Techdirt. Stories filed under "apps"

AT&T Says You Can Use Any Video Streaming App You Want... Just As Soon As It Can Get The Meter Running

Tim Cushing — Wed, 22 May 2013 12:17:41 PDT

AT&T isn't going to let something like "net neutrality" slow it down from shaking every spare cent out of its customer base. (Source: I'm a customer. Also: see these.) Beginning last year with its blocking of Apple's Facetime app (exempting customers who were paying for higher service tiers) and continuing on through its recent lockout of Google Hangouts, AT&T has skirted neutrality by using one term: pre-loaded.

In its mind, as long as an app is "pre-loaded" by phone manufacturers (and competing options are available), AT&T can block app functionality if it feels it's somehow leaving money on the table. Of course, this irritates many of its customers and brings with it an uncomfortable amount of heat as the word travels around the web.

AT&T has now issued another statement to critics of its Hangout-blocking, one which sends the clear message that the company will gladly welcome streaming video apps with open arms (even pre-loaded apps), just as soon as it's able to simultaneously welcome a fat stream of income.

AT&T has issued a second, follow up statement that doesn't make a whole lot more sense than the first one did, and again tries to place the blame at the feet of OS and device makers. AT&T does, however, promise that they'll stop blocking video chat apps from running over their network by the end of this year:

"For video chat apps that come pre-loaded on devices, we currently give all OS and device makers the ability for those apps to work over cellular for our customers who are on Mobile Share or Tiered plans. Apple, Samsung and BlackBerry have chosen to enable this for their pre-loaded video chat apps. And by mid-June, we’ll have enabled those apps over cellular for our unlimited plan customers who have LTE devices from those three manufacturers.

Throughout the second half of this year, we plan to enable pre-loaded video chat apps over cellular for all our customers, regardless of data plan or device; that work is expected to be complete by year end.

Today, all of our customers can use any mobile video chat app that they download from the Internet, such as Skype."

AT&T's buying time while trying to appear to be working towards a "solution" for all of its customers. The longer it can hold out, the more likely the chance that someone upgrades or switches devices, thus pulling them off their grandfathered unlimited data plans and onto tiered/metered plans that earn AT&T a bit more money.

It tries to present this as a network issue, but Karl Bode translates AT&T's corporatespeak into the miserable truth:

In other words this isn't really technical (AT&T's LTE network is currently ranked the fastest available in the States), it's a way to bully unlimited users on to costlier plans. It's also a network neutrality violation, regardless of AT&T's choice of language.

Now, there's nothing wrong with a business attempting to earn more money. But the key word here is "earn." AT&T's just trying to grab more income while offering nothing in return but a bunch of laughable statements -- both in regards to the current issues, as well as the non-stop "congestion" posturing it uses to justify limited, expensive data plans. It's obviously most interested in tying users to high-margin "services." The least it could do is drop the obviously ridiculous statements and tell its customers they can have what they want just as soon as it gets what it wants.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apple Threatens To Kick Out Comic Book App Over 'Adult' Content, Forcing Publisher To Pull 40% Of Its 4,000 Titles

Tim Cushing — Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:50:00 PDT

Apple's worked very hard cultivating its walled garden and it isn't going to let a bunch of creators ruin its pristine utopia with nudity, depictions of sweatshops, nudity (again), swearing, topical commentary, competitive apps and the ancient art of intricate lovemaking.

Once again, Apple has decided to arbitrarily boot more content out of its garden, expressing its concern that things might be getting a little too sexy for its apparent target audience of schoolchildren who have never browsed the internet.

Reports are coming in that the digital comics distributor Izneo has had to radically prune their catalog or face banishment from iTunes.

Izneo has been selling digital comics on the iPad since they released an iPad app in mid-2010, and they successfully built a catalog of over 4000 French and Belgian titles.

Everything was going fine until late Friday night when one of Apple’s censors noticed that Izneo sold adult comics. And since Apple clearly cannot allow their precious iPad to be sullied by salacious content, the censor gave Izneo 30 hours to remove all adult comics.

Like other Apple takedown requests, this one arrived with no warning and no clear indication as to what content Apple felt was inappropriate and should be removed.

IDBoox broke the story earlier today, and they report that Izneo had absolutely no warning that there was a problem or guidance as to which titles needed to be removed. All they were reportedly told by Apple was that the adult content had to go, so Izneo drastically pruned any comic that showed a breast, cleavage, and even ones with characters evoking a suggestive gesture.

In order to comply with this incredibly vague request, Izneo immediately pulled 2,800 of its 4,000 titles. After a more in-depth review of its content, Izneo restored about half of what it had dumped, bringing it back up to 2,500. That's still 1,500 titles pulled because Apple said, "Jump," and couldn't even be bothered to specify how high.

Now, Izneo is stuck in a bit of a bind. It can abide by Apple's ethereal "guidelines" and hope that it doesn't need to remove even more titles. Or, it can start looking at a few options to get around the walled garden while still remaining somewhat ensconced. Nate Hoffelder suggests it switch to an HTML-5 reading app, or better yet, simply stop selling titles from within the app. This will allow Izneo to avoid Apple's app censoring while also bypassing the "opportunity" to toss 30% of the in-app purchase Apple's way.

As long as Apple is going to continue to behave like a stern parent in need of mood stabilizers, app developers and content creators are going to find themselves on the receiving end of vague missives like these. Apple is, of course, welcome to run its business however it sees fit, but every story like this serves as a warning to developers: if you want to play in Apple's garden, you'll have to abide by the nebulous, arbitrary rules. Apple has stated that if game developers want to handle serious issues (like the Syrian War), they should write a book instead. What is it going to tell comic book creators whose artwork veers into adult areas? Fire up the keyboard and turn those pictures into 1,000 words?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

No Nudity: Playboy's iPhone App To Test Men's 'For The Articles' Excuse

Timothy Geigner — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:03:29 PST

Looking back, I think I saw my first Playboy magazine when I was roughly ten years old or so. That would put us somewhere in the early 90's. My friends and I stopped on our way to school and huddled around each other, all trying to get a glimpse of the in-depth article on Operation Desert Storm and it's long-reaching implications for the Middle East, American foreign policy, and the rest of the world. No...wait...now I remember. We wanted to see the naked girls, because these were the days before wide internet adoption would put roughly all the porn at everyone's fingertips and President Bush's name still made us giggle (it kind of still does, actually). That said, amongst older generations, you would occasionally hear the laughable excuse from men that they wanted their Playboy magazines so they could read the articles, I suppose because Time Magazine, The New Yorker and Newsweek didn't exist (psst! They did!).

Well, now it appears we'll get something of a test for that excuse, with Playboy releasing a mobile app for Apple's app store, which of course had to nix all the nipples and vaginas to get it past the tech company's Quaker-like regulators.

This winter, the company, long barred from Apple's digital storefronts because of its pornographic associations, will package a nudity-free version of its content together for the launch of its first iPhone app, featuring lifestyle tips, articles from the magazine and, of course, photos of beautiful women.

Those beautiful women will be clad in lingerie, under Apple's strict no boobies policy. Now, here's why this probably won't work. Nobody is going to download this app to see women in lingerie. There's a couple of reasons for this. First, we've long been able to get that elsewhere. Victoria Secret has an iOS app, after all. Also, there's that handy browser option for viewing all the images one could want on the internet. As for the articles, we have a couple of problems. Jumping into the news content business this late in the game and having success in it would require really compelling articles. The good news is that Playboy still has this. The bad news is that all those people who claim their allegiance to Playboy for their articles are full of crap. As the article summarizes:

So, mobile readers will have to actually read Playboy for the articles, with a little lingerie on the side. This could totally work. What could go wrong?

The answer, of course, is everything.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Google Play Flaw Gives App Developers Purchaser's Information

Timothy Geigner — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:43:00 PST

Google, being the undisputed search engine king, is no stranger to concerns over the privacy of its users. Everything from odd fears over their privacy policy to the images on Google maps has been hurled at them, with most of the intelligent analysis of said concerns amounting to indifferent shoulder shrugs. Privacy is important, of course, but there's yet to be any sense of malicious intent or gross oversight in these cases. Rather, they tend to fall into the category of potentially yet unlikely dangers brought about by the very nature of expanded technology.

Perhaps that's why it feels so strange to learn that Google's Play store is so callous with user data, offering up names, street addresses, and email addresses to app developers when their products are purchased. This, according to developer Dan Nolan in Australia.

"Let me make this crystal clear, every App purchase you make on Google Play gives the developer your name, suburb and email address with no indication that this information is actually being transferred," Nolan wrote on his blog. "With the information I have available to me through the checkout portal I could track down and harass users who left negative reviews or refunded the app purchase."

If accurate, Google making that information available is at best stupid. As the selling platform, there's simply no reason to do it. Why does the guy or girl who created the Fat Booth app that so delights my friends need to know where I sleep at night? It might be a case where there's confusion about the roles each one is playing. If Google merely views itself as a platform for others to create a store, then you could kind of see where this made sense. App developers are then setting up their own "store" where there are advantages to them having a direct relationship with their customers. The problem, however, is that users don't view it this way. They think of Google as "the store" and this looks like them handing over their private info to the suppliers. And that certainly feels like a pretty massive privacy breach.

More importantly, as the article notes, the implications on how malware creators could exploit this are even more worrisome.

With Google customers' details just sitting in developers accounts, all it would take is a half decent piece of malware software for that information to be accessed. These personal details could then be used to access the users' bank details. That's also more than enough information to be able to access your other devices which could also be mined for more data - insurance information, other credit cards - which could then be used to access your banking credentials.

Due to these very concerns, Nolan expresses his displeasure and discomfort with having that information at all. Worse, if there's any way to opt out of receiving it, he can't seem to find it. Just as worrisome as the flaw is the fact that no one else bothered to report it. Whether this was laziness, ignorance, or the very real possibility that many developers were doing something underhanded with their customers' information is unclear, but all three possibilities are damning to Google, which certainly should have known better. Worse yet, Google is quite clear in their TOS that it can store this information once you provide it, but there's is no mention of their passing along that data to app developers in their privacy statement.

While there's yet to be any response from Google as of the time of this writing, the original article did note that Google had already requested an amendment to the story, meaning what remains of it is likely accurate. The speed with which Google needs to fix this would be mach-infinity.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Flipside: Embracing Closed Gardens Like The Apple App Store Shows Just How Un-Free You Want To Be

Timothy Geigner — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:43:14 PST

Just the other day, I told you the story of some immature and racist apps in Google's Play store. In that post, I discussed how the kind of speech that offends is truly a barometer of exactly how free we want speech to be. It's one thing to embrace free speech that suits us, but it is every bit our duty to protect speech that does not suit us as well, because it is the ideal of free speech we are protecting, not the speech with which we disagree. The only other option, of course, is to become a society less permissible of speech. True, that society may yield a lower amount of speech the majority finds offensive, but what else gets caught in the drain-trap that shouldn't have? We remind one another all the time that private companies like Google aren't under obligation to the 1st Amendment and free speech, but we still have that ideal that permeates our society and so some of us choose to embrace the more open and permissible environments because we believe more information, data, and culture is always better and we'll deal with the annoyances that come along with it. Others choose to embrace the Apple App store, which gives you a wonderful idea of exactly what happens when speech and culture become more constricted.

Take one recent example: Apple's rejection of an gaming app based on the war in Syria, created to help educate others about exactly what is occurring there. The game was rejected based on Apple's not allowing apps that "solely target a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation or any other real entity".

"This decision is a shame really as it makes it hard to talk about the real world," said designer Tomas Rawlings.

"We had hoped that Apple would be more nuanced in how they applied this rule but we got a bit worried when it had been in submission for around two weeks without a decision - we then figured that because of the controversy of using the gaming medium to cover an ongoing war meant passing the game had become an issue for them."

Rawlings insists there is nothing actually offensive in the game and notes that the response from those that got their hands on it has been generally positive. From what I can tell, the game is essentially a quick scenario decision making game told from the Syrian rebels point of view. It incorporates real world news items and events and allows the player to decide how to handle them. There's no deragatory name-calling. No over the top violence. But because they mention a "real government", it's out.

And that's exactly the problem with a less permissible garden like Apple's app store. Sure, in Google's garden (or the wider open internet, for that matter) you will occasionally have to ignore a few weeds, but you get the full spectrum of flowers to enjoy. Apple's garden may have less weeds, but they have less flowers, and the choice over which flowers you see isn't up to you. That's not the system I want to embrace.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Racist Apps In Google's Play Store Test Just How Free You Want Speech To Be

Timothy Geigner — Mon, 7 Jan 2013 07:43:43 PST

If there is anything that tests people's embrace of free and open speech, it's racism and bigotry. Now, I realize that this is an immensely touchy subject, so we'll leave all the jokes aside here, but a good primer for exactly how I feel about the subject is a piece Mike did a few years back on whether we want racist websites taken down or not. The question is whether we embrace free speech to the extent that it protects speech we don't like. Or hate. Or speech that makes us want to hit the person speaking or writing it. I believe the answer should be yes. I believe that for a number of reasons, chief amongst them being that I choose not to give hate speech power by reacting to it. This is a personal choice, I understand, but it's one that I believe makes logical sense. Hate speech, racism, and bigotry are often not the ignorant idiocy we sometimes think they are. Rather, they are the careful and calculated words of someone looking chiefly for a response. I try not to give them that response.

But another reason I default to the allowance of nearly any speech (aside from that which causes real physical danger to people, of course) is that I don't believe in my ability to be an arbiter for what speech should be allowed or should not be allowed. Moreover, I don't believe in anyone's capacity to be that arbiter. And it's with the above in mind that I read what Andrew F alerts us to: "Asian American groups want Google to take down slightly offensive app by a third party."

The maker of a Google app thinks it's fun to make yourself look Asian by changing the shape of your eyes and wearing a Fu Manchu mustache and rice paddy hat. Another app - "Make Me Indian" - makes you a Native American with brown skin, war paint and a feather headband. KimberyDeiss makes other photo-altering apps including "Make Me Old" and "Make Me Fat." There's also "Make Me Russian" and "Make Me Irish," which play off stereotypes.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: racism in itself isn't funny. At all. These apps sound execptionally childish and stupid, the kind of app that shows up for a few months and then quickly goes away. That is, unless a bunch of interest groups stir up an undue amount of uproar and get major news media to splash the name of the apps all over the place.

The apps use dated and racist stereotypes of Asians and Native Americans, said the online campaign 18 Million Rising, named after the number of Asian-Americans in the United States.

“These racist and offensive portrayals of Asians and Native Americans perpetuate damaging racial stereotypes and should not be distributed on the Google play store," said the campaign, which has an online petition to remove the apps.

This is the choice we discussed earlier, how much do you want to protect free speech. It's very easy for people to protect free speech when it isn't offensive to them, but this is an example of how we may react differently once speech directly affects or refers to us. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't ask Google to remove the "Make me Irish" app, partly because I don't want Google policing apps in general based on the kind of speech involved and also because I don't need the name of that app showing up on CNN, drawing attention to it and Streisanding it into greater sales.

For its part, Google has confirmed that the apps do not violate their terms of service regarding offensive speech and has refused to pull the apps from the Play Store. Which means that all these interest groups have accomplished is to draw more attention to the apps they don't like. Plus, they reacted, which is what racists would like them to do.

The lesson here isn't that racism is okay, that we should embrace it, like it, or remain silent about it. Of course we should do none of those things. But asking others to censor speech we don't like isn't the answer and it can often backfire on us. Social shaming is a better approach, if done in a reasonable way, but I prefer to try and figure out what the person offering offensive speech wants to accomplish with that speech and then do the opposite. Plus, and you can take this from me based on personal experience, racists hate being ignored.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Microsoft Sued Because It Overloaded Surface Tablet With Pre-Installed Apps

Mike Masnick — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:23:24 PST

Recently, people noticed that -- in classic Microsoft fashion -- its new 32GB Microsoft Surface tablet only had 16GB of free storage when you took it out of the box. Why? Because this is Microsoft and it loaded the damn thing down with pre-installed software that took up a ton of storage (including, of course, its own bloated tablet operating system, Windows RT). Competing tablets, including the iPad and various Android tablets, come with significantly more free space, even on models advertised as having the same storage. Microsoft has tried to play up the value of the pre-installed software, the fact that you can expand storage via a microSDXC card slot and that it offers 7GB of free "cloud" storage with the device. And, oh yes, you can also manually delete stuff and get back some space.

None of this was enough for one guy, however, as Andrew Sokolowski is now suing Microsoft claiming that Microsoft is misrepresenting the device. While he's seeking class action status, unlike many class action lawsuits that are all about money, it's actually nice to see that he's not seeking any money -- just asking Microsoft to stop misrepresenting the product.

I can't find the actual lawsuit on PACER yet, though I imagine it'll be up soon. On the whole, while I find it incredible (and so typically Microsoft) that Microsoft is selling the tablet loaded down with so much software, does that really require a legal response? The story is getting out in the press, and people must know that at least some of the tablets they buy have pre-installed apps on them. It seems like a situation where an informed consumer is likely to know that this is one of the downsides of buying the Surface, and it's not clear that Microsoft needs to be legally compelled to explain how much free space is on the device out of the box.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Privacy Case May Come Down To Whether It Costs $12k To Uninstall An iPhone App

Mike Masnick — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:43:31 PDT

For many years, we've noted that courts have been very, very reluctant to allow lawsuits against companies who leak private data, when there's no evidence that the leaked data was used to create harm. The courts have more or less said, no harm, no broken laws. So it seemed likely that the class action lawsuit against software startup Path, for uploading a user's address book, wasn't likely to have much of a chance in court. As you may recall, earlier this year, there was a tremendous hubbub when some people realized that in order to use a "find your friends" feature, it uploaded a user's entire address book to a server. The reality is that many apps did exactly the same thing, because it made the process much easier. However, you can see why people would be quite annoyed and upset about a service grabbing their entire address book, without making it explicit that was about to happen.

Regardless, the lawsuits against Path and others didn't seem likely to have much of a chance -- but in one of the main cases against Path, the plaintiff who is trying to do a class action lawsuit came up with a way to try to show "harm," claiming that it would cost him $12,250 to hire someone to remove the Path app (though he never claimed to have actually paid that). Path responded by noting that deleting its app is "a simple act requiring no more than two swipes of his finger on his phone," and suggesting that the $12,250 is completely and totally bogus. The judge, however, is letting the case proceed, noting that at this stage of the game, it has to accept the $12,250 as true, and Path can push back on the validity of the statement later in the process.

The ruling does dismiss (while leaving open the possibility of amendment) a bunch of the claims, showing that the plaintiff, Oscar Hernandez, really tried to throw the kitchen sink at Path -- with a bunch of claims that made no sense at all. So it throws out the claim of wiretapping (no communications intercepted), the "Stored Communications Act" claim (no communications service or electronic storage as defined in the act is present), "Invasion of Privacy" under California state law (fails again for a lack of interception), "public disclosure of private facts" (nothing was publicly disclosed, so...), and trespass (he failed to show "significant impairment" as required by the law). On other points the motion to dismiss was denied, but on the whole, it seems likely that Path is going to win this case in the end. I'm just amazed at the $12,250 claim as an attempt to show "harm." They may have gotten away with it so far, but would a court really allow such a bogus claim to stand? Eventually, it's going to be shown that removing Path from an iPhone is ridiculously simple.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Rovio Recognizes That Massive, Massive Volume At Cheap Prices Beats Low Sales At Inflated Prices

Tim Cushing — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:47:29 PDT

Maybe it takes a "digital native" like an app developer to instantly "get" digital publishing. Asking those who've spent most of the ebook era actively fighting the new medium is frustrating for both sides of the conversation.

Rovio, the Finnish developer behind the omnipresent "Angry Birds" game, is releasing its first ebook/app, based on the print version that debuted last year. Mike Cane has a brief but excellent rundown on what Rovio's doing right, and where other publishers are continuing to fall short.

Cane starts by quoting from PaidContent's article on the ebook release, which points out a couple of important aspects of Rovio's offering:

[T]he app is "not just a book," said Peter Vesterbacka, Angry Birds CMO. "We took the content from the book, 41 egg recipes, but didn't want to just take the book, make a PDF and sell it to people. We actually made it a lot more interactive."

"Bad Piggies' Best Egg Recipes" is on sale for an introductory price of $0.99 or €0.79 in the iTunes Store and includes step-by-step photo instructions, an egg timer and photos of the finished dishes. Users can also upload their own pictures of the recipes they make.

First off, the app/ebook is not just a quick and cheap "port" being thrown into iTunes to grab some quick digital dimes. Secondly, the price is well under what most publishers would be willing to charge for a comparable ebook.

Why is this such a frikkin big deal?

[T]hey are selling an app-book for one-tenth of the print version's discount price. ($9.99) One-tenth!

That's a much steeper discount than most publishers would be willing to take, especially on a potential cash cow like this. Sure, one could argue that it's just an app spinoff, or that Rovio made plenty of money with its games, or that there's no "real writing" involved, or any number of tangents in an effort to minimize Rovio's deep discounting. One could even argue that Rovio is leaving money on the table or, as an outsider, just doesn't "get" publishing and price points.

Here's what Rovio has to say about the price point:

"We're not looking thousands or tens of thousands of downloads," he [Peter Vesterbacka, Angry Birds CMO] continued, "we're looking for millions of downloads of this book…We're going for massive, massive volume."

Oh, those crazy Finns and their madcap ideas! Volume! It's as if Rovio believes that it can distribute an infinite good at an extremely low price and still make some very good money. Insanity! Mike Cane points out the sheer incongruity of the situation:

He gets it. None of the Big Six of publishing — or the Little Sixes of it — do.

What if the Big Six started massively discounting their frontlist titles, going for that volume instead of trying to bleed each reader for the most they could squeeze out of them? They'd be able to transition their businesses to e faster and make lots more money in the process — and also help to thwart piracy!

Yeah. What if? Unfortunately, that's still largely open to speculation as none of the publishers seem willing to try it out. Even in the wake of a DOJ investigation into price fixing, prices have tended to move up rather than down (or remain unchanged) as publishers burn through remaining discounts. Even after various self-published authors have demonstrated the ability to make a living selling thousands of cheap ebooks rather than dozens of expensive ones, the tendency is to price ebooks in the same neighborhood as their physical counterparts.

Mike suggests deeply discounting the frontline titles and making more money through volume. But even if publishers aren't ready to take their current bestsellers down that road, what's stopping them from knocking the price of their back catalogs down to an impulse purchase level? Making the back catalog a bargain bin could turn casual fans into completists and give readers a reason to dip their digital toes into unfamiliar waters.

But, if nothing else, Rovio's pricing strategy has to, at the very least, highlight how many publishers are overvaluing their digital offerings, as if charging unrealistic prices will somehow prevent "devaluation." In reality, these higher prices simply show the huge gap between what the publishers desire and what the customers actually want.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

California Attorney General Uses Twitter To Threaten United Airlines With Possible Legal Action

Mike Masnick — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:32:03 PDT

Can we just admit that laws requiring privacy policies are a dumb idea? They make almost no sense. No one reads them. And the laws requiring them don't require that you actually keep info private... just that you have one of those privacy policies that no one reads and no one cares about. The only ways you get in trouble are (a) if you don't have a privacy policy or (b) if you don't abide by your privacy policy. Thus, the basic incentive is to write a privacy policy that is opaque and which no one will read -- and which says "you have no privacy at all, we can do whatever we want with your data" so you could never violate it.

But grandstanding politicians see this as an easy and cheap way to be seen as "protecting the little guy" even though it does nothing along those lines. It appears that California Attorney General Kamala Harris may be jumping into the fray -- and bizarrely using Twitter to passive aggressively threaten United Airlines. In a tweet, she asks the company where its privacy policy is on its mobile app:

Fabulous app, @united Airlines, but where is your app’s #privacy policy? 1.usa.gov/SWGCTm
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 12, 2012

That link is to California's law that requires privacy policies. But, once again, we're at a loss to see what this does for actual privacy, if anything. If the app doesn't have a privacy policy, does that change how United Airlines uses people's data? Doubtful. Is anyone who uses the app actually reading the privacy policy? Doubtful. If they do, will they understand it? Unlikely. So, what does this kind of thing do? You'd think that there were, perhaps, more pressing things for the state to focus on rather than harassing companies on Twitter.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

FTC's Attempt To Broadly Expand Misguided Child Protection Law Will Chill Innovation

Mike Masnick — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:30:00 PDT

We've written a few times about the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and how it was put in place without any data and without much concern for unintended consequences. As danah boyd has shown in her research, COPPA hasn't necessarily done much to protect children. Instead, it's made parents teach their kids it's okay to lie about their age. It's also why so many websites have seemingly arbitrary restrictions on kids under the age of 13. It's one of those "think of the children" laws that people want to like because it sounds good, and no one wants to support big businesses preying on children. But, the reality is that it has tremendous problems -- unintended consequences that limit various services -- and does little to actually protect children.

And, of course, the FTC wants to expand it even further.

They're asking for comments on the proposed changes in the rules, and if you develop websites or apps, you might want to speak up. CDT has put together a letter people can sign if they don't want to write up some comments themselves. They also have explained many of the problems with the new proposals. For example, it expands what COPPA applies to in very broad ways, potentially creating liability for developers without them even realizing it:

The FTC plans to put COPPA obligations on plugin developers if they “know or have reason to know” that their plugin has been installed on a children’s site. “Plugins” include analytics providers, advertising networks, social media plugins, embedded videos, or anyone else who provides third-party code for websites. Under the FTC's proposed change, if plugin developers receive a user’s IP address through a plugin that’s been installed on a children’s site, they could face legal liability for collecting children’s personal information.

It’s unclear how a plugin or platform like Twitter is supposed to “know or have reason to know” that someone has cut and pasted a line of their code into a children’s site. The FTC says that plugin developers “will not be free to ignore credible information brought to their attention.” But the FTC doesn’t say what counts as “credible.” Would developers have to assume every random e-mail is a credible tip that could saddle them with legal liability? Even if the FTC did provide clarity, though, it would still be extraordinarily burdensome to place legal obligations on plugin developers based on the actions of others.

The end result would almost certainly involve those companies putting a lot more limits on their apps, and create a huge cost (and potential liability) for all sorts of plugin and app writers. But there's an even bigger problem. While COPPA was clearly limited at sites directed at children, the FTC seems to think this wasn't enough, because other sites not directed at children might still attract children... and so they want this problematic rule to expand to sites who don't even cater to children:

Things get worse with the FTC’s second major proposal: expanding the scope of sites deemed “directed to children” from sites aimed primarily at a very young audience to include sites and services that are “likely to attract an audience that includes a disproportionately large percentage of children under 13 as compared to the percentage of such children in the general population.”

This convoluted standard raises a number of serious issues. Not only is it difficult for site operators to gauge what proportions of their audience fall into arbitrary age buckets, but the FTC also gives operators no sense of what it means for an audience to be “disproportionately” composed of children in comparison to the general population. If a site’s audience is 20 percent children, is it disproportionately composed of children? What about at 30 percent? It’s not clear from the language, and it won’t be clear to website operators trying to run their sites while staying within the bounds of the law.

In fact, as CDT notes, this change almost certainly will do the exact opposite of what the rule intends. That is, it will make sites feel they need to collect more data about who is accessing their sites to make sure that they know if their audience includes kids, in which case they'll have to take steps. But that means they'll be... collecting more data about kids -- which is exactly what COPPA is supposed to stop.

The FTC folks who support COPPA are certainly well meaning, but they seem to have little concern or interest about the real impact of the law and their specific rules around it, and how it not only fails to help protect children, but puts a serious damper on innovation as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apple Feels Reporting Drone Strikes 'Objectionable And Crude' And Rejects App

Zachary Knight — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:56:19 PDT

It seems that today you can't spit in the wind without hitting a story about some US drone killing a bunch of people in a country somewhere overseas. Every known drone strike is accompanied by news reports of the location and the number of people killed. Yet, even with all these stories about drone strikes, it can a daunting task for those interested in following them to keep up with them all. So what is a drone enthusiast, or someone just appalled by the frequency of the strikes, to do?

One creative iPhone developer, Josh Begley, took the time to create an app that sought out news articles about drone strikes. When it would find one, it would send a push notification to the owner of the iPhone and then display a Google map of the area with a push pin of the location of the strike. He had hoped to have it released in the wild by now, but Apple keeps rejecting his application.

It’s the third time in a month that Apple has turned Drones+ away, says Josh Begley, the program’s New York-based developer. The company’s reasons for keeping the program out of the App Store keep shifting. First, Apple called the bare-bones application that aggregates news of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia “not useful.” Then there was an issue with hiding a corporate logo. And now, there’s this crude content problem.

It's this last rejection that has Josh scratching his head. How can a news aggregating application be in any way crude or objectionable? Yes, I know that many people feel that news reports from the mainstream media could easily be classified as such, but that is beside the point. This app provides a useful service for those who want to keep abreast of the latest news regarding drone strikes. It doesn't show graphic images or other caricatures of the attacks, merely a push pin and a link to the story. If it is the content that is objectionable, he may just turn to a less strict operating system for the next version.

Begley is about at his wits end over the iOS version of Drones+. “I’m kind of back at the drawing board about what exactly I’m supposed to do,” Begley said. The basic idea was to see if he could get App Store denizens a bit more interested in the U.S.’ secretive, robotic wars, with information on those wars popping up on their phones the same way an Instagram comment or retweet might. Instead, Begley’s thinking about whether he’d have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.

Its this kind of rejection of an interesting and thought provoking app that will turn people away from walled gardens. We talked recently about Microsoft's moves toward further locking down Windows resulting in developers seeking the more open alternative of Linux. The same will happen with the iPhone. As more developers continue to have their apps rejected with little to no context, those developers will become much more frustrated with the whole process and leave for Android. Is this really the lesson that Apple wants young developers taking from this and similar experiences?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement

Mike Masnick — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:14:00 PDT

While we've written plenty about the US Justice Department and US Homeland Security (via ICE) seizing various websites on questionable legal authority by claiming they were tools used for criminal copyright infringement, a series of pretty massive screwups seemed to have them, at least temporarily, shying away from such seizures around copyright claims. Huge errors like seizing Dajaz1 for over a year and then having to admit they had no evidence and give it back seemed to at least make them a little less cowboyish about the websites they chose to shut down and censor.

But, of course, this is the federal government we're talking about, and they sure loved the ability to shut down speech without any sort of adversarial hearing or, you know, due process. So you just knew it wouldn't last. The latest is that the feds have seized three more domains (applanet.net, appbucket.net and snappzmarket.com), claiming that they were "engaged in the illegal distribution of copies of copyrighted Android cell phone apps." Indeed, a quick look at the internet archive certainly suggests that these sites advertised that you could get "paid" apps for free if you joined. But does that warrant a criminal investigation and seizure? Perhaps there are more details, but given the sketchy details of earlier seizures, I'd wonder.

But, more to the point, if these sites were really engaged in such things, why wouldn't a civil copyright infringement lawsuit suffice? Why should the government get involved, when it involves completely pulling down a website with no warning, no adversarial hearing and no due process for those accused?

The Justice Department seems to indicate that this sort of thing is now a "top priority," because (apparently) they have way too much free time on their hands:

“Cracking down on piracy of copyrighted works – including popular apps – is a top priority of the Criminal Division,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Software apps have become an increasingly essential part of our nation’s economy and creative culture, and the Criminal Division is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect the creators of these apps and other forms of intellectual property from those who seek to steal it.”

“Criminal copyright laws apply to apps for cell phones and tablets, just as they do to other software, music and writings. These laws protect and encourage the hard work and ingenuity of software developers entering this growing and important part of our economy. We will continue to seize and shut down websites that market pirated apps, and to pursue those responsible for criminal charges if appropriate,” said U.S. Attorney Yates.

“The theft of intellectual property, particularly within the cyber arena, is a growing problem and one that cannot be ignored by the U.S government’s law enforcement community. These thefts cost companies millions of dollars and can even inhibit the development and implementation of new ideas and applications. The FBI, in working with its various corporate and government partners, is not only committed to combating such thefts but is well poised to coordinate with the many jurisdictions that are impacted by such activities,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Lamkin.

One other tidbit of interest. Unlike the previous seizure disasters, this one appears not to have been led by ICE, but directly by the Justice Department (via the FBI). The announcement doesn't name this as a part of "Operation in our Sites" which seems to be a term specific to ICE's controversial program. Either way, they're still certainly using the eagle-heavy "seized" graphic they love to throw around, so, of course, we'd be remiss if we did not remind folks that they can purchase their very own "seized tee," to show what you think of the government's efforts.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apps Are Not Coffee

Mike Masnick — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:29:52 PDT

Jameson Ahern points us to a fantastic discussion by Josh Lehman, explaining why it's silly to argue that people are irrational for spending $4 or more on a cup of coffee*, but not $0.99 on digital content or apps. As with nearly all cases of seemingly "irrational" behavior in economics, the truth is that you just need to better understand the marginal benefit that people are getting and the true marginal costs, which often go way beyond the dollar amount. Lehman points out a few key examples, with the focus on trust & certainty, as well as the difference in the competitive market.

For the first point, he notes that you know exactly what you're getting with a Starbucks cup of coffee and how much you'll enjoy it:

I know I’ll like my cup of coffee. It will fully meet my expectations. For the $4 I spend I don’t expect it to change my life. I don’t expect it to even last beyond its last drop (and a trip to the bathroom later). It’s an experience I can fully trust will be pretty much the same each time. There’s no gamble here. Ask me if I’d like to drop $4 on a cup of your new “Instant Refresher Juice 1.0″ and there’s a very good chance I’ll pass. Or, maybe I’ll ask for a free sample to see if your $4 Instant Refresher Juice 1.0 is as good as Starbucks Coffee. In short, I know what I’m getting for $4 and I’m getting that same experience every time I hit the drive thru.

What he's really pointing out here is that there's a much bigger cost to your content than just the $0.99 it's being offered for. It's the risk of not getting any actual value out of it. And since people are, quite naturally, loss averse, they're much more hesitant to spend under such circumstances. This is completely rational behavior.

He also points out the general nature of the market, and whether or not there are reasonable "free" alternatives:

When you walk up to the counter of your local coffee shop you are not asked, “would you like a cup of our free coffee, or would you like to select from our paid options?”. If Starbucks gave out free coffee every day there would be mile-long lines at the drive thru. If the free coffee was anywhere close to as good as their paid stuff people would abandon the paid en masse. Some would pay maybe because they felt bad, as a freeloader. Others would pay because they preferred the options available to them in the paid column vs. the free. Now imagine the free selection at starbucks was nearly as large, or larger, than the paid selection: Welcome to the App Store.

In other words, as we've explained for years, the nature of the wider market really matters. In competitive markets, price gets driven down towards marginal cost. There are ways to prevent that -- and one is to build up brand value through things like trust and certainty (see the point above). So while there are cheaper alternatives, or even in many cases "free" alternatives at people's workplaces (contrary to Lehman's suggestion that there are no such alternatives), people still flock to the one they know and trust. But if there are lots and lots and lots of free alternatives, then you have to work much harder to justify the price. In some cases, for some people, you can. But the market situation between coffee and apps is not very close at all.

Lehman makes some other points as well, but the key one is that these are totally different markets with different factors playing on pricing. Comparing them in absolute dollar terms misses the full costs and full benefits associated with the purchase.

* Moreover, despite the "$4 coffee" being an oft-repeated trope about Starbucks, it's not really true. The biggest cup of coffee at Starbucks costs a little over $2. The drinks that are pricier than that are generally about nine-tenths milk, and milk is much more expensive than coffee. Indeed, the drinks that so many people think are a "ripoff" are not where Starbucks makes the majority of its money—they tend to be much lower-margin items than the plain coffee, because milk and whipped cream and fancy syrups are all high-cost and expensive to store. Is Starbucks still "expensive"? Maybe so -- but anyone who opens that discussion by talking about the "$4 cup of coffee" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the business functions (and even of what's on the menu).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Google's App Crackdown Results In Indie Developer Smackdown

Timothy Geigner — Mon, 6 Aug 2012 20:05:00 PDT

Recently, we covered an example of the somewhat pervasive mentality that the Android app store is a haven for evil, evil piracy. Nevermind that the claim that Android is "built for piracy" is completely insane. Unfortunately, perception is real enough to cause Google to exert more strict control over it's Play Store, and the resulting hardship on innocent bystanders is as predictable as a drive-by shooting.

Wired tells the story of the Cory and Andrew Trese, two brothers who are the very epitome of indie developers, and how they have found themselves under attack by Google as a result of this crackdown. Let's be clear in saying that these guys are not pirates, they're not some mega-corporation, and they don't have time to fend off unnecessary attacks resulting from an overreaction to a non-problem:

"The Trese brothers are so indie, they don't even know it. Their games are marketed through a simple Blogspot blog and unpretentious older brother Cory Trese routes all of his regular email correspondence through the address of his wedding photography business. Trese Brothers titles like Star Traders and Templar Assault might not feature cutting-edge graphics or revolutionary gameplay, but the ambitious scope of their games and steadfast dedication to constantly improving them has won them a small but loyal following. With a growing reputation for floating above the needs and desires of everyday people, Google's relationship with salt-of-the-earth devs like the the Trese Brothers are exactly the sort they ought to be cultivating. Instead, Google is about to chase the Treses off of their platform."

These are the good guys. The small-business types working overtime everyone likes to talk about. But when Google recently brought their app store under more strict control, allowing them to be more heavy-handed in what they allow on the platform, the Trese brothers began getting messages saying that they were somehow in violation and their apps would be dropped from the store.

"Cory Trese started receiving seemingly-automated emails from Google last week, informing him that he and his brother's games were violating the spam provisions of the new developer terms and conditions. Trese was dumbstruck.

"I was terrified, frankly," Trese told me. "I started trying to figure out how we got flagged. Maybe we update too often.""

It should be pointed out that the notion that frequent updates triggered the spam notice from Google is pure speculation...because as Google is now tasked with aggressively policing their app store, they're finding less time to respond to app developers questions via email or the support message board. The Trese brothers have been trying to get a response to no avail as of the time of this writing.

And this is the problem with a shotgun approach in responding to perceived issues with piracy on platforms: you end up taking out innocent bystanders in the process. We saw it with Megaupload, where artists and users used the service legitimately but were caught in the DOJ's ocean-spanning shotgun attack. We see it every time bit torrent technology is attacked, despite artists and users that also use it legitimately. Actions taken against perceived piracy problems need a scalpel approach, so that innocents like the Trese brothers don't have their creative output stifled.

Update: Commentors and Cory Trese himself stepped into the comments section to add some further clarification. It appears that the issue had to do with keywords in the description of Trese's games that still coincide with Google's tightening the ropes on their app store (thanks for the comments, guys!). Bottom line, it would appear that there is still some heavy-handedness and a lack of communication with app developers in this case, though Cory did say that Google reached out to them once news of this had got out.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Turns Out That The iPad Won't Magically Bring Back Scarcity For Magazines

Mike Masnick — Fri, 3 Aug 2012 15:31:00 PDT

Back in 2010, we suggested that the mad dash by various publications to build fee-based iPad apps was completely misguided, reminiscent of the belief in the 90s that publications could sell CD-ROM versions of their magazines. As we noted, there's nothing that special about the iPad format that takes away the natural abundance of the internet, and pretending that it was really any different than a portal to the wider internet with all its options was a fool's errand. In particular, we called out Rupert Murdoch's obsession with creating an iPad-only publication. In fact, we were confused why all the publishers investing so much in apps didn't put that same sort of effort into improving the features on their websites. A few months ago, the editor-in-chief and publisher of MIT's Tech Review more or less made the same point, saying that the future was on the web, betting on HTML 5 to make the site "look great on a laptop or desktop, tablet or smartphone" and then killing off the apps it had developed.

While others aren't going that far, there's more and more evidence that betting on apps was, in fact, the exact mistake that we predicted. Mathew Ingram summarizes how both The Huffington Post and Murdoch's The Daily have failed with their fee-based iPad app strategy. He makes the same basic point that a winner of our "most insightful comment" (by Robert Weller) made recently: that people get their news from lots of sources, so paying for a bunch of apps just doesn't make sense. In fact, it takes away from the value. As Ingram notes:

Whether media companies like it or not (and they mostly don’t), much of the news and other content we consume now comes via links shared through Twitter and Facebook and other networks, or through old-fashioned aggregators — such as Yahoo News or Google News — and newer ones like Flipboard and Zite and Prismatic that are tailored to mobile devices and a socially-driven news experience. Compared to that kind of model, a dedicated app from a magazine or a newspaper looks much less interesting, since by design it contains content from only a single outlet, and it usually doesn’t contain helpful things like links.

What he's basically saying is that the publishers focusing on apps are trying to create artificial scarcity by building digital silos. But that actually takes value away from those publications. People interact with the news in all sorts of ways that go way beyond "reading." But individual apps often make that more difficult. It involves extra effort (and cost) while providing less benefit. All because publishers are looking for something (anything!) that resembles some fencing so they can build a gate and go back to pretending they're in the gatekeeper business.

Hopefully publishers will finally stop looking to recreate the past by building artificial walls, and start looking at ways to make money that embrace the internet and what it enables.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

App Developer: Android OS Built For Piracy And Consumer Choice Sucks

Timothy Geigner — Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:20:45 PDT

The iOS versus Android debate is an ongoing saga that occurs at many levels, from Apple and Google duking it out to discussions amongst users over which operating system is superior. And if you follow it closely, the recent scuttlebutt amongst some application developers is that it's much easier to make money in the Apple App Store than through Google Play. That may or may not be true in the long term, but regardless, one app developer is giving Android an unduly hard time.

Matt Gemmell is an accomplished developer. His "About Me" page on his site says he's "an iOS (iPad, iPhone and iPod touch) and Mac OS X (Cocoa) developer and user experience/interface designer, based in Edinburgh, Scotland." And, holy balls, does he hate the Android OS. After beginning a blog post entitled "Closed For Business" with an anecdote about some unnamed friend of his, the chief argument he makes is that the Android OS was designed specifically for piracy. He begins by comparing exactly the wrong things for the conclusion he wants to reach:

"Buying an app on the Android Market is substantially similar to how you buys [sic] apps on iOS: you search, find the app, click Buy, confirm, and it downloads. It’s not an unduly onerous process, and certainly not a barrier to the business model. This isn’t piracy due to frustration."

See, he's comparing the process for getting the app through the Android marketplace to getting it through the iOS marketplace and then concluding that frustration isn't the reason for piracy. To do this, you have to ignore that "piracy" may be more convenient than either app store and that Android users and iOS users may not be equal—and also pretend that the only way to make money from an app is via direct charge for the download, and that all of these things mean that the platform is to blame because Android is "open". Whatever, let's move on to where he states that developers selling their apps for 99 cents are trivializing the marketplace.

"Shame on you for pricing at $0.99 to chase the kind of customers who, well, think a dollar is anything but a trivial, throwaway amount of money that won’t even remotely get you a reasonable cup of coffee. Get some self-respect. Quit encouraging bad behaviour, and ruining the party for everyone else."

If I'm reading that right, and I can't see how else to read it, now Gemmell is saying that not only is piracy bad, but buying 99-cent apps is bad too! As a consumer, I'm confused as to what good behavior might be at this point, other than resolutely smashing my smartphone to bits and getting one of those big rotary style deals installed on my kitchen wall.

So, just to keep score, the argument here so far is that the reason for endemic piracy on Android phones is not frustration due to inconvenience of the marketplace and price. Then he says this:

"Instead, this was the endemic casual piracy of convenience."

Which is where normally my head would explode like that dude from Scanners, except I've been doing neck exercises just to prepare for this inevitable moment. Apparently convenience plays no part in piracy except when it does. Awesome. We then get the first iteration of the hard line approach to Google's OS:

"The system is designed for piracy from the ground up. The existence of piracy isn’t a surprise, but rather an inevitability."

Yes, you read that correctly. Unbeknownst to us, Google designed their mobile operating system—from the ground up, mind you—specifically for piracy. That's the kind of sentence that you shouldn't think about for more than five seconds or blood will shoot out your nose and you'll wake up in an emergency room being prepped for "get the stupid out of your head" surgery.

Gemmell then goes on to explain that the reason piracy is easy is due to a "broken business model." This may make you think that this story is going to have a good ending. But he's not talking about the developers' business models, rather that of the Android OS, which is apparently so broken that it's the best-selling mobile OS on the market:

"You can say what you like about handset share, or first-party/carrier development: that’s only one piece of the puzzle. Another piece is community contributions to the OS codebase. On the first point, iOS devices are doing just fine. On the second, a closed OS has only strengthened the brand, cohesion of direction, integration, usability and design standard of the product. The third factor is the software ecosystem...To have apps, you need developers. To have developers, you need enthusiasm and an investment of time and talent. Enthusiasm and effort can be driven by many motivations, but the most reliable and consistent of those is money. Yes, there it is: the m-word. It’s not a dirty word. You wouldn’t have your shiny handset without it, not because you wouldn’t have been able to afford it, but because it wouldn’t exist."

This is nothing but a strawman. iOS is in second place in adoption, which may be "doing just fine," but isn't an argument against Android. And while some folks like the cohesion of Apple's closed system, arguing for Apple in terms of community contributions to the OS codebase is an odd stance against an open OS like Android. Finally, who is suggesting that "money" is a dirty word, or that developers shouldn't like bills and coins? If you answered "nobody," pat yourself on the back, because that's correct.

Then, after Gammell informs us that viewing advertisements is a form of "paying" for apps (because apparently that was a well-kept secret) he touts the benefits of having a "freedom from choice," which can alternatively be stated as a "freedom from freedom," which can then be stated as "bad Inception logic that makes no sense."

"No-one stops to consider that “choice” is maybe a bad word. Consider that for a moment. What would you like Windows to do with this USB key? Just show me the damned files. Do you want to be warned when you view a web page with mixed secure and insecure content? No, go away. Do you want to pick the font for this text-editing field? No, just use a sensible default. Do you want a lot of after-market crap popping up on the desktop of your new PC? No, I want an experience I’m familiar with."

Um, so just to run through his examples: 1. When my OS recognizes my USB stick, it asks me how I want to view those files (a window, a slideshow, media player, etc.) and apparently that choice is bad for me; 2. Hell yes I want to know if there's content on a web page that's unsecure, but apparently letting me choose to proceed or not is akin to puppy-murder; 3. Sure my word processor has a default font, but I also can choose to change that font at any time, which apparently sucks; and 4. I always have the choice of uninstalling the after-market stuff on my new PC and that's somehow a bad thing. Honestly...I just don't get his point.

We then get to his solution, which is to lock up the Android OS -- which Google built specifically to promote both piracy and quite possibly National Socialism -- just like iOS because the app business is hard and stuff.

"You can’t reliably have that revenue stream if the platform itself and the damaged philosophy behind it actively sabotages commerce. If you want a platform to be commercially viable for third-party software developers, you have to lock it down."

Except that Android isn't actively seeking to sabotage commerce. The very notion is absurd. There are plenty of ways Android app developers can and do make money. If Android was everything Gammell says it is, there wouldn't be more apps in its marketplace than there is for iOS. And the idea that Google has to lock their OS down so that app developers don't have to think is...you know what? I can't come up with a phrase or analogy to properly convey how mind-bendingly screwed up such thinking is.

Never do the other ways to make money as a developer (connect with your fans so they'll want to buy from you, offer in-app purchases, advertising models that work, etc.) seem to enter the equation. No, we're just told that Android is built for piracy, that only iOS can offer you a comparatively sound way to make money via app development (despite at least some anecdotal evidence to the contrary), and none of this has to do with developers recognizing the difference between the two platforms, their users, and how their business models should differ between platforms. And apparently Google should do this to Android despite it being the leading mobile OS on the market.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oracle Sues To Stop Lodsys Patent Trolling

Mike Masnick — Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:15:00 PDT

Oracle apparently has no sense of irony when it comes to patents. The day after a judge issued a complete smackdown in Oracle's "big" patent and copyright lawsuit against Google, Oracle has suddenly decided that it doesn't like patent bullies. Well, as long as the bully isn't Oracle. It filed its own case against Lodsys -- the quite infamous patent troll that has been threatening and suing tons of companies for daring to do in-app payments. Apparently, Lodsys has targeted Oracle customers and the company has had enough. It's actually good to see more tech companies fight back against Lodsys, but it does seem a bit odd on the timing for Oracle, given its over-emphasis on the importance of not violating patents in the earlier case.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Insanity: Apple Rejects Podcatching App Because It Has Flattr Integration

Mike Masnick — Fri, 1 Jun 2012 03:10:00 PDT

One purpose for which micropayment solution Flattr (which we use here on Techdirt) has certainly caught on is providing a way for people to support podcasts. Apparently, simple integration allowing people to designate some money for podcasters has just "felt right" for lots of users who do exactly that. And some podcasting/podcatching apps have tried to accommodate this. Instacast, a popular app for downloading and listening to podcasts on the iOS platform, integrated Flattr back in February, but in early May the arbitrary gatekeepers at Apple rejected the app because the Flattr integration went against Apple's demands that all in-app payments go through its own system. Vemedio (the makers of Instacast) along with the folks at Flattr appealed to Apple that this was ridiculous... but Apple issued a final decision rejecting the app. In response, Vemedio is very reluctantly removing Flattr from its app, meaning podcasters just lost a good way of making money, all because Apple can't control it. More evidence of Apple becoming a rather evil gatekeeper, rather than an enabler of new and interesting ideas.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: That's Edutainment!

Michael Ho — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:00:00 PDT

Some folks are out to actively dismantle (or disrupt) the existing education system, and the revolution in public education has only just started. Educational software is getting a lot of buzz for being able to motivate students and more accurately track their progress -- and for its potential to be incredibly cost effective (if everything works perfectly). Here are just a few examples of educational developments aimed at kids these days.

Educational apps are on every platform, but should parents really expect to pay more than couple bucks for a kid's app? Parents should also remember to make sure their kids can't rack up huge bills from in-app purchases. [url]
Experience points instead of grades sounds like an interesting idea, but a 4.0 grading scale is a much more established system -- and it's a bit more standardized. Prof Sheldon notes, "There will always be a portion of the class who will not be motivated to learn no matter what an instructor may try..." [url]
Can every class be taught as a video game? There are a bunch of startups like DimensionU that are going to find out soon enough. [url]
To discover more interesting education-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Apple Rejecting Apps That Use Dropbox Because Gasp! Users Might Sign Up For Dropbox Accounts

Mike Masnick — Wed, 2 May 2012 08:49:00 PDT

While I can understand why developers feel the need to conform to Apple's sometimes ridiculous (and often arbitrary) rules for iOS development, sometimes it really seems like Apple goes to highly questionable (and potentially legally questionable) lengths to reject certain apps. The latest, via Hackernews, is that Apple has been rejecting apps that make use of Dropbox's cloud storage system. The reasoning is particularly ridiculous:

Reason for rejection is the fact that if the user does not have Dropbox application installed then the linking authorization is done through Safari (as per latest SDK).

Once the user is in Safari it is possible for the user to click "Desktop version" and navigate to a place on Dropbox site where it is possible to purchase additional space.

Apple views this as "sending user to an additional purchase" which is against rules.

Dropbox is trying to work around Apple's excessive rules, but the whole thing seems a bit crazy. At some point you have to wonder when Apple is going to trip various antitrust rules about using its dominant position on the platform to hurt other companies. It seems developers are eventually going to recognize that, even with Apple's giant market, it might just be easier to focus on more reasonable and open platforms.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Digital Distribution: Exchanging Control For Convenience

Tim Cushing — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:37:18 PDT

Digital distribution can be a good thing, eliminating shipping, packaging, printing, storage, etc. and allowing instantaneous order fulfillment. Unfortunately, it has its downside, especially when digital products are tied to "walled gardens." The possibility always exists that the product you purchased, for all intents and purposes, never really belongs to you. We've seen it previously with Amazon's decision to suddenly remove purchased e-books from customers' e-readers.

Stuart Campbell at Wings over Sealand has another example of this unfortunate byproduct of digital distribution: the fact that you don't own what you've purchased. This means that at any time, for nearly any reason, the product you paid for can be rendered completely worthless.

In the case of iTunes, customers are not entitled to refunds on purchases, with the product in question being treated much in the same fashion as opened software, DVDs, etc. in brick-and-mortar stores. Once you've opened (installed) the product, it's yours forever, no matter how terrible it is.

"According to the iTunes Store Terms of Sale, all purchases made on the iTunes Store are ineligible for refund. This policy matches Apple's refund policies and provides protection for copyrighted materials."

In Campbell's case, the product in question isn't actually a bad piece of software, unlike the many clones and scamware inhabiting app markets. By his own account, he purchased and enjoyed the game (Touch Racing Nitro). After he purchased it, the developer (Bravo) went through a series of price adjustments, trying to find a sweet spot, ranging from £1.19 - £4.99. When this failed to make the impact on sales, Bravo offered a few free trial periods before marking it all the way down to 69p, which moved it back into the top 10 for a short time.

It's at this point that things get ugly.

Last October the game went free again, and stayed that way for four months. Then the sting came along. About a week ago (at time of writing), the game received an "update", which came with just four words of description - "Now Touch Racing Free!" As the game was already free, users could have been forgiven for thinking this wasn't much of a change. But in fact, the app thousands of them had paid up to £5 for had effectively just been stolen.

Two of the game's three racing modes were now locked away behind IAP paywalls, and the entire game was disfigured with ruinous in-game advertising, which required yet another payment to remove.

Campbell's paid-for software suddenly became indistinguishable from the free version, despite his having anted up for the game months ago. He fired off an email to Bravo, asking the developers to explain their reasoning for removing previously paid for content and asking these same paying customers to pay up again in order to return the game to its previous state.

He received a reply a day later from Ana Hidalgo, Bravo's "Social Media Manager":

"Hi!

Thanks for contacting us.

I'm really sorry about that. I knew that this could happen. The team had no option but to do that.

We're not trying to make money from people who have already bought the game like you did. It is not an excuse, but only 4% of the 2MM downloads have been paid ones. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't provide with any methods to know when an user has paid or not for an app. We just want to monetize the game from that 96% who are enjoying the game for free. Our goal is to monetize them via advertisement. We understand that this is annoying for the players that have paid for it.

Yes, maybe we could have released a LITE version, but if we release a new free version, we couldn't monetize near 2 MM free downloads we already have. And why we have 96% free downloads? A very bad old decision.. We've begun a new phase at Bravo Games and we definitely need some revenues from those downloads.

At the moment all our efforts are focused in new projects. When we finish those projects, we'll evaluate the possibility of adding new content to previous games like Touch Racing Nitro.

I regret to hear that you never buy another of our apps."

For all the supposed "entitlement" game fans have attributed to them constantly, nothing quite matches the entitlement "radiating from Sra. Hildalgo." For starters, if a developer feels that making an app free was a "mistake," it only compounds its errors when it starts taking it out on paying customers, especially when those customers number in the thousands.

If 96% of those were free downloads, that means that a whopping 80,000 people who paid money for Touch Racing have just been screwed. If we assume an arbitrary but reasonable average price of £1.19 (the second-lowest App Store price tier at the time most of the sales were made, though the app has cost at least twice that much for most of its life), that's just short of £100,000 that Bravo have extracted from consumers for what is in effect a "Lite" demo version of the game.

Imagine if the rest of the world worked this way. Imagine you went to Tesco and bought three boxes of Corn Flakes on a "three-for-two" offer, only for a Tesco employee to turn up at your house one day a month later and confiscate not only the "free" box but also the second one that you'd actually paid for. There'd be riots, or at the very least a long court backlog of assault cases and battered workers. Yet apparently, for videogames it's the dynamic economic model of the future.

Campbell is, unfortunately, right. Digital distribution puts control of purchased products completely in the hands of the developers and the distribution service. There are some game developers who would love nothing more than to go to 100% straight digital distribution, not only for the previously mentioned savings, but to allow them to retain complete control of their products. A fully digital distribution disguises DRM as a facet of the service (constant online connection, some or most content inaccessible offline) and helps eliminate the used game market which seems to rank very slightly below straight-up piracy in their minds.

Whatever pluses there are for the consumer are greatly negated by these factors. Any dispute between the distributor and the developers puts purchased products in the firing line. Should a developer suddenly pull out of the walled garden, customers may find themselves without support or updates for their purchased products, or worse yet, find themselves without functioning products.

Campbell has adjusted his tactics accordingly:

WoSland is a pretty wily consumer, and currently has eight apps sitting in its iPhone's "update" queue which are never going to get those updates, because the "update" in question is in fact a downgrade, removing functionality and/or adding ads. We've deleted many others altogether for the same reason.

Of course, this is far from convenient. Once you run into this situation, you're left with the choice of allowing all updates (even those that downgrade your software) or tediously updating all of your apps one at a time after verifying that said update won't remove functionality. Hardly ideal.

As he points out, console owners aren't so lucky. Most updates are forced, giving you the "choice" of updating or not playing your purchased game. And it's not just games and apps. As referenced above, e-books readers have been victims of distributor meddling in the past. Users of "services" like Ultraviolet and the "drive your DVD to the retailer to rip it to the cloud" may find their copies bricked if these services are shut down or (more likely) get caught in the middle of a contractual dispute.

If it's all about "control" with gatekeepers and walled gardens, digital distribution is playing right into their hands, turning what should be an advantageous situation for everyone involved into little more than a mixed curse.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Suing Google For Third-Party Android Apps That 'Promote Piracy'

Tim Cushing — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:46:30 PST

Who says the entertainment industry can't embrace new business models? From their ham-fisted attempts to make digital movie distribution less convenient than driving to the store and purchasing a DVD to their recent "collateral revamping" of various cloud services, the entertainment industry has never been more flexible.

Plagiarism Today points us to the bold new direction the entertainment industry will be heading in the future. More specifically, a bold new direction the entertainment industry's lawyers will be headed.

[A]t a charity luncheon for the Entertainment Law Initiative, which was raising money for the Grammy Foundation, there was a thunderous applause from the audience, mostly comprised of attorneys, over a paper regarding Android applications the promote piracy wondering why no lawsuits had been filed against Google for secondary liability. Though most of the other papers admitted only received scattered applause, that one seemed to whip the crowd into a frenzy, indicating the possibility that industry lawyers are considering such a tactic in the near future.

It's not an entirely new direction. Google is still the entertainment industry's favorite punching bag. But, hey, billable hours! New billable hours! Surely that's reason for a standing ovation! And a platform switch! Exciting!

A few more details emerged at the Wall Street Journal:

[T]he room went nuts during videotaped remarks by Ryanne E. Perio, a student at Columbia Law School, who wrote about Android smartphone apps that facilitate piracy.
During remarks describing her paper, Perio wondered aloud why offering those apps hadn't generated lawsuits against Android parent Google, for "secondary copyright infringement" - i.e. facilitating piracy.

There seems to be no link to Perio's actual paper, entitled, "Policing The Android Market: Why The Expanding DMCA May Harbor Google From Liability For Illegal File-Sharing Apps Available On Android," so it's unclear whether Perio is referencing the official Android app store or simply broadbrushing (+4 troll points) Google as co-conspirators on any piece of software compatible with the Android platform.

If it's the App Store angle, it's a bit like claiming Walmart is responsible for secondary infringement because they sell copies of Nero (not to mention computers, blank discs, cable modems and other tools of the pirate trade). If it's just because it's Google's platform, then it's about as meritous as suing Microsoft because ~~Limewire~~ Frostwire runs on Windows.

Of course, a lack of merit has never stopped a lawsuit. And it certainly has never stopped lawyers from racking up expensive hours constructing a variety of legal Spruce Gooses. Sadder still, it has never stopped a court from rendering a ridiculous decision in favor of the even more ridiculous plaintiffs.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Android App Helps You Avoid Supporting SOPA Supporting Companies

Mike Masnick — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 06:00:51 PST

While politicians continue to pretend that SOPA support is a minor issue, there's been more and more evidence that it's a big deal to an awful lot of people. For example, in just the past few weeks, there's been a Chrome add-on to tell you when you're browsing a site from a company that supports SOPA, as well as an Android app that will do the same thing via physical barcodes, to help people avoid buying products from companies who support SOPA. But, I'm sure the public doesn't really care about the law at all...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Senator Briefly Brings Fake Driver's License App To The Public Eye Before Having It 'Taken 'Round Back And Shot'

Tim Cushing — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:02:29 PST

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania has taken virtual pen in hand and crafted a letter to Tim Cook, Apple's new CEO, in order to ~~provide free advertising for~~ warn him about a possibly "rogue" app that allows iPhone users to create phony drivers' licenses.

He has a lot to say in his ~~full page ad~~ overly concerned email concerning "Drivers License" and waxes effusively about all the ~~fun~~ terrible things that could possibly happen should the app fall into the wrong hands. It's not simply a matter of a couple of kids going on a beer run. No, the "Drivers License" app could quite possibly tear down this great nation. From the inside.

Dear Mr. Cook:

I write to express my concern with "License" by DriversEd.com, an application available for download in Apple's App Store which can be used to create counterfeit identity documents. I believe this application poses a threat to public safety and national security, and I request that you remove it from the App Store immediately.

Sure, to the average iPhone user (who, until today, had most likely never even heard of this app), this piece of software looks like a clever little distraction that could be used to crank out replica IDs, only with cleavage, buttocks or buttock cleavage in place of the usual mug shot. Or perhaps the average user might whip up a couple of fake IDs for their 10-year-old twins in the interest of making them easier to tell apart.

Bob Casey sees it another way. The only purpose this app serves is to grease the wheels of a multitude of criminal and terrorist enterprises.

By downloading "License", anyone with an iPhone or iPad can easily manufacture a fake driver's license by taking a photo and inserting it into one of fifty state driver's licenses' templates. Users then have a high quality image resembling an actual driver's license which they can easily print, laminate, and use for any number of illegal and fraudulent activities.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. ... what?

"Laminate?"

I may not have done any actual research on this, but I'm fairly sure laminated state IDs went the way of the mimeograph machine and the Fourth Amendment. I'm guessing the only place a laminated ID is valid is at the community college book store and even then, the student discount does not apply to textbooks.

Today's typical state ID is a modern marvel, chock-full of holograms, magnetic strips and a thinly disguised Mark of the Beast.* It takes a bit more than some purloined office supplies to create a passable fake these days and your average inkjet just isn't up to the task.
*Bible Belt only.

Moving on:

While DriversEd.com markets the app as a fun game, it can also be used in a way that allows criminals to create a new identity, steal someone else's identity, or permit underage youth to purchase alcohol or tobacco illegally.

Once again, if a laminated fake is out there living your life in a ways you only dreamt possible, your beef is with those who accepted a laminated printout as a legitimate form of identification, not with the app that helped create this faux-you that went out skydiving/dynamite purchasing. This includes the staff at the bottle shop who have just become both everyday heroes and easy marks for hundreds of thirsty (and previously smoke-free) teenagers.

But the real issue here (among several other equally real issues, except that this is truly the REAL issue) is the threat this app poses to America!

National security systems depend on the trustworthiness of driver's licenses, yet with a counterfeit license created by this app, a terrorist could bypass identity verification by the Transportation Security Administration, or even apply for a passport.

Good lord! This isn't an app! It's an all-in-one terrorist creation kit! Your (probably) non-local terrorist need do nothing more than sign a 2-year contract with a cell phone company, download and install the app, take a couple of headshots, take a couple more headshots with Instagram for old-time lulz and then it's off to the explodey races!

But Bob isn't done yet. It's back to the original "real" problem:

By assisting in the creation of counterfeit driver's licenses, "License" threatens to ease deception by criminals and contribute to the rising problem of identity theft. Given these risks, I request that you remove this application from the App Store immediately, as well as any other available applications that allow users to create, steal or alter false identities.

So... all photo apps need to be deleted? Any photo editing software? Anything that could pull up a template or reference image for photo IDs? Like say, browser software? How about the built-in camera, Bob? Should that be removed as well? After all, it does take pictures, and as we have seen, a facial photo is the gateway drug to corrupting minors, racking up Mom's JC Penny card and attempting to detonate underwear bombs.

The best part about this overwrought letter? Thousands of people who had no idea something this much fun/trouble was available in the app store are now being informed that yes, such a thing exists and here's the link to purchase it. [No longer available. See below.] Does it ever occur to people like Senator Casey that maybe, just maybe, if no one else is worked up about something that maybe the best thing you could do, as a person in a position of power, is just let it go? Otherwise, Sen. Barbra, this is the sort of thing that happens. Everyone thinks you're ridiculous and the app in question enjoys a spike in popularity.

The lesson is: if you want to see something you'd like to get rid of go viral instead, just throw your weight around and start cranking out blustery emails to corporate CEOs.

PREPRESS UPDATE:

And Apple has killed the app. I suppose with millions of other apps still for sale there's no reason to make a stand for a single app. That doesn't make it any less disappointing to find out that with the right name signed to the bottom of a misguided letter is all it takes to get someone else's craftwork killed. I guess the real lesson is: ~~if you want to see something you'd like to get rid of go viral instead,~~ just throw your weight around ~~and start cranking out blustery emails to corporate CEOs~~.

Senator Casey takes a moment to congratulate himself over at his website:

"I urged Apple to take the responsible step of removing this dangerous app, and I'm pleased that the app is no longer available in the store," Senator Casey said. "As Pennsylvania and states across the country deal with the rising problem of identity theft, tools that facilitate breaking the law should not be available to potential criminals."

Roughly translated:

"I overreacted to something and now it is gone. We still have our work cut out for us dealing with the rising problem of identity theft and I am sure that pulling this app has done little to nothing towards fighting that problem. Instead, it has given the office of the Senator the appearance of Having Done Something, and in the end, isn't that what really matters?"

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt. Stories filed under "apps"

AT&T Says You Can Use Any Video Streaming App You Want... Just As Soon As It Can Get The Meter Running

Apple Threatens To Kick Out Comic Book App Over 'Adult' Content, Forcing Publisher To Pull 40% Of Its 4,000 Titles

No Nudity: Playboy's iPhone App To Test Men's 'For The Articles' Excuse

Google Play Flaw Gives App Developers Purchaser's Information

The Flipside: Embracing Closed Gardens Like The Apple App Store Shows Just How Un-Free You Want To Be

Racist Apps In Google's Play Store Test Just How Free You Want Speech To Be

Microsoft Sued Because It Overloaded Surface Tablet With Pre-Installed Apps

Privacy Case May Come Down To Whether It Costs $12k To Uninstall An iPhone App

Rovio Recognizes That Massive, Massive Volume At Cheap Prices Beats Low Sales At Inflated Prices

California Attorney General Uses Twitter To Threaten United Airlines With Possible Legal Action

FTC's Attempt To Broadly Expand Misguided Child Protection Law Will Chill Innovation

Apple Feels Reporting Drone Strikes 'Objectionable And Crude' And Rejects App

Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement

Apps Are Not Coffee

Google's App Crackdown Results In Indie Developer Smackdown

Turns Out That The iPad Won't Magically Bring Back Scarcity For Magazines

App Developer: Android OS Built For Piracy And Consumer Choice Sucks

Oracle Sues To Stop Lodsys Patent Trolling

Insanity: Apple Rejects Podcatching App Because It Has Flattr Integration

DailyDirt: That's Edutainment!

Apple Rejecting Apps That Use Dropbox Because *Gasp!* Users Might Sign Up For Dropbox Accounts

Digital Distribution: Exchanging Control For Convenience

Entertainment Industry Embraces New Business Model: Suing Google For Third-Party Android Apps That 'Promote Piracy'

Android App Helps You Avoid Supporting SOPA Supporting Companies

Senator Briefly Brings Fake Driver's License App To The Public Eye Before Having It 'Taken 'Round Back And Shot'

Apple Rejecting Apps That Use Dropbox Because Gasp! Users Might Sign Up For Dropbox Accounts