Google will have all the attributes for the app refreshed from time to time. Regarding ads, we put it in there the last time we called, about a year ago, so it's entered, no in-app purchases are there, so there's nothing there.
How google marks it in the final is then its business, we have no way to interfere with that.
we have no way to interfere with that. They do, they can declare the ads. Also people use OSMond for maps+navigation, some prefer magic earthI use one map app called Mapy.cz. It's fairly good app and I like it however the app serves ads as visible points of interest on the map and it even writes "Ad" if you click on the point and see details. The problem was that even thought the app served apps that fact wasn't written in the playstore under the app name as it always is the case with apps that serve ads including MacroDroid. So I wrote to the developer, which btw aren't any indie developers as Jamie is, but it's a company with much more service and I asked them why they don't have marked the fact their app includes ads. I got a response in czech. This is just translated.
It wasn't even on month and the app got marked as including ads after years of not having it even though the ads were there.
I can actually see his point. If the only purpose of that extension were file handling, Google wouldn't be able to refuse it the full files permission. Then if MD used it for all file operations, and both were available in Google Play Store, problem solved and in an official way.That scatters MacroDroid into 3 different apps. Even better than 2! We can already use MacroDroid Helper to handle this problem as it does now. The only thing this would solve is that the plugin could be on Play Store and wouldn't need to be sideloaded.
The problem here is not the way it is done, but the fact that you need 3 whole apps (and MacroDroidDev has to handle 3 apps even if helper is not updated a lot, in fact I have never seen an update to it since I first installed MacroDroid). He will probably end up putting all files access into the helper.I can actually see his point. If the only purpose of that extension were file handling, Google wouldn't be able to refuse it the full files permission. Then if MD used it for all file operations, and both were available in Google Play Store, problem solved and in an official way.
And for how long will they let him use that unofficial workaround?The problem here is not the way it is done, but the fact that you need 3 whole apps (and MacroDroidDev has to handle 3 apps even if helper is not updated a lot, in fact I have never seen an update to it since I first installed MacroDroid). He will probably end up putting all files access into the helper.
In fact MD helper is not only useful for file handling, but a lot of other things like changing system settings or executing shell commands. Even if it whould have been granted with all fiels permission it would be forced to target SDK 31 and would lost on a lot of it's capabilities that it has thanks to targeting SDK 21.both were available in Google Play Store
So why do you not complain about that ? If tasker and automate got the permission and not you when they are literally the same type of app as yours, you can complain about it !I have appealed via the Google Play appeal process once more, so I await a further rejection from that. It seems clear to me that Google's arbitrary policy enforcement is detrimental to app developers and can favour one app over another. The fact that both Tasker and Automate have been granted this permission and MacroDroid has not is clear evidence of this. If I don't get any satisfaction from Google I hope to start making noise on whatever Android/tech sites I can to highlight this injustice.
Well I hope he already did but unfortunately Google just doesn't care...So why do you not complain about that ? If tasker and automate got the permission and not you when they are literally the same type of app as yours, you can complain about it !
Show them that this is unfair, and if you can, get the developers of these apps to say it to Google's face !
There is absolutely no reason for them to get it and not you, since it's not a "core feature" for them either ! And if they find a single thing that could eventually make them in the right of Google's policy, you just need to also implement the thing in your app so it can fit to Google's policy as well !
You've got to show them why there is a flaw in their policy and why there is injustice where there should not be. Show them that their logic isn't logic at all ! They need to see their own stupidity, we are a whole community on your back to support you against this injustice!
A meno che tu non sia ben collegato a qualcuno in Google, non esiste altra strada in cui puoi convincere qualcuno con un cervello a vedere che due app sono equivalenti e non ha senso concedere a una l'autorizzazione e negare all'altra.@Golem64 Credi seriamente che non abbia cercato di lamentarmi e di sollevare l'ingiustizia di ciò?
Ho fatto appello più volte e ho provato tutti i tipi di angoli a questo. La realtà della situazione è che qualsiasi appello che passa attraverso i robot molto probabilmente va a un lavoratore poco qualificato poco retribuito che segue una lista di controllo. Nell'ambito di questo processo ciò che è stato concesso ad altre app viene completamente ignorato.
Ecco la cattura dichiarazione all che restituiscono:
Tieni presente che qualsiasi conformità o non percepita delle app di altri sviluppatori non ha alcuna influenza sulla conformità delle tue app. Se desideri segnalare un'app che ritieni una violazione dei termini per gli sviluppatori, puoi contrassegnarla come app inappropriata nell'app Google Play o tramite questo modulo di contatto .
A meno che tu non sia ben collegato a qualcuno in Google, non esiste altra strada in cui puoi convincere qualcuno con un cervello a vedere che due app sono equivalenti e non ha senso concedere a una l'autorizzazione e negare all'altra.
Ogni volta che invio un aggiornamento per cercare di ottenere questa autorizzazione, ci vuole un'età per la revisione e poi, quando mi arrendo di nuovo, MacroDroid sembra essere contrassegnato in qualche modo, quindi anche gli aggiornamenti semplici richiedono un'età per essere esaminati in seguito. Si rovina totalmente con i miei normali intervalli di rilascio.
Lo sviluppo su Android e il rilascio su Google Play negli ultimi anni si è trasformato in un vero incubo e passo troppo tempo solo cercando di far funzionare l'app e gestendo i reclami quando alcune funzionalità si interrompono (a causa di nuove restrizioni di Android o di alcune nuove politiche). Devo ammettere che affrontare questo problema è stato messo nel dimenticatoio perché avevo appena esaurito la capacità mentale di affrontarlo e avevo molti altri fuochi da combattere. Valuterò nuovamente nel nuovo anno.
bisogna lamentarsi per benino e metterli in difficolta' sull'evidenza dei fatti ci saremo noi ad aiutarvi, dobbiamo fare fronte comune tuttiAllora perché non ti lamenti di questo? Se tasker e automatizzate hanno ottenuto l'autorizzazione e non tu quando sono letteralmente lo stesso tipo di app della tua, puoi lamentartene!
Mostra loro che questo è ingiusto e, se puoi, chiedi agli sviluppatori di queste app di dirlo in faccia a Google!
Non c'è assolutamente alcun motivo per loro di ottenerlo e non per te, dal momento che non è nemmeno una "caratteristica fondamentale" per loro! E se trovano una sola cosa che alla fine potrebbe renderli nel diritto della politica di Google, devi solo implementare anche la cosa nella tua app in modo che possa adattarsi anche alla politica di Google!
Devi mostrare loro perché c'è un difetto nella loro politica e perché c'è ingiustizia dove non dovrebbe esserci. Mostra loro che la loro logica non è affatto logica! Devono vedere la propria stupidità, siamo un'intera comunità sulle tue spalle per sostenerti contro questa ingiustizia!
Unless you are well connected to someone in google hopefully there is absolutely no need for it progress cannot be hindered if unfortunately there are no friends and acquaintances in google we need to turn things aroundUnless you're well connected to someone at Google, there's no other avenue you can get someone with a brain to see that two apps are equivalent, and there's no point in allowing one and denying the other.
this unequal treatment is shameful let's all rebel together let's send google all the same message, surely in the end they will listen to us, who knows what agreements they will have made with ifttt and tasker their money will surely limit an uncomfortable customer like macrodroid who just look at the progress it's a real shame.
yet man's intelligence should find a solution to everything meaning that of the macrodroid developer overcome the imposed barriers, I think that nothing is impossible even if the ways to achieve could be much more convoluted, let's forget the intelligence of the lords of google who should know how to listen..... let's not add any more comments they would not be absolutely positive
we must rebel against him but let's begin to adopt a common line let's not disperse our energies
We are victims of a series of injustices!!!
Please write in English.A meno che tu non sia ben collegato a qualcuno in Google , speriamo che non c'e' ne sia assolutamente bisogno il progresso non puo' essere ostacolato se per disgrazia non ci sono amicizie e conoscenze in google dobbiamo far cambiare il corso delle cose
ok sorry the problem the auto translator ;-)Please write in English.
Epub and other types of ebooks file are not considered media files by Android, so it do need all files accessI recently installed (and quickly uninstalled) an e-book management and reading app, Librera. Very first thing app does upon first running is to ask for all file access; and it won't budge until one grants it or kills the app – refusing the request just brings it back on.
Two things. First, Google consents all file access to an app which really doesn't need it – media only should suffice here – but not to MD, which couldn't need it more. Second, the app's nerve in refusing to do anything at all should the user say no to its demands.
I think it simply means it uses this permission to be able to select a file/folder from some explorer. All file access permission makes it so that choosing a file is not needed at all, this would be great for really any macro messing with files.So how come MD manages with only the media permission and is even able to read from and write to any file type, including .epub files?