This is an extension for a $50 a year service for sending articles to your Kindle that as far as I can tell, is not demonstrably better than the free extension or using a service like Instapaper or Pocket.
So yeah, sorry they won't feature your extension for an extremely-overpriced service dude, but crying about it on Hacker News in an attempt to drum up publicity doesn't make me sympathetic.
When the big corp releases an extension it then it likely gets reviewed by the exec team's gophers to ensure it gets done expediently. For anyone else, the review is processed by folks at the bottom of the organization, possibly even contractors, that have no budget control for devices.
They can only review a certain set of things based on what they've been provided. In the case of mobile, they will actually be using their own hardware instead of being offered test devices. Therefore, they have to go and find the one guy who has a specific Android device to repro an issue.
In way it's good that they got a response like this. Many times the folks doing the review want to do their best, but it takes a lot of time to escalate. Eventually there is a spat internally because no progress is being made. Someone forces the folks dealing with the external person to use some generic response because they don't want to admit the real reason.
I mean, that other extension is by Amazon itself. If they want Google to feature it, they can literally throw all the money and Kindles at them they want - no magic required. Money buys stuff. More news at 5. People seem to forget that Google is still a marketing company. This is precisely their business model.
How many random devices out there should they have laying around in case someone writes an extension that involves sending data to those devices? The Kindle accesses the internet through a WiFi network -- this would be required to test the functionality in the extension. Their security team should vet all of these devices, create environments where it's safe for them to be on the network, and ensure they're kept up to date also?
The author wants to apply for the “Featured” badge. There are many reasons why I don’t see this ever happening, including the fact that the name of the app includes obvious typos.
This isn’t just a case of Google refusing to approve someone’s extension. The Featured badge is supposed to be a more curated tier.
I wonder if there's a day in which Google's app review policy isn't fucking somebody over.
I understand that there are complexities at scale, but is it that hard for google to have in the manual review process somebody looking and verifying that indeed there's another fucking app that does the same, maybe we should figure out what to do ?
Readit News
So yeah, sorry they won't feature your extension for an extremely-overpriced service dude, but crying about it on Hacker News in an attempt to drum up publicity doesn't make me sympathetic.
> But for an extension (with the exact same functionality) from a Big Corp, they magically found a way to test it
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/send-to-kindle-for...
[0] https://twitter.com/daniel_nguyenx/status/155516779079696793...
They can only review a certain set of things based on what they've been provided. In the case of mobile, they will actually be using their own hardware instead of being offered test devices. Therefore, they have to go and find the one guy who has a specific Android device to repro an issue.
In way it's good that they got a response like this. Many times the folks doing the review want to do their best, but it takes a lot of time to escalate. Eventually there is a spat internally because no progress is being made. Someone forces the folks dealing with the external person to use some generic response because they don't want to admit the real reason.
Does OP expect them to buy a Kindle to test the extension?
How many random devices out there should they have laying around in case someone writes an extension that involves sending data to those devices? The Kindle accesses the internet through a WiFi network -- this would be required to test the functionality in the extension. Their security team should vet all of these devices, create environments where it's safe for them to be on the network, and ensure they're kept up to date also?
The author wants to apply for the “Featured” badge. There are many reasons why I don’t see this ever happening, including the fact that the name of the app includes obvious typos.
This isn’t just a case of Google refusing to approve someone’s extension. The Featured badge is supposed to be a more curated tier.
I understand that there are complexities at scale, but is it that hard for google to have in the manual review process somebody looking and verifying that indeed there's another fucking app that does the same, maybe we should figure out what to do ?
My understanding is the extension was allowed on the extension store https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ktool-send-web-ati.... This is them making an editorial decision, electing not to "Feature" the extension, whatever that means.
For one, OP needs to spell "articles" properly. Imagine your app getting featured with an important word in the description being wrong.