Google Ejects Open-Source WireGuard From Play Store Over Donation Links (phoronix.com) 39
Google appears to be removing apps that have donation links, including open-source apps where donations are one of the main sources of revenue. WireGuard, a free and open-source VPN, has been reportedly dropped over this according to WireGuard lead developer Jason Donenfeld. Phoronix reports: After waiting days for Google to review the latest version of their secure VPN tunnel application, it was approved and then removed and delisted -- including older versions of WireGuard. The reversal comes on the basis of violating their "payments policy." The only bit of possible "payments" within the WireGuard app is a donation link within the program taking the user to the WireGuard website should anyone want to donate to support this promising open-source secure networking tech. An appeal to the situation was also rejected by Google, Donenfeld has confirmed this morning on their mailing list. In trying to make it back into Android's Play Store, Jason has dropped the donation link from the Android app version while it's still awaiting review from Google. UPDATE: WireGuard lead developer Jason Donenfeld says the app "has been relisted on the Play Store in its usual location," adding: "Sorry again for any inconvenience this has caused users, or caused developers who depend on the availability of our app for use by their
own users. We won't be making any similar changes unless we're certain that we won't be delisted."
Evil app store monopoly (Score:1, Insightful)
In the absence of competition it should be illegal for Google to leverage itself in this manner.
Re:Evil app store monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that you can run alternative app stores like Amazon on most Android phones (there are one or 2 very old devices where carriers insisted on the "allow apps from 3rd party sources" feature being disabled for those devices but pretty much anything you can buy in 2019 supports alternative app stores). And since you can install these alternative stores, Google doesn't have a monopoly.
They may dominate the market but they aren't a monopoly.
Re:Evil app store monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that its still a monopoly or anti-trust case unless there is a competitor that has significant market share (which none of them do) or Google offers a choice of stores on first use and dosn't leverage its market position for unfair advantage which they do effectively forcing their store on others through licensing deals with manufacturers. The existence of other companies products in itself isn't defence against monopoly when they only account for a small fraction of market and have access issues. This has been proven in court with Microsoft and others several times now.
Re: (Score:2)
unless there is a competitor that has significant market share (which none of them do)
Currently. But if Google keeps this shit up, they will create the need for alternatives by themselves. If people can't get the stuff they want where they expect to find it, they start looking elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the ROM, you can usually disable them, which is as close to uninstalling something in the ROM image (which I know is usually just a readonly mounted partition) that you can get to with most rom security systems.
Re: (Score:2)
"They may dominate the market but they aren't a monopoly."
Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market.
Re: (Score:2)
How is Microsoft a monopoly in the browser software space these days? They haven't had a majority share of that segment of software in a long time. Internet Explorer and Edge together only have ~15% market share.
Do you plan to sell groceries in the grocery store (Score:2, Redundant)
Your gut reaction makes sense to me. I can understand why someone might want to sell an app in a certain store, without it being sold *by* that store.
Let's think about what "Evil app store monopoly" ... "should be illegal to leverage itself" means, when you talk about wanting to sell an app *in* their store, but not *through* their store.
Of course the Google's Play store isn't the only place to buy Android apps, but let's pretend it was. Let's pretend the only place you could buy or get apps was in
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you've certainly cornered the market for strawman arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Your gut reaction makes sense to me. I can understand why someone might want to sell an app in a certain store, without it being sold *by* that store.
wat
You can sell something in someone else's marketplace, but the play store is a store, not a marketplace.
Let's pretend the only place you could buy or get apps was in Google's store. You think it would or should be illegal for them to sell apps, because they were the only ones selling them?
It should be illegal for them to simultaneously sell apps and prevent others from selling apps. They don't do that, but Apple does.
It's Google's app STORE. Where Google sells apps. If you want your app to be sold in their store, they sell it. Just like you can't set up a hamburger stand inside of McDonald's.
Right, but you can have a McDonald's right next to a Burger King.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Your gut reaction makes sense to me. I can understand why someone might want to sell an app in a certain store, without it being sold *by* that store.
> wat
Translation: I understand that you hate Google, bit let's engage our brain for a moment.
Payment policy (Score:3, Insightful)
It is time for a community managed app store.
Re:Payment policy (Score:5, Interesting)
https://f-droid.org/ [f-droid.org]
On the other hand:
https://slashdot.org/story/19/... [slashdot.org]
https://puri.sm/products/libre... [puri.sm]
Re:Payment policy (Score:4, Interesting)
their store their rules... (Score:4, Interesting)
its not that hard to understand...
create a in payment option that google process's and make people aware they can also donate on your website...
stop whining
Re: (Score:1)
With massive fees that eats most of the money donated and makes google richer
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think 'most' means what you think it does.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If this were Apple - the only way to get an app onto a device is via their store - and they were pulling this, then I'd agree it's wrong. But Google isn't that restrictive. While you and I
Re: (Score:2)
make people aware they can also donate on your website...
How do you suppose they do that without being allowed to provide a link?
Re: (Score:2)
Would be nice though if they had an option for open source projects to get revenue in an approved way without the 30% cut. Even the bastards at PayPal let you donate to charities without the usual heavy fees.
It would be good for users too. One of the reasons they give for not allowing other payment methods is security, and to be fair it is a bit risky going to some random payment link.
Re: (Score:2)
Would be nice though if they had an option for open source projects to get revenue in an approved way without the 30% cut. Even the bastards at PayPal let you donate to charities without the usual heavy fees.
Google Play allows donations to charities without taking a cut. Similar support for open source project donations would be a good idea, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
its not that hard to understand...
create a in payment option that google process's and make people aware they can also donate on your website...
stop whining
OTOH: https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com]
Google has apparently restored WireGuard to the Play store. I haven't checked to see if it still has the donation link.
Re: (Score:2)
"In trying to make it back into Android's Play Store, Jason has dropped the donation link from the Android app version while it's still awaiting review from Google."
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking to this case in particular, I think the solution that makes the most sense would be to use whatever process Google allows for in-app payments as a way to do donations. If Google disallows all donations instead of just ones that don't use the official process... well, that seems like a real
Monopoly power (Score:1, Flamebait)
Random ads good? (Score:2)
Guess the ad company does not like to see its users and apps connecting up like that.
Google : All your transactions are belong to us! (Score:2)
Developer : Somebody set up us the bomb!
Google : You have no chance to survive make your time.
Developer : Move 'ZIG'
Developer: For great justice!
Goggle wants their 30% MFers! (Score:1)
just a thought (Score:1)
I can see a rationale on Google's part, the link goes to a page on the dev's product site not directly to a secure payment processor. The dev's page is at least nominally less/un verifiable and arguably less secure. If this is the case a fix would be to put a direct link to a payment processor page.
really shows what is important (Score:2)
this really shows what is important.
an open source app gets banned because of the inclusion of a much needed donations link, which will hurt exactly nobody.
but real vile apps, bombarding you with ads, build in trackers, backdoors, privacy violating bs, harmful payloads or even plain copies of OSS software (but with the mentioned before build in) all get a green light and are only discovered by accident.
really?
Heehee (Score:2)
Lemme get this straight (Score:2)
Asking for full reign of the phone to spy on your user and sell his very soul is a-ok, but asking him for money is not?
Then again, what did you expect from a company that made its business model exactly that?
Microsoft do the same thing (Score:1)
Came up against this for my first foray into the Universal Windows Platform/Microsoft store late last year for shits and giggles, consisting of a non-profit "at cost" virtual mobile sms/voip app for windows desktops/mobiles. Essentially you're prohibited from having any app that receives any money through any means other than their own payment system, even if it's non-profit. So I just let people side-load the appx package and use a traditional "website" delivery method instead. Incidentally the WinRT/UWP p
Inconsistently applied? (Score:2)
Consider the NPR One app. It asks for donations repeatedly.