Apk Link: https://cdn.organicmaps.app/apk/OrganicMaps-24081605-GooglePlay.apk
Note: If you don’t want to deal with stuff like this, I recommend you download and use it from F-Droid client or Accrescent AppStore.
Update: The app returned to the App Store.
Probably the map has 18+ places and no decent way to stop children from seeing them?
“I love looking at the 3D building of this place. I am about to ejaculate in my pants”
That would mean EVERY map app would be in violation since those places exist and are indexed by all of them. Including Google Maps.
No idea, is Google Maps listed as being safe for kids? It even has a default built-in search option to find nearby bars.
Either way, they removed the app from the entire Play Store, not just from kids accounts, or family sharing. Google specifically has as a separate account type for kids, ostensibly for the exact scenario they seem to be claiming is the reason for the removal here.
Google is like China these days.
Probably because of NSFW geographic locations, like https://omaps.app/U4yUt5ZjzL/Püssi
Organic Maps should be 18+.
It’s Google.
I’m certain that “Common violations” = “competes with our own products”.
Does Google do that? Apple absolutely does it, but has Google ever done that?
Apple used to straight up steal the idea of existing apps. Lately it seems they favor buyout, like with dark cloud becoming weather, but it used to be that Apple would randomly swoop in and crush developers by creating a first party version of their app.
Ah, Sherlocking
Though at least sometimes an idea seems somewhat obvious
It’s highly unlikely that this app even comes up on the radar insofar as competing with Google Maps.
The answer is probably more mundane - an automated system made an incorrect call. It keeps happening when it comes to these Play Store app reviews.
Indeed. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”—or, in this case, an unaudited automated process. Now, I’m sure the fact that it competes with one of their products meant that they were in no particular hurry to address the issue, but I’m sure the original failure was process related, not anti-competitive practices.
