Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Android's Uncurated App Marketplace Draws Criticism, Google Activates 'Kill Switch' on Two Apps

Yep, another biased and uninformed post on Macrumors about anything not Apple. But hey, anything that rials the troops to keep traffic up on this site, so that more peeps will see adds is a good thing... Well, that goes for us that don't block your adds, or are using mobile device capable of browsing the web just like a desktop. <-- Waiting for an ignorant response to this comment.

All apps bought in Android Market Place, at least under Froyo 2.2, state exactly what privileges they're requesting PRIOR to installing. You can also view what privileges an app has under Application Managements. By installing an application, you're giving it permission. This is the SAME for OS X, or Windows, or an other full fledged Operating Systems.

And a few high quality apps. I second Eric S's comment. Who the freak is Jon Johansen? From where I stand, the guy is an ignoramus.

It goes both ways you turkeys. Both Market Places aren't exactly over flowing in high-quality apps. The DIFFERENCE is that everything I wanted to do under iOS, but was not allowed to do, or was not available, was either part of my Nexus One under Froyo, or was available in the Market place. I didn't need to jailbreak my phone to make it work as I wanted, let alone PAY Google to upgrade it to fix bugs, which was the case on my Touch,where as I paid Apple $10 to fix some of their bugs.
 
I get so sick of anti-Apple posters here. Yes, the App Store is curated. No, it is not done randomly in almost every case despite the whiners. No, there is nothing I want to do with my device that I cannot do. I LIKE the facts that Apple approves the apps.
 
To all my friends and everyone else that criticizes me for buying and iPhone....

Take that !
 
andyplace said:
It should also be noted that apple's killswitch does not remove the app from your device or even disable it, it only turns off location services so the app cannot spy on you.
Click to expand...

afaik, this is not true. Jobs confirmed the ability to remotely disable/remove software.

http://www.epocrates.com/company/news/08112008.html
(mirror of WSJ article)

Apple raised hackles in computer-privacy and security circles when an independent engineer discovered code inside the iPhone that suggested iPhones routinely check an Apple Web site that could, in theory trigger the removal of the undesirable software from the devices.

Mr. Jobs confirmed such a capability exists, but argued that Apple needs it in case it inadvertently allows a malicious program -- one that stole users' personal data, for example -- to be distributed to iPhones through the App Store. "Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull," he says.
Click to expand...
 
Full of Win said:
With freedom comes responsibility.

Having a more free ecosystem means users will have to exercise more responsibility in what they add to their devices. I'd gladly take this over the Apple model.
Click to expand...


Why should this be left to the user to figure out if the company has the ability to prevent it in the first place? That's irresponsible on the hosting company's part.


Apple's high standards and strict approval system means a much less chance at malicious (or nonworking and flawed) applications.
 
Full of Win said:
With freedom comes responsibility.

Having a more free ecosystem means users will have to exercise more responsibility in what they add to their devices. I'd gladly take this over the Apple model.
Click to expand...

I'm rereading "Atlas Shrugged" and this whole app ecosystem is a prime example of how a lack of individual responsibility can lead to a socialist police state.

I would love to see a geographic distribution with full proxy jumper traces on where this malware is coming from.

IMO, there may be some "Pearl Harbor" day where someone, somewhere finds that magic bullet to take out a ton of smart phones via a hijacked viral / mesh network functionality. When that hits, a lot is going to go down on security. Many have been keeping this from happening and I take my hat off to them.
 
JS82189 said:
Killswitch?? Wat exactly can they do to your phone (including Apple?)??
Click to expand...

wow?? doesnt anyone else get concered by this??

i think the more concerning thing is a killswitch... can they control your phones???
 
JS82189 said:
Killswitch?? Wat exactly can they do to your phone (including Apple?)??
Click to expand...

This in place, just in case a malicious application is distributed. It's both a good thing and a scary thing. As of right now, even though Google has potential to be EVIL, I have more faith in them than Apple -- who's already demonstrated they'll abuse their position.
 
The report was inflated. For example, one bit of sensitive information exposed was 'contact info' to a contact organization app. The app needs to see your contacts to be able to reorganize them... Sheesh, by that logic the app store is full of these 'security' holes too.
 
JackAxe said:
This in place, just in case a malicious application is distributed. It's both a good thing and a scary thing. As of right now, even though Google has potential to be EVIL, I have more faith in them than Apple -- who's already demonstrated they'll abuse their position.
Click to expand...

how far does this control extend??

like remote desktop? (which they sell for macs)
 
You are not paying attention

Cleve said:
Currently there are about double the quoted apps: 75,000 apps (applib.com)

The 20% number is thrown out by a security company. How many times have Mac security companies thrown out inflammatory numbers. The original report says potentially 20%.

"spyware is said to be a growing problem" By who? FUD

Apple should have disabled the apps that pulled people's phone numbers and had operators calling users for updates. It was a swiss mapping program.
Click to expand...

Look, Cleve... this is an actual, real problem. This is not theoretical. How do we know it is a real problem? The answer is "look at Windows machines". Windows machines (and Macs) are currently some of the free-est, easy to install anything you want, machines ever. You can find something for anything, and download it, usually for free, and just "go".

While Android appears better on the surface because it asks you (during install) whether you want the app to use certain services, there are a couple of problems:

1) You have no way to selectively disable only certain features (say, "YES" to the GPS, but "NO" to "full internet access".
2) The list of potential features to ask for is really, really, really long, such that it can take up multiple screens, and we know from experience (Windows Vista), that users get "prompt fatigue" and just start clicking "OK" all the time.
3) You can't see from the questions how your data will be used. So, you enable "full internet access" (because, say, it is a Twitter app), and you enable "yes, you can use my contacts" (because you want to find your friends on Twitter), but once you say "OK", the app can instead take your contacts and e-mail them out to advertising agencies to blanket your contacts with SPAM... in other words, the questions for access do not have anything to do with what you expect the app to do with the data.

I'm all for criticizing Apple for their policies. They are inconsistent and opaque. However, if Google doesn't get on top of this, we are going to go to the "bad old days" when the carrier, or your IT department, dictated policies, and we all know that carrier dictated policies make Apple's policies look like cookies and ice cream. (Some carriers, for example, will not let you access the Android App Marketplace already!)

I had a work supplied Blackberry, yet was not allowed to put on a GPS navigation app, because the IT department hadn't gotten around to testing it. At least with a work supplied iPhone, IT won't get in the way. This is one thing we should actually *praise* Apple for, even with their plentiful, easy to document, mistakes.

Android could be a great thing, but I fear it is going to be a bad thing. With uncurated apps and ridiculous carrier restrictions (a majority of Android phones are still on Android 1.6 because the carriers won't let you upgrade), it is going to become a fractured, messy, virus laden mess. And as such, it will reduce the pressure on Apple to continue to make their phones better, slowing innovation down for all of us as consumers.
 
There's no denying that there are problems with the app stores on both operating systems. The Android Marketplace is disorganized, may have a problem with how to allow paid apps in other countries, etc. This doesn't hide the fact that Apple curates their app store, only allowing in what it thinks is proper.

Regardless, Google used their kill switch, Apple hasn't. Apple got all the heat but you'd think that all the users who champion the freedom of Android would complain about the Google kill switch.
 
Guess the compromise factor here is whether you want a reasonably protected environment, or an everyone-for-themselves one. In an ideal world you'd have both, so that 95% of the base users can be satisfied w/o poking their neck inside something potentially terrible, while power users have the ability to do whatever they want at their own potential peril.
 
The importance of regulation

The past 10 has taught us that the free market must be regulated in order to operate propert and protect consumers.
 
Oh wonderful: Steve Jobs innocently uses the word "curate" and suddenly it's the latest buzzword in all the tech blogs. Let's all hang on every word from Steve and reuse it ad nauseam.
 
muu said:
Guess the compromise factor here is whether you want a reasonably protected environment, or an everyone-for-themselves one. In an ideal world you'd have both, so that 95% of the base users can be satisfied w/o poking their neck inside something potentially terrible, while power users have the ability to do whatever they want at their own potential peril.
Click to expand...

the iPhone supports both. untrestricted HTML 5 based apps. and the curated apps you can find in the App Store.
 
TheClarkster said:
The report was inflated. For example, one bit of sensitive information exposed was 'contact info' to a contact organization app. The app needs to see your contacts to be able to reorganize them... Sheesh, by that logic the app store is full of these 'security' holes too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't recall ever being asked for access to contacts on my iPhone (only location services).

I'm fine with the app store as is, but I'd also like the ability to install apps from other sources that *I've* decided to trust and put on my phone.

Maybe a $4.99 "Pro Mode Enabler" that you buy from Apple after signing away your liver and first born to confirm you know the risks. Most people can let Apple do the thinking for them and those of us who want to use the full power of our phones can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back