[gonyea]

This all makes sense to me. If you're not providing enough value to users to cover the >$15k fee, you're just an attack vector for user data.

Consistency of the process aside, I'm really not sure what people would expect.

(I work at Google, yadda yadda, but have nothing to do with this.)

[nixpulvis]

Fuck this, it's EXACTLY the problem in the valley. Small players should be empowered, not stifled.

[human20190310]

I wouldn't want someone who won't bet $15K-$75K on their own product to have access to any of my data.

[nixpulvis]

Your making a lot of assumptions. For example, who said anything about a product. Not all "players" small or large are selling something. Sometimes people just like to make stuff that works well for themselves and others.

[StudentStuff]

Things like gsyn.ch will just not be written. Google already throws scary warnings about unverified apps using OAuth tokens when you use this service, but Google's use of non-standard CSV entries rather than vCards for sharing contacts has made for a terrible user experience if you want to use your phonebook outside an Android phone/Gmail.

[Alex3917]

At $10 a month, that’s only 125 users. How many apps with less than 125 users have we seen become a target for hackers? Has there ever been a case like that?

[infamia]

Startups and open source projects get screwed because of Google's lack of nuance on this issue. Google could have created a tiered fee structure based on number of users, threat vector, etc. but didn't for whatever reason.

[gonyea]

Goal #1: Don't let the users "get screwed."

Goal #2: Don't have a solution that requires an army of people to manage.

If no one's willing to help fund your idea, you're out of luck. That seems... really understandable, given that every major government is literally investing millions trying to hack into Google's user data.