Disclaimer:

Even though the title says “my”, this is not my blogpost.

  • Pika@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    As a developer myself, I’m not really sure where I feel on this. I can definitely see where this would hinder people’s want a posting on the store and suppress their creativity, but I can also see why they’re requiring it.

    I couldn’t imagine publishing an app without some form of ability to reach out to report bugs or reach out for support, cuz at that point what’s the point of making the app if you’re not planning on having people use the app.

    That being said, the entire publishing a DUNS number I struggle to feel bad for, they went down the same route that I’ve done in the past where I’ve registered as an organization because organizations have less information that’s had to be obtained, but because of that you’re expected that you’re doing it on a more commercial scale, which also means a more complicated and sometimes pricey system. This requirement would not have been the case if they hadn’t set it up as an organization in the first place and just put it in as a one person development project, that would have required putting more personal information.

    All in all, the information that is required from developers doesn’t seem unreasonable, it’s basic things that as a user you would want, and as a developer you should want to telling your users anyway.

    As for the API requirements, I understand why they want to push the newer API levels, and nothing’s more aggravating from a user’s point of view then downloading an app only to find out that it has barely been upgraded since Kit Kat and still requires every permission under the moon to operate because it doesn’t integrate with the newer permission systems, but I can understand that if you’re relying on features that the API versions required that finding the new way of doing things isn’t always an easy task, even when there’s a super simple and easy to read article that says the changes between API levels like Google provides.

    Nonetheless I don’t think the API requirements are there as a way to cause a hindrance to the developer, I believe they’re there to force developers to use the newer standards and it also acts as a way of knowing which apps are still being actively maintained, because really apps that are no longer being maintained don’t really have a place on the Play Store. They already have a huge issue of abandonware apps, which gives Google play a trashy/unmaintained feel that their competitors (i.e Apple store) doesn’t have, I can understand why they are finally putting a stop to it

    • rbits@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe the whole abandonware thing applies to regular apps, but in my experience most games without microtransactions get updated for a bit when they’re released and then never again. Because there’s no reason to update your game once you’ve fixed all the bugs, unless you’re not adding new content.

      I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve thought about a game that I used to like and looking for it on the Play Store, only to find out it’s been taken down and I have to go for an hour long search through sketchy sites to find it. It’s fine if you only play new games, but from my experience, the majority of old games are just not available, unless they’re made by a studio that’s still big enough to keep up with the requirements. For no good reason.

      I would fully understand having a warning for old apps. They could even hide them from recommendations. But if I want to install an “abandoned” app, I should be able to.