Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kongregate App Pulled From Android Market

Posted by Soulskill on from the gone-in-a-flash dept.

itwbennett writes "Last week Google took a page from Apple's book and pulled the Arcade by Kongregate app from the Android Market for violating its terms of service. In particular, the part that forbids distributing 'any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market.' As Kongregate's Jim Greer explained to Joystiq, the app is essentially a custom web browser that loads in a Flash game from the mobile version of Kongregate. Plus, it will cache the game so you can play offline. And this may be the feature that got it yanked, speculates Ryan Kim at GigaOm."

25 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. What's wrong with this? by dlevitan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last week Google took a page from Apple's book and pulled the Arcade by Kongregate app from the Android Market for violating its terms of service.

    Except that on my Droid I'm still allowed to download the app from Kongregate's website and install it, no matter what Google thinks. They can even update their app automatically, or, even distribute more than one app. I have apps like that on my phone. Of course, they don't get the exposure of Google's app store, but there's nothing inherently wrong with Google saying "We don't want that in our app store". As opposed to Apple, I choose what can and cannot be installed on my phone, not Google/Apple.

    1. Re:What's wrong with this? by RagingMaxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think Google is trying to protect developers on what is still an emerging platform.

      Plus, operating the App Market is not without cost, and Google takes a cut of all app sales to pay for that. If Kongregate or Steam or anyone else released a free app which allowed software download through an alternate channel, Google would basically be distributing their competitors products, for free.

      Google cannot just have 'pure' motives, they must also be tempered with pragmatism.

    2. Re:What's wrong with this? by Loosifur · · Score: 2

      Dangerous power? Don't you think that's going a bit far? I would point out that it takes a comparable number of steps to install something from a website as it does to install something from the Market. Granted, you lose the Market's update checking, but there isn't anything preventing individual apps from checking for their own updates outside of the Market AFAIK. As long as you've enabled the option to install non-Market apps, that is, which hardly demands technical expertise on the part of the user. And honestly, I'm not entirely clear on how this decision violates the principles of open source, but I'm no expert in the field.

      Now, forcing a private business to violate their own terms of use with regard to their own app is more dangerous, IMO. Google owns, develops, and maintains the Market, and users access it with the understanding that they neither own nor rent any part of it. In other words, Google offers the Market on its own terms, neither forcing users to make use of it, nor conceding the right to decide what is and isn't offered through it. Forcing Google to offer a competitor to Market (which the Kongregate app is, in terms of game distribution) from the Market itself would be like forcing HH Gregg to maintain a Best Buy within all of its stores.

      I might be going out on a limb here, but coming from a Windows background (a DOS background, if you go back far enough) it took me a little while to get used to the idea of using an app to install something, rather than just going to the website and downloading it. Is this maybe a bigger deal for Linux folks? From my several abortive attempts with Ubuntu I recall my options being Synaptic, or some command line stuff involving apt-get. Steam came out of my ears the first time I found out that I couldn't double-click on an executable to install something.

      PS. Just installed the app from the browser by going to the Kongregate website. There's a download link that takes you to GetJar, and the whole process took less than a minute. The world continues to be safe for freedom, democracy, and small, furry animals.

      --
      This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
  2. Re:It does seem that you have the best of both wor by creativeHavoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree, Google says "we will not sell this through our app store" whereas Apple says "you cannot have this app." There is no reason to liken Google to Apple here.

    --
    insight through the mind
  3. Where's the distinction between Flash and e-books? by Andrioid · · Score: 2

    How do you make the distinction of online content, like e-books, flash games, podcasts? All are "online content", yet reader applications are allowed to go online to fetch the content (or even sell it). In my honest opinion, the only rule should be to exclude competing "Android markets", not content providers.

  4. Re:Not critical by Floritard · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can actually grab it from Kongregate's site itself.

  5. Google Reply (Karma Whoring) by binkzz · · Score: 3, Informative

    UPDATE: Google responded with a statement standing by its decision to pull the Kongragate Arcade app. “Applications in violation of our policies are removed from Android Market,” Google said. The reasoning comes down to the fact that the Kongregate app, while it acts much like a browser, has the ability to cache games for offline play. That elevates it into a competing software distribution platform offering outside content, something the Android Market terms of service prohibits. It’s likely that a simpler app that listed Kongregate games and launched a traditional browser could get approved. Or if the games were submitted as individual apps, they would also fly. It seems a distinction is being made here between digital content like books or music and mobile apps, which is why Kindle and other services don’t appear to be in danger of being pulled.

    --
    'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
  6. Says it all, really by bhunachchicken · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google Marketplace: "My house, my rules."

    Android Phone User: "My phone, my rules."

    Apple App Store: "My house, my rules."

    iPhone User: "My phone, Apple's rules."

    --
    THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
    1. Re:Says it all, really by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Android Phone User: "Give me Froyo!"

      Some Android Handset Makers: "No! Buy a new phone!"

      Sorry, couldn't resist.

      Also note that rooting the phone to install 2.2 solves the problem, but so does rooting an iPhone to solve the "Apple' rules" problem.

      Still, the level of hypocrisy seen in these comments is just hilarious. Google are taking the exact position that Apple have taken: deciding what will and won't be allowed in their online store, and yet the twisting and contorting by the Apple-bashing folk to justify this as somehow different from Apple is amusing. The last time this happened was when a serious bug appeared for Android (sending text messages to the wrong people), and there were a flurry of posts trying to downplay it as "not serious" or "this hasn't affected me so it's not an issue" and even "I haven't seen this bug so I doubt it's genuine".

      Any criticism of the Android platform/ecosystem, no matter how deserved or accurate, is met with a volley of fury and justification from slashdot at the moment. There's a term that was coined for just such behaviour: fanboys. Of course, fanboys only exist in the Apple camp, right?

      I'm not deciding one way or the other whether this is a good decision, but it is a decision made based on the rules of the store. Nor do I think that the inability to install non-App Store software on your iPhone without rooting it is necessarily a good thing either. It is interesting to watch the reactions of people on both sides though.

    2. Re:Says it all, really by Dillon2112 · · Score: 2

      You're glossing over the (very important) point about what exactly the rules in the store are. Sure, from a legal perspective, you can say "Their store, their rules" and be done with it. But from a practical perspective it matters a lot if they have a rule that says you can't re-implement the functionality present in current (or planned) official applications, as Apple had/has (I'm not current on their stance in this regard). Google, on the other hand, goes out of their way to point out that you can replace many components of the underlying system, like the contacts, email, dialer, and home applications. To say that both systems have rules, and therefore they are both the same is disingenuous; it would be a bit like saying "Well, the United States has laws, and so does North Korea, so they're basically the same."

      Which brings me to my second point. For years, no one really knew what the rules were in Apple's store. Apps that developers had spent months on were magically rejected. There was no transparency. Compare with Google's store, which has very clear, transparent rules that developers must agree to before they can ever submit an application for inclusion in the market. I hear that Apple has tried to increase transparency recently, but I don't know to what extent they have succeeded.

      If you consider both those differences, and then pile on the fact that even if Kongregate fails to abide by the rules, even though they agreed to them before submitting their application, Android users can still visit their website and install the application that way, you have a system that by all measures is more "open" than Apple's.

      And all of that ignores the fact that the operating system itself is open source and can (an is!) used and modified freely by dozens (or hundreds) of companies around the globe.

      All that is to say: the differences between the two systems are deep and far-reaching, not merely the fact that applications can be installed from a website on Android, but not iOS.

  7. Not like Apple by Lavene · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple says "We don't like it so you can't use it!"
    Google says "We don't like it so we will not distribute it. You're of course free to get it elsewhere."
    Big difference. Huge actually.

    1. Re:Not like Apple by intheshelter · · Score: 2

      Actually, to be accurate you change Apple to "We don't like it so we will not distribute it"

      Really it's a small difference. You're just lying to yourself if you think otherwise.

    2. Re:Not like Apple by Keerok · · Score: 2

      Actually, Apple is saying to you " We don't like it, so we will not distribute it and we will make it hard and possibly cause you to break the law or your phone or your agreement or your warrenty to have it"

    3. Re:Not like Apple by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      Just like some Android manufacturers who have users who can't upgrade to Froyo without rooting....

    4. Re:Not like Apple by intheshelter · · Score: 2

      And yet essentially the same thing. They won't distribute it and you'll have to go elsewhere. It's not against the law, so that is a bogus argument on your part. As for the warranty, if you jailbreak the device it is perfectly logical for Apple to void your warranty on the device at that point. They can't tell wtf you may have done to it and shouldn't be responsible for the hacker tinkering with their phone.

      Face it, you give Google a free ride on this, but they censored something just like Apple. You either have to be honest and treat them the same or run the risk of someone calling you a hypocrite.

    5. Re:Not like Apple by Drakino · · Score: 2

      Not really. The Nexus One is still running 2.2, the same OS it shipped with a year ago. The Nexus S ships with 2.3. So much for the full pure Android experience, even from a developer phone.

      Apple allows developers early access to the next OS, for devices up to 3 years old. Google, no early access, and buy a new phone if you want to develop for the newest OS.

  8. Re:It does seem that you have the best of both wor by phmadore · · Score: 2

    Agreed.

  9. Re:Not critical by Vintermann · · Score: 2

    I don't see much control freakery, in fact I'm usually amazed at the things sold in the market. Take ROM buddy, for instance. Not only does it fall afoul of the same paragraph as this app, but the roms it offers for download are copyrighted and not theirs to sell ("only download if you own the original game" yeah right!) It's a paid app, too.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  10. Re:Not critical by morgauxo · · Score: 2

    Not really. Android has a little checkbox in the setup menu that if checked (or was that unchecked?) allows you to download and install apps without using the marketplace just like you would on an older Windows mobile phone or a computer. Just go to the webpage, download and install. The marketplace is only a convenience, even a non-rooted phone can still run apps from outside the marketplace so long as they don't require low-level system access (like tethering). An iPhone however ONLY allows the user access to what Apple chooses to allow in their marketplace. The only two ways around that are to Jailbreak and risk bricking it or buy their sdk and program it yourself. The two are quite different that way.

  11. Re:Not critical by mcvos · · Score: 2

    Quite the rationalization you've got there. Google censors something and they are still open. Apple censors something and they are closed and evil.

    Why don't you read the post you're replying to? I explained it right there.

    Android is more open by its very nature, because you are not restricted by what Google approves or not. With an iPhone, you are bound by what Apple approves (unless you jailbreak, which Apple would like you to believe is illegal). So when Apple chooses not to sell something in their App Store, it's censorship: they're blocking the only possible way to get it. When Google chooses not to sell something, it's not censorship, because you can still get it through other channels. Just not through the most visible one.

    But your reaction does demonstrate the second part of my point: it's bad PR, because to uninformed people, it looks like Google is doing exactly what Apple does.

  12. Re:It does seem that you have the best of both wor by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2

    I agree, Google says "we will not sell this through our app store" whereas Apple says "you cannot have this app." There is no reason to liken Google to Apple here.

    This isn't wholly true you know. Apple says, 'you can't have this through our store which is the only way without hacking to get it on our OS. You can have it if you hack the OS or install a different OS, but we won't support you."

    I realize this may seem like nit-picking but it's important to note that Apple doesn't actually stop anyone from getting an app legally, they just make it inconvenient if you want to use their mobile OS on the hardware they sell. The point still stands though.

    I'm still waiting for Google to decide it's time to create a new, better store that incorporates the advantages of a vetted system for all apps with the advantages of many sources and no completely banned apps. It is certainly possible to build such a system, although it may be complex. It would be nice to see them leapfrog Apple on this front.

  13. iPhone user: My phone, My Rules by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    iPhone User: "My phone, Apple's rules."

    You can jailbreak at any time. Any device you physically control is always under your own rules.

    On Android, if it's "your rules" why can you not update many Android phones to FroYo?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. Re:It does seem that you have the best of both wor by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2

    They try to stop you every single update by stopping jailbreaking.

    No, they try to fix security holes every update. If they were serious about stopping you from running unapproved apps on iPhones they'd lock the hardware to the OS.

  15. Re:Not critical by Duradin · · Score: 2

    "though Apple claims the latter is illegal"

    [Citation Needed]. It's 2011, not 2009.

  16. Re:Not critical by intheshelter · · Score: 2

    I read your post, it's just that it was bullshit. I'm not restricted by what Apple approves or not. I know I can go get other apps at an alternative source. Your BS about Apple's decision being censorship and Google's not being censorship is crap. Either they both are or they both aren't guilty of censorship if they reject an app. Your rationalization doesn't hold water.

    Keep your blinders on and swallow the "Google is open" koolaid. I'm informed, I just don't choose to ignore the reality of the similarity of their actions like you apparently have.