Google Clamps Down On Spam, Intrusive Ads In Apps
An anonymous reader tips news that Google has sent out a letter to app developers explaining policy changes for any new apps published on the Google Play store. In-app purchases must now use Google Play's payment system unless it's for goods or services used outside the app itself. They've added language to dissuade developers from making their apps look like other apps, or like they come from other developers. But more significantly, Google has explained in detail what qualifies as spam: repetitive content, misleading product descriptions, gaming the rating system, affiliate traffic apps, or apps that send communications without user consent. Also, advertisements within apps must now follow the same rules as the app itself, and they can't be intrusive: Ads can't install things like shortcuts or icons without consent, they must notify the user of settings changes, they can't simulate notifications, and they can't request personal information to grant full app function.
In-app purchases must now use Google Play's payment system unless it's for goods or services used outside the app itself.
Goddamn money-grubbing, parasitic Apple always trying to take a take a cut from other people's hard work. Oh wait, this is Google doing it? Oh, never mind then.
Now both Google and Apple need to add (and enforce membership of) a category for free apps that are just demos for their paid counterparts.
If the free version doesn't have enough functionality that a typical user would keep it around without buying addons or upgrading to the paid one, off to the "Demos" category it goes.
I must have missed the part about Google making it more difficult for people to install apps from 3rd party sources. Maybe you could point me to where you saw that.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Damn, if only there was some way that Android would let me install my own apps from anywhere!
If they would make Angry Birds move that damned ad out of the way, I'd be able to stop disconnecting from the network before playing.
Oh Mighty GOOG, your lowly human followers beseech you to create an app store for windows much like your mighty holiness has created for your son, Android.
K thx bye (aka amen)
P.S. and osx and linux app stores too if its not too much trouble, your mighty holiness.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I'm sure this will be welcomed by (most users and developers alike.
However, the more control they exercise, the more danger that they will abuse it (e.g. a carrier partner asks Google to get rid of an app that acts as an SMS gateway, so users don't need to pay for carriers' SMS package).
I believe that the key to keeping this sort of abuse under control (other then clear rules) is for Google to specify which rule was broken for every app that gets rejected.
CommonsGuy wrote a good post about this (no, I'm not him):
http://commonsware.com/blog/2012/02/23/think-about-principles.html
How so?
They are not removing the ability to install apps from outside sources, nor the openness of android. Only limiting the kinds of apps they are willing to sell. I don't see what is wrong with that.
So you mean there won't be alternative app stores like Amazon's app store? Or I can't install my own apps from other sources?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I noticed in Jelly Bean that a user can find out what app put spam in the notification bar. The user can then revoke the app's ability to ever put any more notifications into the notification bar.
Let's take that further. In Settings, Manage Applications, how about letting me manage the actual permissions that an app gets?
So even if a Flashlight app declares in the manifest both Internet Access and Abuse My Personal Contacts permissions, I can simply deny the app any subset of those permissions. This would go a very long way toward eliminating the worst abuses we are seeing. After all, why does a Flashlight app need the Abuse My Personal Contacts permission?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Thing is, I *want* a walled garden where I can install apps without fear of destroying my phone. I love having someone else vet the apps for malware. Now, I'm not saying that google is actually doing this, but the more they lock down their app store, the better it is. My problem is with Apple's App Store which gives you no option of going outside the walled garden if I feel like it.
Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
Similar to Apple, Google should introduce a program for developers who wish to pay to have their app certified. The app would earn some kind of certification that Google has inspected the app, it meets various technical (not necessarily style) guidelines. Then the app is displayed in the store with a branded trademarked logo indicating it is certified.
Google could also have multiple levels of certification like Silver, Gold, Rhodium, etc.
----
we will meet in Red 3 at the hour of scampering
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
and they can't request personal information to grant full app function.
Yeah! No muscling in on Google's turf!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
... but someone's raising a wall around their little garden.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Damn, if only there was some way that internet comments could express sarcasm.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
/woosh
Indeed, I am in full agreement with Google on this one. There are shitty apps on there because they don't check them like Apple, but even Apple has a few shit ones on there too. I think this new policy is on top and at least will get most junk apps out.
http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html
"That's right...I said it."
Then don't go and install apps you are suspicious of. If you are techie you have that gut instinct of knowing something will go wrong.
And if all else fails, there is always the Factory Restore/Reset option which does a pretty good job of cleaning out the device and freeing it of all errors.
"That's right...I said it."
(sarcasm)son of a bish, I know right?(/sarcasm)
"That's right...I said it."
According to geekoid, "~" at the end of a line indicates 'Snarky'. Close enough?
I can go with that. sadly, none was present :/
"That's right...I said it."
Great, that's sorted out, now if only there were a way to type less-than and greater-than signs in HTML...
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Not that hard. Was just easier in parenthesis.
"That's right...I said it."
I do agree with you to a point. I didn't want to get detailed, but... :)
I have rooted ever smart phone I ever owned since they came out some years ago. I have 5 and the last two Droid X and Droid 4 where I usually test 'odd' apps. Not everyone has that luxury. I was simply stating that if you don't trust the app then you may not want to try it out. Even legit looking apps and developers I have been wary of especially if it a security type app. Saved my self many a headaches by having an alternate phone to test with. If I didn't have alternate phones I would look elsewhere, ask someone else if they have a dead device(I work in a place where at least 3 a day are going in the trash) OR err on the side of safety
"That's right...I said it."
Lol we could do this all day... But, I'm out of material...
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"Google clamps down on Spam, Intrusive Ads In Apps from competitors
I can't think of any Google applications on Android that even use ads...
In any case, I'm happy to see all the apps that include AirPush get banned from Google Play - I have no time for any developer who thinks its a good idea (especially since they never warn you that they are using AirPush when you install the app).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
SarcasmError: Not Found.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Agreed. Isn't this the whole "Apple Store" argument: "It's their store and they can do what they want?"
The difference between the two, of course, is that Apple owns the store and is also the mayor of the town and makes sure that nobody else opens a store in their town. Don't like it? Move to a different town.
Google is welcome to make these changes. If developers don't like it, they can still sell their applications. They can go through Amazon's Appstore, Opera Mobile App Store, GetJar, AndAppStore, Handango, onlyAndroid Superstore, Insyde Market, Appoke, and various others. They can also sell them via their own website or they could even put it on a CD and sell it through a real-world store in a box or something. I know--how quaint.
Of the top 6 calculator apps, 5 require full access to the internet.
They make no mention of why they wish full access to the internet in their description.
Speaking personally, I would greatly prefer it if it was required for developers to provide a brief justification for every single capability they use.
And that these capabilities are actually required for the apps function, as outlined on the brief description.
A way to search for apps without certain capabilities as default would be good too.
Well, that sucks. I live in an area (China) where Google does not allow any payments AT ALL. That's right, I can't buy anything even if I want to. I even tried using a VPN to come from America - nope, Google looks at your SIM card. China Unicom, no dice. Pleco, an excellent Chinese dictionary application, cleverly got around this by offering a web page where you could buy a registration number outside the app. See, most of their customers are in China, obviously. Now that's in ruins. Good job, Google. Dicks.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The actual list of supported countries is slightly longer. Currently:
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hong Kong
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Russia
Singapore
Spain
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
United States
I am surprised the Android doesn't limit creation of shortcuts or icons external to the app, to an API? This API would automatically notify the user on trigger. If there is one, how are these apps successfully getting around it? Wouldn't this be something that Google could detect before listing an app?
Note, I am not an Android developer, so excuse any ignorance here.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
It's just not possible to keep malware off a system, not even with good judgement.
So how would a walled garden help?
Their best option might be a tiered market. A reviewed-by-Google, must-be-approved store and an open may-contain-dragons store. Same app, have a mark or option to show which tier apps are in. Allow searching only reviewed apps or reviewed and unreviewed apps. By default allow searching of all apps.
Not a sentence!
If you want apps that require less permissions, it usually helps to look for paid apps. Free apps always want to know everything about you. As you know "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" and people want to know what they're selling. And if the app isn't what you expected, Google Play gives you a 15-minute window to get your money back.
Or a soundboard that requires access to my browser history.
But I'm sure they have a good reason for that.
*clicks install*
Privacy is terrorism.
I don't to sound confrontational, as my posts often sound that way, but fuck it.
MobiCalc is the one I've choosen. It has a free version, supported by adds, and a pay version. The internet permissions, to me, are obvious. The app blurb also says something to confirm my thinking. Trying to install the "Pro" version confirms this (it needs no permissions)
I'd like to see full reviews on a respected website. Maybe Slashdot? Replace those book reviews that aren't very popular.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
<!-- Lol we could do this all day... But, I'm out of material...-->
</html>
Now ^^^^ there's ^^^^ subtle humor for ya.
Thing is, I *want* a walled garden where I can install apps without fear of destroying my phone. I love having someone else vet the apps for malware. Now, I'm not saying that google is actually doing this, but the more they lock down their app store, the better it is. My problem is with Apple's App Store which gives you no option of going outside the walled garden if I feel like it.
How about just making it possible to block ads without rooting the device?
Ah, wait, there's no money in that.
</truthfulsarcasm>
If only you could 'take a snapshot'. :) Damn you, non-VM OSes. Damn you!
So how would a walled garden help?
Something about Chi. :>
Speaking personally, I would greatly prefer it if it was required for developers to provide a brief justification for every single capability they use.
But where would all of the money go if we did that? Think of the children...
</friendlysarcasm>
If you want apps that require less permissions, it usually helps to look for paid apps. Free apps always want to know everything about you. As you know "if you're not paying for it, you're the product" and people want to know what they're selling.
And if the app isn't what you expected, Google Play gives you a 15-minute window to get your money back.
Make it a half hour and I'll buy in. The 15-minute window is too little to test and verify comfort with an app. Oh wait, ADHD/forgetfulness money grabbin'. Forgot about that... :)
Or a soundboard that requires access to my browser history.
But I'm sure they have a good reason for that.
*clicks install*
See, you're being tricked again; you were so quick to click install that you missed the part where it said it required access to "Directly call phone numbers"!
</snark> :)
...uh, noooo, it's just amusing that Google clearly isn't making that rule out of a belief that doing so is wrong, because that's exactly what they've started doing with their own services. Clearly it's just a pragmatic "we don't want anyone harassing our users and collecting their personal data besides us." They want a monopoly on the practice.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank