Google reveals open Android Market, rivals iPhone's App Store

[AppleInsider]

Google on Thursday afternoon provided first details of a marketplace for phones based on its Android mobile platform -- including word that its store won't be as tightly monitored as the Apple-run shop for iPhones.

While Google will host the new store, now called Android Market, the company stresses that its role is only to act as a central point of distribution rather than to filter content. The decision on policy is said to have even influenced the formal name for the service.

"We chose the term 'market' rather than 'store' because we feel that developers should have an open and unobstructed environment to make their content available," Google's Eric Chu says.

To that end, Google likens its system to YouTube, where the only requirements are to register as a distributor and to provide a description for the app on the store. The search engine pioneer doesn't say what if any policing it will provide for rogue apps, but explains that the Market will have a feedback and rating system as with its well-known video site.

The store will have a monitoring tool to provide feedback on apps after they're released, the company adds, and will flag an app's features to warn users in advance when they might pose a security risk.



Although Google had already tipped its hand as to its likely direction two months ago in a presentation, the now official status of Android Market puts Google in the unusual position of both challenging and supporting Apple's iPhone software efforts at the same time.

The search firm's resources form the basis of iPhone's Google Maps and Safari search but now indirectly undercut the App Store, whose operating principle is fundamentally different from that in Android's Market. Apple is the sole judge of whether apps will be posted to its service and has already made it a point to pull apps it or its partners consider objectionable, including the recently pulled violent comic Murderdrome, the cosmetic I Am Rich app, and the tethering utility NetShare.

Android will also allow installing apps outside of the Market for most users, while Apple only allows such exceptions for development, education, or enterprise customers.

Google's effort will take some time to appear in users' hands. The first Android phone isn't expected until the fall, the Mountain View, Calif.-based company also cautions that the Market will ship as a beta and that only free apps will be available at first, with a paying system and other aspects only due afterwards.

Nonetheless, Market even in its rough state has the potential to create a greater conflict of interest between Apple and Google; the latter's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, has already had to occasionally leave Apple board meetings when the discussion switched to a handful of iPhone-related topics.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[NasserAE]

An app store with no phone yet... hmmmmmm

[Mazda 3s]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

An app store with no phone yet... hmmmmmm

Is there something wrong with working on a software/app platform before actual hardware is released?

I mean, you DO want it to be functional when the hardware launches, right?

[.:R2theT]

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

Is there something wrong with working on a software/app platform before actual hardware is released?

I mean, you DO want it to be functional when the hardware launches, right?

Nothing wrong with it. Just seems like putting the cart before the horse.

And I don't see how well it will work in any case. One platform sure. But what type of hardware should developers be developing for? QWERTY? Touch? Phone pad? Seems like a developer's nightmare not knowing what kind of device you are writing code for.

[hittrj01]

its store won't be as tightly monitored as the Apple-run shop for iPhones.

Awesome, now we can see even more crapware in the Android Market than there is in the App Store. I can't wait to be able to download 200 flashlight apps to my android phone too!

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

Is there something wrong with working on a software/app platform before actual hardware is released?

I mean, you DO want it to be functional when the hardware launches, right?

Well, I want to have my hardware before the software!!

The point is they should focus on releasing at least one Android based phone first and see how the market will respond. My guess is that they are not getting the amount of attention they anticipated from hardware manufacturers. I love Google but come on.... they have been blowing dust for a year now!!!

[Mazda 3s]

Originally Posted by .:R2theT

And I don't see how well it will work in any case. One platform sure. But what type of hardware should developers be developing for? QWERTY? Touch? Phone pad? Seems like a developer's nightmare not knowing what kind of device you are writing code for.

That's why they're Google and you're...you j/k

In all honesty, there are plenty of mobile phone OS's out there programmed to work with number pads, on-screen displays, and keyboards. Same goes for applications that are designed to work on these operating systems. Input all has to go through a certain API or common interface, so I don't see why this should be a concern?

Anyway, kudos to Google. I'm glad to see them working to develop a way to distribute apps to customers.

[Mazda 3s]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

Well, I want to have my hardware before the software!!

The point is they should focus on releasing at least one Android based phone first and see how the market will respond. My guess is that they are not getting the amount of attention they anticipated from hardware manufacturers. I love Google but come on.... they have been blowing dust for a year now!!!

So they should take Apple's approach? That doesn't work for every company -- every company is different.

How about having a functional platform ready when the phone launches for applications? I mean, if it can be ready when the first Android phone launches, then what is the big deal?

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

So they should take Apple's approach? That doesn't work for every company -- every company is different.

How about having a functional platform ready when the phone launches for applications? I mean, if it can be ready when the first Android phone launches, then what is the big deal?

The big deal is that Google will turn into another MS times two if they keep doing this.

[macinthe408]

Market will ship as a beta

Is this doublespeak for precluding them from providing any semblance of support? And we all know how long Google apps remain beta. *cough* GMail *cough*

[Gon]

Good to see Google is making progress, and excellent that they aren't going down the bullshit path Apple took with arbitrary "community standards".

I'd still like to hear that Android apps can be loaded directly on the phone, without Android Market registration and tracking.

[MacTel]

And so begins the era of viruses and malware on the Android platform...no thank you. I'll pass on the crapware.

It nice to have no barriers but it is also nice to have someone watching out for you. The balance between the two is a fine art.

[awmawm]

Originally Posted by macinthe408

Is this doublespeak for precluding them from providing any semblance of support? And we all know how long Google apps remain beta. *cough* GMail *cough*

I have been using GMail in IMAP mode as a consolidator for several accounts, including business accounts, syncing it with Outlook and Blackberry (sorry, no iphone user yet...). It may be in Beta, but it works flawlessly.

[flemsha]

I wonder if free only will stifle early development.

I mean lots of people like to release software for free and all, some great stuff if free and open source, but there are also a lot of people who will want to be paid for their efforts too

[iVlad]

im so sad to see this. this is not revolutionary. just another iphone follow up, even with all that open software. How will Google make their ringtones with no rights from records companies.

[jmadlena]

The Android Market has potential, much more than the Zune Marketplace (or whatever it was called) had.

I don't see this as an iPhone follow up, or what-have-you; there are only two ways Google could really go with app distribution: centralized or decentralized. They went with a mix. Seems like it could work.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by iVlad

im so sad to see this. this is not revolutionary. just another iphone follow up, even with all that open software. How will Google make their ringtones with no rights from records companies.

Not every product or service can, or should, be revolutionary. Revolutions are good every now and again, but products should evolve more than... revolve. That sounds weird, but you know what I mean!

[Slewis]

Null.

[wraithofwonder]

Simply, eww.

[parky]

I would much rather have the Apple approach where some level of quality control and monitoring of applications is done before people can start to download them.

[Prince]

It’s great news that Google is planning to deliver a market for mobile software with its own centralized “Android Market.” It should give Apple’s iPhone Apps Store competitive pressure to continue to innovate, and provide a safety net for smartphone users if Apple fails to deliver progress fast enough. If Apple and Google both fail, users will be stuck with the failed third party software models related to Microsoft’s Windows Mobile and Nokia’s Symbian. Those high stakes make it all the more disappointing to find that the Android Market fails to answer the tough issues correctly.

[Gon]

Originally Posted by Prince

Those high stakes make it all the more disappointing to find that the Android Market fails to answer the tough issues correctly.

That article is a horrible failure. Let me sum up its key points:

- the significant upsides Android has over Apple's closed system do not matter because carriers in the US will disable them
(Sucks for Americans I guess? This is only a local problem.)
- unless you have an iron grip on your users and developers, and ban general purpose computing, the system cannot possibly be secure
(The writer just had a stroke and forgot all about the existence of non-Windows operating systems, like OS X.)
- unregulated market is too expensive to do business in
(The writer knows fuck all about economics.)

[ncee]

Let us not forget≥ developers will go with the service that gives them the best feedback, or buck$$$$ for the money.

If it's Apple (and I believe it will be) - then they will work more closely with Apple, if in fact, they can make more money with Goggle, then I'm sure they will put their energy there, After all, EVERYONE is in it for the money, and that's ALL - which is fine. I'm just saying, the best platform for making the most money - WILL be the clear winner here.

Skip

Skip

[Gon]

Originally Posted by parky

I would much rather have the Apple approach where some level of quality control and monitoring of applications is done before people can start to download them.

Ah, but Apple isn't content doing just that. They have chosen to be your moral guardian, and are already banning apps for *content*. Not technical quality or security.

Not to mention they also ban apps that are too useful, like the tether app.

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Google on Thursday afternoon provided first details of a marketplace for phones based on its Android mobile platform -- including word that its store won't be as tightly monitored as the Apple-run shop for iPhones...

To which I say to Google... PFFFT Whatever.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Gon

Ah, but Apple isn't content doing just that. They have chosen to be your moral guardian, and are already banning apps for *content*. Not technical quality or security.

Not to mention they also ban apps that are too useful, like the tether app.

Not only that, it doesn't seem they are doing this quality control, except after the fact. I wonder if they're even reading the product description because that network tethering program was clearly against their stated rules and they let it through. I wonder if a dev could insert "spreads a virus that explodes your phone battery" somewhere in the middle of the description and still get published.

[digitalclips]

Apple may as well just start a search engine surely the close relationship between the two companies allows Apple to rip of Googles ideas too?

[RichL]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Apple may as well just start a search engine surely the close relationship between the two companies allows Apple to rip of Googles ideas too?

Do you think Apple was the first company to come up with the idea of an application store?

[sapporobaby]

Originally Posted by Gon

Ah, but Apple isn't content doing just that. They have chosen to be your moral guardian, and are already banning apps for *content*. Not technical quality or security.

Not to mention they also ban apps that are too useful, like the tether app.

Saaa..weeeet........

And oh so true.....

[sapporobaby]

Originally Posted by RichL

Do you think Apple was the first company to come up with the idea of an application store?

Nokia had/has one. The implementation was not that great but then again they also had Handango as well as other sources for software distrobution. It seems that if Apple's name is not associated with it, then it doesn't happen or hasn't been thought of.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by RichL

Do you think Apple was the first company to come up with the idea of an application store?

Apple always have a knack of doing things in a way that is new which is then imitated, that is what I was getting at.

[Gon]

What sucks for Apple is that by taking up the censor's pen, they have taken responsibility for both everything they allow through, and everything they don't. I can see it backfiring on them big time when someone submits e.g. a game on an hot button political issue. (A game with gay marriage featured prominently in the plot, anyone?) Apple would be on hot coals whether they allow or disallow it.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by Gon

What sucks for Apple is that by taking up the censor's pen, they have taken responsibility for both everything they allow through, and everything they don't. I can see it backfiring on them big time when someone submits e.g. a game on an hot button political issue. (A game with gay marriage featured prominently in the plot, anyone?) Apple would be on hot coals whether they allow or disallow it.

I don't think you understand what type of app allowed and which ones are not! I don't think political issues are part of Apple censorship duty. Apple so far removed few apps (4 or 5 if I am not mistaken). Most were removed for obvious reasons (Didn't think you can get away with paying $30 for tethered data plan instead of $60? ).

[razorpit]

Originally Posted by Prince

It’s great news that Google is planning to deliver a market for mobile software with its own centralized “Android Market.” It should give Apple’s iPhone Apps Store competitive pressure to continue to innovate, and provide a safety net for smartphone users if Apple fails to deliver progress fast enough. If Apple and Google both fail, users will be stuck with the failed third party software models related to Microsoft’s Windows Mobile and Nokia’s Symbian. Those high stakes make it all the more disappointing to find that the Android Market fails to answer the tough issues correctly.

My sentiments exactly. Competition is a good thing and it keeps Apple "honest" and on the forefront of creativity.

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by hittrj01

Awesome, now we can see even more crapware in the Android Market than there is in the App Store. I can't wait to be able to download 200 flashlight apps to my android phone too!

With the amount of porn you're going to see, I predict the first big Google app in the store is going to be called Oogle.

You can oogle the porn at the google store.

Oh baby, corporations are going to love THIS idea....

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by Gon

What sucks for Apple is that by taking up the censor's pen, they have taken responsibility for both everything they allow through, and everything they don't. I can see it backfiring on them big time when someone submits e.g. a game on an hot button political issue. (A game with gay marriage featured prominently in the plot, anyone?) Apple would be on hot coals whether they allow or disallow it.

I wouldn't worry too much.
Some of the stuff that Apple is supressing will also be supressed from Google.
By the time the store is actually in use, it will be old hat when it happens so people won't make such a big deal. But Google is going to limit things also, just like Apple.

[Gon]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

I don't think you understand what type of app allowed and which ones are not! I don't think political issues are part of Apple censorship duty. Apple so far removed few apps (4 or 5 if I am not mistaken). Most were removed for obvious reasons (Didn't think you can get away with paying $30 for tethered data plan instead of $60? ).

No, I think it's you who doesn't understand. They already blocked a comic app (comic and integrated browser) for the content of that comic. It's not a surprise or a secret that they would censor content - as I recall, they told that right in the keynote that announced the App Store.

Apple has no solid rules at all for what will be allowed on the store. It's clear that they will disallow anything they don't like, for any reason. Not bound by any objective standard, they can't claim a neutral stance. Whatever content they allow on there has an Apple stamp of approval, while whatever content they block has an Apple stamp of disapproval. If it's political, then Apple has a political stance. That's how it will be seen.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by Gon

No, I think it's you who doesn't understand. They already blocked a comic app (comic and integrated browser) for the content of that comic. It's not a surprise or a secret that they would censor content - as I recall, they told that right in the keynote that announced the App Store.

Apple has no solid rules at all for what will be allowed on the store. It's clear that they will disallow anything they don't like, for any reason. Not bound by any objective standard, they can't claim a neutral stance. Whatever content they allow on there has an Apple stamp of approval, while whatever content they block has an Apple stamp of disapproval. If it's political, then Apple has a political stance. That's how it will be seen.

They didn't ban the comic app because they didn't like it, they banned it because it violates the SDK:

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

Here are the rules which I think are clear. In my opinion, Apple might ease up these rules once they start fixing some of the iPhone apps crashing bugs. They might include App Store Parental Controls and establish applications age rating system.

[Gon]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

They didn't ban the comic app because they didn't like it, they banned it because it violates the SDK:

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple’s reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."

Here are the rules which I think are clear.

"Rules"? They don't restrict Apple in any way - Apple doesn't explain reasons for bannings - nor do they guarantee that an app gets out there even if the developer sticks to specific limits. The SDK guidelines are kinda like a bad map of minefields an occupying army hands to the local peons. "We put mines in these marked areas, but also elsewhere and didn't bother to mark them. There might be other deadly things around. Also, our dog ate the bottom half of the map. You are now responsible for your own safety. Have fun!"

Furthermore, everything in bold is completely subjective. This "rule" is a catch-all. Spore, for instance, is guaranteed to be found objectionable by a number of users because it depicts evolution.

Apple retains complete control of what gets through and what doesn't. With that power comes responsibility. Even if you laid the minefield for best of reasons, it's you who are responsible for it and not a random guy you gave a bad map to.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by Gon

"Rules"? They don't restrict Apple in any way - Apple doesn't explain reasons for bannings - nor do they guarantee that an app gets out there even if the developer sticks to specific limits. The SDK guidelines are kinda like a bad map of minefields an occupying army hands to the local peons. "We put mines in these marked areas, but also elsewhere and didn't bother to mark them. There might be other deadly things around. Also, our dog ate the bottom half of the map. You are now responsible for your own safety. Have fun!"

Furthermore, everything in bold is completely subjective. This "rule" is a catch-all. Spore, for instance, is guaranteed to be found objectionable by a number of users because it depicts evolution.

Apple retains complete control of what gets through and what doesn't. With that power comes responsibility. Even if you laid the minefield for best of reasons, it's you who are responsible for it and not a random guy you gave a bad map to.

That's how contracts and agreements are written to protect the 1st party against liability and give them control. Apple provides developers with services similar ro those provided by web hosting services (For example: http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/tos/tos.php).

I agree that Apple have 100% control over what gets published but so does every web hosting service providers. So far Apple has not and will not abuse this power as long as developers use reasonable judgement and follow the SDK guidelines. By law, Apple is responsible for what gets published on their servers.

[geminisalsero]

Yup Yup. . . start saving money everybody haha