exactly. Imagine the audacity of this company. I have a paid app and they are already charging me a percentage of the revenue. And behind my back they have begun running this banner.
I doubt they're aware of you enough to do it behind your back. They're more wanting to flag this "Bank of 4merica" app you're about to install has 8 other users.
I am obviously a very small player doing things as a hobby, I don't matter to Google. But what I am pointing out is that they already take a cut of whatever few dollars I earn (beyond the initial $25 I paid years ago just to get on the play store). If you see the thread, the OP asked their customer support and they said:
"Especially, since the response from customer service seems to suggest that the best way to get it removed is to run Google AdWords (which I am already running, btw)"
If the angle here is running ads and if they are already taking a cut, why are they doing this? If the angle is security, why not test the apps and have them removed! And in either case, why keep the developer in the dark? And why is there no way for small time insignificant devs like me to know how to get rid of the banner!
I think "Bank of 4merica" shouldn't have been there in the first place. Especially for a store that is running billions of $$ worth of transactions. This is Google, again, pushing a cost that it has to pay to external actors.
They should ban - and file criminal charges against - the developer who uploads a Bank of America app but isn't Bank of America. They should not do that against developers who upload their own non-fraudulent apps. Why is this concept difficult to understand?
Asking seriously. I don't get why these types of questions even come up. Google already claims to manually review all apps, so they know the Bank of America app isn't Bank of America, so why is it even allowed on the store? Why would anyone think it's hard for them to draw a line that would exclude fake Bank of America apps, but wouldn't exclude normal apps? I could understand the concern if it was a completely unmoderated store, or if the only tools available were some kind of keyword filtering. But that is not the case.
Quite simply: Because you can't have one without the other and you're living in a dream world if you think that your kind of outcome is even possible with a setup where a private megacorporation takes over the role of prosecutor, court and police.
No matter how you scream, if you demand Google play the cop, they'll play the cop in the easiest, cheapest possible way in situations where anything is unclear. The situation in this very topic was exactly caused because Google is trying to play a cop while crushing small devs underneath their anti-fraud measures.
There are no better outcomes in this situation. Not on Play Store, not on AppStore, not on any other store. Megacorps can't be cops, courts and enforcers at once and do a good job of it.
Let's talk more when you decide that perhaps policing should remain in hand of governments where it belongs.
We can, and we do. We already do this for not-digital stores. We've just gotten so greedy that we just throw our hands up and say "nope! Impossible!" when it comes to internet stores.
Guess what, I can go to Walmart and buy just about fucking anything and I can be very certain:
1. It won't kill me or seriously harm me if used in a manner consistent with it's instructions.
2. The product is what it says it is.
3. The product will do what it says it will do, to a reasonable expectation.
How did they do it? Did they burn the company to the ground with all this anti-fraud? No. And, I will give you this, they do get some help from consumer protection agencies like the FDA. But they put in effort, too. For example, the above does not apply to Amazon!
Regardless of what people in this thread demand (which I think is unlikely given the example), why would it be in anybody's interest (besides the developer) for Google to allow an app that commits trademark infringement at best (and, as implied, is probably some vehicle to steal confidential information like online banking credentials)?
It seems to be the "government is either big or small" false-dilemma argument, applied to Google.
That (wrong and stupid) argument goes like this: "We can't make it illegal to poison the water, because that would make the government big, and big governments do bad things like eugenics/Mao's Great Leap Forward/the Holocaust. Better to leave the water being poisoned, to avoid any risk of that happening!"
In this case it's "We can't require Google to ban obvious trademark infringements, because that would make Google's app store review onerous, and onerous review processes block legitimate apps like Netflix and Fortnite. Better to leave the trademark infringements there, to avoid any risk of those apps getting blocked!"
I love your comparison becuase it aptly shows how you demand Google to do the job of government which is utterly abhorrent to me. Just without oversight a government has.
(Usually while also complaining how Google can't be trusted too :P)
