“Fewer Users” Warning Hurting Specialized and New Apps
209 comments
·May 2, 2025anilakar
crazygringo
Are you sure you don't rely on any third-party libraries that have been updated for security reasons? Are you sure there's no Android API being deprecated that you're still using?
I sympathize with the general idea that software that hasn't been updated in a long time is more likely to contain bugs and incompatibilities with newest OS versions. Whenever I've opened ancient apps on my iPhone or my Mac, they generally break either partially or entirely.
In your case I understand it might genuinely not need updates. But across the Play store as a whole, it seems like a largely beneficial policy. If there really aren't any dependencies that can/should be updated, surely you can make a tiny change to a text string somewhere, and get the added benefit of making sure your whole build chain still works? I get that it's annoying, but it really is valuable to weed out the truly unmaintained apps.
Gamemaster1379
No, Google is being aggressive likely due to liability.
I made an Android app that used React Native and it was the simplest thing ever. It had no auth, no telemetry, no persisted storage. Quite literally all it did was take text input and output it's braille equivalent and vice versa.
Had another one that made procedurally generated credits like you'd see at the end of a game. Same thing. No auth, no telemetry, etc.
I made a total of $3.97 for those apps. I did also receive a $350 settlement for some class action lawsuit Google lost about something they did to developers.
Closing my account removes me from potential future class action pools.
nout
You can update the version number and re-release. I think this may grant also adding the update note "Updated version number. Nothing else. Thank you Google".
throwaway494932
That works if meanwhile Google hasn't decided to increase the target api level requirements [1]. In that case you may not be able to just republish the app, and extensive refactoring may be necessary.
Forcing apps using old sdks out of the app store is probably the main reason they do this.
[1] https://developer.android.com/google/play/requirements/targe...
izacus
That is only really necessary if your app is using old privacy or security problematic APIs.
Which is usually the root cause of this complaining - "why do I have to refactor my app so it won't demand access to all private photos and documents anymore?!"
serial_dev
My new startup idea: “upload the same release with a different version and build number about once a month till the end of times" as a service.
Y_Y
My new startup idea: malicious compliance as a service
You forward us complaint emails and we create some AI slopscript that fulfils the least compliant interpretation of the rule it can think of.
The goal would be to use automated nonsense to try to frustrate MBAs who have managed to burrow all the way to the brain of a tech giant and are now burdening humanity with their folly.
hbn
Every once in a while they'll bump the minimum SDK version or whatever other upload requirements, so if you do that you may have to tweak a few other things to stay compliant, at which point it seems like their system is working as they intended it.
TuringNYC
New business idea:
AUaaS - App Update as a Service
Marsymars
This effectively exists already in the form of paying third-party for a maintenance contract. Actually bumping the version number and repushing an app is the trivial part of being forced to do yearly (or w/e) updates - there’s a bunch of grunt work that can’t be automated in a trivial way - bumping your API targets, fixing anything that breaks from that, updating your build pipelines, fixing anything that breaks from updating your build pipelines, etc.
ignoramous
> You can update the version number and re-release.
You kid, but Google makes substantial security and privacy SDK / API changes from one Android version to the next (reactively in response to abuse by 3p apps) & maintains backwards compatibility for a limited time period, post which incompatible apps are not visible to latest Androids on the Play Store. This means, developers have to continually update their "targetSdkVersion", if nothing else.
https://developer.android.com/guide/app-compatibility / https://developer.android.com/google/play/requirements/targe...
kazinator
Since they have 60 days to release something, they should have a dummy application which does nothing, but which just increments its version number.
mcny
I am not sure
I quote
----
Limited Functionality and Content
We do not allow apps that only have limited functionality and content.
Here is an example of a common violation:
Apps that are static without app-specific functionalities, for example, text only or PDF file apps
Apps with very little content and that do not provide an engaging user experience, for example, single wallpaper apps
Apps that are designed to do nothing or have no function
m463
or "bug fix: google bugging us"
Arelius
Ugh, on both mobile platforms, we have/had multiple popular games that their updates keep breaking, and they keep deprecating SDKs for. And each game is at on a different engine revision so we can't combone the work. We'd really like to keep these games up for for our mobile players, but we can't justify the cost, we make some money on these platforms, but nothing that justifies the immense cost.
Meanwhile, our console/steam/gog builds have seen an update or so at our discretion, and have just continued to run happily, and make more money.
Honestly it's hard to justify the maintenance effort to even consider porting out next games to mobile.
But really the people who are hurt are our players that already bought our game, but when the upgrade phones or OSes they no longer have an option to play unless they want to transfer their licenses to PC.
chinathrow
Apple sent the exact same thing out to a just-working-fine app I maintain in the App Store.
fsckboy
well, now you can update it to include links to things customers can buy outside the Apple ecosystem
godelski
Imagine if we talked about other computers like we talked about phones. It's just so weird
- you can only install programs from our approved package manager
- if you make any transactions through your program, we'll take a 30% cut
- you can't be access those files, you're not root
- you got root?! We're going to fucking sue you (yeah, I know about the PS3...)
- you can't change these settings
- you can't access that hardware
These companies have turned into scorpions[0]. It's myopic and they'll scream about how they're dying even though it's their own damn fault. These aren't just unavoidable things that are leading them to their deaths, but unreasonable. Foregoing larger future rewards (crossing the river) for short term ones (stinging).
It is insanity. Especially as we often try to justify it
cosmic_cheese
On one hand much of this is valid, but on the other many of the conveniences that desktop devs are accustomed to are increasingly questionable and ill-suited for the modern era.
Perhaps the most problematic aspect is the way that PC apps have traditionally been granted access to any resource at any time without question, with the largest obstacle being the occasional need for an admin password or UAC prompt. It’s been a chronic point of abuse by third party developers, with some of the giants like Adobe being among the worst (using a third party uninstaller after installing Creative Cloud is like shining a backlight in a hotel room). Third party programs must be treated as somewhat adversarial in order to make sure that the user maintains control and knows exactly what the software they’re using is doing.
So yes, mobile operating systems have been abusive, but at the same time desktop operating systems have been negligent and expanding third party app carte blanche to mobile apps is not the way forward.
xg15
> Why did we think this was a good idea?
Who is "we"? I think this had always been the wet dream of corporate types, not the users. In the PC space there are too many existing ecosystems to implement that kind of control (through Microsoft certainly tried with the whole "trusted computing" stuff) but as soon as there was an opportunity for a popular new "blue ocean" platform, they jumped.
You could see this most blatancy with ARM tablets. Microsoft released two versions of Windows, one for x86, one for ARM. The x86 one allowed installation of regular programs, the ARM version was restricted to Store apps. Made no sense from a technical perspective, the only reason is that they could.
godelski
> Who is "we"?
But my point is that the strategy is illogical even when one is simply profit maximizing. You get short term gains but they prevent future games. It need not even be that far in the future. See the iterative prisoners dilemma for a simple example. Defecting will get you higher reward in one round but if there are any further iterations then your rewards are lower.
That's myopia. And I'm not satisfied with any "it's just it is" style arguments because we (inclusive) are ultimately the ones who decide how things are. It's a collective decision, a society. And that's why I press, because we can all do better. A rising tide lifts all ships, kings and peasants alike.
theamk
This only applies to iPhones, most Androids are rootable, and even un-rooted, it is trivial (I am mean really trivial, like 3 clicks) to install programs from outside of app store.
My opinion is anyone who owns iPhone knows what they sign up for, and does not care. So I don't get your rant.
- Do you own iPhone? Well, you've made your bed, now lie in it. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of phones on the market - if you chose one without 3rd party app store, it's on you.
- Do you own Android? You have nothing to complain about, push any apks you want anytime. Hey, get Samsung - it comes with 2nd app store preinstalled (from Samsung of course). Maybe even root the phone if you want to.
(Note the GP mentions "MDM", and that's why they could not use this route. MDM means corporate security, and they apparently made a rule to block 3rd party installs. This is sad, and I feel for them... but this is a corporate problem, regular users are not affected)
- Are you complaining on behalf of other people? They are all adults and made their own choice. If you want to make a difference, advocate against Apple. Or even better, advocate for regulations against Apple, to make their products worse so that more people move to Androids.
godelski
> most Androids are rootable
> So I don't get your rant.
My point has nothing to do with what you "can" do. It has everything to do with the need for such efforts in the first place.
jonathanstrange
These kind of barriers don't concern end users directly. They're just a huge pain point for developers, especially developers who don't make their software for commercial purposes only. The harder it is to develop, publish, and maintain an app, the less cool projects are being developed and the less innovation you get.
Nobody can quantify how much these practices stifle innovation because there are plenty of app developers and there is no comparison to how the app landscape would look if there were less barriers. Perhaps it's not a big deal but the fact is that nobody knows...
ryu2k2
Don't worry. The time when our computers will be locked down the same way will come in our life time.
fluidcruft
Rent seekers gonna rent seek.
godelski
Scorpions gonna scorpion
But I'm not willing to let that be the answer. It's a thought terminating clique
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
mig39
It sounds like game consoles :-(
BobaFloutist
At least your bank, school, apartment, and airline aren't locking core services behind carrying a fucking PlayStation around with you.
Consoles feel different because they're one-purpose machines. Sure, it's irritating if they hardcore a maximum fps or what have you, but it feels less offensive for them to be locked down.
It's kind of like the difference of Disneyland having weird, restrictive, draconian rules versus just a public park. Which is also one of two brands of public parks in your city. That you also have to use to deposit checks.
godelski
> It sounds like game consoles :-(
>> - you got root?! We're going to fucking sue you (yeah, I know about the PS3...)
autoexec
> Imagine if we talked about other computers like we talked about phones. I
That's the goal for PCs too. Windows is already partway there and they keep pushing.
klysm
Automate pushing an update every week with no changes other than a bit flipping back and forth or something. If they want to set up stupid shit then they get to get stupid shit
nashashmi
Google should delist the app from search rather than remove it entirely from the play store for old stale apps.
1vuio0pswjnm7
"The email made it pretty clear that Google wants developers to continuously push new versions to customers."
Why. It is not Google's software. Shouldn't that decision be left to the software author.
1vuio0pswjnm7
Being in control of the OS, can Google in some cases force software authors to rewrite software and "release new versions" by changing/adding/removing APIs, etc.
suddenexample
A question for Googlers who may be responsible/adjacent - what is the intended function of this warning? It seems to be attempting to filter out low quality apps, but instead seems to be killing any attempt to change the status quo. If the app has fewer users than competing apps, the message Google is sending is "we don't need any new apps that do similar things to existing apps" and "if you're a small app, don't even think about unseating the dominant players."
Google's Play Store policies have been harebrained for quite some time - previously with the 15 reviewer approach they decided to make it even harder for developers with fewer resources to distribute their apps. It's ironic that even though the iOS App Store is arguably more of a walled garden, it's so much friendlier to human beings who are trying to build a product. But at this point it seems ingrained in Google to release self-defeating features (remember the finder network that prioritized "first of its kind privacy" over being able to find things?)
vineyardmike
> we don't need any new apps that do similar things to existing apps"
I’m not a “Googler who may be responsible”, but my understanding is that Apple does this too… and Google App Store has a reputation for being lower quality.
I assume it’s because unoriginal apps at some point are just “polluting” the market and making it harder to find higher quality products. Which is generally what users want. Some things are redundant - how many flashlight apps, weather apps, ChatGPT wrappers, etc are needed? I guess Google doesn’t see value in hosting and distributing such apps.
I’m not sure I agree with this, but I understand it. Target or Walmart don’t need to sell your random trinkets that no one buys, and Google is deciding that the same applies to their store. At least with Android you can generally side load and access alternative stores, so you can build a richer marketplace where different “stores” can serve different customers.
duskwuff
> Some things are redundant - how many flashlight apps, weather apps, ChatGPT wrappers, etc are needed?
For what it's worth, the wording Apple uses in their App Review Guidelines [1] is:
> 4.3(b): Also avoid piling on to a category that is already saturated; the App Store has enough fart, burp, flashlight, fortune telling, dating, drinking games, and Kama Sutra apps, etc. already. We will reject these apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality experience.
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
redserk
I’ll give credit to Apple for formally writing a policy to this extent, but it’s disappointing. There’s always the risk of putting in a lot of time for an app that is genuinely unique but Apple may not think so.
I’d much rather Apple let in junk apps but do more to promote curated lists of good apps. I like the “Editors Choice” section. I think it is generally a step in the right direction to surface decent apps.
Plus there’s also already some kind of precedent: Maps does an acceptable job promoting third-party “Guides” to attractions and food for many cities.
pluto_modadic
quoting from a nice piece: https://lmnt.me/blog/app-stores-and-payment-methods.html "It still blows my mind how little the App Store has improved over the last decade. It’s barely changed. Almost every bad thing about the App Store still exists. And almost every good thing that happened for app distribution and payment methods is just the result of regulation."
fauigerzigerk
I don't really understand this thinking. If a long tail of mostly unremarkable apps make the good ones hard to find then that is a flaw of the ranking algorithm.
If an app is not even in the app store, how can it possibly attract user interest? What if users happen to like some quirky feature that seems unremarkable to app store reviewers?
App stores need better search and filtering.
Marsymars
> App stores need better search and filtering.
I used to think this, but then I just abandoned their search and now use Kagi. (I use the !gp bang for the Play Store, no App Store bang seems to exist.)
I can't imagine ever going back to native store searches now that they're full of ads.
aeve890
>I assume it’s because unoriginal apps at some point are just “polluting” the market and making it harder to find higher quality products.
Originality and quality are orthogonal.
hedora
I don’t get how FDroid can be so much better.
I’ve given up on Android, but when I used it, I always checked FDroid first.
Marsymars
> I’m not a “Googler who may be responsible”, but my understanding is that Apple does this too… and Google App Store has a reputation for being lower quality.
It doesn't help much for Apple. You can search for pretty much anything on the App Store and get at best a handful of useful results, followed by page after page of complete dreck.
int_19h
Speaking as a user, I do find that low number of downloads and reviews for an app strongly correlates with low quality and outright scams. The problem is that you have all those shops cranking out barely functioning apps for trivial things just to get into the listing and hopefully capture a few installs from users who don't have the time or the inclination to do proper vetting. And those apps are so pervasive that they drown out the genuinely useful and well-made new apps.
notatoad
i'm guessing it's intended to warn that you're about to download one of the 500 apps that look like the ChatGPT app, but aren't actually the ChatGPT app.
shadowgovt
Correct. Google's incentive is not to maximize players in the space. Their user isn't the developer; it's the person who downloads things onto an Android phone. If those users get burned too often because it's too hard to tell legitimate apps from knock-offs, they'll stop trusting the whole Play store and probably the whole phone platform (in favor of Apple instead).
Google has the numbers to know that "buyer [or in this case, downloader] beware" isn't good enough because people aren't smart enough. It sucks, but at scale it's a pattern we see over and over and over again (see also "Why does Windows force updates," "Why is Apple so paranoid about side-loading," "Why is it so hard to get an app on Apple's App Store in the first place," and "Why does Facebook log a big warning in the browser console to not paste any code in there and hit enter").
fluidcruft
Its a nice theory but if Google actually cared about that Play Store would periodically take out the trash by prompting users to confirm they DON'T want recently installed/unused apps to be sent to /dev/null.
supportengineer
It is ALWAYS tied to someone's promotion or career advancement.
blibble
I'd assume someone has a KPI to increase number of app updates...
pk97
I noticed this banner on one of my own apps while installing it for my mom on a new phone. The banner said "This app has fewer users than others...", almost as if they are discouraging users from installing it without even informing me. I looked it up online and it seems like many people have begun seeing this. I am linking a thread. If anyone from Google is reading this, such opaque policies are not appreciated!
ncr100
It does seem like an Anti-Pattern.
Presumably (some faction inside) Google wants to warn users about scam apps. However this seems like blatant shaming and ostracization of smaller developers who did not spend $$$$$ on Marketing through Google's Ad Network.
Seems Monopolistic of Google to me.
jjani
> Presumably (some faction inside) Google wants to warn users about scam apps
Or (the ads faction that effectively runs the company) wants to warn users about apps that don't spend much on AdWords and Play Store ads.
gs17
That feels more like it, I opened the Play Store to check it out, there was an ad for some waifu-gacha 3 star app with 1k downloads, 19 reviews, released last week, reviews imply it's something that was taken off the store before reuploaded under a new name. No banner saying it's questionable.
Although, I spent a while trying to find an app that did have the banner, and nothing seems to get it on my account.
pk97
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.
robertlagrant
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.
thayne
It also disadvantages any apps that compete with Google's own apps.
register
Calling it an anti-pattern is a euphemism. Let's call it what it is: a completely stupid idea.
zerd
"Are you sure you want to install OSM? Don't you know Google Maps is better? You should try Google Maps"
p_ing
On the other hand....
https://chromewebstore.google.com/search/ublock
As a user who suddenly knows nothing about uBlock the ad blocker, are you going to trust an addin with 2k installs and 4.3 stars, or an addin with 30m installs and 4.7 stars?
Install base can be informative when choosing.... anything, really. In many people's minds something that is used more is better in some metric, be it performance, reliability, price, et. al.
EDIT: My numbers were way off :-)
pk97
I agree with what you have said. It's what you mentioned at the end about people judging based on metrics - it should be up to people to judge for themselves, not the platform! The platform should present data, not try to sway opinions. Besides the message itself is so hand wavy if I am using the phrase correctly, what is Google trying to convey through the message? If something is a legit scam, they should either not be publishing such apps or be testing and removing them.
I am increasingly convinced they are trying to direct traffic to apps that use their Ads network under the guise of such vaguely-about-security messages.
p_ing
> it should be up to people to judge for themselves, not the platform!
If you download an App using MSFT Edge on Windows, it will warn you (MoTW). If you download an App using any browser on macOS, it will warn you (also MoTW). But if you grab apps via the App Store, there's no warning.
Is that also unfair?
While it's been many years since I did hands on end user support, or even worse, support for family friends back in the 9x days, people still have little clue about what they're doing without a big flashing warning sitting in front of them..., which even that sometimes does not work.
Even I'll often choose an extension for Firefox that has more installs. If I'm going to get a SAML decoder, I want the least phishy SAML decoder available.
saghm
It sounds like showing those numbers already conveys the information you find useful; the question isn't whether the number of users is informative, but whether it's reasonable for Google to bucket apps into groups of competitors and then choose a threshold of minimum number of users to avoid actively discouraging additional users. I'm not opposed to the idea of owners of app marketplaces taking a more active step in curating things to try to help users, but this way of doing it seems pretty dubious.
p_ing
You're going off the premise that I'm an average user who would otherwise stare blankly at a zsh terminal.
Those warnings in the Store aren't meant for you or I.
VWWHFSfQ
There's a weird nuance to this just because algorithmically PageRank itself was even somewhat anti-competitive.
"This page has fewer links to it than others, therefore it will be buried in search results"
I think most people appreciated Google's early search algos that prioritized "well-traffic'd" sites and sources over others. Obviously that was a long time ago before SEO (and Google themselves) destroyed everything. Back then there were actually still competitors in the search market so it didn't matter. Not the case now.
kedean
I always thought the idea there was that a website needed to grow organically before google would rank it highly, which makes sense to me. Prove yourself first by building a network, they aren't obligated to help out.
The difference here is that the play store is the one and only way to get apps for a regular user. By putting that banner up, they're discouraging anyone from trying it even if they found out about it through other channels.
The analog in 2000 or so would be if Microsoft added a warning banner to any website you visited in Internet Explorer with a low link count.
crazygringo
I don't really see the difference.
The entire point is that you can find the app through other channels -- articles, posts, social media.
They just link to the Play store, but that's how you find them. The banner shouldn't be discouraging if you've come from a post that explains it's brand-new!
luckylion
Freshbot was a well-known effect back then (arguably still is, at least I see effects that look very similar where some new content section will rank quickly and amazingly well for a week or two and then slowly sink to the level you'd expect from such new content).
But in the end, it's network effects, only that this banner seems to enforce it manually and explicitly. The old way would've been to not show apps with few users in the top spots.
ChuckMcM
This article and the comments here are kind of scary. It feels like Google's only supporting apps that "drive engagement". That sounds like they want to force developers into producing stuff they can show ads in because they need more ads, not like they need more apps.
It also feels a bit like how software people STILL haven't figured out how to deal with a product that has a finite development cycle. Which is to say, a piece of code that is done and doesn't need any changes. You don't have Hardware stores forcing supply companies to come out with a new version of shovel every year right? A shovel is a shovel. There are probably 8 different types for various uses and within those perhaps two or three variants. So 24 or 30 variant of 'shovel' and your done. Some software can be like that too.
The subtext though that Google is actively hurting their developers for unspecified goals which look like they are desperate to make more money but it certainly could be some other thing. It reminds me of all the wailing about people whose web pages fell in the rankings because they hadn't been "updated" but when you've got the most useful description of say the scientific method on the web, why should you need to update that? It hasn't changed. And yet the 'older' your page got, the lower and lower it ranked.
int_19h
> It also feels a bit like how software people STILL haven't figured out how to deal with a product that has a finite development cycle. Which is to say, a piece of code that is done and doesn't need any changes.
The problem is that platforms these days are in a constant state of slow rug pull. Even if you have absolutely no bugs to fix and no new features to add, you still need to keep things updated just to make it work on the most recent version of the platform (which users are going to be on because that's the only one that receives security fixes). A slightly less damning case is when the app works but doesn't integrate well with the new parts of the platform, or even just its changing look and feel. E.g. old Windows apps often work fine but don't support hi-DPI properly, meaning that they look very ugly on that 4K display.
I don't think it's a problem that can be fully solved, but the impact would be much less severe if platforms stopped churn for the sake of churn. For example, we don't need a "fresh new" UI redesign every 3 years. And when it comes to API stability, Win32 should be considered the exemplary model of that - yes, it is a lot of effort to keep things working 30 years after they first shipped, but that's the only way if we don't want to be an industry that's constantly building castles on sand.
_fat_santa
Why does it seem like Google is trying to kill Android, or at least their app ecosystem.
- They now require a DUNS number to submit an app
- You now need 10-15 people to "QA" your app before submitting
- Now this.
It just seems that Google wants the "major" apps and nothing else.
MattDaEskimo
My leading theory is they're preparing for a increasing onslaught of spam "vibe-coded" shovelware
GuinansEyebrows
"I love sowing but I hate reaping"
freedomben
Indeed, and on the other end they are locking down the OS more and more. Pretty soon I suspect all my reasons for going Android over the years will no longer be valid and we'll just have a choice between overlords rather than have one closed and one open platform.
hedora
That boat sailed for me years ago. iOS respects my preferences regarding data sharing, app selection, etc, much more than Android.
archerx
I had a PWA turned app on the android App Store and I just gave up jumping through google’s hoops to keep it up. I feel like Google is killing Google, like some bad actors have gotten control of the reins and is slowly steering it off a cliff.
b0ner_t0ner
My problem with Google Play is the obvious fake reviews, there is no way Microsoft has 4+ ratings for most of their apps. It's too easy to buy a wave of 5-star reviews.
lofaszvanitt
When something is off, way off, or you can't find a plausible explanation, that means it is a long term thing not in the general populace's sight, yet. It comes later, might be a move in order to pave way for something or moving something out of the way for something.
The big corps are NOT autonomous, they are moved around like chess pieces. They are tentacles of a bigger entity, whatever that is.
gooob
what do you think the solution is? should we just all use fdroid?
poincaredisk
>They now require a DUNS number to submit an app
Even for non-us residents?
pkaye
Its an EU DSA requirement for app stores to display information about developers publicly available. Apple is also doing it. And I guess these companies are applying the requirement worldwide unless some countries are opposed to it.
frosted-flakes
DUNS is used globally.
lakomen
[dead]
kitallis
the Apple App Store has always required a DUNS number.
ceejayoz
No, it hasn't, and doesn't.
https://developer.apple.com/help/account/membership/D-U-N-S/
> If you’re enrolling as an individual, you don’t need a D‑U‑N‑S Number.
kitallis
Yes, for businesses. That's true for Play Store also https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
tlogan
It would be great if they added something like a “frequently uninstalled app” label. That’s much more helpful for users. But I get why Google prefers this kind of warning — it supports their ad business.
(I really want “frequently uninstalled” label for games: because games are very often 100% different than what they show or describe)
Marsymars
Would hurt some utility apps though - sometimes I download an app to use for one thing, it works perfectly, and I uninstall it.
(You get an automatic refund if you pay for an app and then uninstall again quickly. I've repurchased apps that I've been refunded for in this way - I don't want to punish developers who make apps that accomplish their function quickly.)
strongpigeon
In what way does it support their ads business?
tlogan
Because if a developer spends heavily on ads — especially misleading ones for games — they’ll get a lot of installs, and the warning disappears.
butz
Very sad state of affairs on Play Store. Independent app developers are clearly not welcome there. I already pulled all my hobby apps from Play Store, just to sleep soundly at night without thinking how to pass yet another app review after update, when policies keep getting more ridiculous each time. To the point where one update finally was pushed to the store, and another got the same issue again. The biggest question is, how does one closes their Google Play Developer Account? There is no button in admin for that.
saghm
Based on another comment on this thread, it sounds like maybe the easiest way would have been to leave all those apps up without updating them, and then hopefully get a 60-day warning that you can ignore.
reddalo
I did ignore it and I got my developer account banned. They didn't even refund my 15 $.
snowwrestler
> It feels like Google is unfairly punishing smaller, specialized developers in favor of mass-market apps.
This seems like a problem across Google generally. Search seems like it has been tuned toward the mass market in almost every query, which buries high-quality content, which is by its nature rare, specialized, and less well-known.
They have also tuned the features of Search in this direction, for example replacing queries with similar but more common text strings, and applying “did you mean” redirection more often, instead of just executing the search as typed. They now do this even if you quote the search string!
Google tests and tunes its algorithm updates. If an algorithm update results in lower prominence for sites they consider popular, they tune the algorithm to “fix” it. As a friend said, the modern Google would never release an algorithm update if it doesn’t put Home Depot on the first page for “buy power saw.” Result: a generous in-kind marketing subsidy for whoever is already popular. I’m convinced this is why Fandom and Quora still hang around polluting SERPs. They’re well-known because they’re well-known, like the Kardashians.
sometimes_all
How does something like this ever get into production, especially at a place like Google, unless being hostile to new apps and developers is the plan? Or do they want to push potential developers into Google's double-dipping: pay them money to get on to the Play Store + pay a lot more money to get eyeballs on your app and thus more users.
aquir
Typical Big-tech approach: the solution is a non-solution without giving much thought to it but looks good for the board of investors and/or stock owners and they can say "we are stopping scam apps on our marketplace" on the next slides created by marketing. They just don't give a shit. (Just read the book "Careless People" - read it if you are not convinced. Engagement over everything)
duxup
This almost smells like a google throwing their hands up and saying "Well maybe it's a harmful app and they should use something else ... I dunno, put a warning on it."
I see similar-ish warnings on Amazon about "frequently returned item", but I've no idea if it is true or why. Maybe an underlying vendor for the same item is bad? Amazon (who doesn't care about bad vendors as far as I can tell) just slaps a label on it and throws up their hands.
rahimnathwani
I find that "frequently returned item" warning really useful. It's a reminder to look at the 2 star and 3 star reviews. Sometimes it's just a sizing issue. At other times some subset of people have a specific issue. The issue may or may not be something that affects me (e.g. some people can't operate something that doesn't have really clear instructions).
freedomben
I do too, but I think it's important to consider that these are actually pretty different. In the Google example, the banner is being displayed because of something that isn't necessarily the fault of the dev and isn't itself an indicator of problematic behavior (and indeed is the starting position for all developers of a new app), whereas at least Amazon (presumably) is basing it off of actual performance data that indicate poor performance/behavior.
duxup
It's not even clear if frequently returned item is a fault of a given seller. May sellers are involved in the "same" item on Amazon.
rahimnathwani
Yes 100% agree
duxup
I find the “frequently returned item” warning totally confusing. It usually isn’t reflected in their reviews that I can tell….
I have to wonder if there’s some sort of strange meta where people search for one thing buy something and not realize that they’re actually looking for something else that’s difficult to search.
toast0
Or buy something and the warehouse ships them another. I bought something from amazon where reviews said about half the people got the wrong product, and I got the wrong product, returned it and got the wrong one again, and then they wouldn't let me try again.
In a twist, I had previously attempted to order the right product from a different vendor, but I put the wrong one in the cart, and had to pay a restocking fee to return it. They sent me the right one when I ordered it properly.
ww520
"frequently returned item" = "frequently uninstalled app"
Fewer installed is not it.
ipaddr
Amazon does something similiar so google copied. Before you get a buy now button you need 25 reviews which you get by sending free products to volunteers.
csomar
Apples/Oranges. The equivalent of "frequently returned item" is "frequently reported app"
AlexanderTheGr8
Off-topic to the comments here, I am impressed by how the poster has described their issue so eloquently!
They mentioned 6 reasons for why they have an issue with the banner : each of the 6 is a valid concern and put very eloquently and clearly.
I suppose I only noticed this because I am used to speaking/writing/reading/listening mid-quality English in day-to-day life as a programmer.
Our company just got a warning that we have sixty days to release something on Play or have our developer console account closed. The email made it pretty clear that Google wants developers to continuously push new versions to customers. We have no new features nor bug fixes in backlog. There is nothing to update.
The only purpose of our software is to control hardware that our company makes. Nobody uses it for fun, they use it because they have to. If I had a say, I'd automate even larger parts of the customer workflow.
(Yes, at first we released a mobile PWA but ran into limitations related to push notifications and MDM support. We then created the native app, but our customers cannot remotely load APKs not signed by Google).