Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I've been more minimal and focused in my technology usage, specifically lucky enough to keep my phones and devices in "no notifications" mode for much of their lifecycle. My desktops and screens also have 0 apps on them ever, if I want to open something I just open a search UI and tap it and open it.

    It works great on Mac, and iPhone. I imagine as more people try this sort of user experience, they might wonder like I am "Why use a Google experience device at all?" Most of what I use these days is simple and the extra value-add AI features, attention driven designs that justify new OS and new hardware, and even app stores barely feel necessary. OK some people say "but banking software" but very rarely do I have to use my banking software in a way I couldn't get to in the web browser?

    I believe we're very close to having a 80:20 experience designed out in both hardware and software for laptops, phones and smart watches. I can't see these monopolies holding out much longer.

    by mannanj
  • we think complying by removing donation links is a bad idea because it just lets google get away with this and won't cause any users to notice. you need to let disruptions like this reach the users so that google might do something about this
    by LoganDark
  • Every day Google commits to more Evil. How much more Evil can this world take from Google?

    Also - all those monopoly-stores need to be broken up. It can not be that these mega-corporations continue to be protected by a selfish US government wanting to install monopolies globally.

    by shevy-java
  • When they first said "Don't be Evil," I guess they meant this to others; as in "we want all that evil for ourselves."
    by pmkary
  • Play blocking the donation link on a free app that actually needs those donations is a weird hill
    by torutofu
  • Being a developer, I can say that working with Google is a pain. There is no possibility to talk with a human, all communication is answered by the same AI-generated response that links you to the same AI-generated documentation.

    And if such AI does something wrong (which it does) no matter what they WILL REMOVE your app. Because they don't care about you. Sometimes the only way out is to publish the app again with another package identifier, because once they flagged it even if you remove all reference to the offending feature there is no way that they will accept it (it unfortunately happened, fortunately before releasing the app to the public so we could switch without affecting users).

    In some sense I prefer Apple (and I say it as an Android user), you surely pay an annual fee to publish to the store, but if you have some issues you can open a ticket where a fucking real human will look into it and answer you, and explain what to to.

    by alerighi
  • My experience was that my person got banned from ever submitting apps. I could try making a new account, but I'd have to provide ID so their AI might know to ban me again.
    by megagpt4
  • I have apps published to both the Play Store and App Store, and I agree. Despite the stereotype, Apple is much nicer to deal with. If you work within the Google ecosystem, you enjoy none of the benefits of the supposedly open Android system, but need to deal with more bureaucracy, more limitations, and worse support.
    by HeavenFox
  • Digital infrastructure became so important that it must be regulated. We can't leave app stores at the whim of mega corporations.
    by neves
  • Just because Google built something valuable that doesn't mean the government should take control of it. This line of reasoning also leads to the government taking over YouTube and changing the rules there due to how "important" it is.
    by charcircuit
  • Nooo what you are saying communist. I also think so, but each time someone (typically the EU) does something in the direction (e.g. digital market act) the US government, companies and citizens accuse us to be communists, against progress, that we overregulate, that the "free market" regulates by itself, and similar bullshit.
    by alerighi
  • The mega corporations need to be broken up.
    by a2ff6eeb0
  • >clarification on whether an IRS 501(c)(6) determination satisfies "tax exempt donations".

    These donations aren't tax exempt. 501(c)(3) are tax exempt. If users are paying via Google pay these payments must be tax exempt to the *user*.

    by free652
  • If only PWA were not made invisible by Apple. The install button has been moved voluntarily to the share menu.

    The UE should make it mandatory to permit PWA install popups on all platforms.

    Such problems wouldn't arise, because this app could be installable as a cached Web app. A native mobile application could be installed only for specific functionalities.

    by maelito
  • Every slop website would then repeatedly try to pop up and install button.
    by trollbridge
  • This is on Android, though.
    by Gander5739
  • > The UE should make it mandatory to permit PWA install popups on all platforms.

    "It works better in the app?". No thanks. In 99.95% of cases the reasons for that popup are predatory, not in the interest of the user.

    by nottorp
  • AnkiDroid has been such a great boon for me, thank you for sharing the link and reminding that they would benefit from my donation.
    by Klaster_1
  • Seconded here. So far only used ready made sets, especially the fantastic CCNA one from Jeremy's IT Labs. But I guess that if I fix few more errors, I'll break into creating my own cards.
    by wafflemaker
  • I made hundreds of cards to get me through the ACR core exam, and I'll be teaching my kids to make cards when it's time for them to do intensive memorization. Paper is just fine, but I think this is a situation where digital is better.
    by overtone1000
  • > Donations are not tax-deductible

    > Because we are a 501(c)(6), OSC is not a registered 501(c)(3) charity; donations to hosted member projects are not tax-deductible. This is consistent with IRS guidelines — open source donations aren't automatically classified as charitable simply because they are FOSS.

    > If your project has a clear charitable purpose, a 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor may be a good fit.

    - https://docs.oscollective.org/welcome-and-introduction-to-os...

    by SigmundurM
  • But the recipient of the donation is tax exempt, which is what Google says the requirement is.
    by lokar
  • > Play billing "must not be used in cases where payments include … tax exempt donations"

    > Note: 501(c)(6) is a tax-exempt status; donations are not tax-deductible for the donor. Google's communications explicitly state "tax-exempt".

    Isn't it pretty obvious that the problem is the donations aren't tax-exempt, despite the organization being tax-exempt? Your note suggests you already understand this.

    Logically, the payment processor (who deals with sales taxes rather than income taxes) should worry about the taxability of the transaction rather than the tax status of the recipient, right?

    > Specifically, your app allows users to contribute donations to an organization that is not tax-exempt.

    So whoever is writing their email is mixing these two up, but you're reading the policy itself and it is fairly clear-cut what it means for you, right?

    by dataflow
  • Yes, but unsurprisingly most people don't understand that distinction well enough.
    by Conan_Kudo
  • > So whoever is writing their email is mixing these two up, but you're reading the policy itself and it is fairly clear-cut what it means for you, right?

    This (rhetorical?) question seems to suggest that you have a level of understanding or have done the analysis required to come to such a meaning. It seems to me that it would be most beneficial if you simply shared that analysis.

    To me, seeing this here for the first time, it is not at all obvious what the terms mean for someone seeking a donation, because of the past behavioral detail of WireGuard going through something similar. The terms you quote seem to me to state that since there is a tax exempt donation involved, the prohibition on routing to a non-Google Play billing workflow should not be in effect.

    by opello
  • So we don't devolve into semantics, I am just going to use the term "special tax status" to denote anything thab the regular payment flow. I'm doing that on purpose, because part of the argument is that tax exempt and tax deductible are different things. Your argument, as far as I understand, does not actually rely on this distinction. It just comments on it.

    I read your comments and what I ended up inferring was that it relies on a few premises:

    1. Google states in their policy that their billing platform cannot be used for [special tax status]. 2. Google would be presented with an undue burden if they had to alter their processes to process donations with [special tax status], which may potentially involv extensive manual review manually. 3. Therefore, despite the wording, the rules and undue burden are clear that you cannot use Google Play billing for [special tax status].

    I've read the rest of your comments downthread and I think that I'm representing your position accurately. Again, if I'm not, I legitimately want corrections.

    The issue with going from the premise to the conclusion is that if you look at their actual payment flow to the Open Collective it seems to be just a webview to their donation page. I mean, it doesn't look like Google's payment flow at all and I'm pretty sure Google doesn't accept ACH payments directly.

    If Google wants to avoid extra work, they literally just can do nothing about it and the donations on that page will go to a tax exempt organization.

    I'm going to take a look at the rules right now and either update this comment or reply to it. (Sorry, I figured I would post it because I'm not sure when I would be able to post another.)

    P.S. I probably should have out of this to the top, but I do want to mention that several people pointed this out in the comments but I wanted to be a bit more specific about the payment flow, and what we're actually debating.

    by Defenestresque
  • > the payment processor (who deals with sales taxes rather than income taxes) should worry about the taxability of the transaction rather than the tax status of the recipient

    A donation is not a sale of a good or service. This is not a question of sales tax collection.

    by neilcj
  • The policy is far from clear cut, and even having read your comments I am still not sure what you think it's trying to say. The policy suggests that an app may lead users to another payment method where the payment is a "tax exempt donation". What tax, specifically, are you suggesting a donation to OSC is not exempt from? You mention sales tax, is it the case that donations are not exempt from (ie, are subject to) sales tax?

    Or are you saying the key point is that the donation not tax-deductible for the donor, which is a different thing to being tax exempt (and does not have anything to do with the "taxability of the transaction")?

    by NoboruWataya
  • We've been seeking official clarification from Google on this for over a month. That's what we're seeking here.

    It's not clear given Google's policy wording and replies. We've removed the links, and can move forward once clarification has been provided.

    by david_allison
  • Not Google's first rodeo. They pulled the same move in 2019: https://www.phoronix.com/news/WireGuard-Ejected-Play-Store

    This is why software should not be subjected to an "app store" type distribution system, where a monopolist retains absolute control of what software can run on your devices, and can capriciously deny distribution to developers for whatever reason it likes.

    by amiga386