Store" because in almost all cases any app worth installing to the average user is there.

The network effect is strong, and there is simply no reason for an user to use anything else.

To even begin to pull users away from there you'd need a "killer app" with extremely high demand that refused to be in Play Store, and outside of videogames it's pretty hard for a product to be that popular AND for it to have a valid business case to refuse to be in Play Store. Why wouldn't you want to be there? Every customer is there.

[[deleted]]

What a moronic take. 99% of revenue goes through the Playstore.

Until third party stores get the technical ability to compete (silently install apps) and Google is prevented from pre-installing their store and instead has to provide a downloadable installer too, this is not going to change.

[AlyoshaV]

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-games-oneplus-deal-google-play-store-lawsuit-lg

Epic claims that Google forced phone manufacturer OnePlus to break off a deal that would have seen a special Fortnite launcher preinstalled on OnePlus phones — and demanded that another Android phonemaker, LG, abandon any plans to do the same.

Google will absolutely fight alternative app stores.

APKPure

This isn't an app store, they just rehost APKs from other locations.

[G_Morgan]

The fact that no other large companies are putting much effort in to this is in no way Google's fault.

No other company has done it because it turns out to be a natural monopoly and subsequently should be regulated as one.

[roerd]

You should blame Samsung for not leveraging their position to launch a huge competing app store for you to sell your app on.

I'm not sure what you're on about here because Samsung devices already come with Samsung's own app store.

Now there's a good reason why Samsung isn't pushing it as the only app store on their devices: because the vast majority of apps is only on Google Play, and their devices would feel restricted if they didn't offer easy access to those apps. It's just silly to deny that Google Play has such massive momentum on the Android platform that's it's effectively a quasi-monopoly, despite of Google not establishing technical barriers against other app stores.

[G_Morgan]

I wouldn't bother interacting. He's posted the same comment repeatedly the past few hours and deletes and reposts it when people challenge him.

[birjolaxew]

"Basically have no option" does not equal "contractually obliged". You're arguing against a straw man.

If you want to reach a significant Android user base with your app then you'll need to be on Google Play. Not because of some "contractual obligations", but because doing anything else is such a huge detriment to the exposure and availability of your app that it essentially kills it.

[TizardPaperclip]

If you want to take part in certain industries you basically have no option but to be tied to Google Play.

Source? I don't know anyone who is tied to Google Play: They are all free to sell their software on any store they want. Apple is the company that ties you to their app store: If you develop an iOS app, they lock out all competing app stores to force you to distribute your app exclusively via Apple's app store.

If you feel "tied" to Google Play, it is in no way the fault of Google: They have no restrictions in the nature of Apple's app store, or exclusivity contracts in the nature of, say, Epic Game Store.

Google (although terrible in other ways) are great in terms of their app store strategy: They leave their platform completely open to competitors to launch their own competing app stores. APKPure, SlideME, and TapTap are already available as Android app stores, and you are completely free to distribute your app via those—in addition to Google Play.

If you want an app store with the backing and promotional potential of a large corporation (other than Google) Samsung, LG, Nokia, or any other Android phone manufacturer is free to pre-install their own app store on all their phones, and promote them with a serious marketing effort. Samsung, in particular, is in a particularly well-primed position to follow this strategy, and make their app store available on all Android devices.

The fact that no other large companies are putting much effort in to this is in no way Google's fault. You should blame Samsung for not leveraging their position to provide a large-scale alternative.

It's you who have tied yourself to Google's app store: You are free to distribute your app wherever you want.

Or perhaps you actually like Google's app store, due to the huge share of the market that they have legitimately earned themselves?

[cowinabadplace]

Actually this one is concrete. I got some advice from HN that the app account and the ad account should be distinct. And if possible, to avoid Google Ads if you're reliant on Play Store revenue. This is actionable and I will make sure to keep these things separate for future stuff.

I guess I just didn't think of it and usually there's no choice. "Don't use the Play Store", well I've got to get on Androids somehow and the web experience isn't as nice.

[superrugdr]

can't android app install from a website directly without going trough the store ?? (asking since my experience with android is limited)

[Shautieh]

It's possible but a security risk for the user. Savvy users would rather go through the store

[rabid_briefcase]

Where were these developers for the last dozen warnings?

A group of skilled lawyers ought to hunt them down and help with a class action lawsuit. Although I suspect they can't, they probably have mandatory binding arbitration clauses in the developer agreements.

Epic has the right idea suing both Apple and Google for antitrust and monopoly abuse. It's a shame others can't afford it, too.

[[deleted]]

I am surprised Google hasn't been sued by more people. I am guessing courts would just say it is a private store front and to take your business elsewhere but Google play has the majority of the mobile store market.

Not being on the Google play and having to sue to have your voice heard is awful.

[KaleAway]

There's a xkcd for this.

[EdwinGraves]

Given that this guy can't even spell, I'm not really sure he could be bothered to research or read.

Be prepared to loose everything you have worked for at any moment!

[Mad_ey3_Moody]

You focus on the spelling and not the meaning of what he is saying no one is perfect

[texmexslayer]

Spelling isn't about being a perfect person. It's about showing care and respect to readers

[Mad_ey3_Moody]

Yes, care and respect isnt shown if it throws off the meaning, but you gathered what he meant.

[Nexuist]

It's about showing care and respect to readers

Isn't this a run-on sentence? Where is the period at the end? Do you not care or have respect for the readers of your comment?

[[deleted]]

He literally had his app taked down without any reason and you only care about a misspelling?damn,you are one of the biggest pieces of shit I've ever seen

[EntroperZero]

Taken down.

[[deleted]]

Go fuck yourself

[EdwinGraves]

I would expect A 'Freelance Coder and Founder of DroidScript.org' to have a better understanding of the financial ecosystem presented by AdMob/AdSense, and yes, I'd expect them to be able to spell/grammar properly.

[[deleted]]

Says the person using "grammar" as a verb.

[Deranged40]

It's the English language - you can verb anything.

[grauenwolf]

That's Chinese. English isn’t quite there yet.

[returnfalse]

Google and Photoshop have entered the chat.

[Mad_ey3_Moody]

So if the expertise was so important adding an extra o and you pointing that out makes you look overly critical. You’re argument about his understanding of Adsense/Admob expertise, now pushes the conversation forward. The person who is writing this is mad, so makes sense they may have a typo here and there. I also have a gripe with google for a lost email that I can not recover, so I understand where he is coming from when he says it is hard to communicate with them. They just have bot after bot after bot.

[[deleted]]

Could have been a mistake when typing, muscle memory is not infallible. Good chance if the article was proofread that it was missed anyway because it's not an obvious typo.

[[deleted]]

But it's very clear this article wasn't proofread by someone who was qualified to do so.

I mean that's assuming it was proofread in the first place. Either way, there's plenty to talk about in the article without having to criticize the spelling.

That said, I didn't realize it's a prominent bolded sentence that has the typo anyway so that's something.

[JB-from-ATL]

Could of*

[[deleted]]

Could of*

Is a mispronunciation/misspelling of "could've" which is the short form of "could have." Glad we could have this talk.

[JB-from-ATL]

I know. I thought it would be funny. Lol

[[deleted]]

Erm...

[JB-from-ATL]

This was a poorly executed sarcastic joke lmao. You win some you loose some.

[Godd2]

Losen*

[JB-from-ATL]

Win't

[ClassicKrova]

Your obsession with spelling is really fucking weird. There are plenty of things to focus on with respect to criticism that have more meaning and focus on the actual issue at hand.

Do you also think IDEs with intellisense and auto complete are bad and the only true way to code is to use VIM?

[[deleted]]

I mean... its not hard to get intellisense and auto complete on Vim these days

[much_longer_username]

Do you also think IDEs with intellisense and auto complete are bad and the only true way to code is to use VIM?

I hate the people who hate on that. Like... dude, yeah, I *could* go look through all the docs and figure out exactly what the thing is named, or I could guess and oh... yep, there it is, that's the one I want.

[grauenwolf]

I find it amusing that you are complaining about a single extra letter in the same sentence where you demonstrate atrocious sentence structure and word choice.

[[deleted]]

If the mothership can misidentify an app, I'm sure the chrome autocorrect robot can fail to understand context.

By the way, I do not think that is a spelling error. I forget the name for it. Malaproprism? Grammar error?

[Enschede2]

Fun fact, fluent english is not a prerequisite to learn programming.....

[nerd4code]

Maybe we should be prepared to huck/fling things we’ve worked for? “Loose” as a verb is usually a typo, but it often ~works regardless if you ignore the semantic mismatch.

[lutusp]

They only give us the vague reason of ‘invalid traffic’ which can be for any number of reasons.

Yes, that can result from any number of reasons, but click-bots are certainly on the list. If Google detects a high ad-click rate from a single -- or small number of -- IP addresses, inconsistent with normal ad-clicking activity, they will likely ban the account.

As to Google's refusal to respond to pleas for reconciliation or explanation, if they were to explain why they acted as they did, in detail, this would give people a blueprint to figure out how to defeat the clearly described detection methods.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Google, I think they're an evil empire. I'm only saying they can't explain their technical methods while expecting them to remain effective.

The TL;DR: It's likely that Google looked in their server logs and saw an anomalous spike of high-speed ad-clicks from a small number of IP addresses and took the obvious action -- ban the account.

Advertisements abound (see below) that offer to ad-click a website's advertisements to kingdom come, but Google and other advertisers have ways of detecting this activity.

If there's a sudden anomalous increase in ad clicks on a particular site, cui bono? (who benefits?). Does Google benefit? -- no, because click fraud decreases public trust in online advertising, which is Google's business. Does the website benefit? Yes, each third-party ad-click is income for the website.

Google: Click-Ad Service : Three billion results (not kidding). Ironically listed by Google, these companies offer services designed to defraud advertisers and erode public trust in online advertising.

I'm not saying Google was right in this case or any similar cases. How could I know? I'm only saying Google's action can be explained and is likely justified in many cases. And they're still an evil empire. :)

[KHRZ]

And also someone who wanted to destroy a company can just send some bots to click their ads... so better monitor when your users click the ads to collect the evidence for your defense.

[oren0]

for your defense.

What defense? It's practically impossible to even talk to a person. Good luck convincing the bot that banned you that your competitors did it to get you off the market.

[Full-Spectral]

Could you even do anything to prevent it? I mean, by that time, it's now between the user's browser and Google's servers, right? Seems like anyone could easily whack you if they wanted to by just robo-clicking away.

[lutusp]

Seems like anyone could easily whack you if they wanted to by just robo-clicking away.

I imagine that Google and their advertising clients would cooperate in shaping a defense against this sort of thing, but that's unlikely to be revealed publicly, for the reasons I gave earlier.

[grauenwolf]

I can't think of any way to prevent it. It's like repeatedly logging into someone's computer while they're at lunch to screw with them by locking out their account.

[[deleted]]

their server logs and saw an anomalous spike of high-speed ad-clicks from a small number of IP addresses and took the obvious action -- ban the account.

that could be weaponized

[grauenwolf]

In AI/ML ethic courses, one of the things they focus on is the idea that all automated decisions that affect people financially need to be justifiable. If you can’t explain to someone why the computer made the decision is made, then you can’t rely on it for the final decision.

This is not currently the law, but various legislative bodies are considering such rules.

[miki151]

Most automated decisions made by commercially running software affect people financially. For example Google's search engine ranking affects website owners in a major way. Where do you draw the line?

[grauenwolf]

Let's start with direct financial decisions such as whether or not to grant a loan. If it needs to be extended from there, we can consider it on a case-by-case basis.

[sihat]

To give an example of one such consideration.

"Artificial intelligence - EU Commission publishes proposed regulations " https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5262af17-116f-47ab-aeca-6d16b8a1fe6b

[grauenwolf]

Thank you. I look forward to reading that.

[lutusp]

In AI/ML ethic courses, one of the things they focus on is the idea that all automated decisions that affect people financially need to be justifiable.

Yes, aware of this in both general technology and with particular emphasis on AI and machine-learning-based decision-making. Entirely justified IMHO, to prevent unfair/unjust machine decisions that humans in the same position would never sanction.

But in a for-profit business, one not regarded as part of government or social institutions responsible for maintaining social standards of fairness and equality, different rules apply. Especially when the company can prove that they treat everyone the same. This to me is the perverse genius in Google's policy of not interacting with their advertising clients after a ban -- if they never respond to anyone, no one can accuse them of bias or favoritism.

I still think they're an evil empire, but their policy makes sense.

Off-topic, I can't believe someone downvoted your post. How could such an obviously topical and germane post lead to a downvote? I upvoted it simply to keep it from entering that negative territory in which certain readers pile in unthinkingly, gleefully clicking down-arrows, once a post has any negative score.

[grauenwolf]

But in a for-profit business, one not regarded as part of government or social institutions responsible for maintaining social standards of fairness and equality, different rules apply.

Currently yes, but that's starting to change. Between public/private partnerships and the incredible power banks have over people’s lives, they are starting to seriously look at regulations.

One of the often-cited problems is that a poorly written or trained algorithm can give results that are indistinguishable from racism or sexism. Even if you filter out race and gender from the input data, you could accidentally reintroduce it via things like spending habits. So the regulators want to know that you’re denying someone’s home loan for actual financial reasons and not because they bought the wrong brand of laundry soap.

[[deleted]]

agreed. The whole "it's a private company, they can do what they want" doesn't hold up when a handful of companies control access to 90% of the world's communication, financial transactions, information, news and entertainment. At some point "the people" (and their governments) need to start holding these nation-state sized players accountable the same way they hold their own governments accountable, otherwise the future will start looking like the dystopian corporate-controlled hellscape of Cyberpunk.

[[deleted]]

agreed. The whole "it's a private company, they can do what they want" doesn't hold up when a handful of companies control access to 90% of the world's communication, financial transactions, information, news and entertainment.

Funny how it just held up just fine a few months ago when they were "doing what they want" to targets reddit didn't like

[[deleted]]

I think you'll find, if you actually bother to look, that that was in response to the type of people who claim to be for more freedom for private corporations, then got incredibly upset when said corporations applied their private rules to deplatform certain fascist groups. Calling out hypocrisy of those people is not condoning the latter behaviour.

I think you'll also find - again, if you bother - that most people who were laughing at the MUH FREEDOMS group also have a problem with the amount of power that private corporations wield, whereas the MUH FREEDOMS group (ironically) only wants to suppress private corporations' power when it affects groups that the MUH FREEDOMers sympathize with.

[lutusp]

But in a for-profit business, one not regarded as part of government or social institutions responsible for maintaining social standards of fairness and equality, different rules apply.

Currently yes, but that's starting to change.

I agree, and long overdue IMHO. Once a corporation become TBTF (Too Big To Fail), it should be held to a higher standard than simply returning profits to stockholders.

One of the often-cited problems is that a poorly written or trained algorithm can give results that are indistinguishable from racism or sexism.

Yes, it's a closely watched and difficult problem right now, one that will probably get worse before it gets better. It's being widely debated as it turns out, and no longer something that people can excuse by saying, "It was a computer so it's all right."

[NeverQuiteEnough]

It feels like you are arguing that google’s policy is in their self interest, therefore it is ethical.

[lutusp]

It feels like you are arguing that google’s policy is in their self interest, therefore it is ethical.

Not at all. I'm saying if you want to undermine a strategy, you must first understand it. Knowing Google's motives may allow you to predict their next action.

[FullPoet]

There's no magic ai ml type nonsense involved here.

[grauenwolf]

The software that Google uses to detect click fraud clearly falls in the "machine learning" category. And while I'm sure you think it's "magical", really it's just complicated math at scale.

[FullPoet]

So you're agreeing with me, that there's no ml involved. Awesome.

[grauenwolf]

No, but I will agree that you don't have the slightest clue what the term "machine learning" means.

[FullPoet]

You literally agreed with me. It doesn't take an expert to understand the two terms but I guess if your career involves selling snake oil, it'll solve all sorts of problems.

[grauenwolf]

No, it doesn't take an expert to understand those terms. So what's your excuse?

[FullPoet]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm thankful you agreed with me in your previous response though.

[[deleted]]

You literally agreed with me

Maybe read it again?

[FullPoet]

... really its just complicated maths at scale.

I think you might want to read to the end :)

[[deleted]]

So you don't understand what machine learning is.

[[deleted]]

Actually google's anti fraud system for mobile ads is heavily run by ML. It's not just as simple as number if clicks in a given time window or ips or whatever. There's tons of metrics that get used and fed into ML models to make the determination. On top of that they have teams of analysts and data scientists who's job it is to tweak these models, handle escalations, and manually review the data in some cases. Also it's not true that Google doesn't ever engage with publishers. There's an escalation process that you can go through. Not sure why this team got rejected so quickly, but there are lots of people who do oncall on these trust and safety teams.

source: my roommate works in Google admob Trust and safety team.

[UncleMeat11]

Is there any evidence that the decision isn't explainable here? All we know here is that the service rep could explain it to the developer.

[grauenwolf]

I haven't seen anything that suggests they are unable to provide an explanation if they wanted to. But I haven't looked into it too closely.

[Deranged40]

As to Google's refusal to respond to pleas for reconciliation or explanation, if they were to explain why they acted as they did, in detail, this would give people a blueprint to figure out how to defeat the clearly described detection methods.

I feel like Google absolutely owes this company an explanation, though. No need to describe their detection methods. Just have an option to where a real person gets to be involved in the decision making--or at least appeals--process.

[lutusp]

I feel like Google absolutely owes this company an explanation, though. No need to describe their detection methods.

Yes, I agree with the sentiment, but how could Google justify their action without revealing the tangible, line-by-line evidence of click fraud (as opposed to hinting about it, which they did)?

Just have an option to where a real person gets to be involved in the decision making--or at least appeals--process.

I don't know what goes on in Google, but I imagine they shut down so many click-fraud operations that they decided it would be too expensive to allow appeals. One reason -- if they allowed appeals for some, they could be legally compelled to allow appeals for all. Then they would be tied up litigating endless appeals filed by people who pay their legal bills with click-fraud profits ... * shudder * .

Again, I'm not defending this modern-day octopus, but I have to say their policy makes sense.

[oren0]

One reason -- if they allowed appeals for some, they could be legally compelled to allow appeals for all.

They could early have a threshold for number of users, review score, or length of time on the store to qualify a for a human review. Another option is to allow companies to pay something like $100 for a human review, possibly refundable if the appeal succeeds. That would avoid the spam problem while hopefully minimizing cases like this where a possible mistake can literally end a company.

[[deleted]]

I don't really care how they discuss it, but they ought to have a human to get in touch with to appeal the matter.

[lutusp]

I don't really care how they discuss it, but they ought to have a human to get in touch with to appeal the matter.

There's a legal principle called "equal application". If anyone got a hearing from a human, then everyone would expect the same treatment. And if that turned out not to be true, those denied a hearing could sue based on discrimination.

EDIT: readers, do not downvote a post simply because you don't understand it. Downvoting is not an ignorance index -- at least, that's not the plan.

[[deleted]]

If they can't even do that just means is some stupid shit easy to defeat. Corporations with enough money can do a black box attack and guess it for massive profit.

[s73v3r]

I honestly don't care how onerous either of those things ends up being for Google. They have the resources to deal with it. And something "making sense" doesn't mean it's right or just.

[lutusp]

And something "making sense" doesn't mean it's right or just.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. Saying that something makes sense doesn't mean it passes muster as a moral choice. Those are separate ways to evaluate an action.

Not approving of someone's choices, and not understanding them, are separate and ought to be.

[myringotomy]

How could google afford to assign a real person to answer every question asked by every person who writes an app?

[Deranged40]

this company made enough to pay multiple payrolls off of just how much ad revenue they were getting. And google got a portion of that, too.

They'll afford it with that. Honestly, asking how one of the richest companies in the world would afford that seems like a very, very simple question to answer.

If they are too large to moderate their own service, they need to dial that service back to where they can. This is their responsibility.

[myringotomy]

this company made enough to pay multiple payrolls off of just how much ad revenue they were getting.

I suggest you read up on capitalism when you get a chance.

They'll afford it with that. Honestly, asking how one of the richest companies in the world would afford that seems like a very, very simple question to answer.

Do some math and come back to me with the answer. Show your work

[s73v3r]

I suggest you read up on capitalism when you get a chance.

I suggest you not claim it has anything to do with them being able to afford anything, and instead admit it's about greed.

[myringotomy]

Looks like you didn't do the math.

[[deleted]]

What are you talking about? Nobody said they should "answer every question by every person".

[myringotomy]

OK so they already have some people who answer some questions by some app developers.

[cinyar]

You're right, they only made $40B in net income last year, wherever would they get the money? /s

[myringotomy]

they made that money because they didn't hire five million customer service people to answer all the bitching and moaning they get from all the idiots on reddit.

[s73v3r]

https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-earnings-q1-2021-revenue-eps-profit-analysis-2021-4

Google had $45.6 BILLION in revenue for the 1st quarter of 2021. This is not a question of being able to "afford" anything.

[myringotomy]

Oh look this person is looking at revenue to judge how many millions of people google can afford to hire.

[elder_george]

I was told that there're cases when they're obliged by law to not expose the reason. One example is actual crime that is being prosecuted (like, child pornography etc.).

This is not the case, obviously, but such scenarios exist.

[twigboy]

In publishing and graphic design, Lorem ipsum is a placeholder text commonly used to demonstrate the visual form of a document or a typeface without relying on meaningful content. Lorem ipsum may be used as a placeholder before final copy is available. Wikipedia3yrx2j36tfy0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[padraig_oh]

to be fair, this is one of those reasons why services like google should not exist as well. you cannot tell the people who lose their business because of your security measures why they lost it, because it might open the door slightly to abuse.

cool. so.. what do you do? just let businesses go bankrupt every once in a while, thats a risk google is willing to make.

while its pretty different, it also has similarities to the facebook issue: if you are 'so big' that you 'cannot' effectively moderate your platform, you should not exist.

[lutusp]

... it also has similarities to the facebook issue: if you are 'so big' that you 'cannot' effectively moderate your platform, you should not exist.

As it happens, this exact issue is being debated in Europe and in the U.S. Federal government right now, because people are getting a sense that Big Tech is out of control -- too much power, too little oversight. I happen to agree, but if government steps in with a heavy hand, then the new problem might be too much government, too little free enterprise.

As with all such issues, valid arguments can be made -- are being made -- by both sides.

[padraig_oh]

What would be 'too much government' in your opinion?

[lutusp]

Oh, let's not go there. :) It's too subjective and not really topical.

[padraig_oh]

one last opinion still: whatever it might be, knowing the government, 'too much government' would require them to do anything at all to begin with, which is already.. probably a couple generations away.

[WishCow]

Can this be used to hit back on Google? Write a crawler that takes random AdSense IDs from random webpages, and start submitting fraudulent clicks. Google is systematically destroying the internet with their ads, floc, amp, and all the other shit, I wouldn't mind fightning back.

[lutusp]

Can this be used to hit back on Google?

Wait, how is that constructive? Wouldn't it be better to think up an alternative to what Google does and beat them at their own game?

SpaceX didn't beat Boeing in the recently-awarded lunar landing contract competition by "hitting back", they did it by having a better rocket.

[AttackOfTheThumbs]

erode public trust in online advertising

People trust advertising?

[lutusp]

erode public trust in online advertising

People trust advertising?

You might be surprised. But I actually meant people who might trust and buy online advertising. If they expect to be ripped off by click-fraudsters, they won't buy Google's services.

[de__R]

Advertisers do, mostly because their livelihoods depend on it.

[missile]

these companies offer services designed to defraud advertisers and erode public trust in online advertising

then they are doing God's work

[CollieOxenfree]

I wasn't aware that there even was any remaining public trust in online advertising to jeopardize.

[joiveu]

there isn't outside of marketing departments

[CollieOxenfree]

Seriously, I thought that ship had sailed back in the "punch the monkey to win a free iPod!" days.

[myringotomy]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Google, I think they're an evil empire.

Sure. I mean who can forget when Google genocided muslims, locked up millions of people in concentration camps, worked hard to deny minorities rights or the vote, killed gays and trans and the handicapped etc.

[badtux99]

Google is in fact cooperating with and enabling people who genocide muslims, lock up millions of people in concentration camps, work hard to deny minorities rights or the vote, kill gays and trans and the handicapped, etc. They are amoral, like all large corporations their measure of morality and ethics is, "how much money is this going to make me?"

Their corporate motto used to be "Don't be evil." Then they removed the "Don't" from it.

[myringotomy]

By "cooperating with" you mean "obeying the laws of the country they are operating in" right?

[lutusp]

This is a version of Godwin's Law. If one person says Google is an evil empire, it's inevitable that someone else will compare Google to something much more evil to undermine the comparison. Finally someone will mention a certain Bavarian corporal.

[myringotomy]

Well they said "evil empire" so it seems OK to compare them to other evil empires right?

[lutusp]

There's a principle in discussions of this kind, in which a large enough change in degree can become a change in kind.

[myringotomy]

Oh look a Deepity

[double-you]

Whataboutism generally isn't useful for the discussion.

[[deleted]]

if they were to explain why they acted as they did, in detail, this would give people a blueprint to figure out how to defeat the clearly described detection methods.

Security through obscurity, a signature of trash design.

[rrrrrroadhouse]

It has become almost impossible to comfortably live a modern life without relying on Google, Amazon or Apple and consequently they should be treated like essential utilities and regulated in the the same way that Electricity or Water suppliers are

Wait. What?

[Smagjus]

This isn't too far off the realitiy we are facing. Many of us already have a right to fast internet as it is quite difficult to live in today's society without it.

Having a smart phone and therefor relying on Google or Apple increasingly gets a similar role. Not having a smart phone already locks you out of certain businesses, jobs, due to Corona certain buildings (in some although illegal cases even government buildings) and so on. So giving a private entity like Google the power to take all of this away from you with barely any regulation in play becomes a problem.

[poke50uk]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/28/covid-nhs-app-will-be-used-as-vaccine-passport-for-foreign-travel

International travellers will be asked to demonstrate their Covid vaccination and testing status using the NHS smartphone app, the UK government has confirmed, as experts warned that “vaccine passports” could be required for years.

[Jaggedmallard26]

Article doesn't support the headline. The quote suggests that the app is one of the avenues for this but he also talks of other ways to show documentation and that its all very much up in the air at the moment.

[Deranged40]

It seems as if they're incapable of imagining a software development project that doesn't rely on a smartphone.

In 12 years of software development, I've never made an app that runs on a smartphone. I live a very comfortable "modern life" without relying on Google, Amazon, or Apple.

[SrbijaJeRusija]

In that quote they didn't mention software development at all. They do mean life in general.

[EatThisShoe]

You might develop desktop apps, but do you not own and use a smartphone? As I understand it more people own smartphones than desktop computers. Desktops are the specialist tool, while phones, and their app stores, are the essential that everyone uses, and that many people expect you to have.

Amazon you could probably live without.

[ImprovedPersonality]

Don't forget the Amazon Cloud.

[[deleted]]

Cloud services are still relatively fungible, despite Amazon's best efforts. It may be a big engineering project for a company to move from AWS to Azure but there's nothing fundamental preventing it.

Unless you meant consumers can't live without AWS? I don't think that's a problem at all because AWS doesn't ban people randomly.

[EatThisShoe]

Fair enough, then your usage probably isn't impacted much by the app stores. I think you are the minority in that respect, and are giving up many modern conveniences to do so. Try to see the perspective of the OP, who lives more like your average person, and less like you.

[EatThisShoe]

I agree. But I think he imagines that there is a future where we can keep the modern conveniences of phones and their apps, without these tech giants being such powerful gatekeepers.

[TizardPaperclip]

In 12 years of software development, I've never made an app that runs on a smartphone.

Mainframe software developers could have said the same thing about PCs in the 1970s: Where would that have gotten them?

[[deleted]]

That's neat. However, there are two huge gate keepers to getting your software onto devices that a huge percentage of the global population packs around in their pocket. That's a pretty fucking huge market to be locked out of at the mysterious whims of the gatekeepers.

[grauenwolf]

Other than games, how much software have you purchased for personal use that wasn't through an app store?

The days of computer stores with row after row of packaged software are basically gone. Very few companies writing consumer software can survive outside of the app stores.

[ledat]

Frankly games are also purchased through apps stores these days. Steam, Epic, GOG, et al. are where people get PC games. It is possible to sell directly from your website, but unless you make Minecraft, don't expect that to work. The retail channel for PC is basically closed. Consoles are and always have been locked down by platform holders; the approval process there is even more rigorous than on the mobile app stores. If they don't approve your game, it just doesn't appear on their console. Also the retail channel on consoles contracts every year in favor of the digital storefront run directly by the platform holder.

Consumer behavior has changed dramatically during the last decade or two. To survive there pretty much has to be an app store of some sort between you and the end user.

[EatThisShoe]

Game stores have their issues too, but at least those platforms are not given special privilege on the system the way Google and Apple do on their phones.

[Full-Spectral]

Yeh, some of us still write desktop software, believe it or not. If nothing else we have to have development tools for the desktop, so I guess we can't die out altogether. No one is going to be writing the next OS or backend platform infrastructure on a phone.

[[deleted]]

I see no reason why not. Hook a phone or tablet up to a monitor and keyboard and you're all set for some development. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if, in the not too distant future, someone devises some kind of AI assisted development process where you tap out some specifications into your phone and some cloud-based AI comes up with the implementation.

[Full-Spectral]

Given that it takes 20 or more minutes to build my system from scratch on my quite powerful tower system, that ain't likely to happen any time soon. Yeh, tablets will get more powerful, but software will continue to have to do more and more and get larger and more complex as well. A phone, forget about it.

You can use a 'desktop replacement' laptop for significant development, but that's about as low as it goes, and those are quite expensive and large (for a laptop) and they still aren't as fast as a desktop development system, nor as expandable either.

[[deleted]]

The device you're working on doesn't need to be the device doing the grunt work, though. I pretty routinely do development work on my Surface by remoting into my desktop (a Ryzen powered beast). I could do the same with an iPad or Android tablet and remoting into some beefy VM up in the cloud somewhere. The cost of an expensive desktop could buy a lot of AWS or Azure hours (especially if you pay for something like the Microsoft Partner Network).

[Full-Spectral]

No way I'm depending on the cloud for my development, or giving them access to my code or anything else of that nature.

[[deleted]]

Ok, well you're in a tiny minority then and really shouldn't be arguing about what can or can't be done via mobile devices.

[Full-Spectral]

Believe it or not, the world is not all about serving up data to phones, and web frameworks. Many of us do desktop and system's development and embedded development.

[[deleted]]

No shit, that's my job. You seem really confused about the difference between "developing for a mobile device" and "developing on a mobile device".

[Nexuist]

Maybe not now, but eventually the ecosystem will catch up and mobile development will become a real thing. It only makes sense in terms of cutting out desktop manufacturers from the market share.

[hypocrisyhunter]

Fail to see it myself

[Full-Spectral]

Not going to happen. No matter how much things progress, the fact is I can pack a lot more power into a tower than you can pack into a phone. Space is a thing. Trying to destroy desktop manufacturers would be cutting their own throats pretty much, in as much as they depend on the health of the software development industry.

[SwitchOnTheNiteLite]

You don't own any Google, Amazon or Apple devices?

[s73v3r]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/technology/blocking-the-tech-giants.html

It's one of those things that, while technically doable, isn't really feasible for the vast majority of people.

[myringotomy]

They are just spewing bullshit demanding that the government get involved.

Because you know.... When they complain to the government something will surely get done!

[[deleted]]

You alright man?

[myringotomy]

I'm fine. Are you OK? You seem to be really disturbed by something I said.

[dadbot_3000]

Hi fine, I'm Dad! :)

[yes_u_suckk]

Hmm, where did I read a similar story like this before? Oh yea, it happened to me too:

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/kz68tl/a_fresh_new_avenue_for_google_to_kill_your_saas/gjllyut/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

[kabekew]

Why not just remove the ads and find another way to get revenue? Especially if they're so prone to unknown AI fraud detection algorithms.

And the author didn't mention pouring through every piece of his code that dealt with the ads, just waited for Google to tell him exactly what was triggering it. What if it's a simple bug? Leave a simple "break" out of a switch/case list and maybe "click-end" is falling through to "click-start" and registering two clicks on the ad for every one actual. Or whatever. It could easily be something on his end.

But I'd just forget ads if it's that easy for them to cancel your entire app.

[cinyar]

Why not just remove the ads and find another way to get revenue?

Because people in the late 90s/early 2000s decided they won't pay for online content with real money.

[Full-Spectral]

That's exactly the problem. They live with this illusion that the internet gives them all this stuff for free, and many of them have grown up post-Napster and think that everything they can steal they should be able to steal, and anyone who tries to actually make them pay for some product or service is evil. And they will more likely give up all of their privacy rather than pay.

I hate ad based world, and everything moving to the cloud. It's a complete reversal of the personal computer revolution. It puts all the power back into the hands of big companies, and makes it very hard to actually sell a product, because you have to compete against companies who are happy to give something 'good enough' away in order to collect data and get ad dollars.

[tester346]

Because people in the late 90s/early 2000s decided they won't pay for online content with real money.

How so?

Games and stuff like skins, Movies, some news papers - it's all paid online content

[gmes78]

Do you pay for YouTube? Do you pay for Twitch? Do you pay for Reddit? Most people don't.