yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
How fun it is to publish apps on the Google Play store (S02:E04 of 04)

"Hi developers at EasyJoin,

Thanks for your patience.

Status of app, EasyJoin - Decentralized link (net.easyjoin.pro): Available on Google Play

We’ve accepted your appeal and App Bundle Version 182 of your app has been reinstated.

You can find Version Name EasyJoin Pro 4.3.5 of your app live on Google Play here.

On a side note, I see your app was resubmitted earlier and is currently under our review."

Wait a minute, why was build 182 brought into production? This does not contain the text changes for the prominent disclosure. Perhaps there was no need to edit this text?

Here's where I was wrong: I was incorrect in S02:E01 when I wrote that this round started after I tried to publish an update; this round started from Google Play, without being triggered by an action of mine, which sent me an e-mail telling me that version 182, which had been validated only a few days earlier by them and was active in production, violates the policy described in S02:E01.

In accepting the appeal for build 182 they admitted that this whole round was basically useless because neither the app nor the privacy policy had something that was incorrect. I don't say this to denigrate them, we all make mistakes, and at the end of the day it's a good thing when an appeal is accepted because it means they've looked at the case without bias.

Anyway, let me thank the person who was following this appeal and let him or her know that it is build 183 that contains the requested changes:

"Thank you for the quick response.

The version in publication (183) contains your suggested changes of the text for the prominent disclosure: the text has been changed to replace the word "access" with "collect". The same change was also made to the policy page.

I understand from your answer that the modification of the text was not necessary, since the appeal regarding version 182 was accepted, which does not contain the modified text but the "original" text.

It wasn't a problem for me to edit the text and submit a new app version, I just hope the new version doesn't trigger another round of false-positive issues and related appeals.

Thank you for your intervention so far in solving this round of problems."

"I just hope the new version doesn't trigger another round" ... If only I had the same ability to predict the lottery numbers.
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
How fun it is to publish apps on the Google Play store (S03:E01)

It took about 10 days to complete Season 2 (Feb. 2 through Feb. 13), certainly much better than Season 1 which took 50 days.

Now I'm definitely not going to have any more problems because they contested that there were infractions, I made changes, which as it turns out I shouldn't have done, just to please them, and also they brought back or kept the versions that they were reporting as having issues in production.

Now they just need to verify build 183, which contains the changes to the disclosure text, but it will definitely be a formality.

Thursday, February 15, 2024:

"App Status: Rejected

Issue found: Unable to verify core functionality of app

Your declared that your permission use case is the core functionality of your app. However, after review, we found that your app does not match the declared use case(s). Learn more about permitted uses and exceptions.

Please either make changes to your app so that it meets the requirements of the declared core functionality or select a use case that matches your app’s functionality.

- The video you submitted does not demonstrate the functionality necessary to verify and approve your use case declaration (for example, if your app uses SMS for account verification, your video should clearly show this).

- Cross-device synchronization or transfer of SMS or calls

...

Please complete a two question survey to help us improve this experience."

Do you really want me to tell you what I think about this "experience"?
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
How fun it is to publish apps on the Google Play store (S03:E02)

Do you remember when we saw this message? At S01:E02. But the version I was trying to publish at that time had been accepted by them and published, meaning that all the "infractions" had been checked and they had concluded that either they had been corrected or they were wrong.

The crazy thing is that the same "infraction" was contested five years ago (https://redd.it/9v84c7/), and even then they concluded that they were wrong (https://redd.it/9yrio4/).

I am now in the same situation as 4 months ago, which is the same situation I was in 5 years ago.

Wouldn't it be more profitable for everyone, both us developers and Google, if they could mark an app that they have checked many times as valid instead of treating it as a new app that they have never checked?

Wouldn't it be helpful when they verify an appeal to see the app's history and judge based on all the information they have?

Wouldn't it be helpful to read the app description in Google Play, look at the accompanying screenshots, and take into account that it is a paid app?

If I have to remove the functionality related to the use of the permissions in question, not only does it disadvantage me compared to similar apps that can continue to use these permissions - and at this point it would be interesting to see how this can be justified in terms of DMA - but it adds an additional problem, which is to explain to users who have spent money - the 15% or 30% retained by Google - why they no longer have the same product with what they paid for.
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
How fun it is to publish apps on the Google Play store (S03:E03)

At this point my career as a youtuber began.

To sum up, the first video (

) created 5 years ago is no longer good; although it is (also) thanks to this video that they had checked the app and concluded that it met their parameters to be able to have SMS reading permissions.

The second video (

) lasted less than a cat on a highway. It went well for Season 1, after much verification, but not for this season.

At this point I created a third video (

).

In all the videos I always tried to give all the necessary information so that the person watching it could get a first idea of what the app does and a guide, more or less detailed, to be able to reproduce it in person.

Maybe this approach, in the age of AI and "we don't need people anymore, let's fire as many as we can and who cares if the AI doesn't understand a damn thing that's a problem of the developer who wants to publish in our store", is not the right thing to do.

This video was not good either:

"- Your in-app experience does not match the core functionality for your declared use case, Cross-device synchronization or transfer of SMS or calls

- Your video must show the use of SMS or calls on the Cross Device

- Additionally, we cannot confirm if the SMS feature is actually working because the message in the video is obstructed"

"message in the video is obstructed": but still you can see the functionality.
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
How fun it is to publish apps on the Google Play store (S03:E04)

I edited the last video. Maybe the fact that I obscured most of the page where the text messages are displayed is not working for them, maybe it will be okay to only obscure the text and phone numbers. After all, what is the point of having text messages and phone numbers in clear? Will it change anything in demonstrating the functionality?

I published a new video:

"Unable to verify core functionality of app

- Your in-app experience does not match the core functionality for your declared use case, Cross-device synchronization or transfer of SMS or calls

- Your video must show the use of SMS or calls on the Cross Device

- Additionally, we cannot confirm if the SMS feature is actually working because the message in the video is obstructed as shown in your video, "SMS and call log permission - 3" timestamp (1:53)"

Hmmm, it's not going anywhere. Let me ask if they want to read the text and phone numbers. I don't know how it will help in demonstrating the functionality but whatever.

me: "Text and phone numbers were obscured in the video for privacy issues. Is it necessary that the phone numbers and text be entirely visible?"

google: "Please submit a video that clearly displays the text messages on the external device in order to validate the functionality. Kindly note, sample text should be fine, and we do not need to see private info."

If the "sample text" is fine, what is the point of showing it? And why don't they declare in detail the requirements of the video so as to avoid this back-and-forth?
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
How fun it is to publish apps on the Google Play store (S03:E05)

I edited the last video. This time I removed the text obfuscation altogether as I was requested to do.

Fortunately the text does not show very private data otherwise I would have had to shoot a new video.

I left the obfuscation only for the phone numbers that are shown on the left side of the screen but of these I was not requested to make them visible.

And here is my new struggle as a video maker:

google: "Unable to verify core functionality of app"

me: "Can I get more information? I have done what the staff person who was following the appeal [4-0358000035556] requested about it, what else should I do?"

(I had to issue a new appeal ([2-2588000035928]) because the version of the app under review was different from the version in the appeal [4-0358000035556].)

google: "For example, your video should clearly show transfer of SMS or calls between phone and laptop."

me: "The video was created following the instructions of one of your colleagues.

Could you provide me with the requirements of a video that clearly shows the SMS transfer, since it is not clear what needs to be done?"

google: "Please ensure there is a live demonstration of syncing texts and phone calls across multiple devices (such as between phone and laptop)."

me: "The video demonstrates live synchronization of SMS between the phone and the computer.

Is there any point in the video that does not demonstrate live synchronization of SMS between the phone and the computer?"

As for "clearly", if we want to be professional, we can say that it is a very vague way of providing requirements - such as when a graphic designer asks a client what something should look like and the client replies "beautiful".

But what does the "live" mean? If you understand what that means leave a comment. And don't forget to subscribe to the channel and like the video (I'm taking my youtuber career seriously).
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
How fun it is to publish apps on the Google Play store (S03:E06)

Here it should be noted that the video is to help the person doing the verification to understand what they need to do to verify the functionality and nothing more. It's not a video to show to the court where it's proven, without any reasonable doubt, that the app has the functionality in question.

Let me try something different, let me remove the link to the video, after all it is not mandatory.

Maybe, just maybe, since only Google can know how things actually are, the fact that the video exists is the real problem. Maybe, the bot that checks the video doesn't understand what it is and marks it as incorrect, and, maybe, the person who goes to check it doesn't feel like contradicting the bot, and, maybe, they've been trained not to. Maybe, just maybe, if there is no video the person doing the verification can make their own decision without having constraints.

Maybe.

google: "Unable to verify core functionality of app

We noticed that you have not submitted a video URL on the video link section of the Permissions Declaration Form."

me: "Is it mandatory to provide the link for a video since on the permission declaration page the field for video link is optional?"

google: "If portions of your app are restricted, you must provide a video demonstration so the Google Play review team can easily evaluate your app's core functionality."

me: "There are no parts of the application that are restricted behind a login.

The only thing you do to verify functionality is to install the app in two devices, for example, a PC and a phone and connect both in the same WiFi network: to verify synchronization between devices it is necessary to install the app to more than one device.

You can find all the information and a guide at FAQ: https://easyjoin.net/faq.html.

Please let me know if you need further information and instructions.

Have I been able to explain everything clearly or do I need to provide more information to clarify some points and what they are?"

Thanks DeepL, do your best to make my English clear enough.
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
How fun it is to publish apps on the Google Play store (S03:E07)

Many days have passed since the previous episode.

Not because Google decided to improve the app check process and the problem was fixed and as a result I didn't have something to write about.

No, of course not, Google and its new Play store manager have not improved developer support at all. After all, why should they do so if they are left free to do as they please even if their gatekeeper position brings with it obligations that in my very humble opinion they do not fulfill.

I simply got caught up in the development of the new macOS app and didn't have time to publish a new post. Perhaps in another post I will let you know my impressions about SwiftUI and its declarative UI. It is certainly different from imperative UI programming, it has many pros and some cons.

Where were we? I had removed the link to the video to see if this would somehow trigger a new and better process of verification of the app by Play store staff.

google: "During our review of your app, a message of "Security Warning" appeared upon launch. This prevents us from verifying the core functionality."

me: "Could you show me the screenshot with the “Security warning”?

Note that this is a paid app and it checks if the user bought it regularly from Play store and installed it to a device using Play store. If you need a promo code to buy the app I can provide one. Do you need a promo code?"

google: "When you submitted your app, you specified your app's core functionality as follows: Cross-device synchronization or transfer of SMS or calls. However, we couldn’t find evidence that the app offers the declared core functionality during our review.

We noticed that you have not submitted a video URL on the video link section of the Permissions Declaration Form.

Regarding your question, we are unable to provide further information. If portions of your app are restricted, please share a link to a demonstration video of your app via Permissions Declaration Form of your Play Console to help us verify the core functionalities that you’ve declared.

To continue using SMS and Call Log permissions, please update your Developer Permission Declaration with a valid video link along with a compliant version of your app in the Play Console for approval."

So basically the link to the video is not optional at all since they can't use the app as any user who buys it from the Play store would have done.

I have re-posted the link to the video and republished it. I didn't expect anything different but at least upon its rejection I will be able to appeal again hoping that the new Play store staff member who will verify the app will be able to give me some more information to create a video to their liking.
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
How fun it is to publish apps on the Google Play store

S3:E8 - https://medium.com/@anemomylos/the-twilight-store-s3-e8-59ad570ba4f8

S3:E9 - https://medium.com/@anemomylos/the-twilight-store-s3-e9-f140eb87bd25

S3:E10 - https://medium.com/@anemomylos/the-twilight-store-s3-e10-f6e324f0f7f5

S3:E11 - https://medium.com/@anemomylos/the-twilight-store-s3-e11-369b65091de7

This post follows my latest experience with Play store: https://medium.com/@anemomylos/this-post-follows-my-latest-experience-with-play-store-59c3efffb78a
[Paid Software Announcement and Discussion] easyjoin:
The new version of EasyJoin for macOS is ready to go - v4.0​

The new native version based on SwiftUI is out of beta testing and ready to replace the previous version.

For the moment it's possible to download it directly from the site and I'm considering making it available on the App store as well.

Following is the changelog for version 4.0, which you can also read on the website:

This is the new native version for macOS developed with SwiftUI. You can get the legacy version, based on Mono, from here.

You can connect your devices via Internet without using external servers.

DDNS-like service to share your Internet IP and port with trusted devices without using third party services.

New section "Connection" in the settings.

Adapted "Trusted" device settings page to include parameters for "Direct Internet Connection".

Dark theme has been added.

You can renew the encryption keys. Go to a "Trusted" device settings, scroll down and click the "Renew encryption keys" button (when available).

You can add a remote device, which is not on the local network, via the Internet.

You can authorize the application to access any folder.

You can manage the files of a remote device. Currently you can:

Delete remote files/folders.

Rename a remote file/folder.

Create a remote folder.

Download files/folders from the remote device and select the local folder where they will be saved.

Upload files/folders to the remote device and select the remote folder where they will be saved.

View remote files as a list, grid or with preview.

New setting to enable remote file management on the "Trusted" device settings page.

New setting for "Trusted" devices to be defined as "default". When a "default" device is the only "Trusted" device online, text and files are sent directly to it without going through the device selection screen.

New setting to override the functionality of the "default" device.

You can "pin" P2P messages so that they are not deleted when deleting messages by type.

You can filter "MESSAGES" by type, text and pinned.

You can filter "SMS" by text.

You can use "Shift + Enter" when writing a message to go to the next line instead of sending the message.

New icon in the contact list to start writing an SMS to the selected contact.

Minimizes data update request (currently SMS and contacts) when a remote device is online and is not a local device. You can still manually request a complete update of the data.

You can choose to show remote notifications as native notifications or as notifications managed by the app.

You can reply to a P2P message directly from the native notification.

You can see the queue of files being sent by selecting the corresponding item from the menu.

New setting to preserve the date of an incoming file.

All clickable items will be highlighted on mouseover.
[General Questions and Answers] maddest_hatta:
Right.. so.. I think I found a very strange bug in Motorola One Vision (and perhaps in other Android One devices).

I did the following (which resulted in my phone rebooting every time I unlock it) :

1. Enable Developer Options

2. Enable USB Debugging

3. In Default USB Configuration I chose "File Transfer"

4. I locked the phone and when I tried to unlock it, it asked me for my PIN (finger print didn't work). After entering the PIN, the phone did a reboot. IT loaded and the only way to unlock it was with the PIN, which again resulted in a reboot.

The problem was fixed with a hard reset. It was working fine until I repeated the same thing with the Developer options and the other steps.

Is this a problem with Android One devices in general, with Motorola One Vision phones or just with the one I own?
[General Questions and Answers] tys0n:
Yes, it's a bug on one vision. It has been discussed here and in the moto community.

https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/motorola-one-vision/Bootloop-when-Developer-options-are-enabled/td-p/4444229

So they are aware of the problem and is working on it.

For now, don't set file transfer as default option in dev settings if you have setup any screen lock.
[Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Plus) ROMs, Kernels, Recoveries, & ] jackjt3:
Friends I present to you another work grace to the friends [MENTION=9751827]Bikram_M[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1532389]khod[/MENTION]e_Erfan for working so well in GSI base all the credits given to them and let's go.

Installation tutorial

Note you have installed vendor2factory and TWRP 3.2.3 is on the Google drive

Note Remembering if using 3.3.1 will have to pass 3.2.3 via fastboot, because via twrp it will give problem in the partition

Have zuk z2 drivers installed correctly

First rename twrp to twrp-3.2.3.img

Enable usb debugging, connect the device to the note or pc open the command prompt or shell and type:

adb devices

adb reboot bootloader

fastboot flash recovery -i 0x2b4c twrp-3.2.3.img

restart in recovery mode and proceed with the installation of the build

# Wipe system, Wipe data, Wipe cache, Wipe Davilk cache and wipe vendor

# Install the ROM zip and wait for the end.

# Restart

NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT PASS THE FIX POWER_REBOOT_OXYGEN TOGETHER WITH THE ZIP OF THE ROM THAT WILL GIVE WIPE IN THE INTERNAL MEMORY FOLLOW THE TUTORIAL

# As soon as you get home, restart the screen will turn black, hold the power button until the machine reboots and enter recovery mode, mount system and vendor and install Fix_power_reboot_oxygen.zip and Oxygen_beta_22_Mod_z2_plus_by_Jacques and restart

Update

# Kernel 4.4.184 - Nameless - R30

# Magisk 19.3

# Bluetooth fixed

# Fixed Brightness

# Camera within applications running

# Updated Gapps

# Ring Mode APK

# Pack icon S8 pixel

Link Rom: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1BXKh-KPIYVQi9n15cuqdlgOQXuuzNnNU

Tips for better battery usage:

# Darkness Control use clocks 1824 and 1400 and gpu 510

# Gpu Government big and little leave in pwrutilx

# Storage settings in scheduler leave noop

# Go on battery at 2300 charge rate let optimized charge fast.

Bugs so far

# Face unLock

Credits:

[MENTION=9751827]Bikram_M[/MENTION]

[MENTION=1532389]khod[/MENTION]e_Erfan

@ xzr467706992

[MENTION=9138028]Rasenkai99[/MENTION]

[MENTION=7174278]kubersharma[/MENTION]

[MENTION=8078618]DD3Boh[/MENTION]
[MENTION=8950490]amog787[/MENTION]

To all the friends who have supported me in this work
[Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Plus) ROMs, Kernels, Recoveries, & ] apollo3x:
deleted
[Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Plus) ROMs, Kernels, Recoveries, & ] vinay069:
You're amazing dev ... Downloading right away
[Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Plus) ROMs, Kernels, Recoveries, & ] jackjt3:
I'm using it at the moment friend feel free to try the rom this is very good for daily use
[Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Plus) ROMs, Kernels, Recoveries, & ] sainiridu:
How's pubg
[Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Plus) ROMs, Kernels, Recoveries, & ] jackjt3:
Here is running smooth friend I have no problems with games
[Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Plus) ROMs, Kernels, Recoveries, & ] Yashp4457:
Can we use twrp 3.3.1 for flashing
[Lenovo ZUK Z2 (Plus) ROMs, Kernels, Recoveries, & ] jackjt3:
Friend I recommend using 3.2.3 that is in google drive friend 3.3.1 I had problems with it so I decided to leave 3.2.3

Remembering if using 3.3.1 will have to pass 3.2.3 via fastboot, because via twrp it will give problem in the partition

Have zuk z2 drivers installed correctly

First rename twrp to twrp-3.2.3.img

Enable usb debugging, connect the device to the note or pc open the command prompt or shell and type:

adb devices

adb reboot bootloader

fastboot flash recovery -i 0x2b4c twrp-3.2.3.img

restart in recovery mode and proceed with the installation of the build