As someone without a Twitter/X account, their links are bad. I can only see the first post of a chain, can't see replies, etc. Mastodon is better in that regard.
This has nothing to do with the content of the platform, Musk, etc, btw. It's just the fact that now it's a bit hostile for logged out users/people without accounts. It used to be fine, but now it hides content, which is bad for me.
It was always awful, in my opinion. Twitter does a good job at letting people publish "sound bytes"; little bits of what's on their mind. Past that (into longer form and discussion) it has never been good.
Right, it was never a good platform for longer posts, but before at least you could try to follow the different posts. Now, public links only show one post and that's it.
It shows you the linked post and its content just fine. If you want to engage in the conversation, you should probably just go through the account creation process which takes anywhere from 10 seconds to a minute.
Clicking on almost any of the UI elements leads to a log in prompt, without showing anything else. For people without accounts (or those who don't want to make one), that's probably not functionally different from dropping a link to some forum that requires registration, albeit in this case I guess at least the main post is visible.
The Mastodon link in comparison has the discussion visible up front, which is nice to see! Now whether the fediverse is popular enough to actually have good discussions, that's a bit harder to say, but at least it's something!
I think Facebook also had similar issues, where it gates a lot of things behind a login prompt, quite user hostile, though also understandable why they'd do it that way.
The business scheme is perfectly valid. It’s the same on Instagram as well.
I don’t have an Instagram account and don’t see a reason to create one, but my friends can still link me pictures or videos that I can look at. If I want to engage in any way or read past the couple top comments, I need to create an account.
Showing the user what they came for is a good way to get free advertisement, but requiring them to create an account to actually use the platform is perfectly reasonable.
The UX to people without accounts is actively hostile. That's why.
If someone was telling me to look up information from a print edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica from the 1970s, I'd have the same problem: it is an absurd thing to ask of me because there are better, more frictionless ways to obtain the information.
Why stop linking there? X hides threads. If you click a link, you can't see a thread. If you are logged in you can see it, but you can't see it if you aren't logged in. So, you can one little post, and frequently you miss a lot of other information in the replies. See ANY post on where the person is posting more than one single post. Basically, if you link to a post there, the person reading it usually won't get the full story.
Why is posting there make the user a problem? Because, if the user is trying to communicate something, they are choosing a platform that isn't interested in making it effective at communication. A closed off community isn't the town square it claims to be. If you are communication on that site, you can be sure people directed aren't getting the full story.
Who's the judge? Me. I am the judge of what a problem is. So is the parent poster you were replying to. They are also a judge. It's odd that you hand off opinions to others and don't make your own.
Reading anything on Twitter is (subjectively) miserable. The platform is good only for since thoughts / sound bytes; not long articles (spread across many posts) and discussions. It's _worse_ if you don't use an account so you can't see anything but the first post... but it's awful even if you can see the whole thing.
I don't know who was the first moron who decided to post the first "long form writeup" on a platform that only supports blurbs... but I am absolutely amazed that people thought it was a good idea and followed suit.
1. You will notice Hacker News does not require a login to view content - this simple approach is a big reason why twitter links are looked down upon. The platform used to foster simple sharing, and now does not. It is in effect, telling you to stop sharing things publicly and only with twitter users.
2. Because you are basically linking to a deep link in the dark web.
3. We all get to make our own decisions, and the person calling out shitty websites that you should not bring to the group has my support.
Because you are limited to view only particular single tweet. And if it's a thread (which is just dumb use of the platform itself) you are out of luck.
For better or for worse at least you can view this single tweet now, but right after Musk took over he blocked all access without account which was just annoying.
Imagine if HN would require you to have account browse and read it. That's what's mostly happened to twitter (and happens to the rest of our benevolent overlords/social platforms like fb and instagram, to which regular web migrated with the information :/)
Humans will always be humans, independently of the platform. :-P
In any case, at least we can see the replies and other posts from the account without having to create an account. Still better than Twitter/X in my view.
I did the same thing (and then downvoted the guy who suggested it was better!) It was much worse than the discourse on Twitter, with folks hurling insults at each other and saying things like "don't turn this into [X]itter".
I mean, I just clicked through and scrolled through a bunch of messages and all I'm seeing is people helping each other find the app via other means until the Play Store issue is resolved. In fact, the further I scroll, the more I see totally normal discourse about the issue of the app being delisted. Now that I look more closely, I see that the "last night" / "xitter" stuff is a single thread out of dozens of on-topic messages.
That's why AppStore monopolize are such a chore. There is no independent judicial authority if something between Google and a App Provider goes wrong. Google playing legeslative, executive and judiciary in one entity.
There is a reason most people in democratic countries don't like it, if there country has all the powers in one hand. At the same time it seams to be accepted for cooperation, as long as there are big enough.
This isn't as much of a problem on Android because it allows installing apks. There's plenty of apps that couldn't possibly be allowed in Google Play that are distributed using alternative means.
It's a much more serious problem with iOS, where if Apple doesn't like your app, your service, your policies, or even your attitude, you just aren't getting your app out to your users, period. But we'll see where EU DMA takes this.
- Generic utility apps, the kind that you would search by what they do, like an audio player, an image converter, or a file manager — yes, it works for them like you say.
- Those free to play mobile games everyone knows and loves (no). They buy stupid amount of ads to get people to install them. They may get some installations thanks the app stores themselves, e.g. from the top charts, assuming they get high enough there. So app stores do play a role in their visibility, but a limited one. And this is where it ends.
- Apps for IRL services, like getting around (taxi/scooter rental/car sharing), or ordering food, or many other similar things. They get popular because people see their logos around them all the dang time, often together with QR codes with download links. They also often buy ads. Sometimes people recommend them to each other. App stores don't play any significant role for these.
- Apps for something you already use. Like your home utilities, or your bank, or some sort of "smart" device you got, or loyalty programs. Again, you don't discover these thanks to app stores, you usually install them because that company says "we have an app, get it here".
- Social/collaboration apps, the kind that are useless without people you know also using them. No one searches app stores for "social media" or "messaging" or "calls". People recommend them to each other. People see that their friends are on there and get on there too. Again, app stores don't do much here.
You're right that discoverability is not really the issue.
However, I still agree with the GP that if you are not on the Play Store, you lose most of your installations.
If someone has already discovered your app and can't find it on the Play Store, they are more likely to assume that it's not supported on their phone, unavailable in their region or whatever. Even if you explicitly tell them to just download the APK, most people will not do that. Keep in mind that the average user probably doesn't even know that you can install apps from outside the Play Store. Or even if they guess that it's probably possible, they might well perceive it as complicated and sketchy.
I don't understand how does one come to this conclusion. In my own experience, most people will do what you ask them to do as long as your instructions are clear enough. Downloading and installing an apk on an Android phone is no different than downloading and running an exe on a Windows PC, which is something people do all the time. No one perceives Play Store as inherently more trustworthy. I know many non-tech people who have and use sideloaded apps on their phones.
Edit: it might be different for younger generations who grew up with modern smartphones.
Epic Games can probably tell you exactly how many fewer people install an app that's not on the Play Store on their Android devices. That information might even be in public documents from their lawsuit against Google. That they were able to sue and win suggests it's large.
While people don't discover these apps on the play store, they will hear of the App, search on the App/Play Store and install it. If they can't find it by typing the app name into the search bar there, they won't install it.
I doubt most users will, even when given the link to an .apk, install it. Either because they are discouraged by the alarming prompts (in my opinion a tradeoff that is unfortunately worth it) or because they get lost.
> - Apps for IRL services, like getting around (taxi/scooter rental/car sharing), or ordering food, or many other similar things. They get popular because people see their logos around them all the dang time, often together with QR codes with download links. They also often buy ads. Sometimes people recommend them to each other. App stores don't play any significant role for these.
Except if let's say Uber quit the app store then users would still first search there and many of them will install the first result which will now be a competitior since Google is allergic to showing no results if there is no relevant answer.
For everything else there is the issue of trust. Google does everything they can to make installing apps outside the app store feel like you are doing something dangerous.
As someone who just started a business and released my first android app a few weeks ago, you couldn't be more right.
Not only is the fate of your app in the hands of the Play Store, but also in the hands of their testers. Just had a critical bug in an update release 5 days ago, affecting fresh installs. I immediately fixed it after a friend notified me, pushed the fixed update, only to wait till yesterday to get rejected due to a super minor ui issue. Then finally got approval this morning. Typically I waited 30 min for approval, 2 hrs the longest.
During that time I reached out to their non-existent customer support, messaged their "help forum", called any number I could find, finally resorted to randomly messaging employees on LinkedIn out of desperation. Nothing. And when you try to get support through their help options, it's a gamble as to whether or not the help option you select is going to give you an error. Not to mention any number you call ends with "please visit support.google.com. thanks for calling".
In the meantime, I had ~300+ uninstalls out of the ~1200 I had, and risked my 4.8 rating tanking and sinking my chances of success before I even really started.
That's just my story. There are people who are facing even worse rn dealing with them and have been waiting for weeks.
For an app like this being on F-Droid gives more discoverability imo. In fact this is how I discovered this very app.
It's much more worthwhile being in a small catalog of quality privacy-preserving software than being in the cesspool of millions of ad- and spyware trash from Google.
I'm sure the mainstream users will find them easier on play but the real target audience will be on F-Droid.
Ps having said that, the ban is ridiculous of course
You can't show up in Android Auto unless you're distributed through the Play store (third party things like F-Droid and side loading means your app doesn't show in the car).
Good point, that makes a nontrivial difference for apps like organic maps. I know I have used it for offline navigation over CarPlay several times before.
Distribution is everything. Controlling distribution through defaults (play store already installed), barriers (pop ups warning you that installing other apps is risky), etc is monopolistic.
I'd argue it's still a problem on Android as google makes it more and more difficult to let alternative installation methods and makes it sound scary :/
On Android, there isn't really a scary warning. You have to allow whatever app you're installing the apk from to install apps form "unknown sources". That's it. You only have to do it once per source.
On iOS, I'm sure the EU regulators will demand that Apple at least tone down their warnings.
I didn't even read the warnings to install fortnite, but it seemed Apple tried to make it as confusing as possible. Click install, go to settings, white list the provider, go back to the browser, click back to try installing again ... and then finally, click "yes I am sure" then click "yes I am sure" like 3 more times.
Feels unrelated to me. The problem here is that the entity that owns Google Maps also owns the Google Play Store, and uses their ownership of the Google Play Store to favour Google Maps versus competitors.
Even without a monopoly, it should be illegal for the owner of a popular app store to promote their products like this.
They just need to get big fat fines when they do it. But of course, "it was an unfortunate mistake". Or we should just split them: Google Maps could be out of Google.
I don't think it's true that the Google Play Store favors Google-created apps. In fact, while it may have happened, I can't even remember a time that the Play Store recommended a Google app to me.
When app stores act in a way that puts their own interest ahead of the user it harms security, especially when there is no transparency.
If I want this app I am now being sent to download an APK, I lose all the protection of the app store. If they cry wolf enough people will get used to doing that. Then when something comes along that is harmful and they want to yank it genuinely to protect users, people will still download the apk.
In this case you don't have to find and sideload an .apk though, it's available in the main F-Droid repo.
I'd argue that it would be safer than the Play Store version because F-Droid builds are at least reproducible, while it's not clear what checks are actually done by the Play Store before publishing an update. Most of what Play Protect claims to do could be from a simple malware signature check.
Do you really want the government being deeply involved in how every company defines and enforces their own terms of use?
In this case I'm not sure why Google would pull Organic Maps. That doesn't mean we need the government playing a role in defining ever company's terms of service, deciding when they're broken, and enforcing the punishment. How would that even scale?
They already are. Most countries have consumer laws that limit terms and conditions. The same in many other areas (residential renting in many countries, exclusions for negligence that causes injuries or death,....).
Most countries have competition laws that also restrict what companies can do. That is the point here. We need need government intervention when the market lacks competition.
Maybe I misread the GP comment, but there is a big difference in governments defining guard rails for what isn't allowed in any T&Cs and governments being involved directly in every T&Cs.
Yes, but providing fair appeals does not require the government to be involved in evert T & C, just requiring things such as approvals be carried out impartially, and with some channel of appeal.
Something like an Ombudsman scheme for app stores would do it.
That seems reasonable enough. Down with governments and regulations and all that nonsense, but in reality I don't see a problem with governments setting reasonable guard rails for what any T&Cs can or must include.
It's exactly how it works. If some behaviour is anti-competitive, it is the role of the government to correct it.
> In this case I'm not sure why Google would pull Organic Maps.
Exactly. Someone competent should decide whether that is an anti-competitive move or not. Noting that a "mistake" may be anti-competitive and may deserve a fine.
I may have just misunderstood the GP. I read it as wanting the government to directly work on defining and enforcing Google's terms of service rather than this being an anticompetitive concern.
My point is why should the government regulate a private marketplace? If its not working for you go sell your stuff somewhere else. Google pays to keep the Play Store lights on. They should have every right to decide who sells on their platform.
People saying that Google shouldn't be allowed to decide who can or can't sell on their platform is like saying someone should have every right to sell their wares from your front porch; even though you're the owner of the property, you pay for living there, and don't want them selling their stuff on your land.
The public marketplace is a different story. If Google prevents you from selling somewhere else then the government needs to get involved because this is anti competitive behavior.
But Google has a de facto Monopoly on android. For monopolies there's different rules. Very similar to how Microsoft and Google have been hit before eg with the browser and search selection screens. The free market doesn't really work if there's only one player.
What monopoly? Android belongs to them. They spent billions of dollars building it. A monopoly would be if they owned the only means of creating and running a cellphone operating system and prevented others from doing the same.
Goes back to my analogy of a random person selling stuff on my porch. I paid for this house and I pay the taxes on the land. If I don't want you selling your stuff here then you need to get out.
> What monopoly? Android belongs to them. They spent billions of dollars building it.
It's funny because you seem to use the last two sentences to explain how it is not a monopoly, where it is actually usually a precondition to getting into a monopoly position.
> A monopoly would be if they owned the only means of creating and running a cellphone operating system and prevented others from doing the same.
This reminds me of this french movie (OSS 117) where the main character genuinely doesn't understand what a dictatorship is. And he says: "A dictatorship is when people are communists, cold, with gray hats and zippered shoes."
Right. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on what "anti-competitive" means.
The problem in this case is not that Google should be forced to "sell" stuff they don't want to sell. The problem is that Google takes advantage of the fact that they are in practice the only marketplace to sell their own goods (here Google Maps or Waze) and prevent competitors from reaching an audience (here Organic Maps).
And your comparison is very limited anyway, because Google is not selling stuff on their front porch. They are distributing software to billions of devices. It's a very different situation.
But the infrastructure and software to do any of these things (Android for example) belongs to them. They pay for it and maintain it.
Imagine you wrote an application and you choose who you want to partner with. You agree on what that partner can and can't do. Now, someone else comes along and says you must partner with them and they should be allowed to do whatever they want in your app. Are you saying you have to comply? Even if you're the one absorbing all of the cost and you don't agree with the content?
If so, please let me know where you live so I can come set up my business from your house. It's going to save me so much money since you have to take all the financial risk of paying for my utility usage, plumbing, internet, etc. And I can tap into all the connections you've made over the years living there.
Edit: Google does not have a monopoly on cellphone OSes or app marketplaces. There are numerous others and anyone is free to create their own. You just have to spend the billions of dollars they spent to make yours as popular.
Again, I believe you fundamentally misunderstand antitrust. You compare it to going to the bakery next door and forcing it to sell your bread.
> You just have to spend the billions of dollars
That's exactly what makes a de facto monopoly. Your arguments sound like this to me: "This is not a dictatorship, because you are not forced to obey the power in place. You could just overtake the government and take the power yourself."
Just so I understand. Are you saying we should punish anyone who spends their own money to build something because they want to restrict how/who can use what they've built?
What's preventing you (or someone with capital they want to risk) from building a mobile OS?
How would you see that scaling? Are you talking about governments defining what can't be in any terms of service? Or would you prefer to see governments directly working to both define Google's rules, determining when an app breaks them, and having the government decide when to pull an app?
Just used it yesterday. It's a great little app to browse OSM data as it is. Much better than Google Maps at finding walkable trails. If only it had the features of overpass turbo, e.g. searching for points tagged with specific attributes.
I agree, Organic Maps is often better than Google Maps for walkable trails, bicycle and hiking paths. I found there are some paths mapped on OSM that are not mapped at all on GMaps.
On the other hand, GMaps is better for up-to-date commercial data like stores and their opening hours. Its navigation system is better too. As much as I'd like to drop all Google services from my life, Maps is too useful to let go.
You can download one of the dozens of OSM-editing apps like:
- streetcomplete
- vespucci
- everydoor
and either add that information yourself or leave a note for other people
For relatively static info, sure. For real time bus/rail status you need integrations to countless public transit systems. For stuff like store times, etc, you need sufficient market power so that business owners are incentived to provide that info.
> business owners are incentived to provide that info.
Business owners usually provide it on their door. I added opening hours to many places, and importantly I didn't have to add opening hours to many other because they already had them.
> For real time bus/rail status you need integrations to countless public transit systems.
For public transportation, I personally usually need to buy a ticket, which Google Maps doesn't provide. So I use the public transportation app of the country in question. For countries where public transportation are public, which usually implies an app, of course. Countries that have broken public transportation won't work the same, but anyway the public transportation is broken there :-).
Maybe this is a cultural difference, but in my city opening hours are pretty stable. Sometimes they're even engraved in the store sign. There are exceptions though.
I seem to remember they have a history of incorrect tags or tag combinations being applied by their software though. Not sure what the current state is but may be something to look into before using OrganicMaps as a mapping application when there's other good options
How do you think google maps got such a good database of these things? When I last used it, Google maps used to actively ask you for this sort of information.
The shop owners also put their hours onto Google Maps, or paid somebody to do it. You shouldn't labour for free for Google either.
Even if you managed to help a shop get hundreds or thousands of new customers by updating their online information, they wouldn't even give you a cup of coffee if you asked. More likely they'd spit in your face.
For most physical businesses that are open to the public, correct information on map services are by far their most important advertising. Yet, they neglect this and spend thousands on billboards, social media, radio spots, etc. If they are failing as business owners, that's their own problem.
I think they even robocall stores with something similar to Assistant to check if they're open on holidays, which is definitely something that would be difficult for a smaller or community-run database to accomplish at scale
This largly depends on the location you are referring to. In many german places / cities, OSM data is often more accurate than Google Maps, even for commercial infos like opening hours. In the end it is up to people to ensure data is up-to-date. Apps like StreetComplete can help with that. Organic Maps also allows for some editing.
> GMaps is better for up-to-date commercial data like stores and their opening hours
Not in my country. They don't even keep track of national holidays, and very often keep listing establishments that closed down years ago.
Also, you might be standing in front of a restaurant and when asking google maps for nearby restaurants, if that one isn't blessed, you'll get directions to a 3km restaurant instead.
this is a cognitive bias. it's really interesting.
google used to be good, because if the hours were there, someone had put effort in. they were 95% accurate for CONUS. but over the last 6~ years the quality has degraded. Only about 65% accurate now. And to me, that's worse than unuseful, because i can't plan, i need to verify, so i might as well have gone to the store website anyways.
also who the heck needs open and close times? if you need that level of precision you need a personal assistant.
Not all restaurants are open for both lunch and dinners, and in every country there's different ideas on what's the appropriate time for having a meal.
I would argue on the "navigation system" being better in gmaps, though. It used to be the navigation. Nowadays in many places it just shows bullshit. Two scooter ubereats drivers will go through a park, or a tractor through a literal field, and it will guide you through there like it's route 66. Not to mention google changes my route multiple times in a 3 hour drive, even without notifying me - I just avoid it at all cost, as it requires too much attention while driving.
So many places have better OSM-based coverage nowadays.
If you want to make OSM data better (like that business hours you mentioned) I find Street Complete [0] app fun and absolutely friction less way to do that.
gmaps used to be nice for traffic too but these days it shows delays and suggests to reroute at every traffic light as if the whole city was at a standstill sometimes even when roads are not busy at all...
No. Even though I navigate with Osmand regularly, I must use Gmaps to find stores' existence, address, hours, phone number, url. Gmaps is the yellow pages. Osmand is a map.
> OSM can have those details it just takes a local community on top of keeping things updated. Even Google often relies on users for that stuff.
Google has an infinitely-larger community; a local community is not sufficient in dense areas where businesses are opening and closing every day. France has the third largest OSM community and yet some neighborhoods of its largest cities are full of outdated businesses.
Interestingly, in Atlanta I've had the opposite experience. In town OSM always seems to be better (Google has a lot of outdated open hours and the like). Outside of town in the cheaper burbs which is the only place I can afford to live though few people are editing OSM and it's pretty out of date.
That being said, I switched to Organic maps years ago. For 90% of places I go, it turns out I go to them repeatedly day-to-day, so I added them to the map the first time and update them when I go there and the hours have changed. Then they're on the map the rest of the time when I need to look up hours or what not so I rarely have anywhere around here that I go to that's not on the map anymore. When I do, I add it and next time it's on there and it works well enough 99% of the time.
You highlight a function of OSM that is hard to get across to people: I can fix the map!
For example, bicycle routing in my area was unreliable, because it would try to route me over rough trails. Just adding a few tags improved the experience dramatically. And then it was fixed not only for me, but everybody else too.
Meanwhile, other people fixed other annoyances, and the map works better across many areas. Google instead decides to hide things that interest me, and shows sponsored places I don't care for. I have zero recourse.
> Just adding a few tags improved the experience dramatically.
This works for routing, but doesn’t apply to businesses: for the bare minimum you have to add one or two tags (type + name), to make that more useful you have to add the opening hours and ideally the website. Now multiply this by 60,000 (the number of businesses in Paris, France). By the time you’ve finished your neighborhood some businesses you checked last month are already closed and some new ones already opened. Go on holidays? Too bad, you have to start over again when you come back. Trust me, I’m contributing almost every day and I can’t keep the pace.
Don't do all the businesses in Paris, just do the ones you frequent the most. Google doesn't have all the businesses in Paris either (or at least, in Atlanta I run into ones that they don't have too or that they have but it's completely wrong, at an old location, etc. fairly frequently).
Yeah the idea that I should keep up with all the shops in the larger area is scary. Luckily, I'm not alone. All I can say is you're doing a good thing by adding regular updates.
And I think even partially complete OSM is helpful. If I add just one ATM, that can already help somebody looking for one. That might even be me, when I know it's there somewhere, but not exactly where.
> a local active community of 2 active persons for every 260 residents is sufficient
That would be huge. For a city with 2M inhabitants, that would mean 8k active contributors. Remember that there are ~40-50k active OSM contributors in the whole world.
In Paris we have ~100 contributors with >100 edits for a population of 2M and 60.8k businesses. Most notes are fixed under a day, infrastructure changes are quick as well, but businesses are often out of date because they change so often that some people don’t take the time to update them.
I just wish Organic Maps would revert that new "feature" which prompts you for your location again and again multiple times per use, multiple times per day.[0]
Guys, if the device has location services disabled, your app should get the hint after I dismiss the prompt for the n!th time.
Interesting. Insofar as that's new, and they tripped a family sensor, that could well be related since we're BnL not supposed to track minors in any way.
Track recording is in the works. The reason that it takes so long is that OM devs want it to be polished rather than a slapped together UX trainwreck. That, and the fact current mobile OSes are hostile towards any background activity even if it's justified and lightweight on resources.
Hanlon's razor applies well to situations where social power is relatively even.
Once power is sufficiently uneven, the stupidity of the powerful is no different than their malice, for with that power comes the greater responsibility to avoid doing harm with it.
It may be incompetence. Most of big tech today no longer understands why someone would build an app, a business, or a project for reasons other than seeking to extract money from the market. It is ironic, because most of the big tech companies are only as successful because they initially offered products with vision and purpose, rather than as means simply to extract revenue at the lowest cost.
They are not entirely wrong to view the market this way. Most apps and projects are built these days primarily as means to extract revenue from the market at a low cost. Sometimes they are so much this that we call them grifts, and there have been many in tech recently, and certainly on the Play Store. But there are still some companies with better values.
This is a long way to say that unless an app/project/business/website is evidently monetized, it can probably be assumed it's monetized by selling data or ads. Likely, this assumption was made by the reviewer here, there may even be guidelines about it.
To some degree, it would even benefit consumers to do such a reality check too before they buy products and subscribe to services — is this a visionary purpose-driven product, or one that seeks to extract money from me as its primary goal? If latter, how do they do it — in evident ways, or through selling data or ads/influencing? But one must be able to see nuance that not everything in the world is built for the capitalistic objective. Sometimes, cool things are built, art is made, and inventions are made to better the world.
Overall, it is a problem that they don't see this nuance which made Google successful in the first place. It is clear across their business, products and services. But I think it is not unexpected.
An app shot down because it doesn't grift in an evident way, under an assumption it grifts in a hidden way — it's not the most wrong decision in the world. It just does not demonstrate competence either.
The killer feature of Organic Maps is that you can download the maps for the entire world (yay OSM!) and not have to depend on signal or having a data plan.
Super important for intentional travel or nature (National parks often have no signal).
It's blazing fast — far snappier than other map apps I've used. And OSM data is better than Google's for hiking and biking.
The POI database isn't as detailed, and you wouldn't use it to find an espresso shop near you (...yet). But it's much better as a map app.
I encourage everyone to improve OSM and add the not found POIs not only to appear on Organic Maps , to make everyone to have a open database of geolocated information
The Android app StreetComplete is an excellent start for updating OSM I found. There soon become occasions when you have to bring out the big guns and edit it using the web editor at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ , which is possible to do on a mobile phone if it has a big enough screen, but much easier on a laptop.
From my experience the best one currently is EveryDoor. But even if you just use Organic Maps, it has some basis functionality to add and edit places.
StreetComplete is also great and very beginner friendly, but it is mostly for completing missing information for existing places. However, I think quite recent addition was that now you can actually add new places. Haven't used it much though.
Organic Maps is nice. On my phone (GrapheneOS Android), I use Organic Maps exclusively now, and haven't yet seen a need to install or use Google Maps on the phone.
(I still use the Google Maps Web site on my laptop, though, and like StreetView, satellite, and the texture-mapped aerial 3D imagery there.)
On iOS, I never use gmaps. Even if I tap a link accidentally and it opens their website, the address is broken half the time. Instead, I screen shot the address and paste it into another mapping app.
However, on android, if the google location services (the spyware half of gmaps) is not installed, then third party apps like uber and lyft, and real world infrastructure access, like ev charging and paying parking meters break.
That's heavily location and use dependant. Why would Google Maps be better than OpenStreetMap locally downloaded for off-line use into OsmAnd or OrganicMaps? In much of Europe Google Maps can't even compete with OpenStreetMap data as soon as you get to trails, paths, and minor local roads.
Besides, if you have a wireless signal, you can always just of the browser with Google Maps.
A real backup means having a paper map when hiking, and just following the local road signs when driving. When things really go wrong, Google Maps is just about the last thing to use.
I too like to have backups, I use OsmAnd in case Organic Maps goes wrong on me. But Google Maps also has its use for me, businesses around me are best represented on that, especially opening hours.
Google keeps removing "unused" developer accounts and "low quality" apps, but if I want to remove my apps from Play Store and close developer account, but it is impossible to remove apps when developer actually wants to do it, only "hide" them. And there's no button to delete developer account either. Double standards.
Yep, and to make things worse, even if your account is empty, if you had a (unpublished) paid app, you still have to go through the account verification stuff and provide your drivers license, etc to Google. If you don't want to have your public information posted, your options are to create a business account.
I’d be curious to see how that holds up in Europe or California.
At least one person must have sent them a “do not sell my personal information” or “right to be forgotten” request, and then declined to accept the new terms.
Seems like the solution is to make that approval process independent. (As for who would pay for that, who can say, should it be government run?, should it have application fees? etc)
While I sympathise with developers who are the victim of mistakes, we have no transparency to know who is actually in the wrong.
There is also constant subjective criticism about what is too little or too much protective oversight. Fortnite was approved by both Apple and Google despite the FTC fining Epic for intentionally tricking children into making unwanted purchases, (Epic would also kill the account if the parent did charge backs), other scam apps have snuck onto the various stores over the years, and it wasn't too long ago that both Facebook and Google used side-loading to distribute data collection apps that wouldn't pass official channels.
The app is already available outside of Google's store. Those who wish to self-moderate their software downloads can already obtain the software. (Let the men eat meat! tick )
This scenario is for a curated marketplace which needs to demonstrate that they are not acting improperly towards those with which they could have a potential conflict of interest.
There is no opportunity to debate whether such marketplaces have a software discovery and security benefit, that is already established. Implying to dissolve the marketplace is unserious and not an answer to the problem, and not helpful to the ideals of computing for the masses.
As I noted elsewhere in the thread, Android Auto only works when your app is distributed through the Play store. Side loading doesn't get the correct signature to do that.
Ideally, installing apps from third parties should be as easy as from the google play store.
Today, when I install an APK I get a 10 seconds unskippable warning screen about "potential dangers", and after installing, another unskippable 1 minute "security check" screen. All of this bullshit is 100% done to deter most people from going through, by scaring them or making it a chore.
Also, apps installed through APKs do not update automatically, you have to fetch the updated APK file for every updates and go through this painful process again.
Ideally, we could use third party app stores, that would be allowed to provide the same level of comfort as the play store.
What version of Android is this? When I install an apk I only get a single confirm / cancel popup.
Also, as a sibling comment pointed out, there are third party app stores with all the comfort of the Play store (and far less adware): https://f-droid.org/
How to turn Google Play Protect on or off
Important: Google Play Protect is on by default, but you can turn it off. For
security, we recommend that you always keep Google Play Protect on.
Open the Google Play Store app Google Play.
At the top right, tap the profile icon.
Tap Play Protect and then Settings Settings.
Turn Scan apps with Play Protect on or off.
Seems nobody else here was speculating on a rules-based cause, so I might as well.
Policy 1 [0] seems the most likely cause to me. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some vandalism on OSM that had some "inappropriate" content or similar.
Would they ever apply the same scrutiny towards their own apps? Can you imagine Google maps being taken off the play store without being given a reason?
I filed a support issue in the play store complaining about being unable to install the app.
But quite frankly this should be a case for antitrust.
I don't think there's malicious intent here because Organic Maps is a very small app compared to other "map apps", Google isn't afraid of them. Incompetence? Perhaps. Also, every store makes mistakes from time to time.
On top of this, the Play Store is just one of the few stores you can have on Android. Organic Maps itself can be installed via F-Droid, Huawei's store, Aptoide, etc, not to mention that you can download the apk from their site/Github and install it.
I'd agree with you if this was about Google Search or something like that, but Android apps? I don't see any monopoly there.
Just to clarify, is this Google Play update "upcoming" in that it is currently going through Google's policy review process in order to reinstate your app on Google Play? If so, what changes were made in this release to satisfy their policies?
I'm interested to see what technical hoops you're jumping through to get your app reinstated, if you don't mind sharing. As a developer myself I've had my "fun" with policy compliance and review processes. All the best either way, hope it gets reinstated soon!
Organic Maps is awesome. Just used it to get through the Tour du Mont Blanc (170km/105mi hike around the Mont Blanc massif). The app is not perfect, but it's constantly improving thanks to its community of devs. Def try it out!
Just use fdroid. It's a nice app, great for hiking. Last time I used it (2 years ago), it seemed to be quite a battery drain, not sure they fixed it in the meantime.
Google play store used to say that OM had over 1 million installs. It seems unlikely that popular applications can be pulled by fully automated processes without a human in the loop. Especially for something as nebulous as “Families Program” rules.
Oh it's just another multi-trillion dollar company operating with near unlimited discretion in the domain in which it's a (mono|duo)polist. What else is new? Anything else than turbo-capitalism is so out of fashion these days, even things like "utilities" regulation as applied to e.g. phone companies in the 20th century is now decidedly out of scope. We will continue to have these hugely profitable companies bully competitors and extend their tentacles everywhere until states do something about it.
--
The unspecified "you have violated our terms of service ergo your account has been closed / your data has been deleted / you can't open this page or this app, no appeal or review allowed" is a pretty insidious example of this prepotence.
Why does Google communicate like this? Anyone reviewing OraganicMaps will instantly judge it not to be some scam or malicious app. So why the completely useless message? Nowhere do they actually say what OrganicMaps is doing wrong.
I'm sure the answer is 'automated review process, humans are expensive', but it's really fucked up to see a huge corporation like Google just removing one of the two most well-known OpenStreetMap apps like that (the other being OsmAnd).
If you use Android: get free software apps like these from F-Droid.
Considering the fact that OrganicMaps shows a map of the world, it might be something as daft as allowing children to look up where the nearest brothel is…
I didn't even consider the legality (they're legal in the Netherlands), but I was thinking more along the lines of Google's 'Family Policy' mentioned in the Tweet (Xeet?).
