[Android Apps and Games] easyjoin:
Was Google's first decision, to remove the app from the Play Store, justified?

Let's look at how other apps that offer the functionalities involved in this case, i.e., sharing SMS and contacts among users' devices, inform the user of data sharing.

I will take as an example the "Link to Windows" app, which you may know by its earlier name "Your phone", a Microsoft app.

There are also other apps that I could have taken as an example but I didn't because the other apps are either created by a single developer, or by a group of developers developing the app in their spare time or by a small company. I didn't want to mention these apps because they could have become an easy target and been removed on the same reasons that mine was removed.

Moreover, no one could easily say that a Microsoft app fell into the same mistakes that an indie developer might fall into, because he/she did not read and understand correctly what he/she was supposed to do. We can assume that Microsoft has a legal department that takes care of all aspects that concern user privacy and decides what to write in the "privacy policy" and within the app before accessing user data, in order to comply with the rules.

So let's see what the user sees in the "Link to Windows" app when it opens it. I have divided the attached screenshots into two logical categories: those with the name "a??.png" (a01 to a07) that are about device logging/pairing; those "p??.png" (p01 to p08) that are about requesting permissions. The flow is first the "a??" pages and after the "p??" pages.

The images we are interested in are those from "p01.png" to "p08.png", particularly the "p01.png" since almost all others are the default ones when an app asks for a permission. Does the app offer an adequate level of "prominent disclosure", which was the reason "EasyJoin" was removed from the Play store?

Let's then compare the "p01.ng" image from "Link to Windows" with the original image "04_01-before.png", before I edited the text, from "EasyJoin". You can find "EasyJoin" screenshots in post "#346". Note that the only modification I made to the app concerns the (additional) text in the popup and to add the same text on the "privacy policy" page.

What we see is that "Link to Windows" has the text "Next up, app permissions... We need a few permissions to help your phone and PC work together." and there is a "Continue" button. This page comes before the request of the permissions and before the app screen that offers the various features of the app.

Let's also see what "EasyJoin" does. The request for permissions comes after the user tries to enable the feature for sharing SMS, contacts and phone calls ("01.png," "02.png," and "03.png"): there is a switch with text "Send phone calls and SMS" and when enabled a popup is displayed with title "Phone calls and SMS" and text "Do you want to enable the selected device to manage your phone calls and SMS?". In the popup there are "OK" and "CANCEL" buttons.

In my opinion, "EasyJoin" gives more information to the user before requesting permissions and also the request for permissions happens when the user tries to enable the feature. It is also true that my judgment might be influenced by the fact that I am the developer of this app. Therefore, do not pay attention to my previous judgement but to the next one regarding the concurrent competing app.

Is it "Link to Windows", considering the flow of screens and the text displayed, in error for not giving the correct "prominent disclosure"? In my opinion, it is not in error, and here is why.

What the screenshots of both applications don't say or make clear is the overall context. The user is not suddenly presented with one of the screenshots when he/she turns on the phone; if that were the case, it would make sense to go digging through the text, the flow of the screenshots, and the buttons on them.

The user before clicking the app icon in the phone to open it had to download it and install it. On the Play store page where there is the button to download and install the app, there is also a detailed description.

Some might object that "users don't read, they just click the install button"; if this were true, and if we have to use this logic, then it would also apply to the text displayed in the various screens of the app and at this point we might as well not write anything and/or the text it's not important.

In the apps description it's clear what functionality they offer. The context of requesting permissions and displaying messages is very clear and well defined. This is not a game that requires access to the location or status of the phone where there might need to be a detailed explanation of why it needs those permissions since they are not directly related to the functionality offered by the app. These are apps that make it very clear what they do and the permissions required are in line with the functionality offered.

So what is the conclusion? Did Google make a mistake in removing the app? If it is a mistake, is this to be attributed to human error? Or is it a systemic error?

I don't think I have to give an answer to these questions. I think those who have come to read all my posts, regarding this case, can draw their own conclusions. I would like to close with what I wrote to Google when they asked me to fill out a survey regarding my satisfaction with how my case was handled:

"You should change the culture of handling violations, always having in mind that removing an app from the Play store could be very serious for those who live from the removed app and will lose economic income.

Removing an app, or an account, should not be the first action on your part but should be taken after you have communicated the possible problem to the developer and you do not get any response/fix from him/her in the next 24 hours.

"Shooting" first and then asking the "target" to appeal if he or she disagrees for getting "shot" is not the best way to solve any problems you may have with developers."