10 ms·

Banned for Life

• kelvin0 12y ago
  Google's 'normal' support is horrendous and it takes forever to get someone to even pretend to help you. We had a paying google app engine account for our company... I've dealt with them, and it`s a pain to say the least. Now I can only imagine how they treat people who they consider 'deliquent' (not saying that the author is one)
• _petronius 12y ago
  The author used other people's content, packaged them into an app, and then repeatedly submitted the same app (with one minor modification -- the use of someone else's content) to the Play store. 'Beta' apps or apps that you write for close friends/family can be distributed via other means than the main app market. This article admits that he ignored all of the warnings he was given, and now accuses Google of unfair business practice. I don't buy it. There's a lot of logical contortion going on to dump the blame for this back on Google. "The suspension email stated that I was trying to impersonate another company" is followed quickly by "Well since Google was silent about the exact reason for suspension..."; he even admits to intentionally ignoring the warnings he was given because "if I thought a human at Google was giving me the warning, I might have listened more carefully." That is, at best, negligently poor reasoning. At worst, it's a contemptuous disrespect for the other party you're engaging in business with, which is pretty good grounds for them exercising their option to terminate that business relationship. Google, Amazon, etc., are for-profit commercial service providers. If you're going to violate their policies, they will stop working with you, regardless of the impact on your business. Anyone who depends on a third party supplier for anything, in any business context, should keep that in mind -- they have no duty to you beyond whatever contract you have signed (if, of course, you have signed one).
  • Keyframe 12y ago
    Judging by the names of the apps/wrappers (if they were same in the store) from here http://distantfutu.re/page/portfolio.html http://distantfutu.re/page/portfolio.html he is lucky to not get sued at the same time as well. He's even argumentative about trademark infringement in his post. I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.
    • rrrx3 12y ago
      Agreed - the whole thing reads like a giant whine, to me. The author has zero concept of what he's done wrong, which is astounding to me.
      • TuringTest 12y ago
        The question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime? The 'whine' was about being banned for life because of novice mistakes made without bad faith. How is one supposed to learn the ropes? It's like learning to drive in a country where driving schools didn't exist and the full extent of traffic laws applied to you. How possibly could the author learn what he was doing wrong?
        • nl 12y ago
          How is one supposed to learn the ropes? Maybe listen to one of the many warnings he was given?
          • pbhjpbhj 12y ago
            Warning, your post is in breech of my policies, the policies of HN, the law local to you or some other policy that applies due to jurisdiction that applies to the server, you, me or HN. Please correct this error immediately or your account will be terminated. /s
        • danielweber 12y ago
          The majority of the post was "it's their fault that they didn't stop me!" When his first app was suspended, Google should have given a better response when he asked what he did wrong. But to just continue forward doing the exact same thing he was doing before was asking for trouble. If Google wouldn't give him a clear answer, he should have asked his friends or the community.
          • aceperry 12y ago
            His friends consisted of "99.9% of everyone I know uses iOS", are probably contemptuous of Android. Which seems to be a common attitude amongst the apple fanbois. I don't think his friends could've helped him.
  • Chinpokoman 12y ago
    And to be honest I don't know why he's scared to make a new google account. Yeah sure they track your IP address and whatnot but they certainly wont do anything about it. They wont ban an entire household, that's just bullshit. I don't know why he thought getting suspended wasn't a big deal because he was "innocent". That's also a fairly stupid idea as well.
    • g051051 12y ago
      In addition to carefully making Google's case for them, he then descended into paranoia about Google's tracking. For someone supposedly so experienced in software development, he has some weird ideas about what's right and what's wrong.
    • danielweber 12y ago
      If you are trying to monetize, you have likely given Google your real name and address and bank account information, and would need to do the same thing for your new account. Submitting fraudulent information in order to get money could cross you into serious trouble with the IRS or the law.
      • chrisBob 12y ago
        If you are making a business out of this then creating a new business entity shouldn't be that difficult.
    • rgbrenner 12y ago
      Wait.. so Google's terms state that any new accounts will be terminated.. but you're saying he should just go ahead and violate that term of Google's policies as well? And assuming that Google won't carry out the threat is a poor way to run a business.. at any time, Google may decide any earnings he's made will be forfeited.
      • tomjen3 12y ago
        Well he has already violated the terms, might as well keep going - he has very little left to lose.
  • therobot24 12y ago
    "I thought I was doing these guys a favor. The apps I wrote would have cost about $50,000 each if I had charged for my time. I basically donated $500,000 to the Android community. That’s how I saw things." This is where i stopped reading - the author is a bit delusional.
    • bicx 12y ago
      Yeah, he clearly wasn't thinking straight on that one. Even if the time he spent on the first app was worth $50k, he said earlier that he created the other apps just by changing the YouTube channel on the first app and repackaging. Definitely not $500k of work by any stretch.
    • mattstocum 12y ago
      "The app was simple. Launch it and it display the videos for a single YouTube channel. I made the app, and it was really nice and a pleasure to use." I'm assuming his hourly rate is $50,000/hr. Did he do anything other than wrap the web page for the channel in a web view? I'm not familiar with Android, but on iOS, you can accomplish this without writing a single line of code, everything could be done inside Interface Builder. I can't imagine it's any more difficult on Android.
      • therobot24 12y ago
        he probably factored in all the time he spent learning to build the first app, and then multiplied it by 10...if he's an independent developer i'd be very hesitant to contract him given his poor billing techniques
        • Dylan16807 12y ago
          On the other hand I would be quite hesitant to hire a developer to build a customized video player for tens of thousands of dollars if he was going to go on and sell that same code to others for $200 a pop.
          • 12y ago
  • ascendantlogic 12y ago
    The only thing I side with him on is this: "I emailed Google back and asked them to tell me exactly what I need to change to be compliant with the rules. Is it the icon? The name? The disclaimer? What? Google refused to give me any additional information." If you ask why, you should be told exactly what is wrong. Or better yet, be told exactly what is wrong right away. Obviously packaging other people's content is the issue here, but you should be told exactly what rules are being broken so there's no ambiguity.
    • Fuxy 12y ago
      I find it amazing that everyone here seems to be a lawyer or extremely well versed in the rules while agreeing with them. What's wrong with packaging other people's content as long as you're not profiting from it? If the content owner wants it removed there should be a way to request that while not negatively affecting the developers account. Plus the whole 3 strikes rule seems a bit too strict for me especially if it's going to be enforced so heavy handedly for what is obviously a minor issue that could have been resolved by a email conversation. Not to mention other Google accounts like Google Wallet and Google Music getting banned for something like this. What does one have to do with the other? Do you mean to tell me if i get banned in the Play store all Google account on all services get banned including my Google drive, Google docs, gmail etc Doesn't that seem a bit absurd to anyone? How would you like your entire music library deleted because your developer account got banned?
      • true_religion 12y ago
        Their policies don't necessarily need to be due to 'ethics' or laws, but just their opinion of what makes a good marketplace. Perhaps they feel that repackaging other peoples content leads to needless confusion about what is official and not, since anyone and their cat can put up an app that wraps a Youtube channel. Maybe they feel that apps like that are low quality, so to set a bar they'll restrict it to only the actual rights holders who have a more vested stake in making a good app. It's really a business decision.
      • PeterisP 12y ago
        "What's wrong with packaging other people's content as long as you're not profiting from it?" Everything, and the "you're not profiting from it" part is completely irrelevant and can be skipped from the sentence. Redistributing other people's content without their consent is simply not allowed, and the fact that they have made this content freely available on channel A doesn't give you permission to make it freely available on channel B. And no matter what position you take on copyright, impersonating their name, as the original poster had done, is clearly unethical and unexcusable.
  • mempko 12y ago
    What this shows is how anti-user closed app eco-systems are. Some users probably found his app very useful but can't use it because lawyers.
    • icebraining 12y ago
      You'd have the same problem if you were on the open web and the company sent a DMCA takedown request to your hosting company.
      • VLM 12y ago
        Mentioning that venue B is screwed up, is hardly proof that that venue A being screwed up, is a good thing.
        • icebraining 12y ago
          I'm not saying it is a good thing. I'm saying it's not a problem caused by "closed app eco-systems". Trademarks apply to both closed and open marketplaces.
      • ben0x539 12y ago
        At least the DMCA takedown wouldn't also somehow disable his google music subscription.
        • icebraining 12y ago
          That's a problem with bundling services under a single account, not with the closed-ecosystem part. For example, GoDaddy suspends all your sites when you get a DMCA takedown to any single one of them. I agree that the approach is bonkers, but it's not an issue exclusive to "walled gardens".
      • tomjen3 12y ago
        Actually no. The DMCA is a nationalistic piece of absolute garbage, but it does allow you to file a counter notification, google does not.
  • hawleyal 12y ago
    Completely disagree. People at Google acted in a ridiculous manner. This is atrocious.
  • norswap 12y ago
    "It's all your fault any way." Very mature, man.
  • sergiosgc 12y ago
    Your position is a common response: paint the affected individual in such light that you can safely state he's different from you, and making it obvious this wouldn't possibly happen to you. The important facts, irrespective of the correctness of app suspension are: a) App suspension led to Google Wallet suspension. Google Wallet can be used as a payment processor, so this decision could have affected entirely independent revenue streams. It's inexcusable for Google to do this! b) Google support is awful. This is a known fact. AdSense suspensions are probably the most common. I've been affected by one. Google does not answer. Ever. Period. (well, if you're lucky you get a canned response). The conclusion is that an irresponsible and deaf company now holds power over huge swaths of people. I'm uncomfortable. And so should you be.
    • byuu 12y ago
      B is probably a legal issue. If they give you any additional information outside of their canned, lawyer-approved responses, you may be able to use that in a legal claim against them.
    • kazinator 12y ago
      I can't speak for _petronius, but what makes this guy obviously different from me is: * he thinks that an icon which links to something on the web is an "app", whereas I think that an app is something which contains a significant amount of program logic. * he thinks that changing the configuration (like YT channel id) generates a whole new app. This is like claiming that, at your Unix command line, "grep foo" is a different app from "grep bar" because we changed the string that it looks for. * he thinks that going from an "app" with a hard-coded YT channel to one with a user-configurable channel is a big step in development, the "real app". * he thinks he can no longer write apps for Android, whereas it is obvious to me that you can put a .apk file up for download anywhere you want, and get paid by means other than Google Wallet. * he cannot see what he obviously did wrong: make a spammy app that only re-frames other people's content, and infringes on trademarks, etc. In response to the first takedown, I would have pulled all copies of this app immediately. Google only holds power over those swaths of people who surrendered some aspects of their lives to Google.
      • 12y ago
  • spinlock 12y ago
    That's just bad business. It's like the MPAA and RIAA suing their customers. In the short run you can bully a few independent people but, in the long run, you are eroding your user base -- or developer base in this case. I consider the apps in question fair use. Now, I've never read google's TOS but, then again, neither has anyone else. You'll notice that the op was working with the system to try to understand its rules. That's the quintessence of what a hacker does. It seems to me that google is making themselves vulnerable to an open app store. One where you can experiment and collect user feedback before committing resources to a project.
  • poopsintub 12y ago
    Youtube provides videos that users specifically label as a creative commons license, and are available for commercial use. He may have not been in the wrong, though it's pretty doubtful considering his questionable judgement on everything else.
  • mangecoeur 12y ago
    You're missing the nub of the issue - sure the guy made mistakes and ignored warnings. But the fact remains that he was banned by an impersonal, automated system with no chance of appeal, and as such is now effectively locked out of the entire android app ecosystem for ever - an therefore an entire possible line of business. Note there's also no possibility for him to mend his ways and be re-instated. Imagine if the same applied to people who run physical businesses - some shop owner skips some paperwork thinking it'll be harmless, gets caught, gets a fine... and then is banned from ever owning a shop ever again for the rest of his life, no appeal. This is our brave new cloud-oriented future - where all the power to regulate what content is available to millions of users lies in the hands of a couple of private companies. I find the whole thing very worrying, and am very glad that the FirefoxOS and Ubuntu phone projects are moving forward to provide some kind of alternative.
  • on_and_off 12y ago
    I tried one of his apks : The Verge TV. It installs an app of the same name. The First Screen is the logo of the website on 2/3 of the screen and a description of the website. In a corner there is a disclaimer button, clicking on it leads me to a disclaimer explaining that 'The Verge TV is not affiliated with The Verge'. I find it hard to believe that he did not realize that an app copying the names & graphics of popular websites would get him banned for impersonation. Chances are that some of these websites reported him to Google.
• baldfat 12y ago
  March 25th post that was on Hacker News at least twice already. This is the only article on his blog. Here is hi github page: https://github.com/sgehrman https://github.com/sgehrman He is still developing. I am wondering what the updated status is on this? Seems that if he is still developing he isn't banned for life? There already were some petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/sergey-brin-respect-the-efforts-of-small-and-indie-android-developers?recruiter=86686242&utm_campaign=twitter_link&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition+via+%40Change https://www.change.org/petitions/sergey-brin-respect-the-eff...
  • Cthulhu_ 12y ago
    So that petition is accusing one dude in Google of disrespecting 'small and indie android developers' when they're blatantly violating trademark law? Lols.
    • fuzzywalrus 12y ago
      Never underestimate the pariah complex... While it'd be nice for Google to explain why he was banned, it already sounds like he understands why he was banned but he had a chance to grand-stand so he's on his soapbox.
• JamesMcMinn 12y ago
  The author used others people's content and spammed with play store with official sounding apps, then ignored warnings to stop. Got caught and punished for it, now Google won't let him do it again. Honestly, it just sounds like Google were doing the right thing and protecting it's users from low quality spam apps.
  • izacus 12y ago
    So banning him from using Google Wallet to BUY anything ever again is a proportional response? O.o
  • fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    The lack of feedback would be annoying.
  • ben0x539 12y ago
    Ignored warnings to stop? It sounds like the author did one thing (uploading ten apps) and then got three "strikes" and a full suspension without doing anything else.
    • true_religion 12y ago
      That's like saying a mass murder just killed 10 people in a single go so it should be 'just one thing' in court. Each individual act is a separate 'crime'.
      • darushimo 12y ago
        That's a false equivalence. Apps are not people.
        • ColinCera 12y ago
          > Apps are not people. Not yet.
          • 12y ago
• oskarth 12y ago
  Did OP do something wrong? Yes, definitely. Is being banned from all other Google-related activities forever without recourse proportional? No. The response - being the sum of all its direct consequences - is tyrannical, and worse, automatic and faceless. Unless you enjoy being A Perfectly Obedient Citizen (TM), the only real lesson here is to not put all your eggs in one basket. Use Google, use Apple, but beware of letting them have full control of important parts of your life.
  • girvo 12y ago
    I use their devices... but my data I own, at least as much as possible. I don't know what I did before ownCloud...
• M4v3R 12y ago
  > I continued to be an Apple fan until they announced the “walled garden” and the app review process for iOS. I am totally against having to get permission from a corporation to write and sell apps (...). All Apple products are banned in my household to make a statement about programmer freedom. > Now my Google play account and Google Wallet account are both banned for life. I’m no longer able to write Android apps ever again, and my family and I can’t even use Google wallet to purchase from Google Play. So much for programmer freedom. Apple is at least very explicit about its rules. Google seemingly lets you do whatever you want, but then bans you if you do something that they don't like. Now of course one can say that the ban is justified, as author clearly misused the Play store and didn't follow the guidelines. If he did try to do that on the App Store his apps would be probably instantly rejected, but he would not be banned. The funny thing is that there's a big chance that he would then write a blog post about how App Store is a "walled garden" and that on Play store that would be OK.
  • icebraining 12y ago
    The rule is explicit: it's called trademark law. You can't just copy the name and logo of another company, append " TV" and distribute it publicly. This is an official app of The Verge: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Ios&appID=542512225 http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Ios&appID=54251... This is OP's unofficial app: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=com.sickboots.sickvideos.theverge http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=c... It's pretty clear that this is prone to cause confusion, even with the disclaimer.
    • wolfgke 12y ago
      Quotes from the article: "I emailed Google back and asked them to tell me exactly what I need to change to be compliant with the rules. Is it the icon? The name? The disclaimer? What? Google refused to give me any additional information. So, I just left the app in the suspended state and never attempted to update it since I really didn’t know what I needed to change" "Why didn’t you give the apps a different name? Well since Google was silent about the exact reason for suspension, I didn’t know what I needed to do. Was it the app name? Probably, but I didn’t know for sure." If Google does not inform you in detail that it was the trademark that was violated, they have no right to ban you on that reason.
• arsalanb 12y ago
  After just skimming through the post, I have a question for OP. Why did you create 10 different apps? Why not just one app, that gave the user the ability to enter a channel name and check out all their videos? I think that's better, both in terms of not spamming — for the lack of a better work — the Play Store, as well as UX. I'm afraid the actions taken by Google in this case can be justified, since publishing 10 apps a day is a dubious figure. However, I'll give it to you, they could've made the regulations regarding this a little more explicit and visible.
  • icebraining 12y ago
    Why not just one app, that gave the user the ability to enter a channel name and check out all their videos? According to the article, that's what he was working on after releasing the 10 apps. However, I'll give it to you, they could've made the regulations regarding this a little more explicit and visible. It's called trademark law. It's very explicit that you can't copy the logo and name of another company.
• ripb 12y ago
  >1 app, 2 apps, 10 apps? Did it matter either way? I could have posted 50 apps if I wanted >So I was using the app store as my beta testing platform. >I was planning on taking all these apps down in a few weeks anyway. >I thought I could get maybe 20-30 apps suspended without repercussions >In this age of Google, it’s now “obey or face an instant lifetime ban.” This is progress? What does the future hold if we are forced to strictly obey and understand every legal gotcha in Google’s terms of service? I believe in freedom, not blind obedience. I made some mistakes and would have removed all my apps if I had known the true consequences. He spammed the Google Play store with multiple unfinished versions of the same applications for "beta testing", received warnings which he chose to ignore and then got banned for his gross abuse of the service. Instead of "I messed up, here's a warning to others" it's a case of "why don't Google let me mess around with their service as much as I like? This is oppression, this is America goddamnit, where's muh freedom?!?" Zero sympathy. Well done to Google on taking down one of the many people spamming the Play store with junk.
  • bengillies 12y ago
    Getting banned from publishing apps to the Play Store is reasonable and proportional. Getting banned from all Google services whether related or not seems a bit much imho.
  • w0utert 12y ago
    > Zero sympathy. Well done to Google on taking down one of the many people spamming the Play store with junk. Yes, also, I find it highly amusing how his long-winded whine about 'programmer freedom' makes me appreciate the walled-garden approach of iOS just a tiny bit more. Sure, it's not perfect, and it's not 'freedom', but at the very least it does make it very explicit to 'developers' like the author that they should take their spammy app tactics (and free-riding on someone else's content, using a free service and its users as your beta testing platform) somewhere else. Funny thing is I'm pretty sure he would get banned from the Windows Phone store pretty quickly as well (and rightly so)
• jpwagner 12y ago
  Sure Google is a private company. Sure this means they have no formal responsibility to this developer. Programmatically, he seems to deserve to be sanctioned: he violated their policies for several weeks with several different apps. I emailed Google back and asked them to tell me exactly what I need to change to be compliant with the rules. Is it the icon? The name? The disclaimer? What? Google refused to give me any additional information. But if his story is true, he makes good faith efforts to be compliant. What, if any, is the social responsibility a company has that owns half the market of mobile development platforms to people that could potentially make a living using their platform? Monopolies/duopolies throw a wrench in the invisible hand, and I'm not sure there's a clear answer.
  • kunai 12y ago
    Even if his story is true there's a lot of fallacious arguments and lack of reasoning in his claims. It's the type of "I-can-do-anything" mentality that was his pitfall. Just because he might think that using somebody else's trademark to create a revenue stream for yourself is doing them a favor, doesn't mean anybody else has to. I don't have pity for his point-of-view, but I do think that it was unnecessary and irrelevant to suspend his Google Wallet account. Still, it doesn't matter what I think: Google reserves the right to do whatever they want.
  • krschultz 12y ago
    A good faith effort would be reading the terms & conditions. He obviously didn't, because they are quite clear about not being able to put other companies' names in your app name. If the article was about someone that had this happen, and they read the conditions and didn't see anything that they had violated, and then asked Google - that would be a different story. This guy just can't be bothered to put the effort in himself.
    • msandford 12y ago
      Yeah because I'm sure the T&C is only a page or two long, not like say 50k words. https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about/play-terms.html https://play.google.com/intl/en_us/about/play-terms.html The idea that you should have to scrutinize that entire document to determine what you did wrong is crazy. Ostensibly someone on the Google side of things determined what he did that was not OK right? I mean they don't just ban people for the hell of it right? He had to do something SPECIFICALLY wrong, and that might correspond to some portion of the T&C. Is it so unreasonable to ask WHAT section you're violating? I get that everyone on HN thinks the guy is a douche and deserves what he got. But to refuse to even say what? That's douchey too.
• TuringTest 12y ago
  ...and thus, the natural consequences of walled-garden markets begin to rear their ugly heads. It was all love and rainbows while the gold rush held it promise of instant richness and fame, wasn't it?
• VLM 12y ago
  "Google could have, and still could block my gmail" They have a different revenue generation business model for gmail. My son's account was blocked, couldn't figure out why, and they wouldn't say. I suspect some kind of data mining thing where watching more than 5000 blitzwinger videos on youtube "proves" you're a kid or a teen. He does like his video games... He falls into that gap between being old enough to have an account per google's rules, but young enough to not have his own credit card or a drivers license (they'd accept a scanned copy of his DL, but he's not 16 yet) so the only option to reinstate his account was to get Dad (me) to charge 50 cents on his CC to "prove" he's of legal age. So part of the gmail business model is to hold kids (teens) accounts hostage with a threat of permanent deletion until Dad pays 50 cents. I'm not annoyed at the 50 cents, gmail is worth a large multiple of that. I am annoyed that at a random time long after BAU was initiated, they felt like charging us for fun. It is possible the gmail biz model of randomly applied fees could be applied to play store / wallet accounts. Not sure if OP would have flown off into as much of a rage for a $50 reinstatement fee, or if he'd be like me, pissed off at the "business agreement" being unilaterally rewritten at a later date. Either way, the gmail biz model does appear to be superior to the play/wallet/app store biz model, at least GOOG would get some revenue, however little. I assume based on evidence Google dropped the "don't be evil" motto a long time ago.
  • smeyer 12y ago
    Do you really think Gmail's business email is collecting arbitrary one-time fees of 50 cents on minors' accounts? Is this really any more than a rounding error compared to advertising revenue, charging for extra space, and providing email services to companies and schools? The whole $0.50 thing may be a scummy tactic, but it really doesn't seem to be their business model.
    • VLM 12y ago
      Perhaps my choice of phrase "business model" was inaccurate, but the core message stands, that in summary one part of google operates under the "any problem can be fixed with a credit card" outlook on crime and punishment, and another part of google operates under a brutal inhumane lifetime banhammer model, a capital punishment with no trial or appeal judicial model. Its an interesting inconsistency.
• neil_s 12y ago
  Summary: No sympathy for the blog author, but its still terrifying how broad Google's ban-hammer can be if you run afoul of them.
  • puredemo 12y ago
    idk, these are a bunch of products I barely even knew about. I thought google wallet went away around the same time google wave did, for instance.
    • ZoFreX 12y ago
      It's the only way you can buy content (apps, music, books etc) and devices from the Play Store. If you use Android, not having a functioning Wallet is extremely limiting.
  • GFischer 12y ago
    He was definitely in the wrong (by using logos and names without permission for starters) and ignorant of basic trademark and copyright law (which many of us probably are too!), but I also worry about two things: - Google's continued lack of communication (most everything is automated), - and their ban-hammer (much like Paypal's, it can be terrifying for a small developer). BTW, he added the following disclaimer to his app (not that it did much good): "DISCLAIMER: The Verge TV App is not affiliated with The Verge. Information shown in this app is obtained through public YouTube APIs. We are fans of The Verge and we wanted a better viewing experience to watch their videos. Any copyrighted material belongs to the original owners. If you want changes made to this app, please let us know." I want to use (for example) photos and names of cars for an app - do I need to get permission from the brand owners?
• fishnchips 12y ago
  I wouldn't call the OP blameless but there is a lesson here: it is dangerous for a professional software developer to become too invested in one technology or platform, especially with a capricious corporate overlord behind it.
• danielweber 12y ago
  If you ever find yourself making this argument: I didn’t think they would mind, I thought I was doing them a favor. Pointing people to their great content. It’s free advertising then stop. Other people don't want your "free" advertising.
• mikehall314 12y ago
  It's an unfortunately common idea that copyright violation is sometimes okay because it amounts to "free advertising" for the organisation whose content you're co-opting. I was disappointed to see that argument made here.
• mimog 12y ago
  Good. I wish all the people developing crappy and useless apps, flooding the place, would get banned. You publish 10 different apps where the only thing that changes is the youtube channel, and claim you were beta testing? I hope Apple and Microsoft ban you as well.
  • Iftheshoefits 12y ago
    The most amusing thing is that the Play Store has an incredibly easy way alpha test as well as beta test versions that are distributed only to users who have signed up for testing. In fact, when you upload the apk to the store it's almost literally impossible to miss it. The one issue I have with their test mechanism is that test users have to have an account with Google(even if it's just membership to a single Google Group). What the OP did was publish spammy garbage. Not to say Google couldn't afford to put a more human touch on their customer and developer relations, but the OP is just way out of line on this one.
• Donzo 12y ago
  He wants to know the difference between an app and the web: see Chubby Checker settlement.
• tomordonez 12y ago
  I understand that an app is content wrapped around a concept. It is common sense not to use a known name unless you are asking for trouble. I could make a news app. Do I want to name it CNN? No, unless I am authorized to use that name. It is naive to think you can use just any name, even if you meant good. You are looking for trouble. Next time call it something else. The video app. Learn by Watching...I mean you couldn't come up with another name?
  • VLM 12y ago
    The problem is he specifically tried to figure out if that was the problem and google wouldn't say. Perhaps he got the banhammer for not getting using a (TM) after the brand name in the descriptions. Perhaps he's actually in trouble for not getting permission for some of the content in the screenshots. All of that is probably a good idea. But specifically, he will never know why he got the banhammer and we will never know either. The problem with whatever-as-a-service business model, is you're never worth more than a penny more to the provider than the cost of sales to replace you when/if you leave. So, people are throwing themselves at google to be an app dev, so I guess he's worth precisely nothing at all to GOOG. A business relationship where one side is worthless to the other is best described as parasitism and often that doesn't turn out well for the parasite. That is the true lesson for all app developers to learn from this story. An inherent part of the biz model is you can get annihilated and the host (host as in parasite lifecycle model) will not care. Make sure you understand that, when making business decisions.
• aaronem 12y ago
  I started laughing at the bit about all Apple products being banned in his household to make a statement about freedom, and I just didn't stop.
• Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  > Anyone using my simplistic beta quality app would know instantly that this is not “official” A silly assumption that both generalizes the audience and is ignorant of copyright laws, imo. Not a valid argument in a court situation either. I could make the crappiest Geocities site out there, but as soon as I put a Google logo somewhere, people may assume it is an official Google site or affiliated with it. > One of my apps contained the channel id for Vice.com. Since the length of the app name is so limited I decided on “Vice TV” Yup, there you go. Using a brand name, showing a brand's video - intent isn't the issue here, the author was impersonating Vice.com there. The author is guilty of being naive and lax about copyright and trademark laws, imo.
  • stevejones 12y ago
    So you complain about being ignorant about copyright laws then demonstrate complete ignorance of them. Copyright has nothing to do with it.
    • Someone1234 12y ago
      The apps contained icons taken from third parties and then utilised to advertise these apps. So copyright is very much in play here, as well as trademark infringement. As to your jab at the person above, it might have come across better if it was even remotely constructive. For example, you could explain WHY you feel they misunderstand copyright rather than just waving your hands around and claiming that they're "completely ignorant."
  • hawleyal 12y ago
    Almost like how Youtube ignores copyright and trademark laws.
    • icebraining 12y ago
      Except they don't, and in fact have built a state-of-the-art video and audio recognition system to deal with infringement[1], and of course respond to DMCA takedown requests. There's plenty of infringement on YouTube, of course, but that's inevitable for any platform where anonymous users can submit media files. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Content_ID http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Content_ID
• justinpaulson 12y ago
  "These warnings to me felt like the warnings on a plastic bag telling you not to put it over your head" And yet you still put the bag over your head and took a deep breath! Why not just remove the ten apps and use common sense to determine that naming your apps after another company's product is a bad idea??
• JimmaDaRustla 12y ago
  The ignorance hurts my bones.
• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• jeffehobbs 12y ago
  Duh. Honestly, why don't you just use a friend's account?
• chrisBob 12y ago
  The author should also do a quick search (perhaps with bing, DuckDuckGo, or Yahoo) on PayPal accounts being blocked. He recommends this as the safe option, trusted option, but I have seen more PayPal banned for life rants than google ones. With PayPal you can loose your account just because your customers are using stolen cards. The lesson should be that basing a business on any single external resource could be an issue, and you should approach it carefully.
  • hellbreakslose 12y ago
    paypal shut off my account, cause 9 of the users that purchased my product wanted a refund claiming it wasn't their purchase... I had over 10.000 purchases at that time... I provided proof that the customers received the product and there is no policy of refund in virtual products as well, and paypal never refunded those customers. But paypal saw me as a liability that they couldn't take... Cause they couldnt actually manage their own customers...
• true_religion 12y ago
  Has anyone read the list of other developers who've gotten suspended? > http://blog.hutber.com/how-my-google-devlopers-account-got-terminated-with-no-option-to-appeal/ http://blog.hutber.com/how-my-google-devlopers-account-got-t... This guy here writes an app called "Sex Diaries Alpha", and has it rejected because of pornographic purpose. He then assumes that its because he used a picture a cartoon donkey as the icon, so he reploads "Sex Diaries Test" with a picture of a cartoon girl instead. More repetitions follow. He never once thinks its perhaps the name 'sex diaries' or the stated purpose of the app. Nope, maybe its the fact that this picture has a nipple, or this is cartoon bondage. > http://andrewpearson.org/?p=681 http://andrewpearson.org/?p=681 This guy writes an app and stuffs it with 100s of keywords (as one could see by checking the same app in the 3rd party app store), then he complains he isn't in violation because you could play all those artists through his generic music player, and google didn't cap the number of keywords you could use. So he's not in violation. He knows this for sure, because he's an attorney. > https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21searchin/android-developers/adsense/android-developers/5qBdcAzmE-g/GdvJf4Sv0eEJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21searchin/android-develop... This guy says that Google transfered $4000 of android sales into his adsense account so they could pay him for non-US sales, but they failed to verify his account since he didn't have $10 worth of adsense budget. Then they disabled the entire account due to invalid clicks on a dead-end blog. If his story is actually true, he should get a lawyer and I feel this is really the time that Google customer service would be nice.
• X-Istence 12y ago
  Apple is banned in the household, because walled garden, and yet he doesn't see the Google Play Store as a walled garden... oh boy, this guy is going to go far.
• henrygrew 12y ago
  Google is a bully to say the least and they are not as open as you might think, i learnt this when my adsense account got suspended.
• pnathan 12y ago
  Google is extremely well known for poor customer service in account management. That should not surprise anyone at this point. Automated bans and automated denial of appeal are pretty par for the course from the stories I've read. That said, I'm not sure I actually side with the author outside of that point of agreement. Looks like the apps were mega shady. I would advise the author to (1) not place their trust in a corporation again, and to secure their business & personal affairs against single points of failure, (2) not make shady software, and finally (3) consult a lawyer on the implementation of the law and contracts.
• ericfrederich 12y ago
  Don't believe you You were a die hard Apple fan boy since '85 even during their darkest times... then you can't provide your users updates within hours so you... "threw out my macs, smashed my iPhones, switched my whole family to Ubuntu and Android." http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/dont_believe_you_anchorman.gif http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/dont_b...
  • jmuguy 12y ago
    Ha, yep, stopped reading at that. "The walled garden upset me so much I hulked out and destroyed thousands of dollars of my family's tech."
  • fredoralive 12y ago
    I'll be a pedant and point out that bit of hyperbole has a bit of an odd timeline issue. It seems to say he jumped ship to Android when the app store was announced. But iPhone OS 2 which introduced the walled garden app store came out before Android 1.0. Plus, if you're so worried about things like walled gardens, why buy a phone that doesn't officially allow third party native apps like the iPhone with v1.x OS?
  • bgun 12y ago
    If it's true (and probably even if it's not), OP seems like an enormous pain to be around, both personally and professionally.
• IanDrake 12y ago
  Microsoft was known as the Borg, but that was poorly placed. Google has been more of a Borg than MS ever was. Google has decided to automate everything. There is no way to get actual help across their entire product line. Having problems with your adwords account? It doesn't matter if you spend $20K month, you get automatic email responses to your queries with obnoxious links to the help system that you've already read. While I agree that author did more wrong than he realizes, he also asked Google for an explanation to their objection, to which he received no response. I guess the Borg NLP engine was down that day and couldn't find the appropriate form letter. Whatever you think about this author, you can't deny the danger of relying on one ecosystem so heavily. Google is the worst. At least Apple would have denied his app with a reason which he could have corrected.
• FiddlerClamp 12y ago
  He could sell the app outside the Play Store, of course. Nothing can stop him from doing that (trademark issues aside) and collecting payment via PayPal, etc.
• PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  The OP made some grave errors with his apps. But is it really a good reason, to not tell him, what was going wrong and instead swinging the big hammer on his head (life-long ban)? Google once started with the slogan "Don't be evil". By being the new "Judge Dredd" of the internet, it can just become, what it never wanted to be. All that, just because Google tries to drive technology to its extremes ("customer-service from hell"). This is going to be more and more important, because there exist only very few major app-stores and very few major internet-payment systems (gladly, there the situation could still change to the better). But I know, how much Paypal was criticized because of his behavior and being a semi-monopolist in internet payments. With our today's trend to centralization -- I don't want to put my fate into the hand of one of these new Judge Dredds.
  • g051051 12y ago
    They did tell him, didn't they? They told him 3 times.
    • PythonicAlpha 12y ago
      As much I understood, they did tell him not enough, that he could understand what was wrong. Automated eMails are "customer-support from hell".
      • smoe 12y ago
        I have no experience with google customer support as a normal developer[1], but I guess there is a vast amount of this kind of arguably spamy apps submitted every day. On that scale it's probably hard and too time consuming to distinguish naive from fraudulent developers. For me its difficult to believe, that someone who has been a developer for so long, really didn't think, that using another companies name in an app name, use their logo – and removing their ads(?)[2] – couldn't lead to some sort of serious problems. The punishment might be too harsh, but defending yourself in this case with 70/80 rebelism and doing them a favor with "free advertisement" is just bizarre. [1] I've worked in the advertisement team of the biggest swiss news site, and we got decent personal support from google. Unfortunately, i guess it is as always in life: If you're big, others will listen to you. If not, you'll be ignored. [2] "No ads, no junk, just videos" http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=com.sickboots.sickvideos.theverge http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=c...
• dictum 12y ago
  1. Don't repackage other people's content. Especially with their trademarks attached. If they had no role in creating the app, don't be a jerk. If you want to make a video app, make a general-purpose video app and teach your users how to add channels. 2. I can't help but appreciate the karma angle of someone who tried to repackage web content as apps getting bitten by the gatekeepers of the walled garden. 3. Ah, Google, the business that would certainly still exist (and be as large and powerful as it currently is) had it been forbidden to ever skirt the limits of copyright law...
• 0x0 12y ago
  If he spent even 5 minutes looking at the ios sdk, he'd see that there's no review process involved in distribution of beta apps to customers...
• joshdance 12y ago
  I think the best comment, which was buried in the replies was this: "There is a guide and it's pretty clear: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/2986097?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... - For example, if your app displays the brand, icon, or title from another app [...] your apps can be suspended and your developer account terminated."
• venomsnake 12y ago
  He is wrong. But the technology giants wield way too much power and must be tamed.
• bitJericho 12y ago
  I love how the tl;dr bit is at the end of the article. If I were too lazy to read the entire article, why would I scroll to the end before closing? "If one of their algorithms thinks you’re a bad guy, you’re banned for life." In his case scratch out "thinks" and put in "knows"
• Karunamon 12y ago
  Yeahh.. I'm finding it really hard to have much sympathy here. Spammy single-content-source apps like this are a plague upon the store. Furthermore, the author's ignorance of trademark really doesn't win them any points.
• tuhrig 12y ago
  I don't understand his whole logic. He publishes the same app 10 times for different channels. One after another gets banned and he even thinks this proves that the rest is OK. He says that he made "beta apps written for my kids", but he puts it on the biggest app store in the world. He says an app to display videos is worth 50.000$, 10 times the same app is worth 500.000$. He says it was a free project, but he made it to collect user data for his commercial project.
• remon 12y ago
  TL;DR version "Didn't read the rules, broke the rules, :("
• pessimizer 12y ago
  Would they have cut off his Nest? If google since G+ thinks of itself as a single product, it might not be smart to let them into your house, or to depend on them for anything important. That being said, these kinds of apps are what make the phone app market a cesspool. Would the iOS app store accept youtube channel viewers?
• chasing 12y ago
  "Because I had listened to the leaders at Google say that the open web, open source and freedom are important values at Google, and I fully agree with that ideal." "All Apple products are banned in my household to make a statement about programmer freedom." "I believe in freedom, not blind obedience." This guy comes off as being a bit naive. And/or dishonest in his telling of this story...
• the_real_bto 12y ago
  The escalation from written warning to banned for life is a huge leap to make in one step. A month long suspension would get the point across.
• desireco42 12y ago
  I had this happen to me with adwords, once you get your account suspended or even before that, it is hard to get anyone to talk to you or have a way to correct issue. If you are fresh at it and clueless you are almost certain you will be banned. Mostly this is due Google not having customer support, so you are just interacting with machines. It would be easier if we had more options, this way if you get kicked out by apple and google, nothing else is left.
• api 12y ago
  "I was a die hard Apple fan since 1985 and was an Apple developer all through the darkest days of the Apple death spiral. I continued to be an Apple fan until they announced the “walled garden” and the app review process for iOS. I am totally against having to get permission from a corporation to write and sell apps, and I certainly don’t think I should be forced to sell my work through their store and their store only." Regardless of the merits of this particular authors' case, I'm frankly astounded that more people don't seem to care about this aspect of mobile platforms. I remember the uproar the Microsoft caused in the 1990s with their "trusted computing" trial balloon, and the uproar that locked PC BIOSes continue to create today. Yet you change the form factor a little and nobody cares. Wow.
  • rmrfrmrf 12y ago
    I think you missed the part where Microsoft and Apple had completely different core businesses.
    • api 12y ago
      I'm talking about how mobile platforms are completely locked down and gated, with app stores taking ~30% of your app revenue and no ability to install what you want. That sort of thing would never have been tolerated in the PC world, yet in the mobile work nobody seems to care.
• izzydata 12y ago
  Is there anyway to call google help directly? I've heard plenty of stories of google automated email support that never adequately explains anything, but I'm curious if you can actually call them. If anyone has seen the movie "The Internship" there is a scene where they all have to learn how to do phone support. I would find it very weird if that is entirely a lie and it is nearly impossible to call them. Also he smashed his apple devices because he disagrees with their ideals? That seems kind of immature.
• pronoiac 12y ago
  I knew I'd seen this before. It looks like Medium's wacky URL structure is bypassing the dupe checker. If you search for the hex code at the end[1], you get the previous discussions. From when this was first posted in March: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7478975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7478975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7569454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7569454 From May: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7855337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7855337 [1] like this: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=c62f2404f66#!/story/forever/0/c62f2404f66 https://hn.algolia.com/?q=c62f2404f66#!/story/forever/0/c62f...
• logicallee 12y ago
  I stopped reading at "So, I threw out my macs, smashed my iPhones, switched my whole family to Ubuntu and Android." (Because nobody does that, specifically the first two things.) BTW until this line I was relating strongly with the author and especially the stuff about supporting a family. Never got to find out the meat of the story. Oh well - it was promising and I was looking forward to it, I kind of wish I didn't realize what I was reading. (i.e. a fabrication.) Basically, I don't find the sentence credible, nor am able to read it in context as an exaggeration or metaphorical, it's presented as fact, and I lost interest. This is written by a marketer, not a developer. i.e. it's "a paid lie" (if we are cynical), or more generously it's allegory, that I don't have time to read. None of this stuff happened, in my judgment. Granted I didn't read the 3900 word essay so I could be wrong - I stopped at word 278. It's just my impression that this story takes you for a ride.
• wldcordeiro 12y ago
  That this guy was banned from Google Play is meaningless. He would have been banned from the iTunes Store as well for apps like this. This post is just getting traction because it's Google and HN has an axe to grind against them.
• yonran 12y ago
  A lot of people think that the author deserved the punishment for his stupidity. However, I think he had an important point that needs to be discussed: that he was dismissed without a fair hearing and was banned for life from services unrelated to the one on which he committed the offense. I think this is a growing problem that more people need to be aware of. We do not have the right to use modern marketplaces (such as the Google Play Store, Apple App Store, Google Adwords, AirBnB, Ebay, Uber, etc.) Instead, we have permission from corporations to use them. If an individual bases his livelihood on sales through one of these and then makes a mistake, the company is likely to ban him, destroying his income. There is currently no guarantee of due process or proportional punishment. When you are banned from the majority marketplace, one often has no real alternative. Can anyone make a living selling his goods on the second most popular auction site? I think we need to fight for the right to due process and fair punishment online.
• avz 12y ago
  I'm absolutely astonished by the degree of egocentric delusion, arrogance and lack of self-criticism displayed by the author: * he smashes thousands of dollars worth of equipment because the producer's business model no longer fits his idea of freedom, * he writes a trivial wrapper app with no original content or behavior, * he spams Google Play with ten versions of it hard-coding different YT channel IDs in each, * he values this contribution to the Android ecosystem on about $500,000, * his apps obviously infringe on trademarks and possibly copyrighted content, * he ignores multiple warnings and app suspensions, because they don't tell him precisely what to change, * he considers Google to be under the obligation to handhold him through the nature of his violation of the terms and conditions, * after all this he continues to think he is in the right, * he writes a rant and expects to receive sympathy riding on general disappointment in devs community with Google's admittedly lacking customer support. Wow.
• piratebroadcast 12y ago
  I used to make Android themes back in the day. I would wait until a game got really popular on iOS and count on Android users checking the Android app store for the same titles. I'd sell an "Angry Birds" phone theme for 99 cents. Many Android users werent that technologically savvy and thought they were buying the actual game. This went on for about 6 months. I was making serious money. Eventually they caught on and I was banned from the store. I was a kid and doing something a bit douchey but I definitely understand banning me. This guy doesn't quite seem to feel the same way.
• nkhodyunya 12y ago
  Apps for YouTube channels, seriously? Thanks google for banning this crap dealer, who use public app store as his personal trashcan.
• bg451 12y ago
  > The suspension email stated that I was trying to impersonate another company, and that this was forbidden. > I decided on “Vice TV” > I didn’t plan on trying to sell Vice TV > I was also secretly hoping I would get a contract job out of this or someone might say, “Hey, add my blog and Facebook pages and I’ll buy the app from you.” The last quotation isn't necessarily in context with the third one, but nonetheless this guy was either stupidly naive or ignorant.
• mark-r 12y ago
  Regardless of how you feel about this particular case, there are two things that are troubling: 1. Google is big enough to be an indispensable part of your life. 2. Google doesn't believe in allowing human contact - it doesn't scale. They've put all their eggs into the algorithm basket, and when the algorithm decides you're guilty that's it. No appeal, at least not in any real sense. It's a story that gets repeated over and over.
• 59nadir 12y ago
  The TL;DR should be: Google suspended my Google Wallet account when they shouldn't have.
• tripzilch 12y ago
  It's pretty clear to me. First, what the guy did was wrong, and he appears pretty stupid, pretending to be stupid, or both. Google is generally known for their abysmal communication and "customer service", but in this case they were in fact pretty clear about the problem right when the first app got suspended. He can whine all he want but Google's decision to ban his Android developer account was not too unreasonable. However even with that in mind I do believe that they went completely overboard with the decisions to also ban-for-life his Google Wallet and Google Music accounts. Those are completely unrelated to this matter[0], and escalated this thing out of proportion. It is kind of frightening they will just take those things as "collateral" for violating a bunch of rules on a completely different service that just also happens to be part of the Google ecosystem. It starts to become and look like a state that way (hello, cyberpunk future), but with a state you should also have clear rules and ways of appeal. Google definitely doesn't have a meaningful version the the latter. People depend on all sorts of services that Google provides, and the ability to take all or any of them away (there are no laws) because you violated an unrelated rule, is an amount of power that should come with mechanisms that keep it in check. Indeed what if they instead had taken his GMail account? [0] unless there is more that the author is not telling us, which is not at all unlikely.
• juliob 12y ago
  Google's culture of automated customer service continues a long tradition of poor people skills, and disdain for feelings and livelihoods, as well as their own reputation. I was contemplating switching from AWS to the Google Cloud, but it's posts like this that remind me that, oh yeah, I myself have been unjustly banned twice from one of their services. Google cannot be trusted to handle relationships, whether with developers or companies. It's clear that they don't care and that's fine. They have their niche for providing services to those who don't mind the lack of the human touch. Just not for me.