And this is why you don’t see apps selling for a price but rather being used to syphon users into subscriptions.
Comment on Why is Google allowed to remove purchases from our Play Store accounts without telling us?
LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 8 months ago
They’re not purchases, they’re leases.
NickwithaC@lemmy.world 8 months ago
yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
Well, they’re “purchases” of a license that can be revoked at any time for any reason.
snaggen@programming.dev 8 months ago
Are they really? Didn’t you press a button that said “Buy”? Just because they want things to be something else, doesn’t mean that the meaning of the words changed.
MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 8 months ago
They can argue that you “bought” the lease.
grue@lemmy.world 8 months ago
No they fucking can’t argue that! Words have meanings and Google is not entitled to change them.
essteeyou@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It’s pretty clear that you’re leasing a car when you do it. Make it like that.
LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It’s in the terms you agreed to. Didn’t you read them?
MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 8 months ago
If it’s in the term and you sign it, then, for better or for worse, then that is true.
danielfgom@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Exactly. It should say “lease” instead of “buy” or just “price” .
They know that too but you know why they don’t use “lease”? They would have WAY less sales. Almost no one would click that.
So they use “buy”/“price” to make you think you own it, and then think they are clever when they define it as “buying a licence” in the Terms.
That’s plain and sneaky so I don’t feel sorry for them when people pirate stuff.
I wish every dev had the option of “go to my website and buy this from me with an eternal licence included” as well as the option to lease it from the Play Store.
Same goes for music and movies.
Patch@feddit.uk 8 months ago
I’ve just had a look on the Play Store, and they notably don’t use the word “buy” anywhere that I can see. The button to “buy” the app is just a button with the price on it, and clicking through that it uses the language of “install”.
Can’t help but think that that’s deliberate.
f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Exec@pawb.social 8 months ago
On some storefronts the relevant button is labelled “Get”
ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
It’s also a private company and they can do whatever they want on their platform and their property.
It’s like renting space in an apartment … don’t be surprised if the landlord decides to change the agreements and do things you don’t like. You’re renting things, you don’t own anything.
Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
You can’t arbitrarily change agreements for renting without consent or lease renewal. At least not in civilized countries.
Sabata11792@kbin.social 8 months ago
You can do whatever the hell you want when you pay Congress.
MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Their property, their rules🤷🏿
That’s life.
tabular@lemmy.world 8 months ago
By that logic citizens can say “our country, our rules”.
GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website 8 months ago
Can they murder people on their property? Or is there some limit to their ability to make rules?
DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
Maybe in the US, you’d get fucked as a property owner where I live if you tried that.
_number8_@lemmy.world 8 months ago
why would you defend this
ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
I’m not defending or condoning it … I was just pointing out something for what it is. I keep my purchases, rentals and anything paid for to a minimum with services like Google, Amazon or any other cloud or electronic service. They are not purchases of ownership, they are marketed as things that we buy and own indefinitely but in legal terms, they are more or less indeterminate rentals or leases from the company with terms that can be set by the company that controls them.
I agree, in terms of comparing to an apartment rental, there are more laws because the thing that is involved severely affects a person’s life because we’re talking about a roof over a person’s head.
But in terms of electronic or digital items or services that only exist online, it’s a lot easier to remove / change / delete them because these actions won’t put you out on the street, make you starve or physically hurt you in any way. We lose the convenience and we lose out on something.
I’m not belittling any of it, I wouldn’t want to lose anything I paid for either but at the same time, we have to understand that when we sign up to pay for something with a multi billion dollar corporation, we hardly have any rights to anything, agreed to or implied … and if we argue that in court, the one with the most money wins.
grue@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Your argument is cargo-cult libertarian bullshit. There are lots of things private entities can’t do on “their property!” Murdering visitors, for example. Fraudulently claiming a sale isn’t really a sale is right up there with that in terms of how clear-cut the rule is.
What we have here is squarely a failure of the FTC to do its goddamn job. Nothing more, nothing less.
laverabe@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I think everyone took there comment in the wrong light. They’re not defending Google, but rather pointing out that this behavior should be expected from a for profit company, and thus people should have avoided the situation in the first place. Not that it should be that way, but we live under capitalism unfortunately, and people need to be way more skeptical of these companies.
Rather than blaming inaction of the FTC, why not just stop using play store all together and encourage people to use Fdroid instead? Companies will never stop abusing ‘e-goods’ , it’s just not going to happen. People should just get beyond ownership and embrace the advantages of free software.
grue@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Rather than blaming inaction of the FTC, why not just stop using play store all together and encourage people to use Fdroid instead?
Because boycotts don’t fucking work and are not a replacement for meaningful consumer protection law!
SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
Does that single landlord control every apartment in the country? That is Google’s level of monopoly.
LWD@lemm.ee 8 months ago
You’re correct, of course, but I think if a company uses the term “purchase” or “buy” up front and center, that it should be considered one.
FWIW, before posting this, I looked around on the Google Play Store and they are suspiciously hesitant to actually use those words. Their top charts are “paid,” going to a “Paid” app just shows the price, etc. But despite showing a link to their terms of service, they never state that it is a lease.
ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
They’re not really leases either. Leases last for a defined period of time, like “one year,” or they renew at regular intervals, like “monthly.” “Pay up front and we’ll let you keep this license for either forever or until we decide to revoke it without notifying you” isn’t the same thing.
LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Apple uses the word “Get” for free things and simply displays the price on the button of paid apps. No mention of the nature of the transaction. That’s in the Germa of agreement you “read” and agreed to.
Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Same thing that Sony did with movies on the PS. “You’re buying a revocable licence”
atrielienz@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Pretty much all the big tech firms have done this. The problem is we only blame the middlemen. We blame Sony or Amazon, or Google or whoever. But the companies providing the licenses for them to “sell” are a big part of the problem. And nobody ever wants to listen when I say this but they should be on the hook too. Like, I appreciate that it’s messed up to have your purchased media shadow ganked. But at the same time it’s fucked up to have the licensing agreements be what they are to start with and that’s absolutely on companies that own the rights to digital media. Who continue to lobby to maintain the status quo.
Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
All they will do is call it purshaces or some other made up bs