Google Clamps Down On Spam, Intrusive Ads In Apps 122
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.
Fuck you, Apple! (Score:5, 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.
Re:Fuck you, Apple! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Google Play: Countries supported for billing (Score:4, Informative)
The actual list [google.com] 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: (Score:2)
A good start (Score:5, 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.
Re:A good start (Score:5)
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.
Re: (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...
Re: (Score:2)
You folks must be horribly underpaid.
I have no problem paying for software I use, I prefer to pay for FREE software, but will used closed stuff if the need arises. I also dislike advertising, so I rather pay $1 than look at it.
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't anywhere near underpaid. Most make a pretty fat wage here.
That's not my view personally. Those are non-technical people's POV..
I have paid for apps I use very frequently, Touchdown being one, another is a weather app that actually works and is accurate, and pocketcloud.
Now that I have the Nexus 7, I'll be likely browsing around and buying more apps and content in general. E-books sure can be expensive though, it's ridiculous. They should all be less than $10 for sure, but I've seen some as high as
Re: (Score:3)
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 [amazon.com] 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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speed Hiker is my latest - great for 5 minute sessions where you don't even care if you have to put the phone down midway though a game. There is no pause in a online game, dear wife.
Re: (Score:1)
Bloody shame it's Amazon-exclusive; My first experience with their "app store" left me utterly unwilling to have any further part in it (Log into Amazon every so often to keep playing things I've purchased? Not going to happen), nor to pirate it, so that leaves me waiting for the developer to release on Google Play.
Re: (Score:2)
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... maybe if "the law" was something like 90% of the source code functions in your app collection must be unique or something like that? This makes life easy on the mighty GOOG also, because that could be automated. There would be issues with series like "Age of Conquest" which is basically Risk(tm)(c)(rm) where you pay per map by purchasing another app, the only difference being the new map. So that would have to be re-engineered into on
Re:A good start (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
How about the pulldown notify screen has a list of running apps and you rate them? Making the effort of going to the store and finding the app and then staring it simpler... Or the screen where you "tap hold" and can re-arrange icons and/or drop them in the trashcan has stars in addition to ye olde trashcan
Re: (Score:2)
How about the pulldown notify screen has a list of running apps and you rate them? Making the effort of going to the store and finding the app and then staring it simpler... Or the screen where you "tap hold" and can re-arrange icons and/or drop them in the trashcan has stars in addition to ye olde trashcan
Those are really sweet ideas, which means they will never happen. Ever. Eh-vahr. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course a baked in analytics service for all apps, that could be disabled, would be pretty cool to
Re: (Score:2)
That happens right now actually. Well, not the uninstall part, but the usage part. First, if the app has ads in it, it's easy because of the analytics. And when they use AdM
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all this stuff reminds me of 15 years ago when websites were simulating Win95 popups. That got cleaned up too.
I know. It was really sweet when an "XP alert dialog" popped on the Win7 machine of a coworker the other day. :>
</snark>
Angry Birds ads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could just cough up the measly 99cents.
Seems like far less effort than disconnecting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on Android version / distributor (this may be more of a thing enabled in unofficial builds, e.g. cyanogenmod), you may have the option to revoke individual permissions on a per-permission and per-app basis. Revoke its 'Internet' permission and you're good to go. Worked for Angry Birds last time I checked (with auto-updates disabled since then), however, it's possible they've added a workaround for this (e.g. force crash if certain permissions revoked).
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on Android version / distributor (this may be more of a thing enabled in unofficial builds, e.g. cyanogenmod), you may have the option to revoke individual permissions on a per-permission and per-app basis. Revoke its 'Internet' permission and you're good to go. Worked for Angry Birds last time I checked (with auto-updates disabled since then), however, it's possible they've added a workaround for this (e.g. force crash if certain permissions revoked).
I can see "them" caching ads, or bundling them with the install, as a punishment to those pesky jerks who try to block ads with all of those nefarious means available. :)
</friendlysnark>
Re: (Score:2)
I have the original, seasons and space all paid for and ad free. Not sure when you checked but it has been this way for years at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Angry birds is the reason I installed an ad blocker... I'm all for ad supported free stuff, but not when the ad actually gets in the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. I wonder if that's compatible with PDroid (it would depend on which files it patches and how).
Re: (Score:1)
GOOG app store for windows (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you've got Chrome browser (including Native Client and other desktop-app-enabling functionality) + Chrome Web Store. That's probably as close as you are likely to get.
Good move, but beware the abuse (Score:5, 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 [commonsware.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Even if they do that, you can still install such an app from third party sources.
That limits what they can do far more.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but I am! :-)
(and thanks for the kind words!)
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm CommonsGuy!
Re: (Score:1)
No, I'm CommonsGuy!
No, I'm CommonsGuy!
Another good idea for Android (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
There are many alternative android distributions that do just that. Cyanogenmod is one.
Unfortunately many apps just crash if they can't get access to the resources they expect. There is another solution and that is applications that lie to the apps. You need root do to that, but it is very handy.
Re: (Score:2)
I almost always deny apps internet access, because fuck, a flashlight app doesn't need to connect to the internet.
It just needs to be a damn flashlight.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just use a flashlight that does not ask for that?
Torch would be one such well behaved app.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:1)
> 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.
No, go to the Play Store on the web, look for an app (Torch, in this case) then click on the Permissions tab:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.colinmcdonough.android.torch&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS5jb2xpbm1jZG9ub3VnaC5hbmRyb2lkLnRvcmNoIl0 [google.com]
You can then install (or ininstall) from the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just use a flashlight that does not ask for that?
Torch would be one such well behaved app.
Amen. Too bad it's not compatible with my damn Infuse. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
After all, why does a Flashlight app need the Abuse My Personal Contacts permission?
This is probably asking too much, or over thinking it, but I would have it fail gracefully and not let the app know, or feed it misinformation.
For example "Abuse My Personal Contacts" should be able to lie and tell it I have no contacts OR lie and tell it my only personal contacts are "abuse@ftc.gov" or "spamreport@gmail" or purely randomized addresses or whatever.
You can fail "Abuse My Internet Access" by returning that the inet is down, but its just as funny to let it silently drop all traffic.
Really ther
Re: (Score:2)
After all, why does a Flashlight app need the Abuse My Personal Contacts permission?
This is probably asking too much, or over thinking it, but I would have it fail gracefully and not let the app know, or feed it misinformation.
For example "Abuse My Personal Contacts" should be able to lie and tell it I have no contacts OR lie and tell it my only personal contacts are "abuse@ftc.gov" or "spamreport@gmail" or purely randomized addresses or whatever.
You can fail "Abuse My Internet Access" by returning that the inet is down, but its just as funny to let it silently drop all traffic.
Really there's four options:
1) Tell it the user told it to F off, in which case the spam app will pester the user to re-enable, so its probably useless
2) Tell it the service is down (sorry, just bad luck we have no inet access right now, or the user has zero contacts in their book) in which case the app Might pester the user, so its less useful
3) Tell it the service is up and silently drop or randomize everything. This would probably work pretty well most of the time. Suuuuuure, app, you've just posted my score or result or whatever on FB or twitter or spammed all the email addresses in my contacts, yeah app you just trust me that it wasn't all just dropped without being sent
4) Let the app have its way with the user, do whatever it wants
4a. Add on to 4.) above - add a 30-second delay to "play" or "use" the app if it can't fully access whatever resources it desires. That'll punish the ADHD/I-want-it-nows into buying apps and/or enabling ads to get to the "fun" of the app 5 seconds faster. Cuz, ya know, 5 seconds is critical to happiness. :)
I'm not being an ass. I'm so serious about that. It's sad, but hey.. I have a similar opinion about having automobiles set up in the future to be remotely shut down if the user is speeding (after gi
Re: (Score:2)
for the inet stuff root your phone and install droidwall in whitelist mode.
Re: (Score:2)
I still have the last version of Pandora from before they added Personal Contacts to the permissions installed on my phone, and i'm perfectly happy with how that wor
Re: (Score:2)
Cyanogenmod or numerous apps that require root can do just that.
Re: (Score:2)
I still have the last version of Pandora from before they added Personal Contacts to the permissions installed on my phone
Yet another reason to always deny updates. The important things will just update themselves anyway (like the infamous and confirmation-less Market -> Google Play rename) but you can keep the latest Facebook address-wipe "feature" from affecting your phone.
What would be better is some tool to keep the OS services from spamming you. I keep clearing the "You have 20 updates waiting", notification only to see it again a few times a day. While we're at that, how about google stops asking me for a cellphone n
Re: (Score:2)
it's possible google didn't implement it like that to avoid stepping on j2me security model turf(which is exactly like you and many others have asked for, even if it was fucked uppedly implemented in most phones).
however its more likely they were just lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about jelly bean.. but my older android phone has all sorts of crapware put on by the carrier, that I cannot uninstall I have a notification every single day about updates being available for them.. I have never used them, see lots of comments about the update causing problems, and no way to uninstall.. can I at least tell it to stop checking for updates?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about jelly bean.. but my older android phone has all sorts of crapware put on by the carrier, that I cannot uninstall I have a notification every single day about updates being available for them.. I have never used them, see lots of comments about the update causing problems, and no way to uninstall.. can I at least tell it to stop checking for updates?
If you remount /system as readwrite (requires root) you can just uninstall the bundled apps in the usual way.
Google should also have Certified apps (Score:5, Interesting)
Google could also have multiple levels of certification like Silver, Gold, Rhodium, etc.
----
we will meet in Red 3 at the hour of scampering
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, it's not a bad idea and it's Google's store anyway. Following his thought, anyone who objected could either release without certification or not release in the store at all.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Don't forget Hydrogen - the cheap one with no logo to which the developer can say, "Hey! Look at me! I paid for a certification!"
Hey, I'm not kidding. I can see the dollars a'flowing now.
Take that! (Score:3)
and they can't request personal information to grant full app function.
Yeah! No muscling in on Google's turf! [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Corrected title (Score:1)
"Google clamps down on Spam, Intrusive Ads In Apps from competitors
Re: (Score:2)
"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).
In-app purchases must use Google Play? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Installing shortcuts without permission? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Don't look now... (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.
Re:Don't look now... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Don't look now... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't look now... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<!-- Lol we could do this all day... But, I'm out of material...-->
</html>
Now ^^^^ there's ^^^^ subtle humor for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
/woosh
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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 [amazon.com], Opera Mobile App Store [opera.com], GetJar [getjar.com], AndAppStore [andappstore.com], Ha [handango.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Don't look now... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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.
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... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Or a soundboard that requires access to my browser history.
But I'm sure they have a good reason for that.
*clicks install*
Re: (Score:2)
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> :)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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>
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If only you could 'take a snapshot'. :) Damn you, non-VM OSes. Damn you!
Re: (Score:2)
It's just not possible to keep malware off a system, not even with good judgement.
So how would a walled garden help?
Re: (Score:2)
So how would a walled garden help?
Something about Chi. :>
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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.
How about just making it possible to block ads without rooting the device?
Ah, wait, there's no money in that.
</truthfulsarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
... but someone's raising a wall around their little garden.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.