Slashdot Mirror
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.