Nextcloud cries foul over Google Play Store app rejection
Nextcloud cries foul over Google Play Store app rejection
go.theregister.com
Nextcloud cries foul over Google Play Store app rejection
You're viewing a single thread.
21 comments
-
I've experienced this exact issue with the Google Play Store with some clients and it's just the worst. This kinda thing happens because Google is essentially half-arsing an Apple-style comprehensive review of apps. For context, Apple offers thorough reviews pointing to exactly how the app violates policy/was rejected, with mostly free one-on-one support with a genuine Apple engineer to discuss or review the validity of the report/how to fix it. They're restrictive as hell and occasionally make mistakes, but at the end of the road there is a real, extremely competent human able to dedicate time to assist you.
Google uses a mix of human and automated reviewers that are even more incompetent than Apple's frontline reviewers. They will reject your app for what often feels like arbitrary reasons, and you're lucky if their reason amounts to more than a single sentence. Unlike Apple, from that point you have few options. I have yet to find an official way to reach an actually useful human unless you happen to know someone in Google's Android/Developer Relations team.
I'm actually certain that the issues facing Nextcloud are not some malicious anti-competitive effort, but yet more sheer and utter incompetence from every enterprise/business facing aspect of Google.
-
I’m actually certain that the issues facing Nextcloud are not some malicious anti-competitive effort, but yet more sheer and utter incompetence from every enterprise/business facing aspect of Google.
That both may be true and anticompetitive at the same time. Google cloud services apps certainly aren't randomly getting blocked or going through the same system. Google has steadfastly refused to reply to them or consider their needs.
-
Oh yeah for sure. Google, extremely large companies, and government apps essentially have different streams and access to support than the rest of us mere mortals. They all receive scrutiny, but they have much more ability to access real support and may have slightly altered guidelines. I just don't think it was an intentional and specific attempt to be anti-competitive.
-
I get what you're saying, but giving yourself a fast lane in other business areas is an explicit choice to be anticompetitive. That decision on its own is inherently malicious. It doesn't allow you to then say the consequences of that decision are neutral because you didn't single out this specific competitor to block (or at least there's no evidence you did). This is frankly a slam dunk case in the EU that will result in heavy fines for Google.
-
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Google to provide extra support and exceptions to parts of their guidelines to certain parties, including themselves. No one is claiming this is a consequence-neutral decision, and it's right to not inherently trust these exceptions, but it is not a black and white issue.
In this case, placing extra barriers around sensitive permissions like
MANAGE_EXTERNAL_STORAGEfor untrusted parties is perfectly reasonable, but the process they implemented should be competent and appealable to a real support person. What Google should be criticized for (and "heavily fined" by the EU if that were to happen) is their inconsistent and often incorrect baseline review process, as well as their lack of any real support. They are essentially part of a duopoly and should thus be forced to act responsibly.
-
-
Sin of omission?
-
-
-
21 comments