[tommilukkarinen]

This is the other side of the Play-store problem. The other side is the tax.

Play store employee can ban your app = destroy your business at any time. The reason can be 'new policy', 'misunderstanding' or something more problematic, such as influence from your competitor to the employee.

A 'power to destroy business', should not be a click away from some random employee.

[LorenPechtel]

And they can even do it inadvertently. I've run into multiple examples recently due to the Android file system becoming ever more locked down.

Yes, the vast majority of apps have no business writing to any location other than their own storage, and in general even reading other areas should be subject to severe restrictions.

However, there are some apps that have a *legitimate* need to be able to wander freely through the file system. Specifically, apps whose purpose in life is dealing with files.

The latest run-in I've had with this: The Goodsync Android client, which now appears to be basically useless. It's a file synchronization tool, what good is it if it can't wander where the user wants it to? Now I have to plug my phone into the computer to do the same task (the file system lockdown doesn't apply to access from the PC) that I used to be able to do simply by having the phone in the room.

[kjrose]

On the plus side there are multiple app stores for the android and the ability to simply install your app directly to the device. So even if Google play store bans you outright you aren't dead in the water.

Now that being said. If you are dependent on google for revenues...

[FartyMcFarter]

> Play store employee can ban your app = destroy your business at any time

No one forces / forced businesses to rely on apps for their business. Websites do exist and work well, so there are alternatives.

[Blikkentrekker]

> A 'power to destroy business', should not be a click away from some random employee.

It exists everywhere, it is called monopoly and this is only an example thereof.

Businesses could also, for instance, be destroyed by ARM Holdings refusing to license the ARM architecture to them, or Valve deciding to pull a game from Steam.

Especially with technology, there are a great deal of monopolies that exist.

[josephcsible]

ARM can't unilaterally revoke a contract (and even if they tried, it'd end up in court; your production lines wouldn't just suddenly stop working one day), and there's plenty of ways to distribute games to users on PCs other than Steam.

[Blikkentrekker]

> ARM can't unilaterally revoke a contract (and even if they tried, it'd end up in court; your production lines wouldn't just suddenly stop working one day)

And the only reason Google can do that in this case is because the terms were specified as such, and ARM Holdings could do that too.

> and there's plenty of ways to distribute games to users on PCs other than Steam.

And there is also a plenty of ways to distribute Android software other than the Google Play Store, but the effect in both cases is that one's business will likely die being denied access by either.

[oarsinsync]

> And there is also a plenty of ways to distribute Android software other than the Google Play Store, but the effect in both cases is that one's business will likely die being denied access by either.

What's the rationale behind wanting multiple appstores on iOS, if multiple appstores on Android has no positive effect for developers anyway?

[curiousgal]

Except it's not, they give you time to comply with the policy.

[kenrose]

How much time was given in this instance?

[drcongo]

I don't think they read the tweets.