Google Play sees 47% decline in apps since start of last year

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Regulation, identity, and who’s to blame

  • Big part of the discussion: EU Digital Services Act “trader” rules vs Google’s interpretation.
  • Some argue the DSA only requires verified contact details for traders (monetized apps, ads, IAP), and allows PO boxes; they say Google chose to over‑apply it, require physical addresses, and enforce it globally.
  • Others respond that from Google’s risk perspective, it’s simpler to require everything from everyone than misclassify a trader and face EU penalties, so the EU still bears responsibility.
  • Strong pushback from developers against mandatory public listing of name, physical address, and contact info, especially for hobbyists and politically sensitive apps; concerns about doxxing, harassment, spam, and data brokers.
  • A minority see real‑name/contact requirements as reasonable consumer protection (“someone to sue”), but others call this an invasive, disproportionate way to achieve accountability.

D-U-N-S numbers, verification, and bureaucratic hurdles

  • Many reports of Play Console forcing D-U-N-S numbers, even where people thought they were “individual” accounts; others say it’s officially only for organizations, so scope is unclear.
  • Getting and validating D-U-N-S is described as confusing and error‑prone, especially for subsidiaries, acquired companies, and non‑Western entities; some paid hundreds of dollars via intermediaries and still fought with mismatched records.
  • Developers recount Kafkaesque support: contradictory instructions, cases closed as “no response,” threats of account closure that support told them to ignore.
  • Address verification is also a sticking point: no PO boxes, virtual offices sometimes rejected, and some people unable to verify their actual home address due to Google’s narrow proof rules.

New Play Store policies that raise the bar

  • Individual devs describe a requirement to recruit 10–20 beta testers for two weeks before release; this is seen as unrealistic for hobby projects and easy to game via paid testers.
  • Constant API level bumps and ever‑changing security/privacy/Drive‑access paperwork are said to create a maintenance treadmill that many small teams can’t keep up with.
  • Some commercial devs and big brands reportedly froze or dropped Android versions rather than constantly adapt to new Play rules.

Content purge and “quality” debate

  • Google has removed apps with “limited functionality or content” (static text/PDF/wallpaper wrappers, test apps, very low‑content apps).
  • Some applaud this as overdue cleanup of a “dumpster” store full of junk and clones.
  • Others argue low‑stakes “trash” apps are important for learning, niche communities, and offline document bundles; they question where the quality bar is set and who it really filters out.
  • Multiple commenters claim scammy apps and blatant impersonators still slip through, while long‑standing, low‑risk indie or FOSS apps get purged.

Impact on indie/FOSS developers and ecosystem

  • Numerous devs say they removed their own apps or were delisted rather than expose their home address or navigate the new bureaucracy.
  • Free, offline, open‑source apps were reportedly removed despite no monetization; some authors moved to F-Droid or handed projects to companies.
  • Several describe Play as effectively “corporate‑only” now: viable for larger entities with legal/ops staff, hostile to individuals and micro‑businesses.

Alternative distribution channels and discoverability

  • Android’s sideloading and alternative stores (especially F-Droid) are repeatedly praised as a safety valve; some say that’s where personal or FOSS projects now belong.
  • However, many stress that for mainstream users, “if it’s not on Play/App Store, it doesn’t exist,” particularly in countries where past sideloading equaled malware. App stores are still critical for discovery and automatic updates.
  • F-Droid is lauded for curated FLOSS policies (no proprietary ad/analytics libraries, reproducible builds), but criticized for UX and “anti‑feature” shaming of non‑FLOSS components.

Broader reflections on app stores and mobile platforms

  • Several see Apple and Google as rent‑seeking gatekeepers: controlling defaults, app distribution, payments, and extracting “tax” while imposing rigid, automated processes and weak support.
  • Others argue much of this is a predictable outcome of regulation plus large‑scale risk‑management: when you must KYC millions of developers, you get rigid bureaucracy and over‑compliance.
  • A recurring theme is nostalgia for the early days of mobile apps and a shift toward fewer installs, more web/PWAs, and alternative repositories for those who can tolerate the friction.