I don’t like the lack of transparency with how the Google Play Store doesn’t list the permissions if one pays for the app and instead only shows the permissions if one doesn’t pay.
I generally prefer it when devs release two apps – a free version and a paid version. This way it’s very clear on the Google Play Store what is being tracked in the paid app.
This won’t affect me personally, but I am curious if others would be more likely to use and pay for Sync if the permissions were more clear for the paid usage case.
https://lemmy.world/comment/2000775
Linking a message saying that someone was temporarily suspended doesn’t sway me especially when I see apps on the store that have both paid and free versions of their apps like the app I linked earlier. If they and others can do it, why can’t the dev for Sync?
Now if someone could share a link to a policy document by Google saying “You cannot have both a paid version and an unpaid version of an app on the play store” then I would be very happy to be corrected here and I will happily adapt my stance to support that. (Seriously, I don’t mind being corrected – I’d just prefer something official from Google.)
And so it’s a deal breaker for me. And while I never used Sync for Reddit, I am thankful to all the app creators for helping the community often out of pocket and/or while being severely underpaid for years. And I hope this dev will do well financially with other users who have loyalty or different priorities than I concerning privacy and transparency.
The “someone” is the developer of Sync though.
You’re asking me why Google has inconsistent or opaque policies? God knows, it’s just one of those things I expect from big tech companies at this point. I’m just pointing out why the dev isn’t doing it, because he got suspended for it previously.
Yeah I agree re opaque policies as if someone can get suspended for this, it would be nice if it was easy to find a policy regarding it. Thanks for your response.