Comment on Why my apps will soon be gone from the Google Play Store

• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  OK, then you’re being really sketchy and screwing over customers.

  Not publishing a phone number is perfectly fine. Publishing a phone number that’s a black hole is extremely anti-consumer.

  source

  • Pika@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    just have the voicemail say “this mailbox is rarely monitored and is here as a requirement for google play services; a better way of getting support is available at X”

    It’s also extremely anti-consumer to not offer any support. Which is likely the primary reason that Google is requiring this. There are so many apps out there that don’t have any means of support, it’s one of my primary complaints about google play, so many abandonwares or apps that were clearly put on there as a send and done with no intent to actually use them.

    source

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      That’s not better. It is not OK to have a phone number published that is not monitored regularly, no matter what message you leave when they call it.

      You should have a legitimate contact method, but it is not acceptable behavior to publish a contact method that isn’t handled appropriately.

      source

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        [deleted]

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Pika@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        It’s no different than companies like Microsoft, you have their phone number that’s a literal support line that says hey go to the website sometimes without even indicating where on the website that you go to.

        I ran into that twice while dealing with an activation issue and a hardware purchase issue last year, their phone support will lead you in circles until eventually you hit a voicemail that says please go to this page. In one case it gave the location, in the other it said “this support is available on the Microsoft store website at” and it just gave you the store launchpage for ms store

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • fuzzzerd@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        When its not optional to publish email only, the proposed solution is pretty reasonable imo.

        source
  • oldfart@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Stupid rules are beat by malicious compliance

    source
• Life_inst_bad@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  That would be “accepting the premise of assholes” as Louis Rossman would say.

  source