- Posts tagged Apps
- Explore Apps on posterous
The "App Store" Debate
With Apple trademarking the term "App Store," and Microsoft fighting that trademark, and Apple now suing Amazon over use of the term, I'd like to weigh in with a few thoughts on it.
First and foremost, to think the term is too generic and obvious is to ignore that the term was not in use until Apple came up with it. People who believe all such sites should "obviously" be called app stores have bad memories. No one ever did until Apple's became, by far, the most successful.
Second, there have been a number of places where people could purchase mobile software. RIM, Verizon, Microsoft and many others have had this capability for years. Yet not one of them called it the App Store, so clearly the name isn't as obvious as everyone seems to think in hindsight.
Finally, even the term "app" was not in widespread use until the App Store. People thinking otherwise again have bad memories. Steve Jobs has used the term for over 20 years, but there were few others. Most everyone else used "application."
In short, other companies attempting to use the term are simply trying to horn in on Apple's success. This is so obvious I'm surprised it generates any debate. A term no one had heard of until a few years ago is suddenly the one all Apple competitors swear they were going to use, even though none of them ever had? People are buying this? Please.
Verizon's Android app store is about choice? Yes, Verizon's choice.
It’s not about preventing other app stores, or preventing apps to be downloaded through the browser or other means; this is about choice for our customers.
It's difficult to believe this is the real reason for Verizon's app store. Verizon chose their words carefully; those who buy into the Android "open" saga love the word "choice". Maybe it'll fool some of them, but with 80,000 apps on Android's market place there seems to be quite a bit of choice already.
So what's a more realistic explanation?
Verizon once aspired to be a player in the mobile app game, making money—and maybe keeping people on Verizon phones—via BREW apps. I bought a few myself back in the day. But it didn't work out for Verizon because BREW apps mostly sucked and were too expensive. There simply weren't that many good enough to care about, let alone worry about leaving behind.
I believe with Android as the base OS, Verizon thinks it'll be a lot different now. Hence the new store.
iPad Rollout In Education Encounters DRM Hell
This is a hole in Apple's App Store infrastructure that the massive interest in iPads for education is exposing, in a way that the iPhone and iPod touch never did.
Good article on a major obstacle for rolling out iPads in the education market.
Dear Apple: Only 235,000 Apps? Only 47,000 Developers? Your "Closed" Model Sucks.
Total Active Apps (currently available for download): 234,915 […]
Number of Active Publishers in the US App Store: 47,370
I'm surprised Apple hasn't shut that site down for regularly publishing Apple's shame.
Meanwhile, I'm certain Android's freewheeling, "open" (except for the native API, or Flash), look-the-other-way, Lord of the Flies approach to app development has resulted in numbers that embarrass Apple's.
Right?
And even if the numbers aren't quite as high, I'm sure Android apps are overall of a higher quality, and will run on a higher percentage of phones than Apple's.
Right?
And even if fragmentation is a bit more of an issue, I'm sure Android developers are raking in cash from the reported 160K activations (potential new customers) per day.
Right?
For shame, Apple. Don't you know "open" always wins?
Google: You Too Can Be A Developer In The Privacy Of Your Own Home
Not only is the Android Market an open platform for developers (with no approval process, ala the App Store), but now we’ll likely see a vast array of specialized apps built by non-developers. This could radically increase the volume of apps in the Market versus the App Store.
I've written about Google's seeming goal of getting mobile devices on the web instead of running local apps. I outlined some things that could keep Android app quality relatively low:
- Fragmentation - Minimal app compatibility, or a lowest common denominator app that can't take full advantage of a device.
- Lack of vetting - Lets weak apps through, including potential security risks.
- Flash support - Another way of encouraging lowest common denominator apps.
I wrote "In short, while appearing to do all they can to let as many apps be available as possible, they've created a platform to breed lower-quality, inconsistent apps"
If there was any doubt about Google's desire to have lots of apps while keeping the app experience relatively weak, their latest move should make it clear: they're letting anyone write apps.
Google's App Inventor is like a late-night informercial: "Why bother learning a language and coding techniques, now anyone can be a developer with the Develop-O-Matic." I can see the infomercial endorsements now: "I was skeptical, but I just followed the simple steps provided. As a programmer I make more money each month than I ever dreamed of, and was able to quit my job snaking toilets at Wal-Mart. If I can do it, so can you!"
With everybody and their little brother submitting apps there's little question Android's app count will make huge gains. It probably won't take long before the number exceeds Apple's App Store, which is something they're gunning for. And with weak "competition" of local apps like this, Google's web-based solutions will look that much better, which helps lead people right where Google wants them.
I have no issue with lots of web and local apps; let everyone decide what works best for them. But what I see is Google poisoning the well from which local apps are drawn. They don't appear to want a fair fight, and make local apps too difficult (their market place appears to be a mess), generic (soon to include Jr. Developer Kit apps), and risky (potential privacy or security issues) so web apps look far superior by comparison.
Android Developers Blog: We have a kill switch and we're not afraid to use it
we’ve also developed technologies and processes to remotely remove an installed application from devices. If an application is removed in this way, users will receive a notification on their phone.
Remember the discussion about Apple having a "kill switch" that could remotely delete apps from your phone? The tech punditry howled. Well, Google's got one and they're using it.
The blog post couches it in motherly, keeping-you-safe terms. Right. If Google cared about what apps they allowed in the market to begin with, maybe they wouldn't need to use this thing. Alas, vetting apps is not Google's strong suit, nor is it ever likely to be.
Misguided Developers: Apple dominates mobile development now, but "open" will win in the end
The way developers see it, Apple might be dominating the game today but in the long-term, it will be Google and its open platform approach that will take the top honors.
Right. Just like Linux with its "open platform approach" took "top honors" on the desktop. Which reminds me, is this The Year Of Linux again?
Anyway, you can develop an app taking advantage of unique hardware and software with off the charts customer satisfaction scores, or you can write lowest-common-denominator code in Java or Flash on wildly fluctuating devices. The choice is yours.
I've said before that Google can have all the philosophical/political developers they want. I still believe that. I've seen no correlation between a developer's politics and ability to code.
Consumers just want a really great app. Whether the developer can also sell it on a dozen other devices doesn't mean diddly to a typical end user (you know, the ones developers should be trying to sell to). Further, whether an app is "open" is irrelevant in a tech world where the meaning of that word has been twisted by every corporate entity to mean whatever it needs to in order to fit their marketing plan.
The "open" advocates are misguided believing they don't want to buy or code for an Apple device because the six-inch high “wall” around Apple's “garden” has only allowed over 39,000 developers and 225,000 apps—way more than competitors’ alleged “open” systems have—but it’s the theory, not the practice, that matters to such people.
Google: With our weak vetting, how could this have happened?
Meanwhile, dozens of apps were found to have the same type of access to sensitive information as known spyware does, including access to the content of e-mails and text messages, phone call information, and device location, said Dan Hoffman, chief technology officer at SMobile Systems.
It seems clear that with unsigned apps and minimal vetting for its market place, Android's (well, Google's) priority is not security. When you're trying like mad to offer as many apps as the iPhone you don't have time for such things. Apps with security issues have been pulled after they've been on the market and enough users complained. It such cases the end user is doing the real vetting.
Problem is, not all apps are obvious about what they do. Sooner or later that comes back to haunt the end user, which leads to the real issue: Google doesn't care that much because the end user is not their customer. I'm not saying Google wants third-party apps to be invasive without user permission, only that preventing it isn't a priority. The end user doesn't pay Google for their services, and are not their customer.
Similar to Facebook, Google's customer isn't the one using the product every day, but rather the marketing, ad, and analytics firms that make use of the massive amounts of data being gathered. There's nothing wrong with this—it's just a business model—but it's important to know Google's customers to understand Google's priorities. Indeed, philosophically Google may not even have an issue with these apps. Google's been gathering your data for years.
I'd like to see Google take some action on this. Get ahead of the game and make changes to the market place for vetting this stuff. Google can talk "open" all it wants, but they have a responsibility for what's on their store. They have no issue refusing apps that violate copyright or other firms' TOS, but that's all in the interest of their real customers. It's time they treated the end user with a little respect and looked out for her as well.
