Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Apr 2012 23:51 UTC, submitted by bornagainenguin
Google "Just got off the phone with Google over their Android app store (Market or Google Play to those keeping track of the name changes) about an application that I purchased that can no longer be found. Evidentially their new policy in the Market can be summed up as a head shrug and the words 'I got mine'. They have decided their fifteen minute refund window is not only absolute, but also applies even in cases where the developers are actively screwing over their customers." Yes, it's an angry rant, and yes, if that bother you, you can skip it, but the guy or girl has a point. Google has some major work to do on the Play Store.
Order by: Score:
Better Business Bureau
by Alfman on Thu 12th Apr 2012 00:15 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

I've found that many companies that won't budge to fix a customer problem will fold when facing outside pressure. The BBB is a great resource to give them the kick in the ass they need.

Some companies just ignore the BBB, but it looks like google is one of the companies that take BBB complaints seriously.

http://sanjose.bbb.org/business-reviews/Internet---Products-and-Ser...

I would say there's an excellent chance that google would resolve the issue for this customer if he filed a BBB complaint. It's disturbing that google is a willing party to this type of scam, but somehow I'm not surprised, google has always had terrible customer support.

Edit: this customer would probably succeed in having his credit card issue google a charge back, however that's a risky move as google might completely blacklist him from their store (and who knows, maybe other services as well?)

Edited 2012-04-12 00:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Umm...
by Morgan on Thu 12th Apr 2012 00:48 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

Okay first of all I'm not trying to defend Google on this, as from what I read they are (at best) washing their hands of it and blaming it on the developer.

That said, the first app the article writer mentioned was from a company that was bought out by another entity nearly two years after he bought a cheap app. I'm basing that time estimate on when the Pandigital Novel first arrived two years ago, and the site androidzoom.com which has a review of the app from December 2011 claiming the developer abandoned it. So, if our author bought the app two years ago, and over four months ago it was abandoned by the developer, why does he suddenly feel cheated today?

Said entity is (based on what the author said) a non-profit dedicated to creating open source apps to assist people with disabilities. As that has zero to do with 4Chan or the Chandroid app, I would be surprised if they did continue developing that particular app.

Bottom line: He is calling the developer a "thief" and claiming he was ripped off by that developer, when he openly writes that the app publisher's company was bought out and that developer was let go. He even quotes them as such:

"While we wish things were different, the lack of control over external changes to websites, and the loss of our Chandroid developer led us to making these decisions."


But no, it's a personal attack on him!! Call the Internet Police, he demands justice!

Looking through the Apple app store on my girlfriend's iPad, I can't find half the apps that existed back when I had a 3rd gen iTouch, and virtually none that I remember from when I had an original iPhone with the first app store release. I remember paying a dollar or two here and there for certain apps, but I'm not crying to the Internet because something I bought two or three years ago for the cost of a cup of coffee is now unavailable due to the company behind it being absorbed.

The second app that he mentioned may actually be an attempt by the developer to defraud their customers, in which case he may just get a call back from Google on it. But I fail to understand how the first situation is at all an attempt to "grab his money and run", considering the length of time and circumstances beyond the developer's control, circumstances the author himself pointed out.


EDIT: Correction on the length of time I'm estimating for the author's ownership of the app. I was reading the dates on androidzoom.com as a stupid American and they are in smart European format. Interestingly, the correction makes the guy look even more retarded from where I stand.

Edited 2012-04-12 01:02 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Umm...
by googlegotmine on Thu 12th Apr 2012 01:39 UTC in reply to "Umm..."
googlegotmine Member since:
2012-04-12

That said, the first app the article writer mentioned was from a company that was bought out by another entity nearly two years after he bought a cheap app. I'm basing that time estimate on when the Pandigital Novel first arrived two years ago, and the site androidzoom.com which has a review of the app from December 2011 claiming the developer abandoned it. So, if our author bought the app two years ago, and over four months ago it was abandoned by the developer, why does he suddenly feel cheated today?


Actually I don't feel as cheated by the Chandroid people as I do the Android Apps people (makers of Weather and Toggle Widget) because I always saw Chandroid as more of a service than an application due to the nature of the site it allowed browsing. I just dislike the way they went about handling their abandonment of the app. Having said that, I encourage you to look at the link in my article linked here:

http://onymousheroes.com/applications.html#Chandroid%20/b/rowse...

One of the promises was "free upgrades" indicating that whenever the site it was acting as a browser for changed the developer would update the app to make it work again. Now no longer viewable, but at the time of purchasing the blurb on the Google Market was that the $0.99 price was for a limited time and would be going up soon. The buyer was encouraged to buy now (then) and get free updates forever. I'd be less upset if there had been a planned obsolesce, say that the service the app provided was only good for 24 months, but that's not what was promised. The reviews are instructive if you read the ones listed in the Play Store, I am not the only one who feels cheated and ripped off.

Nevertheless, I do not really focus on the Chandroid app in my article--or at least it was not my intended focus, because I always considered Chandroid to be a service, not an app.

Weather and Toggle widget on the other hand is an application. It is a clock that displays the weather, not a service. There is no reason for it to have its functionality crippled, and the original fully functional version reuploaded under a different name other than to extort money out of customers who have already paid once for the app.

Seeing Chandroid simply alerted me to what was going on. I still don't know how many other apps I've paid for have been disappeared and reuploaded under a new name or discontinued by developers who did not wish to continue them despite promises to their customers that updates were forthcoming.

Say what you want about the "cheap" pricing of these apps, the fact remains that they were sold to customers who have a right to use the apps they paid for. This is no different than the car dealer selling you a car and a bit later down the road saying they changed their mind and taking it from your garage while you sleep.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Umm...
by Morgan on Thu 12th Apr 2012 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Umm..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually I don't feel as cheated by the Chandroid people as I do the Android Apps people...


That's certainly not the tone you took in the article. You spoke of a "blatant bait and switch operation" and that the developer had done this to deliberately screw over their customers, when in fact you yourself quoted them as saying it was an unfortunate and unwanted side effect of being bought out by a larger company.

One of the promises was "free upgrades" indicating that whenever the site it was acting as a browser for changed the developer would update the app to make it work again. Now no longer viewable, but at the time of purchasing the blurb on the Google Market was that the $0.99 price was for a limited time and would be going up soon. The buyer was encouraged to buy now (then) and get free updates forever. I'd be less upset if there had been a planned obsolesce, say that the service the app provided was only good for 24 months, but that's not what was promised. The reviews are instructive if you read the ones listed in the Play Store, I am not the only one who feels cheated and ripped off.


I'm not saying it isn't a bum deal, it sucks when you buy something virtual and it's taken away later. My personal ire is reserved for DRMed music, but the concept is similar here. My beef with your article is simply that you said such hyperbolic things about the developer when it appears (from your own mouth as well) that he would likely have stayed and continued development of the app if it were not for circumstances beyond his control. You are placing the blame on him and accusing him of criminal activity when he's just a guy who was forced to leave a job.

Weather and Toggle widget on the other hand is an application. It is a clock that displays the weather, not a service. There is no reason for it to have its functionality crippled, and the original fully functional version reuploaded under a different name other than to extort money out of customers who have already paid once for the app.


As I said before, it sounds to me too like this is a legitimate claim, and I really hope Google steps up for you in the end. I'm not holding my breath though.

Seeing Chandroid simply alerted me to what was going on. I still don't know how many other apps I've paid for have been disappeared and reuploaded under a new name or discontinued by developers who did not wish to continue them despite promises to their customers that updates were forthcoming.


Unfortunately that seems to be the nature of the beast, and it's certainly not limited to Android. iOS in particular is afflicted by this loophole, and RIM and Amazon have both had their feet to the fire over remote removal of apps or content. All I'm saying is, you feel you've been personally wronged by Google, but it's the app-centric mentality in general that is really at fault here. But that's a whole 'nother soapbox for me.

Say what you want about the "cheap" pricing of these apps, the fact remains that they were sold to customers who have a right to use the apps they paid for. This is no different than the car dealer selling you a car and a bit later down the road saying they changed their mind and taking it from your garage while you sleep.


It's quite a bit different, and it's why I hate car-computer analogies, especially when software is involved. If you must use that analogy, it would be more akin to the tag office suddenly deciding to suspend your vehicle registration six months after you buy your tag, rendering you without a road-legal car.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Umm...
by googlegotmine on Thu 12th Apr 2012 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Umm..."
googlegotmine Member since:
2012-04-12

My beef with your article is simply that you said such hyperbolic things about the developer when it appears (from your own mouth as well) that he would likely have stayed and continued development of the app if it were not for circumstances beyond his control. You are placing the blame on him and accusing him of criminal activity when he's just a guy who was forced to leave a job.


No, I'm saying that IDEAL engaged in immoral if not illegal activities. Onymous Heroes made certain promises to its customers when advertising its app; when Onymous Heroes was bought out by IDEAL, they continued to "support" and accept money for the apps they purchased with the company. The advertising did not change promising free updates for life.

Actually considering how the application rapidly went from being one of the best to one of the worst I question IDEAL's version of events. We only have their word for it that they kept on the original developer for as long as they said they did or that they maintained the program at all...

Unfortunately that seems to be the nature of the beast, and it's certainly not limited to Android. iOS in particular is afflicted by this loophole, and RIM and Amazon have both had their feet to the fire over remote removal of apps or content. All I'm saying is, you feel you've been personally wronged by Google, but it's the app-centric mentality in general that is really at fault here. But that's a whole 'nother soapbox for me.


I do feel I was wronged by Google. They run the app store, the repository. They benefit in each and every transaction that goes on in their store.

If you buy something and it stops working who do you go to, the company who makes the product or the place where you bought it? Who do you have your business with, the company who makes the product or the person who sold it to you?

Of course I'm going to go after Google!

Part of the promise of the Market is that Google will keep track of your apps so you don't have to worry about shenanigans like this. All you have to do is buy your apps and when you add your account to the Android device all your previous purchases will be available, from your account. The way that these app developers are acting and Google's refusal to get involved or take responsibility breaks the trust in this whole model of business interaction.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Umm...
by Morgan on Thu 12th Apr 2012 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Umm..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

No, I'm saying that IDEAL engaged in immoral if not illegal activities. Onymous Heroes made certain promises to its customers when advertising its app; when Onymous Heroes was bought out by IDEAL, they continued to "support" and accept money for the apps they purchased with the company. The advertising did not change promising free updates for life.


I'm not going to continue arguing this point, if you say your ire is for IDEAL I'll go with that. It just bugs me that not once, but twice in your article you claimed the developer that left the company is personally screwing you over. But you wrote it; however it's worded you know better than me what your state of mind was at the time. ;)

Anyway, I pretty much agree that you've gotten a bum deal on both apps, and I hope you get some positive resolution.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Umm...
by Alfman on Thu 12th Apr 2012 01:43 UTC in reply to "Umm..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Morgan,

I didn't look at the timeframes involved. I'll grant you that if it was "years", then google's position is much more understandable. However if it was a couple days or even a couple weeks, then google has no ethical foot to stand on, the customer is entitled to a refund. Google's refusal to stop this practice qualifies as an endorsement of this kind of scam in its stores - keep in mind google shares the revenue earned by the scam.

Of course a few bucks is pocket change, but it doesn't make the practice any less wrong if indeed it's being done deliberately.

Edited 2012-04-12 01:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Umm...
by Morgan on Thu 12th Apr 2012 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Umm..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

My issue with the article is mostly the attitude of "that poor developer was forced out, therefore he MUST BE STEALING FROM ME!!" -- that is a nonsensical viewpoint and I'm still confused by it. The issue of timing is another thing that throws me too, and I'd love for the author to address that in a reply to me. He didn't mention it in the one above, and I forgot to ask about it in my response.

And you're right, the amount of money doesn't make it any less wrong, but when the time span is factored in you have a value equation that must be considered. If I buy something for $3, whether it's tangible or intangible, I'm going to be upset if I lose access to it. But I'd be a hell of a lot more upset if I'd paid $30 or $200 for it.

That's the situation I'm personally in with my Windows 7 Retail license. It has survived through three complete hardware changes and I doubt it will successfully activate should its current home go up in smoke. Sure, I got it at a discount from work, but that doesn't change the fact that I paid good money for it, and I should be free to install it to a new computer provided the old one is wiped or otherwise destroyed. The last time I had to activate it, I had to call Microsoft and explain that no, I wasn't pirating it and no, I wasn't running it on two computers. I had a hardware failure and was moving my license to a new computer, and they warned me that this was the final move allowed to me. Add a notch to my "I hate Microsoft" list.

Reply Score: 2

Its the same in the other camp...
by latreides on Thu 12th Apr 2012 00:57 UTC
latreides
Member since:
2011-03-20

The author of the post claims they will move to iOS devices because of this, however iOS does nearly the same thing. If a developer stops supporting an app, or stops paying their yearly fee, their app is removed from the app store and paying customers no longer have access to it. Also updates can remove functionality as well as add it, and companies can do the same thing as these ones did on the Android market. Just because the author hasnt run into this issue personally in the iOS ecosystem (and had to deal with their support people) does not mean it doesnt exist there as well.

That being said, Google does need to take more responsibility for its market.

Edited 2012-04-12 00:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

googlegotmine Member since:
2012-04-12

The author of the post claims they will move to iOS devices because of this, however iOS does nearly the same thing. If a developer stops supporting an app, or stops paying their yearly fee, their app is removed from the app store and paying customers no longer have access to it.


If this is the case, then what reason does anyone have to buy anything from these app stores? I am reminded of the Microsoft Plays for Sure debacle, where all these people paid real money for music that would no longer play after a certain date (when the music DRM servers were turned off) making a mockery out of the services' name. Better to simply pirate the music than find out the purchase you'd just made had become a rental while your back was turned.

Reply Score: 1

yoursecretninja Member since:
2006-01-02

That is indeed how things work. I developed iPhone apps for two years but did not renew my membership because it was not a profitable endeavor for me. Unfortunately, this had consequences I was not aware of at the time. Upon not renewing my membership, my apps were no longer available on the store. That is expected for new downloads... the kicker was they were no longer available to paying customers. If a paying customer were to have deleted my apps, they can no longer download them. I thought I was selling them and giving Apple a commission on the sale. Apple decided to lease the apps to customers instead.

Reply Score: 7

latreides Member since:
2011-03-20

I learned that lesson about the iOS app store in the same manner, and while at that point I had already dropped iOS as a development platform, that made it a certainty that I would never go back. At least with Android, though it has the same flaws, I can distribute my applications on my website if I choose to and bypass the flawed market scheme. That makes all the difference in the world.

Reply Score: 3

latreides Member since:
2011-03-20

I agree entirely. At least you have a choice with Android to not use Googles Market/Play, and use a competitors or none at all, and still install games and apps (without needing to hack the device). While this is no excuse by a long shot, it does provide a way to "vote" with your wallet in a less extreme manner.

I have never had a problem with the Android Market personally, but again I would never buy a digital product for more than a couple dollars anyway so any loss I might suffer costs less than a cheeseburger ;)

Reply Score: 2

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

You can always backup the apk from Android (http://droidlessons.com/how-to-backup-android-apps-and-save-them-to...). And if I remember correctly you can sort of do the same thing with iOS, except that you have to backup in the cloud (I am not too sure about iOS).

I guess Google Play and iTunes could have such a feature build in, where you could re-download any application you have purchased.

Reply Score: 2

latreides Member since:
2011-03-20

Yes they should. Requiring your users to back up their software or they are just SOL is not a good practice.

Reply Score: 1

if only
by stabbyjones on Thu 12th Apr 2012 01:35 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

If only there was a way that others could take over software development after an app was abandoned...

If they could use what the other developer's had created for free to continue development for whatever size community it had and provide that for a small fee if desired...

I wonder if there will ever be something like that so people can avoid these common pitfalls of a walled garden...

maybe one day

Reply Score: 6

RE: if only
by sparkyERTW on Thu 12th Apr 2012 12:35 UTC in reply to "if only"
sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Hmmmm... if only we could trace where the source of this problem lies. Well, feel free to spit out any ideas you come up with. I'm open to all suggestions.

Reply Score: 3

v Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Thu 12th Apr 2012 05:35 UTC
No risk for me
by Neolander on Thu 12th Apr 2012 06:58 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

As long as they stick with credit cards as the only payment method, I am not buying anything from them.

It's a shame, though, because I'd gladly buy the full edition of Juice Defender. The guys deserve the money. Does someone know of an alternative Android software distribution channel where you can use PayPal ?

Edited 2012-04-12 07:17 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Welcome to the closed source world
by moondevil on Thu 12th Apr 2012 08:55 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

While I sympathize with the author, this is nothing different than buying closed source software package in any store down the street.

The worst it happened to me, was once buying a German language dictionary, only to find out that the online server did no longer exist.

The store could not be blamed for something that was obviously under the responsibility of the company developing the product.

Edited 2012-04-12 08:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

While I sympathize with the author, this is nothing different than buying closed source software package in any store down the street.

The store could not be blamed for something that was obviously under the responsibility of the company developing the product.


This really sums it up. Buying closed-source software is no different then buying a product from some big-box retailer or department store. You're trusting that the manufacturer builds their stuff well, provides good support, etc. If they burn you, how much of that is really the store's fault? After all, their job is to supply what is demanded by customers... and you bought it, didn't you? Sure, a good store can carefully review the manufacturers and products they plan to sell, but it's not really their function.

It's up to the consumer to determine and decide their own risk/reward. Sucks, but that's how it is. If you want to buy product from a company that has a non-existent or suspect track record, could be bought/closed down at any time, and won't provide the means to make yourself self-sufficient when they go belly up, that's your prerogative.

I realize not all of us particularly like Richard Stallman or fully agree with everything he says, but this sort of thing is exactly what he's talking about when he talks about the unethical nature of closed-source software.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

sparkyERTW,

"It's up to the consumer to determine and decide their own risk/reward. Sucks, but that's how it is. If you want to buy product from a company that has a non-existent or suspect track record, could be bought/closed down at any time, and won't provide the means to make yourself self-sufficient when they go belly up, that's your prerogative."

Only to a point, but customers are entitled to returns for products that are broken or don't work as advertised. It's the stores responsibility to take it back within a reasonable period of time. May favorite computer parts store has a 30day return policy, which I've made use of at times for unsuitable products. Now they obviously don't like returns, but it encourages stores and manufacturers to improve reliability and advertise honestly, which is a good thing. It also helps customers gain confidence in buying products that look promising but are created by less recognized brands - ideally reducing the market stranglehold by large brands.


I'm all for "buyer be ware", but only on the condition I've had a chance to inspect the product ahead of time. We often lack the chance to do that these days so it's good to have rules for returns.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

moondevil,

"While I sympathize with the author, this is nothing different than buying closed source software package in any store down the street."

Actually I find the scenarios to be totally different because we're typically buying offline installation media in addition to a software license. So we can typically reinstall store bought software even if the store and publisher go out of business. So while it sucks that the software may no longer be supported, the customer is still able to keep the software he bought(*).

Here it sounds like the publisher updated the software to disable it, converting the paid for software into vanishware.


* Morgan already highlighted how product activation schemes remove our ability to exorcise these rights. And as far as I'm concerned legitimate customers are entitled to use keygens/cracks to continue using the software they purchased.

Reply Score: 2

So, you think you have a problem?
by lukic on Thu 12th Apr 2012 09:37 UTC
lukic
Member since:
2006-09-23

There is this country where I live and it's called Serbia. And that whole country has a problem with Google and Play Store and nobody seems to care.
Google announced at Google I/O 2011 that we will get paid apps like many other countries and we did about a month later. But very soon after that paid apps disappeared with out any explanation from Google.
Few months later they reappeared and I bought a lot of them. But soon after at the start of 2012 they disappeared again. So now we still can't buy anything and we still do not have any other explanation except that it's a bug.
But that is not all. Even though we couldn't buy apps we could update and re install those that were purchased as they were among Installed apps. But now they disappeared completely and more than 20 of my purchased apps are gone!
And we still didn't get any proper explanation from Google even though I have exchanged with them more than 100 emails in the last few months.
So you still think you have a problem?

Reply Score: 1

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

I feel for you; that situation really sucks, and nothing of what I'm about to say should be construed as a "T.S.", because customers shouldn't be treated like that.

The problem is we really trust Google an awful lot. We buy into the "Don't be evil" motto. We let them take care of all our private data and activities on the web because we believe they'll do right by us. We clap giddily every time they bring out something "open" or "free", feeling that they are truly on are side.

But are they? They're a business; their job, by definition (and even by law), is to make money and please their shareholders. Should we be surprised when those interest trump their altruistic ideals?

We fell in love with them because when they hit the scene they certainly seemed to (and probably were) treating us much better than everyone else out there. But maybe it's time we start re-evaluating our assessment of them.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I just can't see anyone who ever went through the settings of an Android phone ever ending up blindly trusting Google again if they did before. Some stuff that is activated as a default is just pure creepiness.

"Do you want Google to collect data on you in order to provide more targeted advertising ?" Yes, sure, and the key to my house too ?

Edited 2012-04-12 18:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

I found a solution.
by tidux on Thu 12th Apr 2012 12:54 UTC
tidux
Member since:
2011-08-13

http://f-droid.org/

Oh look, it's a side-loadable FOSS repository (complete with source downloads) for Android.

Reply Score: 2

iOS is no different
by tomz on Thu 12th Apr 2012 14:51 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

In this case it was a free app, Zatelnet I think. Originally it did SSH for free using ads or something, then there was an "update" that added an in-app purchase to make it usable and limited it severely if you didn't do that. It got a bunch of one-stars shortly thereafter.

I can see his point, but I generally prefer to stick to opensource apps (not allowed on iOS without jailbreak), and those that have light/ad/free versions and pro versions. I've bought pro versions that were only contributions for good apps. There is caveat emptor. Apps will go without support, upgrades, or bugfixes. For that matter, many if not most phones capable of running ICS won't have a non-rooted upgrade path.

It should be against the terms and conditions to have an update that severely restricts or disables major functionality. The developer should be booted, but the best is to give one-stars. As I've noted, it happens on iOS too.

Reply Score: 1

Different experience
by rsmithers on Thu 12th Apr 2012 15:07 UTC
rsmithers
Member since:
2011-08-03

There was an app that I'd intended to purchase during one of their major sales. I'd already gotten the app through Amazon's free-app-of-the-day, but it was worth $0.10 or $0.50 (I forget which sale it was) to not have to use Amazon's DRM wrapper when I launch it. Unfortunately, Android Market thought the app was already purchased, and I couldn't buy it at the time (nor download an update from Google). It stayed in "purchased" state until I contacted support recently. When I mentioned my failed attempt at buying it on sale (I didn't actually ask for anything, mind you), the rep said that if I wish, I can buy it now, and they'll refund the entire purchase price.

Sounds like decent customer service to me.

Reply Score: 1

I hate English 2.0
by Beta on Fri 13th Apr 2012 09:58 UTC
Beta
Member since:
2005-07-06

What does the expression ‘I got mine’ even bloody mean?

Back to the article. Google is the middleman in this process, they took your money and gave it to the person providing the app. You used the app for years. So far, so good.
They no longer want to support it, and rather than keep the entry, they have removed it. You still have the app, but wont be able to get it on future devices. That’s shitty.
Targetting the whole post at Google? Shittier still.

What can Google do better here? Keep App purchases (apks,market entry, and all the related data) for the life time of your account, whether they are removed, DMCAd, etc.

What they cannot (and shouldnt imo) do is give you a refund, because that would put them at risk to refund the entire catalogue of the Market…

’course, this also applies to Apple, Microsoft, Sony, et al. But Google is the current whipping boy.

Reply Score: 2