Google Clamps Down On Spam, Intrusive Ads In Apps

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Clamps Down On Spam, Intrusive Ads In Apps

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday August 1, 2012 @08:39AM from the their-way-or-the-highway dept.

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.

26 of 122 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fuck you, Apple! by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-08-01 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Fuck you, Apple! by h4rr4r · 2012-08-01 08:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You could go use the Amazon market.
  I agree google is getting greedy here, but on the other hand some devs want you to upgrade to add free by paying them via paypal, which ends up meaning you have to pay again and again when you install that app on new devices.
2. Re:Fuck you, Apple! by DragonWriter · 2012-08-01 09:41 · Score: 2
  
  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?
  Both Google and Apple require apps in their online store with in-app purchase to use their respective payment system for purchases (Google has exceptions for purchases of things used outside of the app itself, and I think Apple has a similar exception.) So far, pretty similar.
  OTOH, Android, unlike iOS, allows consumers to install apps not delivered through the OS vendors app store, meaning that the restriction on the store isn't a restriction on the OS.
  It is true that certain Android devices come with restrictions that make the consumer experience similar to iOS in this regard, but since consumers have a choice between those Android devices and Android devices that aren't locked down, that's an issue specific to the devices in question, not to Android as an OS.
A good start by Fallingcow · 2012-08-01 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:A good start by h4rr4r · 2012-08-01 08:57 · Score: 4
  
  Also a "freemium" category, I want to never see another one of those again. I will buy an app, I will use free ones, but I will not pay to continue to use a game over and over.
2. Re:A good start by oakgrove · 2012-08-01 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If the free version doesn't have enough functionality that a typical user would keep it around
  Thats going to be pretty arbitrary and require lots of human effort...
  I know this might go over the edge of the creepy factor for some people but maybe if there was a way to track frequency of use of an app and show the percentage of time the app was uninstalled within a week or something. Those stats would be very useful in gauging an app's quality in addition to the star and download numbers we have now.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
3. Re:A good start by oakgrove · 2012-08-01 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  I've been speaking to coworkers about app stores in general, most of them say if you paid anything for an app, you've paid too much...
  Your coworkers' cynicism seems a little naive to me. True not every app is worth buying (those are the ones you, um, don't buy) but there are a few I've purchased and I'm very happy about. I've been playing Aralon on my Xoom lately and I love it. It's basically Morrowind on your tablet. In some ways better than Morrowind as it streamlines the NPC interaction and you have mounts. The game is huge with a ton of depth and it is worth the measly $6.99 asking price. I've bought some more that are also very good and I'm not going to give a rundown of each one but suffice it to say I'm a happy customer. I only had to return one app as it crashed on start-up and Google just refunded my money with no hassle since I was within the 15 minute period.
  
  --
  The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Don't look now... by amRadioHed · 2012-08-01 08:51 · Score: 5, Informative

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
Re:Don't look now... by Joehonkie · 2012-08-01 08:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Damn, if only there was some way that Android would let me install my own apps from anywhere!
Good move, but beware the abuse by Qwavel · 2012-08-01 08:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
1. Re:Good move, but beware the abuse by h4rr4r · 2012-08-01 08:59 · Score: 2
  
  Even if they do that, you can still install such an app from third party sources.
  That limits what they can do far more.
2. Re:Good move, but beware the abuse by mmurphy000 · 2012-08-01 09:38 · Score: 2
  
  CommonsGuy wrote a good post about this (no, I'm not him)
  No, but I am! :-) (and thanks for the kind words!)
  
  --
  The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development
3. Re:Good move, but beware the abuse by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-08-01 13:47 · Score: 2
  
  No, I'm CommonsGuy!
Re:Don't look now... by h4rr4r · 2012-08-01 08:54 · Score: 2

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.
Another good idea for Android by DickBreath · 2012-08-01 09:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Another good idea for Android by queazocotal · 2012-08-01 14:18 · Score: 2
  
  Part of the problem is that there is no sane way to discover this app.
  For example, I wanted a calculator app which diddn't request stupid permissions.
  The only way to do this was to go down the list, click install - for every app.
  Because this is hard and slow, even technically adept users are not likely to always do this.
  So the apps that don't request excess permissions don't get found and used preferentially over those that do.
  So the permission list tends to expand, as publishers are not penalised for it.
  If there is a 'good' app at 6th in the list, it takes about 50 interactions with the device to find it.
Re:Don't look now... by Mr.+McGibby · 2012-08-01 09:04 · Score: 2

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
Google should also have Certified apps by DickBreath · 2012-08-01 09:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Take that! by Daetrin · 2012-08-01 09:12 · Score: 2

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
Re:Don't look now... by BronsCon · 2012-08-01 09:20 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
Re:Don't look now... by CheshireDragon · 2012-08-01 09:27 · Score: 2

(sarcasm)son of a bish, I know right?(/sarcasm)

--
"That's right...I said it."
Re:Don't look now... by BronsCon · 2012-08-01 09:36 · Score: 3, Funny

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.
Re:Don't look now... by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-08-01 13:43 · Score: 2

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.
Re:Don't look now... by queazocotal · 2012-08-01 14:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Google Play: Countries supported for billing by DragonWriter · 2012-08-01 14:47 · Score: 3, Informative

As a very nasty side-effect of Google requiring all in-app purchases to go through Checkout, only US and UK based companies can develop apps which use in-app purchases and still be in the Play store.
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
Re:Don't look now... by Migala77 · 2012-08-01 21:27 · Score: 2

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.