I know many apps use coin system, but in many cases it's just a children manipulation.
I pre-ordered a Purism 5 from the next batch in anger a few weeks ago. I want off this Android/eyeProduct bullshit. I want full control of my mobile device again.
Genuinely interested as I'm looking to explore this as a potential project myself with my team.
I think that is a valid reason, but it should be clear that is the reason.
So you fucking want me to advertise for you, Google? And for what reason? Does someone want their promotion/bonus and for that they have to reach x downloads?
In fact I'm going to go to the Play Store and give them a shitty review...
> Does someone want their promotion/bonus and for that they have to reach x downloads?
10x yes.
I don't know why anyone puts up with that.
Seems like someone messed up somewhere and is probably being resolved.
In all honesty though, no app with IAP (especially easy-to-access IAP or IAP that can't be locked by a parent) should get an E rating. Fleksy should get a higher age rating for this reason, not because of an emoji.
I disagree. I think it's Google's job to provide parents with the tools to lock down IAPs for children. Once the phone is locked down, IAPs shouldn't matter. And the ratings would be useless to a parent if every app with IAPs was rated > E. They wouldn't know if the content is what is giving it the higher rating or just the IAPs.
Under-12s can't have a Google Account of their own, so they can't spend money, so why would IAP be dangerous? The purchase part is behind a 13+ wall.
I would say, it’s probably because they added something to that toolbar.
It’s always like that for most apps, especially keyboard apps. A company abandon their app, then another company buy it from them and not know how to deal with the app. The app ends up with bloatware that no one asked for and then the app gets abandoned
Nope, the article states otherwise.
I'm bothered by how pilloried I am consistently when mentioning that most of these are 'free' apps and someone, somewhere, somehow needs to pay for it. Very few 'open source' projects make good 'Products' (they help, but alone OSS is not consumer oriented). It takes work to do these things. All kinds of work.
$1/download or 25 cents/month would wipe out 1/2 of consumer issues like this pretty quickly, but almost nobody wants to pay.
Edit: I should say this is Android 10 on Pixel 3a, not sure about other versions/manufacturers.
http://www.exideas.com/ME/index.php
(I'm using it because in my particular case predictions and autocorrect of other keyboards always backfired, plus swiping on those big buttons works better than trying to hit the right tiny qwerty button)
Someday I might buy an ortholinear keyboard for the desktop, it depends really on when the DasKeyboard deck breaks.
I would switch over to it today if the swipe typing was better but its currently "in beta" and that's a bit of an understatement tbh. in my experience the predictions are wrong 80% of the time
Well, they've been doing it for years and that's why there's people in the US Government talking about anti-trust investigations... Hopefully something comes of it.
2. Other keyboard apps have IAP but still have an E rating: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gingersoft...
I find it very unlikely that Google is intentionally picking on this small app, but by being more lenient in reviewing its own apps, Google is abusing its position.
If you're a CLI poweruser Hacker's Keyboard (FOSS) [1]. There is also Simple Keyboard (FOSS) [2] and there's a bunch of others available on F-Droid.
I do wonder what we should switch to from Qwerty, on mobile specifically. There is, for example, Keybee [3].
[1] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.pocketworkstation.pckeyb...
[2] https://f-droid.org/en/packages/rkr.simplekeyboard.inputmeth...
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=rkr.simplekeyb...
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Having a separate review system that provides different and more favourable treatment for (equivalent) internal apps is in and of itself an abuse of the store.
It's extremely convenient that Google had an oopsie that's entirely aligned with their own interests.
At a certain point (and both Google and Apple are big enough) it becomes their fault. You should have good enough policies. It’s been 10 years or so since the app stores launched. This isn’t new stuff anymore. It’s not untrodden territory.
It’s laziness at best, and that shouldn’t keep getting excused.
The Swastika exists as a Unicode character, yet is outlawed in Germany, along with other Nazi-associated symbols (Strafgesetzbuch section 86a).
It seems nobody talks about that.
As a software developer I would find it way too uncomfortable to build on a platform like that.
Malign neglect -- build a regulatory system that is valid in principle, but it implemented in a complex enough way that it tends to fail often, which has a tendency to scare off consumers, and subject everyone except yourself to it. People will tend to choose your product to avoid the hassle.
You see it everywhere, from non-Pixel Android phones trying to keep with new OS versions, to Windows and MacOS API churn and "secret APIs".
It is also as bad, but on the other hand I think internet infrastructure like app stores and all the other stuff should also be treated like roads in the end.
But government sucks with managing money :/
I think is most likely inconsistent reviewing. I've seen this with Apple, as well as with Google. The apps stores need to have very clear guidelines and well-defined appeal process, possibly with 3rd party arbitration.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
> Fleksy’s team have done so over the years — and come up with the PEGI 3 rating without issue. But this month they found they were being issued the questionnaire multiple times and then that their latest app update was blocked without explanation — meaning they had to reach out to Play Developer Support to ask what was going wrong.
> After some email back and forth with support staff they were told that the app contained age inappropriate emoji content. Here’s what Google wrote:
> > During review, we found that the content rating is not accurate for your app… Content ratings are used to inform consumers, especially parents, of potentially objectionable content that exists within an app.
> > For example, we found that your app contains content (e.g. emoji) that is not appropriate for all ages. Please refer to the attached screenshot.
Google is apparently upset that the app contains a middle finger emoji. Which GBoard also contains. GBoard is rated 3+, not 12+/16+.
Should python 3.5 have a PEGI rating? How about vim?
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/python-37/9nj46sx7x90p?act...
