A PC World piece July 8, 2010 reports on developer discontent with how Google is managing the Android Market. Google has the example of Apple App Store to learn what success looks like. But Google doesn't get it. John Watkinson of Larva Labs calculates that sales and profits from Android Market are meager. Simon Judge lists and describes many deficiencies in Android Market.
Has Android Market improved much in the last 6 months since these articles and posts were written?
Android Market is a tool for massive intellectual property theft too. Note that post was written June 27, 2010. So it is describing a current problem.
Google's hands-off "we're so open" approach toward their app store is irresponsible. This isn't a case of "oh we are so much more open and free than that wicked Steve Jobs". Android Market is a combination of slack attitude and basic lack of taking responsibility to manage the heavily used web site that they've created. No Google, this is not acceptable. You need to step it up.
Update: Kevin Tofel says Google should at least police copyright infringement. I see that as a responsibility of a store operator. Otherwise the store is facilitating theft.
I'd like to see a 2 or 3 layer market where one can buy apps that have had different levels of vetting. I want to know, for example, that a banking app really is from the bank it purports to support or has been approved by that bank.
Also, the Android Market should be very easily browseable from a desktop PC with many more details viewable on the bigger screen. The Market should allow more info about each app to be uploadable by the author.
Tofel makes the pont that app buyers can't evaluate whether all the permissions an app is asking for are needed. It would be nice if one could ask to see all games that do not need access to personal contact info or other confidential info. Be able to view only apps that you basically do not need to trust.
Another idea: Make it easier for users to report apps as miscategorized, as likely intellectual property violators, and as suspicious in other ways. Add buttons on web forms for doing this.
Parenthetically, Wired does really good reporting on law and policy related to cyber commerce, cyber security, Big Brother, and a frightening tendency of prosecutors to turn all sorts of online activity into crimes.
Prosecutors in a New Jersey ticket scalping case are pushing the envelope on the federal computer hacking law, setting a precedent that could make it a felony to violate a website’s terms of service and fool a CAPTCHA, according to electronic civil rights groups intervening in the case.
Automated CAPTCHA image analysis was done by a company in order to buy large numbers of concert tickets. Essentially, bands want to sell tickets at below market prices directly to fans without scalpers getting involved. This creates a huge incentive for scalpers to find computerized ways to buy huge numbers of tickets in a short period of time.
In this case the scalpers were prosecuted. Violate the terms of service of a web site? You could go to jail. This is insane. How many people who use a site legitimately bother to read the terms of service? Somewhere between few and none. So how can this be a contract? Also, why should this sort of contract violation be a crime?
Certainly the web opens up the possibility to much more massive automated parallelized and fast misbehavior. But not all misbehavior should be a federal crime. On what basis should a particular act be considered worthy of a federal prosecution? The law should be reasonable and predictable. This prosecution seems unpredictable.
Another point: In the grand scheme of bad things that happen on the web this seems like small potatoes. Want to go after people who cause huge losses for others so they can make much smaller gains? How about spammers? They steal the time of literally billions of people every day. Make and enforce some laws against them.
Wired reports that a consumer group motivated by some twisted desire to apply pressure to Google discovered that Congresswoman Jane Harman has 2 open Wi-Fi access points in her house. Congress reps are far better at convincing people that they know what they are doing than they are at actually knowing what they are doing.
We’re not sure what’s more humorous: That California Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, maintains two unencrypted Wi-Fi networks at her residence, or that a consumer group sniffed her unsecured traffic in a bid to convince lawmakers to hold hearings about Google.
Have Russian spies ever sniffed Jane's email or bank accounts?
As for going after Google for accidentally (or otherwise) sniffing unencrypted wireless traffic in residential neighborhoods: Can't consumer groups find something more important to do? I can make suggestions: How about sniffing thru neighborhoods to find unencrypted wireless access points so that you can warn people that they are at security risk of identity theft and financial losses (among other risks) due to their open wireless access points? Such an effort would provide a useful public service. Look, you just did this for Jane Harman and it got you into newspaper and magazine reports. More fame awaits.