[clumsysmurf]

Ostensibly, the reason why Google did this (according to their blog post) was to increase the quality of Apps in Play, but we all know this is absurd.

A real way they could improve app quality is to improve the quality of the documentation, specifically the javadoc / references (guides are OK mostly) but that requires work from developers (since its literally embedded in the code). There are thousands of classes / methods that have no documentation whatsoever other than that they exist in the first place. No description. No tips. No mention of what happens if you pass null, or ... you get the point.

Of course, you can look at the implementation ... but that is free to change. The documentation is the contract, and at the moment its a very poor contract.

[jackpeterfletch]

There’s no doubt better docs will help improve the state of Android Apps.

But this is about stemming the flow of shovelware into the store, (todolist tutorial no 800000, but I changed the name) where the problem isn’t that devs lack the tools, it’s that they simply have no serious intention of maintaining their product.

If you can’t find or don’t have enough belief in your own app to find 20 people to download it for free, is it fair to promote it in a way that my gran might come to rely on it.

It’s not nice to be exclusionary, but end users having to pick through that stuff just isn’t great for the platform. There might be a better place for hobby code.

[clumsysmurf]

> where the problem isn’t that devs lack the tools, it’s that they simply have no serious intention of maintaining their product.

Google already has a solution to this: Target API level requirements for Google Play apps

https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

If you don't meet the requirements your app becomes unavailable to users.

> If you can’t find or don’t have enough belief in your own app to find 20 people to download it for free

I can guarantee you, many large companies, some whom I have worked for, and some apps you have likely used, do not have anywhere near 20 human QA / testers vetting their releases.

And if you look at the '20 tester' requirement closely, following it does not guarantee any outcome whatsoever.

> is it fair to promote it in a way that my gran might come to rely on it.

What your gran does is none of my business. If I have an idea which a few people may find useful, what your gran may or may not do with it should not impede my ability to release it.

Google already has strict guidelines about malicious apps, etc, which everyone must follow.

[Baloo]

But I had to pay for access to this marketplace, only to have an arbitrary barrier put in place that can be paid to pass..

Isn't the whole review system supposed to promote good quality content?

This change, if genuinely implemented to try and improve app quality, actually only frustrates new developers that are trying to join the ecosystem.

20 people is quite a lot! After getting all my friends and family that use Android testing it, I still needed 10+ more 'testers'.

[jackpeterfletch]

It’s a good point. YouTube for instance doesn’t gatekeep in the same way.

And for sure by no means am I suggesting this is the best way to go about it.