Google 'Experts' To Screen Android Apps For Banned Content

An anonymous reader writes Google has announced that it will start an official human-based screening process for all of the apps featured in its Google Play store, in a bid to "better protect the community" and "improve the app catalogue." The search giant revealed yesterday that a "team of experts" would be reviewing apps and all updates offered across the Google Play platform for those which violate Google's developer policies. The team will also give direct feedback to developers on what they need to do in order to fix their apps before they can be listed on the Store. A dedicated review page will allow developers to gain further "insight into why apps were rejected or suspended," as well as offering them the opportunity to "easily fix and resubmit their apps" for those who have violated minor regulations.

Comments

Screening

[Anonymous Coward]

So far, I'm unimpressed with their interest in explaining and allowing corrections of minor violations. The AdMob defaults include tons of offensive advertising and you're prohibited from observing them in your testing by their T.O.S. Fixing the AdMob settings is apparently not sufficient to get Google to lower your app's content rating once the mistake has been made, not that they'll actually discuss it with you.

Curated Collection

[macs4all]

Hmmm. Sounds like Google is moving toward the concept of a Curated Collection.

Wonder where they would have gotten THAT Idea...?

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

everywhere ?

You think your came up with it ?

Re:Curated Collection

[dpidcoe]

So Apple lawlsuit in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

poor google fangirl, butthurt much?

Re:Curated Collection

[puto]

Apples users suggested it to Apple, so it is not an Apple iDea.

Re:Curated Collection

[macs4all]

Apples users suggested it to Apple, so it is not an Apple iDea.

Honestly: Citation, please?

Re:Curated Collection

[damn_registrars]

Hmmm. Sounds like Google is moving toward the concept of a Curated Collection.

Wonder where they would have gotten THAT Idea...?

If you want to be that nonspecific, I will point out that was making submissions to a Curated Collection a decade before Apple launched their App store for any platform. So perhaps google took the idea from the National Institutes of Health?

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

At least, unlike certain other companies, you are free to install software from other sources (without defeating the device that's secured against its own user) if you don't like their store's policies.

Re:Curated Collection

[macs4all]

So perhaps google took the idea from the National Institutes of Health?

Nice try.

Re:Curated Collection

[macs4all]

At least, unlike certain other companies, you are free to install software from other sources (without defeating the device that's secured against its own user) if you don't like their store's policies.

For now...

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

So up until now it's Apple's "Walled Garden" that the Androidians railed against. Now that Google is stepping down that path it's "Oh please! It's not like Apple invented it!" Where's the outcry about Google laying a foundation on its own walled garden? Hypocrisy much?

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded? Qualcomm, AT&T, VZW, T-mobile, Sprint, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Sega, Valve, and on, and on, and on. Do you seriously think Apple came up with a walled garden store? It's shocking how delusionional some Apple fans are. Now feel free to move the goal posts in your rebuttal.

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

So up until now it's Apple's "Walled Garden" that the Androidians railed against. Now that Google is stepping down that path it's "Oh please! It's not like Apple invented it!" Where's the outcry about Google laying a foundation on its own walled garden? Hypocrisy much?

1. Apple does not allow sideloading, and does not allow use of any other marketplace. Google does. (Some Carrier's may try to restrict this, but that's not Google)
2. Google is not banning unvetted Apps from it's market.

So no, it's no hypocrisy at all. There's a vast difference between saying "You can choose to use vetted or unvetted Apps" and saying "you can only use Apps which are vetted and supplied by US."

And for the record, Apple did not invent either concept.

Re:Curated Collection

[silentcoder]

Curated software collections have been standard practise in the Linux world since debian launched in the early 1990s.
There were probably even earlier ones on other unixes and maybe even on some earlier OS's than that.

FreeBSD has repositories and macOS is based on that so apple had been working with versions of the idea for ages, many distributions have both curated and uncurated repositories (in some cases the latter is not part of or hosted by the distribution however).

The only thing Apple did was to actively prevent access to any repositories EXCEPT their own - which google is STILL not doing (nothing in here announced their imminent blocking of the amazon appstore for example).

The appstore wasn't an invention at all - it was merely an already ancient idea being added to a cellphone OS and it wasn't even the first to do THAT - blackberry had an appstore-like feature years earlier.

The only change here is the addition of curation. Now we can debate whether the nature of that curation is good or bad for consumers. Distributions usually curate as well - checking submissions for malware is common -and many have additional levels (for example checking for license compliance or limiting approval to software under a pre-chosen subset of acceptable licenses).
Some even curate content - education marketed distros for example will generally not allow adult content programs in their repositories while a distro like debian will usually let it through.

Re:Curated Collection

[ClaraBow]

Apple does not allow sideloading, and does not allow use of any other marketplace. Google does. .

This is simply not true. For example Apple allows many companies to have their own stores: Person App . In education and business administrators can side-load their own specialty apps.

Re:Curated Collection

[Scoth]

It's a little difficult to prove direct correlation, as is the usual case with Apple product releases, but if you recall the original announcements for iPhone specifically called for it to run only Web 2.0 applications through Safari. For example. It wasn't until after the first jailbreaks and unofficial third party apps that the App Store came along after weathering objections from Jobs. It's hard to conclusively say whether it was directly in response to jailbreakers or not, but it's likely it sped up their plans.

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and you can install stuff from the Apple App Store without signing a blood contract that you never buy a competitors device ~for now~

Re:Curated Collection

[AmiMoJo]

Nothing has actually changed, they are just enforcing the existing rules a little more vigorously. Previously they relied on automated scanning and people reporting bad apps, as well as things like excessive refunds. Now they are having humans more involved somehow, but the rules on what is acceptable have not changed.

Re:Curated Collection

[Dins]

Maybe I'm just grumpy and old but the whole "Curated" thing is bugging me and seemingly came out of nowhere recently. It's a marketing move intended to lend an air of sophistication to stuff by making them think of museums or wine collections, but it's really all just "stuff that other people kinda like".

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, then Apple does not allow the great unwashed masses or *individuals* to obtain apps from non-Apple sources. Google does. Happy now Apple shill?

Re:Curated Collection

[macs4all]

It's a little difficult to prove direct correlation, as is the usual case with Apple product releases, but if you recall the original announcements for iPhone specifically called for it to run only Web 2.0 applications through Safari. For example. It wasn't until after the first jailbreaks and unofficial third party apps that the App Store came along after weathering objections from Jobs. It's hard to conclusively say whether it was directly in response to jailbreakers or not, but it's likely it sped up their plans.

After reading the 9 to 5 Mac article linked above, I conclude that it really wasn't USER backlash, but DEVELOPER (and Apple-internal) pressures that caused Jobs to embrace the idea of an SDK and App Store. But that article also makes it clear that forces inside Apple were trying to convince Jobs that it was a good idea even before the iPhone launch. The App Store officially launched in July, 2008; so there wasn't too much time wasted.

OTOH, Google Play was launched in March, 2012 (yeah, I was surprised, too!) ; so, I'd still say that Apple's App Store can safely be said to have "come first"...

Re:Curated Collection

[macs4all]

Nothing has actually changed, they are just enforcing the existing rules a little more vigorously. Previously they relied on automated scanning and people reporting bad apps, as well as things like excessive refunds. Now they are having humans more involved somehow, but the rules on what is acceptable have not changed.

Maybe not "officially"; but it is still obvious that they now see that the "Curated Collection" concept, a la Apple's App Store "acceptance" procedures, is the right way to go, moving forward; and I believe that the groundwork is being laid to eventually take away that "Allow Apps from Other Places" (paraphrasing) Option in Android.

Re:Curated Collection

[macs4all]

Maybe I'm just grumpy and old but the whole "Curated" thing is bugging me and seemingly came out of nowhere recently. It's a marketing move intended to lend an air of sophistication to stuff by making them think of museums or wine collections, but it's really all just "stuff that other people kinda like".

Now get off my lawn.

Yes, "Curated" is a term that is dripping in "sophisticated" connotation. But it is also actually correctly used.

But, I must correct you when you say that, in the case of the App Store, that it actually means "stuff that other people kinda like". That is incorrect. I am SURE that there are MANY Apps that make it through the approval process that the "Curators" would NEVER load onto their PERSONAL iOS devices; rather, in Apple's case, it truly IS mostly about making sure an App isn't malicious, with a small side-order of "make sure this doesn't attempt to replace core functionality" and "make sure this doesn't violate other iOS Developer rules."

"Other People Like" is only expressed in the User Reviews; which I don't think is a reason to get an App "De-Listed" (although, in an extreme case, it might cause "further review", which might get something booted; but it would almost certainly have to be something that directly violated the Developer ToS).

Re:Curated Collection

[joelsherrill]

OTOH, Google Play was launched in March, 2012 (yeah, I was surprised, too!) ; so, I'd still say that Apple's App Store can safely be said to have "come first"...

Nice try there. Thanks for playing.

It may have been renamed Google Play in March 2012 but you could get Android applications from the Android Market long before that. The original Android ADP (aka HTC Dream or T-Mobile G1) had access to the marker. Our friend Wikipedia contradicts your statement and notes the Android Market had a launch date of 22 October 2008. So only July to October difference on the launch dates which more or less makes them concurrently developed.

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is seriously saying Apple invented curation. That's silly. And of course Android still allows side loading. As I said, this move is a step down the path to a walled garden, so now is the time you should be objecting, lest they dare take more steps.

Re:Curated Collection

[macs4all]

So only July to October difference on the launch dates which more or less makes them concurrently developed.

Nice try yourself.

...and there were internal talks at Apple regarding the development of an App Store even before Google knew there WAS an iPhone.

Besides, first is first. Android fanbois use that against iOS features that they claim were "stolen" by Apple ALL the time, so...

Re:Curated Collection

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that this AC is macs4all since it attacked someone for pushing back against a fanboy by pretending the pushback against the derp was the problem, rather than the person who's so in-the-tank that they call themselves macs4all.

Featured apps only will be analyzed?

[turning in circles]

So this is telling me that the apps that Google "Features" currently are not inspected or analyzed by any humans before they become featured. "Featured," to my way of thinking, means recommended. So, currently, are algorithms recommending apps, not people? And if so, how long before algorithms recommend movies, books, music? (Currently, Wikibooks notes that "Featured books are books that the Wiki community believes to be the best . . .")

Re:Featured apps only will be analyzed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix? Pandora?

Re:Featured apps only will be analyzed?

[swillden]

So this is telling me that the apps that Google "Features" currently are not inspected or analyzed by any humans before they become featured. "Featured," to my way of thinking, means recommended. So, currently, are algorithms recommending apps, not people? And if so, how long before algorithms recommend movies, books, music? (Currently, Wikibooks notes that "Featured books are books that the Wiki community believes to be the best . . .")

No. "Apps featured in Google Play" isn't the same as "Featured Apps in Google Play". Neither phrase was from Google, either, but from the summary.

The summary is wrong in others ways, too. It says that Google is going to begin screening apps. The actual announcement says that this has been going on for several months. It also says that the process is "human-based", which the announcement doesn't say, just that the process "involves a team of experts who are responsible for identifying violations of our developer policies earlier in the app lifecycle." This leaves open the possibility that the team in question automates the actual screening, which is obviously much more normal for Google.

Really, your best bet is to ignore the summary and the linked article and just read the post from Google: http://android-developers.blog...

Re:Featured apps only will be analyzed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they can analyze why a simple solitaire or pool game needs so many permissions.

Re:Featured apps only will be analyzed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love the MBA talk from Google. Seriously and people say this is a tech driven company? Is there a single product that isn't a bloated mess designed to spy on users?

"Creating Better User Experience" could easily be done by banning all the "top" ad based apps that are nothing but ways to steal peoples phone numbers, contacts and spy on them. But hey, being an advertising company, why would Google ever side with the users. They've made it simpler for the app developers to steal peoples info by forcing users into an "all or nothing" situation w.r.t permissions when you install apps, rather than doing things the sane way.

Google can't automate this

[Anonymous Coward]

But we should believe they can make a driverless car.

Re:Google can't automate this

[ArmoredDragon]

Finding hidden malware is considerably harder than finding pedestrians out in the open. If pedestrians were hiding themselves from traffic the way malware distributors hide their code, then Darwin would have claimed them long before a Google car does.

Re:Google can't automate this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is not as if pedestrians are in the habit of walking around wearing Harry Potter style invisibility cloaks.

Re:Google can't automate this

[Anonymous Coward]

This is probably how they will role out the automated car release. They will have an "expert" drive it for you.

No walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it troubling that Google wants to dictate what we can and cannot install on our own portable computers. Yes, I realize we can in install things from outside their app store, but, it puts those outside apps at a huge disadvantage. Google has also, many times, showed us it will delete apps for sketchy reasons. Their more open market is the main reason I use android over apples bullshit.

Re:No walled garden

[macs4all]

I find it troubling that Google wants to dictate what we can and cannot install on our own portable computers. Yes, I realize we can in install things from outside their app store, but, it puts those outside apps at a huge disadvantage. Google has also, many times, showed us it will delete apps for sketchy reasons. Their more open market is the main reason I use android over apples bullshit.

Hee Hee Hee, Ha Ha Ha, Ho, ho...

Tee Hee...

This is truly priceless.

Re:No walled garden

[Feral Nerd]

I find it troubling that Google wants to dictate what we can and cannot install on our own portable computers. Yes, I realize we can in install things from outside their app store, but, it puts those outside apps at a huge disadvantage. Google has also, many times, showed us it will delete apps for sketchy reasons. Their more open market is the main reason I use android over apples bullshit.

I don't get what you are complaining about. Having read TFA I did not sounds to me as if Google was planning to foist this down the throat of third party app stores. They just want to reduce the vast piles of what is quite frankly digital refuse that's cluttering up the Play Store. So even if Google turns the Play Store into 'Walled Garden Light (TM)' you can still side-load malware laden apps from questionable sources and if that doesn't float your boat any Tom, Dick and Harry can still set up an app store of their own with no walls and no quality checking (but hopefully at least a basic attempt at filtering out malware). Isn't that the great advantage of Android? Even with a fence around the Play Store it's still an open market, you can always go somewhere else.

Re:No walled garden

[Paradise Pete]

I did not sounds to me as if Google was planning to foist this down the throat of third party app stores. They just want to reduce the vast piles of what is quite frankly digital refuse that's cluttering up the Play Store.

One step at a time. You can't build the walled garden until you lay the foundation.

Re:No walled garden

[narcc]

I'm not sure what you find funny.

Re: No walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand filtering out malware, but, as I said, they've been known to pull things out of the store that were certainly not malware, adblock is one well known example. And as I said, yes, we can go to outside markets, but, apps that are in outside app markets do not get nearly the exposure. Those markets do not have the benefit of coming pre bundled as the default app market on phones. If Google had been responsible in the past about removing only malware apps I would feel completely different. Abuse of Googles power is what I have a problem with.

Re: No walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

Which btw, is also the problem most have with Apple and their walled garden, they think they know best about what we should and should not install on our own pocket computers. Malware aside, let us decide what to install on our pocket computers. Companies need to stop dictating what we're allowed to do with our own devices. They're not our nannies. Google heading towards nannyville is a terrible step in the wrong direction.

Re:No walled garden

[silentcoder]

Yes !
Also I demand that LinuxMint stops restricting what goes in their official repositories ! I demand that my linux desktop gives me the same spyware experience that my windows-using friends have !

Curating software is always evil regardless of how or why it's done and whether or not I am limited to what the curators recommend.

I am not as it happens. I do sometimes go outside the official mint repositories, for example I installed VirtualBox and PlayOnLinux from their own repositories as those update faster and since I use these programs so heavily I want them to always be on bleeding edge releases.
But I knew the risks doing so, I know that a release there hasn't been tested on my distro - might break something.

Google is just starting to do the same thing LinuxMint does. Their version of PoL is often a few releases behind - because they test it specifically against their software set on more hardware for a purpose.
I have the means to get it sooner elsewhere.
I have access to any program that runs on the OS regardless of the fact that Mint devs don't host all of them.

Google does not, to my mind,appear to be doing anything differently here. Other app stores exist, you can still get an entirely custom built version of the OS from third-parties like cyanogenmod. You can get one with no google apps at all (including no playstore).
Nothing is restricting what users can do, google is ONLY limiting what google does here.
That's not a bad thing, and it's nothing like what the apple appstore does.

The summary is a bit sensationalist and trying to make it sound similar but it really isn't.

Re:No walled garden

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux Mint is hardly the first, nor the most prominent Linux distro to do this. Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, etc... all do this.

The big difference is, Linux distros usually (almost always) do it for stability/security reasons, as a compromise distros also will host and maintain unofficial repos, AUR on Arch, testing/unstable on Debian, etc...

Google has a well known, highly publicized history of pulling apps for terribly sketchy reasons. One well known example is Adblock.

You can't compare OSS projects -- which go out of their way to make sure unapproved software is easily accessible -- with Google who is leveraging its position as the pre-bundled app market.

If in the past Google had only pulled apps due to malware or spam I wouldn't see a problem with this, however, we already know with absolute certainty, historically that is not the case.

Re:No walled garden

[silentcoder]

>Linux Mint is hardly the first, nor the most prominent Linux distro to do this. Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, etc... all do this.
Oh I know, I wasn't suggesting it is - I even spoke of the long history of this in another comment. I was merely using it as an example based on my day to day experience.

>The big difference is, Linux distros usually (almost always) do it for stability/security reasons,
Something google has been lax about, I hope that will improve with this.

> as a compromise distros also will host and maintain unofficial repos, AUR on Arch, testing/unstable on Debian, etc...
I mentioned that in my other comment as well - not all of them do, but even if they don't nothing stops you from using third-party repos or even compiling from source or even installing binaries yourself.

>Google has a well known, highly publicized history of pulling apps for terribly sketchy reasons
True, though it's better than apple's (by a long margin) but again - the fact is, they may control their appstore but they don't prevent sideloading or other marketplaces from operating. It would take a massive redesign to try to do so - including removing the ability to root phones by any means (which even apple couldn't manage) and to install custom android builds - many of the phone companies have tried to make that hard (but with limited success) and google has, so far at least, actively encouraged it. The licensing of the large amount of non-google code in android would make such a change very difficult and there is almost no profit potential there - it's rarely wise to remove the major thing differentiating your product from competitors. I'm not saying it never happens or can't happen - I was a happy Playstation customer before the combined rootkit scandal and removing the linux support feature from the PS3s which shipped with it - it drove me to become an xbox customer instead. Sometimes companies do evil and stupid things, but I am saying we have no evidence that, that is what's happening HERE.

> One well known example is Adblock.
Which proves my point - I am running the latest adblock on my cyanogenmod phone right now. Removing it from the playstore had zero impact on my ability to do so.

>You can't compare OSS projects -- which go out of their way to make sure unapproved software is easily accessible -- with Google who is leveraging its position as the pre-bundled app market.
I think I can. Being the preloaded default isn't a limitation, adding limitations would upset me - making it hard to do so would upset me. There was a lot MORE than merely preloading IE wrong with microsoft during the antitrust case. It was preloading IE AND corrupting java AND making IE capable of features that other companies were blocked from adding to their browsers and..and..and..
Now does this have potential to be abused ? Sure, but we haven't got any evidence it's BEING abused - at least not yet. This has apparently been in place for months and I've seen no difference in my playstore line up. Like most people these days, I also only run a very small selection of apps in practice. The days when we loaded lots of them are over, these days people install things they use and only things they use.

Re:No walled garden

[trippin_efnet]

It baffles me that we allow these things to happen on phones. This would be almost unthinkable in the Windows or Linux environments. Is it because we use 'app' and 'market'? Does that somehow make it ok? Could you imagine if MS introduced the 'Approved Programs You Can Install On Your Computer!' store? Would be laughed/sued out of existence.

Will DMCA requests affect this?

[HalAtWork]

So will alleged conent owners begin sending DMCA requests now, and hold Google responsible? This is a two way street, it could end in a lot of legitimate apps being held hostage.

Re:Will DMCA requests affect this?

[ShaunC]

Apps in the Play Store have always been subject to DMCA takedowns, along with the shenanigans DMCA makes possible. The "legitimate apps being held hostage" scenario already happens. For example, someone ripped off the Camfrog app, then filed a false DMCA complaint alleging that the real Camfrog app was infringing. Camfrog appealed the DMCA notice, and Google responded by taking down the real app for a day or two.

Re:Will DMCA requests affect this?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, yeah... I read the article you linked. Camfrog took down their own app on accident:

...we did the only thing we could, and filed our first counter notice, to our own takedown request.

Seems like their initial DMCA takedown request hit the wrong target; whether that was Google's fault or Camfrog's, Camfrog sent the request.

The Google *is* Banned Content

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately there are other search engines in the Wide World. And you can take your Android phones and shove them up your cunts.

And what will it cover?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what will the analysis cover? Will it cover over-reaching permissions that apps don't need but are simply used to acquire personal information? This is becoming the biggest problem after malware with apps, and signals a death dirge to begin shortly if nothing is done.

Needed because of bad permission system?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish Google had taken a different road:
- help users understand permissions (e.g. Internet + SDcard = app could upload your private pictures to a remote server)
- users get scared of apps with too many permissions
- apps request few permissions

Instead they entered a vicious cycle:
- apps request more permissions
- simplify the displayed permission list
- apps request even more permissions

and now we're at a stage where apps request tons of permissions they don't need, and Google needs to manually check that each app doesn't abuse the permissions that they request but don't need. Ridiculous.

Re:Needed because of bad permission system?

[rantash]

I agree. Also if the user can grant only some of the permissions the app asks for, and be prompted when the app tries to access other stuff, so you can decide when it's warranted.

Re:Needed because of bad permission system?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish Google had taken a different road:

Me too.

- help users understand permissions (e.g. Internet + SDcard = app could upload your private pictures to a remote server)

No. What they need to do is warn you on installation. Then, allow the user to allow or block access to resources, either always, on a case-by-case basis, or never, and give the user the tools to full monitor all resource requests. I ought to be able to audit everything an app does, every site it connects to, etc. if I choose.
Then all Google needs to do is institute a reporting/feedback program for users to complain about deceptive and abusive apps.

Re:Needed because of bad permission system?

[AmiMoJo]

Internet + SDcard = app could upload your private pictures to a remote server

Actually, for a long time now Android has not allowed apps to access the entire SD card, just their own data on it. To get at your photos an app needs permission to access your photos specifically. If users don't understand what Internet + Photos permission means...

Re:Needed because of bad permission system?

[Anonymous Coward]

The app developer can solve this problem by separating features that require additional permissions into add-ons. The automation app Automate use this approach.

Re:Needed because of bad permission system?

[david_thornley]

Users in general are not going to understand permissions in general. In general, they won't be completely innocuous (otherwise why have them as permissions). The practice of listing the worst case with all permissions will get users in general to avoid looking at them entirely.

I far prefer the iOS approach, in which permissions are asked for at the time of use, and can be granted or denied then.

good, Google Play needs cleaned up

[FudRucker]

there is a lot of crap software that is really low quality that could possibly be spyware malware, trojans for data-mining for identity theft for credit card fraud, i really dont trust google android because of the low quality crapware on Google Play, it all needs to be filtered for quality and malware and signed so every consumer will know it has not been tampered with

Re:good, Google Play needs cleaned up

[rtb61]

So it all needs to be treated in pretty much the exact opposite way it is treated on desktops and notebooks. Basically Goggle is cashing in walled garden and the end user and the developers expense, with a horribly crap selection system for applications and providing not much in return, other than a decent phone operating system.

Google don't be dicks, give me an option for an alphabetic keyboard, seriously. what the fuck is so hard about that.

Re:good, Google Play needs cleaned up

[wbr1]

What utter nonsense. Yes there is tons of shit in the play store. But I know that Word from microsoft is likely to be malware free if not usable. JoBobs Office clone, not so much. This is the same as if I searched on my PC or walked into brick and mortar.

I will use my experience to tell me what is good or bad. JoBob's office may be malware. However, it may be the best thing since sliced bread, but by increasing barriers to entry, I may never know. Give me the choice please.

If you want someone to spoonfeed you what they think is good for you, that is certainly something you can do. But it is not for me.

Re:good, Google Play needs cleaned up

[tepples]

If you want someone to spoonfeed you what they think is good for you, that is certainly something you can do.

The success of Wii, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360 shows that the market is happy to let multinational conglomerates "spoonfeed you what they think is good for you".

Irrelevant, I can already install banned content

[Karmashock]

I have a rooted android phone and I install programs etc on it all the time that aren't provided or approved by google.

In the long run, if android is to become a real operating system that must be a significant element of the android software ecosystem.

Walled gardens are fine for those that need them but they are of limited value to those capable of getting more from their machines.

This attempt by google to weed their garden is fine... it does not matter. So long as I can leave the garden entirely and get what I want... it matters little what is permitted inside the garden or not.

A fruitful idea.

[GrahamJ]

Indubitably.

Re:A fruitful idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were a fruitful idea, they would also deny you the ability to install software from outside their walled garden.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't even need to root Android devices to install programs from outside Google Play. There's a check under Settings - Security to allow installation from sources other than Google's repositories.

Lots of Google stories today

[Anonymous Coward]

More pls

Oh course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, your best bet is to ignore the summary and the linked article ...

I have always been doing that and so have most of us.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

I know... I just was adding that I had control over my machine and it does what I want.

That is the future of any platform of relevance.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Anonymous Coward]

Because iOS, from the largest tech company on the planet, is not a "platform of relevance?"

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what the majority of the public cares about.

Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been done for iOS for years.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

there are fads... and as I said, there is value in a walled garden but it is a crutch for the ignorant. And as the OS becomes more useful and involved such things will be of diminishing relevance especially for those like myself that are required by employment to do with it things that the makers did not initially wish.

You can circumvent the protections in iOS rather easily as well.

First rule of computer security... physical security.

If I hold it in my hand then I can control it given time. And given that the machines are the same and that others work with the same problem, all that need happen is that one of us break through and then share the solution.

Most security systems fall in this way in mere hours after release. The only ones that last longer only do so because no one really cares.

I have some experience with it. You can value my opinion as you will. We're all equals on the internet after all.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of people who will do that is a rounding error. Most people want those restrictions because it frees them from malware and crapware.

If anything, the iOS model is becoming standard, and other makers are attempting to ape it. Everyone wants a closed ecosystem: tech companies to lock people into their platform, and customers to be safe. It's clearly the trend: there are massively more walled gardens now than in the past. It's increasing among "platforms of relevance", not decreasing.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

I'm not clueless, I'm indifferent.

I said it didn't matter. I don't care. You say their walled garden is very hard to manage and maintain? Okay... but why do I care? I don't stay in the garden.

I am largely disinterested in the whole concept of it actually. It is unmanagable...

Because one is ignorant, one must either accept only a limited selection of choices from a trusted third party or risk exposure to predators of various stripes.

On desktop operating systems it is generally understood that the price of ignorance is risk. That is why they get viruses and malware and their identities stolen.

On the smartphones the understanding is that the price of ignorance is limited choices.

If one is not ignorant, then one need not concern themselves with such things.

So you see... I said "it is irrelevant"... Such things are imaginary barriers that have no material existence.

This is nothing.

Niche Apps

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how this will work for niche apps made for small communities that require a login some kind of private system. They won't be able to test the functionality of the apps, or will they just be inspecting the code itself?

Re:Niche Apps

[tepples]

I don't know how Google plans to implement human review, but on iOS, the standard practice is to give Apple a user account with which to test basic functionality.

Assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

As a developer who has had to deal with these motherfuckers for the past 4 years... Fuck Google and their fuckwit android team.

They are evil, lying, exploitative, and incompetent shitbags.

Re:Assholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Elaborate please...

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[macs4all]

there is value in a walled garden but it is a crutch for the ignorant.

That is a very narrow viewpoint.

The users you dismiss with a wave of the hand as "ignorant", just so happen to comprise everyone who doesn't post regularly on places like Slashdot or Stack Overflow, etc. In other words, about 10,998,999,000 out of the 11,000 000,000 or so people on the Planet.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[macs4all]

Anyone, from casual users to hardcore techies, who want to (gasp) actually use their phones instead of fucking around with rooting are just *BEGGING* for a curated app store to stem the flow of crapware and malware so that they can find good apps. The first of the phone OS giants that figures out the right balance will be rolling in (even more) obscenely ludicrous piles of money from the increase in app sales.

This. Exactly. This.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Paradise Pete]

out of the 11,000 000,000 or so people on the Planet.

Wow! I must have overslept!

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a rooted android phone and I install programs etc on it all the time that aren't provided or approved by google.

Translation: Google forces me to rely on kernel vulnerabilities to take control of a phone that I paid for.

On the other hand.. its Linux, so there's always a new vulnerability to exploit.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[narcc]

But that's the wrong approach.

You're a iOS users, so you're well-aware of how much absolute crap has found it's way in to the App Store. That's not to criticize Apple, there's crap in every OS's store, Google, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Amazon, even Mozilla have "curated" marketplaces full of garbage -- and the cream rarely seems to float to the top.

We've tried the monolithic do-everything marketplace. All we got was the great app-count war and more fart-apps than I can reasonably estimate. What I'd like to see is a lot of smaller, preferably community-driven, stores. If I have a special interest in waffles, I could use the Waffle Aficionado's store to find a small selection of highly-recommended waffle apps. If I like candy-themed match-three games, I could use the Triple Candy Club's store to fuel my addiction.

An open platform, supporting a variety of marketplaces, would be a huge win for the consumer. This is possible on Android, if you change a setting, BB is a bit more locked down, as you need to have your apps signed and connected to your computer even after switching to developer mode, but it's still a possibility. It's obviously seamless on FirefoxOS (like it used to be on BB). Vendors can even distribute their apps directly from their website.

So why aren't we doing this? There are already alternative app stores for Android, why haven't we seen any specialty stores?

speaking of being knowledgeable vs ignorant

[raymorris]

>. If one is not ignorant, then one need not concern themselves with such things.

You seem like the type of person who appreciates good information. Here's something I found interesting. It turns out that the people "ignorant" about computers are at significantly LOWER risk of exploits than those who work in IT, and the highest risk are programmers.

The highest amount of _damage_ is executives, but IT workers and programmers get hit more often, not less. I suspect it's because we a) install a lot more software, like VNC, open source stuff that occasionally is distributed with trojan attached, etc. b) muck about with admin privileges, allowing exceptions in our firewalls and such, and possibly c) have an inflated sense of security we attribute to our knowledge. I'm not sure of those reasons are correct, but statistically we do get exploited more often.

Re:speaking of being knowledgeable vs ignorant

[Karmashock]

I can't speak to such statistics. I know only my own experiences.

I do not get viruses or malware. I notice that ignorant users do all the time. I know this because they ask for my help to remove it.

I would also draw your attention to all the statistics and studies that turn out to be specious. This is a very common thing in our society today. Many people do not know how to conduct statistical studies and many people do not know how to analyze statistics.

You see this in major newspapers and in peer reviewed studies.

Silly things like Causation and Correlation are not accounted for which is inexcusable.

Other things like biased samples.

I've seen it too often to trust any statistic I haven't personally vetted. Which means of course I ignore nearly all statistical studies. But what else can I do? They can only serve to mislead unless they are handled by educated people with an interest in accurate results.

Demonstrably most statistics are handled by people that are either ignorant or unethical.

So again, I can only speak for experience... which is that I don't get infections.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[macs4all]

out of the 11,000 000,000 or so people on the Planet.

Wow! I must have overslept!

LOL! That's what I get for not checking, first!

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[macs4all]

You're a iOS users, so you're well-aware of how much absolute crap has found it's way in to the App Store. That's not to criticize Apple, there's crap in every OS's store, Google, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Amazon, even Mozilla have "curated" marketplaces full of garbage -- and the cream rarely seems to float to the top.

So now you want to somehow have a Store that only let's the "good" apps in?

Talk about a Walled Garden!!! And whose "taste" are we pleasing? The Curators'? No, that would be too restrictive. Oh wait! I know! Let's let the People who have downloaded the App "rate" it somehow!

Oh, wait...

See the problem?

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[camg188]

if android is to become a real operating system...

Real? It's not fake. Number one OS for total users.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[fonske]

I'm with you.
And then my provider installed a banking app (called "proximenu") as a "Service" on my new Jolla.
I feel so stupid now with my smartphone...

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I disagree. Having the primary marketplace reject certain kinds of apps means those kinds of apps are less likely to be developed in the first place. Have you seen any mature videogames lately? No? Well of course not, they all need to conform to PEGI/whatever standards or else they won't get on store shelves or on Steam.

Won't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing Apple, they probably have a patent on screening apps for banned content.

captcha: childish - sums up Apple pretty well.

Who are these humans going to be?

[Anonymous Coward]

As the victim of curated app stores from Barnes and Noble (which finally gave up on their disaster of a walled garden and went to Google Play) and Amazon, I wonder who Google is going to get to vet these apps. Google is known for being a cheapskate bottom feeder to begin with, throwing out buggy crap code with no support and not caring much about anything. So who are they going to get to vet their apps? Probably not quality people. Why doesn't Google get people to fix bugs or stop screwing up their Android user interface before they hire people to start rejecting my app?

The problem with B&N was, and Amazon is, you get almost automatically rejected by some guy in India who doesn't even speak English. You don't know why your app was rejected. There is no appeal. There is no tech support. It's a black hole.

I had an app that triggered a platform bug on the original Nook, and every single time I submitted a bug fix, it was automatically rejected by B&N's Indian subcontractors. I had to open a forum request and then they would magically approve the app with no explanation. I was more persistent than most, but finally gave up and stopped supplying bug fixes and ignored the Nook until they went to Google Play.

Now Google is going to become the new Barnes and Noble!?

This is not going to end well, and the few Android developers who aren't iOS developers are going to be leaving for greener pastures.

But Google doesn't care. As long as YouTube and Netflix apps run, they couldn't care less about the ten billion apps no one else cares about.

privacy?

[argStyopa]

It would be wonderful if they'd review apps for needless privacy intrusion. Why does a radio player app need to access my camera? Why does a weather app need to access my contacts? I can't count the number of apps that I uninstalled because the new update wants nonsensical accesses....

Anyway, I know that's not going to happen.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting on anon just in case.

I've recently developed and app and the higher ups insisted that we track the user's location with it, even though the app does not need location data at all to function.
All in the name of big data and tracking travel patterns so that someday in the future that data can be sold somehow.

Believe me, it's no the developers that want all these unnecessary permissions, it's the suits that insist on following in Facebook's footsteps and making the users the product to sell.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[dave420]

I wonder what else in your posts you've not checked and attempted to pass off as accurate...

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[dave420]

Being able to move from store to store and install what you want, or even install from no store at all, is not a walled garden by any definition.

Dave420 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Why're you running from a fair challenge here Dave420 http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

Dave420 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the definition of Forrest Gump chump http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

For android there exists pornographic games. To say nothing of games like Grand Thief Auto that let you go on shooting rampages after bouncing on hookers.

I really don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

A general operating system should be more dynamic than what android is at this time.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[macs4all]

I wonder what else in your posts you've not checked and attempted to pass off as accurate...

I'm sure you will let me know...

XNA on Xbox 360

[tepples]

The iOS developer program has a $99 per year fee plus 30 percent of sales, and only developers with a paid-up license can run code they compile on a device they own.

The Xbox Live Indie Games developer program had a $99 per year fee plus 30 percent of sales, and only developers with a paid-up license could run code they compile on a device they own. And it launched prior to the App Store.

Re:XNA on Xbox 360

[macs4all]

The iOS developer program has a $99 per year fee plus 30 percent of sales, and only developers with a paid-up license can run code they compile on a device they own.

The Xbox Live Indie Games developer program had a $99 per year fee plus 30 percent of sales, and only developers with a paid-up license could run code they compile on a device they own. And it launched prior to the App Store.

Sorry, your calendar needs adjustment.

Community Games were introduced with the New Xbox Experience on November 19, 2008.

The iPhone App Store opened on July 10, 2008.

Now, I don't know about your calendar; but mine has July coming nearly a half year before November. In the tech universe, that's a significant difference.

Re:XNA on Xbox 360

[tepples]

You're right: I had some of the events out of order. But when was XNA Creators Club announced, and when was the price of the iOS Developer Program announced?

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

Depends on your phone. Mine came rooted. I bought it that way from the manufacturer.

But I get your issue. I increasingly think the ROM of the phones should be removable. A micro SD card or something. That way anyone can install the desired software simply by pulling the SD card and writing directly to the card bypassing everything else.

That also would protect nicely from software attacks on the phone. Installing something wouldn't bypass the security but pulling the SD card and overwriting the rom would.

WebKit missing features

[tepples]

if you recall the original announcements for iPhone specifically called for it to run only Web 2.0 applications through Safari.

If Apple's original plan for iPhone resembled Mozilla's current plan for Firefox OS, then why did it take so long for Safari for iOS to support things like uploads from picture and video libraries using <input type="file">, or JavaScript access to the accelerometer, or JavaScript JIT, or WebGL?

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

Its sloppy.

What they want are white lists given that black list based security has failed.

I appreciate their problem. But the appropriate way to deal with it is by having something very much like anti virus only instead of looking for bad software it looks for good software.

That is the security of the future.

The walled garden is a variation on that theme but not a very good one.

One of the most distasteful things about it is that it attempts to monopolize the software distribution system. And google or apple presumes to say what is and is not acceptable software.

If you want horse porn simulators that contain no malware or viruses then who is Apple or google to say you can't have it?

They only do that because they are monopolizing the distribution system and in doing that they become embarrassed when children type in something for "horsies" and get horse porn. That is an argument for google to not monopolize the distribution system.

By all means, verify if given APK's are valid etc. But don't be the one and only source for such things.

In any case, you say you like it?

I wouldn't take it away from you. Where did I say that I would take it away from you?

I said it was irrelevant. To you... you may love it... but it still doesn't matter. The evolution of the system is going to come outside that garden. It already is as we speak. Most of the really cool programs for android cannot be found in the marketplace. And the remaining cool apps tend to get banned by google. I can give you a list if you like.

But it doesn't matter. Those that know... know. And those that don't know have opinions based on ignorance... and so their opinions aren't especially meaningful. Are there great numbers of these people? Sure... who said that mattered?

Permission to download ads

[tepples]

Applications need enough permissions to download and display advertisements. This is ultimately because Android devices launched in countries without Google Checkout, creating an expectation of free.

Microsoft already does this

[tepples]

Could you imagine if MS introduced the 'Approved Programs You Can Install On Your Computer!' store?

Microsoft could even call it the "Windows Phone Store" or the "Windows Store for Windows RT" or the "Xbox Live Marketplace".

Re: Microsoft already does this

[Anonymous Coward]

Not relevant, targeted towards mobile.

Re: Microsoft already does this

[tepples]

Xbox Live Marketplace is not mobile; it's XBOX HUEG. And even on desktop Windows 8.x, Microsoft requires all apps designed for the formerly-known-as-Metro environment to be obtained from the Windows Store unless you apply over the Internet for a developer license that must be renewed periodically.

Walled gardens, plural

[tepples]

So now you want to somehow have a Store that only let's the "good" apps in?

Talk about a Walled Garden!!!

"A walled garden" is singular. Narcc was describing "walled gardens", plural. There are multiple big-box stores that sell decorative plants; in my era, these include at least Walmart, Meijer, and Lowe's. There are also multiple locally owned greenhouses. All have walls, and all have plants. Or you can grow your own plants from seeds on your own fenced-in lot. Likewise, there are multiple app stores for Android, and you can compile your own apps from source.

How's the weather where mom lives?

[tepples]

Why does a weather app need to access my contacts?

For the "How's the weather where mom lives?" feature.

Experts?

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

I hope they're not as expert as the guys who do the pat-downs at transport terminals.Or what you know, they'll arm a monkey with some cool-looking tool that'll go beep and ask it to click if it sees a banana or something else.

That was just the re-branding

[beanpoppa]

Google Play's origins were the Android Market, which was announced in August 2008 and launched in October 2008 , but that doesn't preclude your statement that the Apple App Store came first.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

your offense does not mean the statement is inaccurate...

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[narcc]

See the problem?

Indeed I do.

What I'm advocating here is a plurality of stores, not a single store, preferably community driven.

We've tried the walled-garden approach. Both users and developers suffered. It didn't work, but that doesn't mean there isn't value in curation or in having a known, trusted, vendor. That's why I'd like to see more stores, with specialized interest. Crap app developers can still have their wal-mart style marketplaces, we'll just have other, better, options.

It's not for the users

[smbell]

This isn't about app curation or walled gardens. For a long time Google has been removing apps from the app store, flagging developer accounts, and in some cases killing entire developer accounts. The process has been completely one sided with small developers having little recourse and very little understanding as to why their app was banned. They're only recourse was to guess as to what was wrong, make a change to the app, and upload it under a new id (losing all the comments, ratings, history, users) of the app. This all at the risk they they were wrong about why the app was banned in which case it would just get banned again bringing them closer to having their developer account shut down. This appears to be a move to help those developers, who have been really screaming about this for some time. I hope that's what this is.

Re:It's not for the users

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is doing the same thing with desktop stuff too, but they use your Adwords account to get your attention (they suspend your account for violation of "google software principles" policy violation. I'm not joking. I had to make a few inane changes to my website to satisfy them (basically reordering a few menus.) And this is for software *not* in any "app store", just run of the mill desktop software.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubt Dave420 will let you know about his running here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[david_thornley]

It's primarily a security issue. Apple does not want malware on users' iDevices.

Blacklists don't work, because malware can appear far faster than it can be found and blacklisted. AV programs don't work. The best way found to have security is whitelisting software. If the user has an easy way of bypassing the whitelist, then the software isn't effectively whitelisted, because users can be talked into allowing things. It's been amply demonstrated that users will click through any impediment to seeing the dancing pigs.

The whitelist doesn't have to hold against people like you and me. It has to hold in general, for people who are not all that knowledgeable about computers.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[david_thornley]

An open platform, supporting a variety of marketplaces, could be a disaster for the consumer. Right now, Apple does a good job of keeping serious malware out of the App Store, and hence people's iOS computers. A variety of marketplaces would include some that provided free malware with their apps, and they could cause a good deal of harm.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[david_thornley]

As far as sex and violence goes in entertainment, I'd like to see more sex and less violence. I really don't like it that harming people is more offensive to a lot of people than loving them. I'd rather have an environment where a bullet hole is considered less acceptable than a nipple.

So, I'm not impressed by GTA.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[BasilBrush]

It's an is for phones and at a pinch, tablets. There is nothing to be gained in making it general purpose. Jack of all trades = master of none.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[BasilBrush]

A store where you can find absolutely every app for the platform is far more use than having to search a multitude of competing stores.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[narcc]

Not really. It becomes difficult to find good apps, as they're lost in the flood of terrible apps. The number of so-called "zombie apps" on iOS was over 75% sometime last year. It's become a crap-shoot for both users and developers.

I'd like to see specialty stores, preferably curated by communities. Great apps are far less likely to get lost, and crap apps are far less likely find a home there at all.

Apple adds something like 60,000 apps per month, which easily explains the sever quality control issues and persistent discoverability problems. Smaller, community driven, specialty stores won't have that problem
.
Besides, competition is always good for consumers.

Banned content? What about sexism?

[Anonymous Coward]

uld sexist opensource developers have their projects censored or removed?

Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech.

A story posted by the editor of the popular Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was later manually removed(2). The reason cited was the game developer's unacceptable views on social issues such as gender equality (3).

The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(4).

With the recent inclusion of a code of conduct(5) for those wishing to contribute to the Linux Kernel some questions now need to be asked and answered about the inclusion of code from people who are known to engage in or promote socially unacceptable attitudes or harrasments of those whom the free-software movement would prefer to attract in their place:

* Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
* Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
* Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
* Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
* Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?

and

* What are the consequences of not doing this

Citations:
(0) Past related incident: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310
(1) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Debian_and_LinuxChix_harassment_by_MikeeUSA
(2) Removed story URL: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ChaosEsqueAnthology-Rel-51
(3) http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?115776-Xonotic-Forked-ChaosEsqueAnthology-Sees-New-Release/page2
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(4) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JeCIgSFrBlgJ:http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page%3Dnews_item%26px%3DChaosEsqueAnthology-Rel-51%2Bchaosesque&gbv=1&tbs=qdr:w&hl=en&&ct=clnk
(5) Linux "Code of Conflict"

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

The very nature of a smart phone or a tablet rejects this notion.

  Do they come preinstalled with 4 basic functions and that is all they do?

or are they roughly as capable as similliarly powerful desktop computer?

There's no reason to limit them.

If the bumpkins only want to use one of the 4 preinstalled basic features that is fine. It is a little like only playing Microsoft Solitaire but whatever.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

That's your own opinion. I prefer more violence and less sex personally.

I don't like sex in my entertainment really at all. But I do like action movies.

Think of Game of Thrones for an example of why violence is often more relevant to the plot than is sex. Game of thrones has a reason for violence. There are power struggles. People die. There are battles, there are assassinations, there are duals, etc.

But what is the point of vagina, boob, dick scenes? They don't accomplish anything for the plot. It is just HBO's way of saying "hey we can show naughty bits on our network!"

And it doesn't really accomplish anything besides that.

Which is in many cases the issue with sex in media in general. It isn't relevant to the plot unless the plot is about sex for some reason.

violence is a much more interesting plot device. violence is much more useful as a dramatic element.

So for my money... less sex and more violence. Sex just isn't interesting IN A STORY. Sex is a fun thing to participate in but its less fun to hear about.

Where as violence is not so fun to be involved in but it is very entertaining to hear about it.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

I wasn't arguing against white lists. I'm a big fan of them actually. But I don't like the implementation of them through a walled garden application distribution system.

I'd prefer something that worked more like anti virus in that on execution, the program would be checked against a database of approved code, and if it was in the approved code list it would be allowed to run.

I don't think either apple or google should be in the business of saying what people should and shouldn't be doing with their devices.

Let anyone release software for the platforms and distribute it on their own websites or where ever. All they have to do is submit their software to apple or google to be checked for security compliance.

Have different grades of checking. Have a free automated check that most applications will get. And then have a more exhaustive human eye ball check that costs some money to get the company to actually do.

So users can decide how dangerously they want to live.

There's no need for the files to be hosted on google or apple's servers.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[BasilBrush]

You're only considering functions and power. The limiting factors on phone OSs are UI, considering the limitations of screen size and input capabilities. And the user attachment time - Phone OSs concentrate on activities that take seconds, desktops on on activities that take minutes to hours.

There's no problem with having the kernel and lower levels general purpose. But trying to make the UI/shell that is a fools errand.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

No, I'm considering UI as well.

As to screen size, that isn't a big problem. I have good eyes can test on remote deskop on my phone because my phone has a 1080p screen. All that you need to do is have eyes that can pick details out. And the pinch zoom feature in all such programs is entirely sufficient if I really want to get a better look at something which is rare.

I remote into machines all the time with my phone. It isn't a big deal.

The only input limitations that are irritating is that sometimes it is faster and more accurate to have a mouse and typing with a keyboard is always faster. However, that doesn't mean the programs on the phone have to be simplistic. It merely means it is annoying to interface with it sometimes. I have a tiny bluetooth keyboard and mouse. I prefer to keep them with me instead of a laptop.

If I need to write some long emails for example, then I want my keyboard out because typing it all out using the onscreen keyboard is a pain in the ass. I only use the bluetooth mouse sometimes when I'm remoting into a machine and I need a bit more dexterity.

Anyway, those work perfectly and instantly on android.

You connect a mouse through bluetooth or an OTG cable and you instantly have a mouse. Same thing with a keyboard. Both run on rechargable AAA batteries. I keep a little pouch of them in my backpack and when I've used them up, I put the spent ones in a recharger. It is more convenient then using the ones that recharge in the devices.

Anyway, I've run some pretty sophisticated programs on my phone. I've run some corporate databases. I've run some pretty impressive emulators.

One thing that always annoyed me about my phone was how shitty the games are for it. I'm a gamer. I know what a shitty game is and all the android AND iOS games are bullshit. So I use emulators.

I play PS1 games, old PC games, SNES, NeoGeo, N64 games. Basically anything you can emulate on a PC is something I play on my phone. Obviously you need a gamepad to do that properly. I just use a cheapo USB gamepad and an OTG cable. Instant gamestation.

These little computers are quite capable. See them for what they can do not for what lay people use them for. They don't know any better.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[BasilBrush]

...isn't a big problem. I have good eyes...have eyes that can pick details out....pinch zoom...input limitations...irritating...sometimes it is faster and more accurate to have a mouse and typing with a keyboard is always faster... it is annoying to interface with it... I have a tiny bluetooth keyboard and mouse... I want my keyboard out because typing it all out using the onscreen keyboard is a pain in the ass... I need a bit more dexterity...

Take out the excuses, and you do see all the problems.

These little computers are quite capable.

They are absolutely amazing. And part of that amazingness is they have UIs tailored to the size and the I/O available. As general purpose computer's they'd be crap.

Re:Irrelevant, I can already install banned conten

[Karmashock]

Indeed. Airplanes don't work unless you design them to be aerodynamically stable.

Take that that excuse and air travel doesn't work.

Boats only work if they're buoyant. Take out that excuse and they don't work.

I see the problem. It however has solutions. It isn't an "excuse" an excuse is an attempt to shift blame. I am not shifting anything. I am solving it.

A solution is not an excuse.

You don't like my perspective on the matter? That is fine. Don't straw man me or attempt to twist my position. I am as rational as a slide rule. Fallacies do not work on me. At all. Attempting them is like trying to play tricks on a man that can see that would only work on a blind man. I'm not blind. I see what you're doing.

Good day.

Mturk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crowdsourced curation, good luck with catching all the nasties with that then!