Starting around January, our app (Dominion[1]) has randomly had updates rejected (including one that _delisted the existing app_) because of our app description. We make some irrelevant changes and resubmit and, so far, it's been accepted each time. We've had the same description for over a year/10+ releases before.
The latest rejection:
>>>
The app title or description does not accurately describe the app’s functionality.
Issue details
We found an issue in the following area(s):
Full description (en_US): “▪ Tutorial & Rules ”
<<<
So we changed this to:
▪ In app Tutorial & Rules
And it passed. Every release is just a bucket of stress that we are going to lose N-days of revenue again for no obvious reason.
"Pushbullet connects your devices, making them feel like one." It's a "sync" program. Pushbullet talks to a lot of things and manipulates a lot of the user's data. So it's inherently a security risk.
Google also has a "sync" program, which syncs things within the Google ecosystem. Google doesn't want others encroaching on their domain. Nor do they want easy import and export from their ecosystem. Although, unlike Apple, they don't come right out and say that.
"If we only published the guilty than no one would be afraid" - attributed to Lavrentiy Beria.
I'm starting to think the reviewers have a quota of rejection to fill up and they reject apps randomly over some arbitrary concerns to meet it. Or maybe just to show they are doing they job. Or worse, the app store off shore validations, so the sub contractors script it to reject random stuff to pretend they have humans behind it.
If you don't mind some off-topic feedback on the Dominion website - have you considered making the Tables screen default to "New" only? At busy times, that screen consistently lags for several seconds while displaying hundreds (thousands?) of running and finished games. It's always a pain to wait for it before de-selecting "Running" and "Post-Game".
Let me know if that doesn't work. I used to work for them (only to make the release deadline). I can contact the creator directly if necessary. But the forum is probably the better route to take.
I find it incredible that Google's sharedholders did not do anything about the company just plain losing money "here and there" which probably adds up to billions.
Just because someone wants to get promoted by making another half baked pseudo-AI to check apps, or someone making the 6th chat program (sorry, all people quit already after the 3rd change).
Yeah I wondered that or the bullet character too. The thing is we referenced other apps that used this exact formatting. But yeah, could just be a bug that was introduced at the beginning of the year that hopefully they can figure out and fix.
I've been having the same issue with an app. Random rejections with a single line copy-pasted from the (genuine) feature list in the app description. In this case the lines just start with a regular dash ("-").
This together with the sometimes 10+ day review times makes it impossible to maintain an app on the Play Store now.
What you lose then is the auto-update.
You can of course make the app nag about installing a new version when available, but it works much, much worse.
Sharecropping originally refers to a process where a landowner would let people farm their land in exchange for a portion of the yield. It has negative associations with post-slavery exploitation of black farmers as well as poor farmers in general in the 1800s and early 1900s. In this setting, it's being used to compare the practice of hosting and selling your app on someone else's platform, with those same connotations of exploitation.
Basically they are saying to stop putting your app on the app store and letting google take a large % of the app and letting your business be dependent on another business.
In this case the landlord is Google, and you are the sharecropper, giving a share (30%) to google to be allowed to use the play store.
The situations have more in common than you might think. In both cases, you accept the non-negotiated deal offered to you unilaterally by your owners, or you accept zero revenue.
They're very different scenarios, because throughout history sharecroppers have almost always been "stuck" in their situation with no hope of relief, whereas app developers can realistically just go do something else.
When I lived in Asia as a white guy I was regularly the target of "racism": inflated prices (I was earning local salary), you're automatically "in the wrong" in any conflict even when you did nothing wrong, being a target of theft and government corruption, sometimes just general hostility. But it's not really the same "racism" in the same sense that, say, a black person in the US experiences it, as I can just choose to leave, whereas a black person in the US can't really. In spite of the similarities, in the end the experiences are not the same at all.
This makes all the difference. I'm not saying that what Google is doing is right, but it's just not the same thing at all.
At the best, it's a thought-provoking analogy. At the worse, it's a tasteless comparison between software engineering (overwhelmingly lucrative, mostly filled with otherwise well-off people) and a legal loophole for slavery.
Sure, it’s just the thing you do where you take all of the former slaves, keep them working on the same land, and pay them a pittance so they can’t leave. Hum.
Countries and even states not your own. Not to mention the successor to the underground railroad was a thing, people can move when sufficiently motivated.
The latest rejection:
>>> The app title or description does not accurately describe the app’s functionality. Issue details
We found an issue in the following area(s): Full description (en_US): “▪ Tutorial & Rules ” <<<
So we changed this to:
▪ In app Tutorial & Rules
And it passed. Every release is just a bucket of stress that we are going to lose N-days of revenue again for no obvious reason.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.templegate...