Google Play Sees 47% Decline In Apps Since Start of Last Year (techcrunch.com) 55
Google Play's app marketplace has seen a dramatic 47% drop in available apps
-- from 3.4 million to 1.8 million -- since the start of 2024. An analysis by app intelligence provider Appfigures attributes the decline to stricter quality standards, expanded human reviews, and increased enforcement against low-quality and deceptive apps. TechCrunch reports: In July 2024, Google announced it would raise the minimum quality requirements for apps, which may have impacted the number of available Play Store app listings.
Instead of only banning broken apps that crashed, wouldn't install, or run properly, the company said it would begin banning apps that demonstrated "limited functionality and content." That included static apps without app-specific features, such as text-only apps or PDF file apps. It also included apps that provided little content, like those that only offered a single wallpaper. Additionally, Google banned apps that were designed to do nothing or have no function, which may have been tests or other abandoned developer efforts.
Reached for comment, Google confirmed that its new policies were factors here, which also included an expanded set of verification requirements, required app testing for new personal developer accounts, and expanded human reviews to check for apps that try to deceive or defraud users. In addition, the company pointed to other 2024 investments in AI for threat detection, stronger privacy policies, improved developer tools, and more. As a result, Google prevented 2.36 million policy-violating apps from being published on its Play Store and banned more than 158,000 developer accounts that had attempted to publish harmful apps, it said. TechCrunch also notes that a new trader status rule, which went into effect in the EU this February, could be another contributing factor. It requires developers to display their names and addresses in their app listings, and failure to comply would see their apps removed from EU app stores.
Instead of only banning broken apps that crashed, wouldn't install, or run properly, the company said it would begin banning apps that demonstrated "limited functionality and content." That included static apps without app-specific features, such as text-only apps or PDF file apps. It also included apps that provided little content, like those that only offered a single wallpaper. Additionally, Google banned apps that were designed to do nothing or have no function, which may have been tests or other abandoned developer efforts.
Reached for comment, Google confirmed that its new policies were factors here, which also included an expanded set of verification requirements, required app testing for new personal developer accounts, and expanded human reviews to check for apps that try to deceive or defraud users. In addition, the company pointed to other 2024 investments in AI for threat detection, stronger privacy policies, improved developer tools, and more. As a result, Google prevented 2.36 million policy-violating apps from being published on its Play Store and banned more than 158,000 developer accounts that had attempted to publish harmful apps, it said. TechCrunch also notes that a new trader status rule, which went into effect in the EU this February, could be another contributing factor. It requires developers to display their names and addresses in their app listings, and failure to comply would see their apps removed from EU app stores.
Family Danger (Score:5, Interesting)
I let my developer account get deleted rather than put my family at risk of doxxing, Swatting, and other threats from deranged people. My family is worth more than any amount of money I could possibly make from Google.
Google wanted to get rid of small developers, so mission accomplished.
I'm confused how is that Google's fault? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also if you know what bSNES is... The creator of it was trans and bullying push them to suicide.
So I understand that but is the complaint that Google isn't doing enough to protect creators? I don't recall them requiring you to put your personal name on an app but it's been a while since I wrote anything.
Re:I'm confused how is that Google's fault? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google wants real IDs for ads and such, and shares that info. Honestly, fucking horrible company.
Re: (Score:2)
Google wants real IDs for ads and such, and shares that info.
Shares it with who? Not with advertisers. Google doesn't give any user data to advertisers. So who else might they share it with, and why?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Google wants real IDs for ads and such, and shares that info.
Shares it with who? Not with advertisers. Google doesn't give any user data to advertisers. So who else might they share it with, and why?
Google doxxes independent developers FULL legal name and STREET address where they (and perhaps their family) resides on Play Store app listings. This info is available for all and sundry to exploit and/or scrape for any purpose.
You cannot obfuscate or hide this info. You cannot provide a P.O. Box or Private Bag mail address.
If you want to change your name, you must provide government documents showing that you've legally changed your name. If you want to change address, you've got to provide Google w
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the law in some places like the EU. Basically if you do business with some entity selling you something, you have a right to know where that entity exists.
You know, are they a real business or are they some shady company with no way to contact them other than email.
And on b
Re: (Score:2)
Creating a tiny shell corp is cheap and easy to do (at least in the U.S.).
Re: I'm confused how is that Google's fault? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Google doesn't give any user data to advertisers." Riiiiight
They absolutely do not. That would be giving away the goose that lays the golden eggs. It's vastly more profitable to keep the data and to sell advertising as a service, which is what Google's advertising business model is. Advertisers say "I'd like to present this ad to likely buyers" and Google says "Okay, we'll do that for you, and you'll pay us a fee for every click. We'll figure out how to target your ad appropriately because we have data and expertise that you do not."
Re: (Score:2)
Google wants more or less full access to your bank account. Even if you just make free apps that you don't make money from.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember how mean people here were to Richard M. Stallman?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't recall them requiring you to put your personal name on an app...
Google wants your real address, which they put on your app's public page. It's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall them requiring you to put your personal name on an app...
Google wants your real address, which they put on your app's public page. It's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.
Why wouldn't you just use a legal address rather than your home address? That's 100% legal in the UK and EU as long as it's a contactable entity. Loads of businesses already offer these services.
I strongly suspect that the whole app craze is finally over and the millions of crap apps people were wishing would magically turn them into bajillionaires are being abandoned and deleted. Most of them were either single use web browsers or platforms for ads.
Requiring a developer to be contactable is a pretty
Re: (Score:2)
> Why wouldn't you just use a legal address rather than your home address?
That assumes you have one. Sure, you can get one, but you've got to pay for it. If you're just making apps as a hobby, then you're going to be paying out, just to be able to do your hobby.
If you're a company (even a small one), then you likely have a legal address and already pay for it (likely via your accountant fees). But setting up a whole company for your hobby is also an expensive way to do hobbies.
FWIW, I played around with
Re: (Score:2)
Google wants your real address, which they put on your app's public page. It's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.
Yes, same as the HAM radio license database.
Or for that matter, domain registration. Technically using an obscuring service is not allowed, though many of us are doing it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
if your app fails to censor the truth [translate.goog].
What does this article have to do with the "EU"? It discusses the opinion of someone in Sweden about something or other.
One might just as well pick the opinion of some nutjob from a town hall meeting in South Dakota and pass it around as the law of the land in the country formerly known as "USA". Probably the quote will be much closer to the "official" line, too, now that the Trump States of Amurikah are mostly ruled by decrees.
because people can "hide" behind inalienable rights like those granted by the first amendment
The US, where the most basic inalienable right to life is a distant second to th
Re: (Score:2)
I let my developer account get deleted rather than put my family at risk of doxxing, Swatting, and other threats from deranged people.
Are you saying Google publishes the addresses and phone numbers of developers? Where is this information found?
Re: (Score:2)
The contact information is claimed to be needed for app support purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying Google publishes the addresses and phone numbers of developers?
Yes, that is the new policy. And it is absolutely not worth it.
Re: (Score:1)
I already had previously opted out of selling to users in Japan, because that legally requires publicly listing a phone number. Yeah, no thanks.
Google
Re:Family Danger (doxxing) (Score:2)
It's indeed a stupid rule. I can agree that one should perhaps be required to register their home address etc. with the app store itself in case there are legal problems, however, that's very different than broadcasting it to the public.
Wrong Tool For The Job.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be realistic. You should never, ever develop consumer software as an individual - it's just common sense. You should always start a seperate company, a separate legal entity for that. Name and address exposure aside, you get much more legal, financial and tax protection as a company and some of your suppliers/3rd parties may only want to offer you an account if you're a business.
Re: (Score:2)
You should always start a seperate company, a separate legal entity for that.
Even if you have a separate legal entity (which I do), it's still irrelevant if said company is run out of your home. Since Google doesn't allow P.O. boxes, your home address will be your mailing address.
Re: Family Danger (Score:2)
I run my own company. It's registered at a virtual office - a place that provides you with an address you can register your business at for a monthly fee, and they forward all your mail to your home address.
Re: (Score:3)
F-Droid is the way to go. Open source apps, good developer policies. You can add links for people to donate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
First, they deleted all my apps from the app store. The excuse being that I hadn't "updated" them for a while, and I'm not talking about complying with the latest APIs. Then they deleted my account for lack of activity, i.e., updating of existing apps or uploading new ones.
Oh, look, what they should have always beed doing (Score:2)
Props for being slightly less horrible. Fuck you, Google.
That 30% commission (Score:4, Insightful)
Wasn't it supposed to help Google ensure that users were protected from malware and bad apps?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The drop is simply because the new requirements are weeding out pointless and fradulent apps. It's a change for the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that whole "we need to take 30% of your sales so we can protect you" was crap from the beginning.
Bitcoin miners (Score:2)
I suspect that they're bitcoin mining, and a decent service for an app store would be to ban apps that do that.
So if any of you young kids wants to start an app store where devs have to submit their source code and you check it for bitcoin miners, let me know, and I'll join up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still using GalleryKK (fork of the old gallery app from Android KitKat). It's fast, simple, and the photo editor has a curves tool that's excellent. You have to side load it, though, as it says it's not compatible with newer android versions (works just fine).
i dont use playstore much (Score:2)
640,000 Apps should be enough for anyone (Score:3)
Re: 640,000 Apps should be enough for anyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some apps, however, are actually better as apps, e.g., an airline's app can give you notifications concerning your flight, e.g., gate change alerts, that you couldn't get from a web site unless you kept the page open and logged in in the browser.
And then there are games.
You really needed this explained?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't possibly use 640,000, 1.8million, 2.8 million, or 10 million apps.
Actually, nobody can. I'm going to assume 99.9+% of them are garbage to begin with.
It still sucks ass (Score:2)
Static Educational Apps? (Score:2)
By "educational apps" I mean some application that instructs you or provides knowledge that is well established and doesn't need "updates". Take the knot tying app I have. How to tie those knots doesn't change and I don't need the app the phone home or "engage" with me. Is that kind of app going to go away if the maintainer feels it's mature and complete?
money (Score:2)
I suspect that many developers realized that they can't make enough money on google play to justify the effort.
No, it's their "War on Free" (Score:2)
I had several dozen apps in the Play store. This is a lot like the Unity Engine debacle from a little while ago, Google realized free apps are cutting in on the market for paid apps, and has been adding more and more flaming hoops for developers to jump through to keep their apps in the app store. All of my apps are (were) free, no ads, no tracking, etc, I made not a dime from them. It finally got to the point where having apps in their store wasn't worth it. When you have 50 apps, and they give you a f