The important thing here is that Google *implied* their marketplace would be free in all respects. This $25 came as a surprise to just about everybody, even the people now supporting the decision, right?
Telling people to stop complaining and to host their own free apps on their own site isn't a terrible response, since that's how the real Internet works. But for Google to say it's to keep market activity "authentic" is either insincere or incorrect. It won't, and there are far better ways. -- Eric On Oct 25, 4:43 am, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, > > This would be superior way. I doubt google would go that far though. > We are all too used to doing things instantly. > > On Oct 25, 4:31 am, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Better solution; > > > 1) App developer registers supplying postal address & credit card details. > > 2) Google does an auth on the card details including an AVS check (AVS > > can be done outside the US). > > 3) Google sends a PIN/Password to the supplied postal address. > > 4) Developers have to enter the PIN/Password before being able to list apps. > > > This gives a few advantages; > > > - Google does an auth but doesn't send the transaction for settlement. > > This means the developer isn't charged. > > - The use of AVS and sending a PIN/Password to the address by post means > > that if something bad does happen the police have a place to start > > looking with a reasonable level of certainty that someone at that > > address knows something. > > > If Google wanted to cover their costs they could charge $5 instead of > > just doing an auth. > > > The big problem as I can see it with the current system is that there is > > not verification of the information used to log into the AppStore, so a > > malicious developer could register using a credit card, supply the card > > holders address, but because nothing is sent to that address the real > > card hold may know nothing about it. By sending a PIN/Password to the > > address and requiring it's use before the account is live you get a > > higher level of confidence that the card holder is the developer. > > > Al. > > > P.S. for more on AVS > > seehttp://www.outsidethecode.com/faq/address_verification.aspx, and despite > > what the article says you can get AVS in non-US countries, the UK had it > > in place before it was widely adopted in the US. > > > Incognito wrote: > > > Yeah, I guess there are a lot of ways to defeat this. But that still > > > leaves a trail. Is better than just leaving the doors wide open. > > > Notice that rather then just posting the bad app the developer still > > > has to go through the extra steps of stealing the clone card. Every > > > extra step just makes it a bit more dificult and probably increases > > > the chances of getting caught. For that matter, $25 dollars and $199 > > > dollars is not that big of a difference for somebody creating a > > > malicious app if they have the potentail to make thousands of dollars. > > > It is still to soon to tell but so far I have not heard of any > > > malicious apps posted in the Apple AppStore. Rather, they are trying > > > to attack it from the outside. > > > > On Oct 25, 3:52 am, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Incognito, > > > >> Following scenario; > > > >> 1) Malicious developer registers using cloned card details. > > >> 2) Approval takes a day (much longer and Google are going to start > > >> getting complaints). > > >> 3) Straight after approval developer posts "useful" app which uses > > >> contacts database. > > >> 4) Whilst doing useful functionality it posts contact details to a > > >> server in Russia/China/Nigeria/..... > > >> 5) Once cloned card details or app functionality are discovered app is > > >> pulled. > > > >> or you could replace 3 and 4 with; > > > >> 3) Straight after approval developer posts dialler application which > > >> dials premium rate calling service (not necessarily in the US). > > >> 4) Every call made using costs the user and benefits the developer > > > >> Between 1 and 5 they could make a lot of money. > > > >> See my point? > > > >> Al. > > > >> Incognito wrote: > > > >>> AI, > > > >>> I'm going under the assumption here that if they use a payment method > > >>> that does not hide their identity we will at least be able to keep > > >>> track of the bad guys. Spammers never give out their identity if they > > >>> can help it because they will get black listed very quickly. > > > >>> On Oct 25, 3:30 am, Al Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>> Personally I don't think $25 is going to protect anyone, as has been > > >>>> said already $25 isn't a lot of money, and all the fee will do is > > >>>> attract malicious software which is aimed to make money quickly to > > >>>> cover > > >>>> the cost. > > > >>>> Spammers will pay upto $1 per email, and premium rate call routing > > >>>> services can cost the earth per minute. I think that when we see > > >>>> malware > > >>>> (and it will be a when not an if), it'll hit hard and hit fast to > > >>>> ensure > > >>>> the $25 is recouped as quickly as possible. > > > >>>> Al. > > > >>>> Muthu Ramadoss wrote: > > > >>>>> Here's my take: > > > >>>>> 1. Google, take the 25$.. keep the market clean. > > >>>>> 2. Run a monthly contest, and award say like 100$ for the best app of > > >>>>> the month. > > > >>>>> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:17 AM, Incognito <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > >>>>> Guys, > > > >>>>> First of all, I'm back! Second of all, what is up with the > > >>>>> whining? > > >>>>> $25 dollars is not bad at all. It will help keep everybody honest. > > >>>>> Specially if anybody is trying to to post malicious apps. As > > >>>>> mentioned > > >>>>> by other people, you do not have to post your app in the android > > >>>>> market. Go ahead and host it in your own website. > > > >>>>> On Oct 24, 5:22 pm, "Shane Isbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > >>>>> > The problem is less the money but more the situation. You had a > > >>>>> lot of > > >>>>> > developers come in last November when Android was nothing but a > > >>>>> buggy SDK. > > >>>>> > These developers worked their tails off (in part because of the > > >>>>> money Google > > >>>>> > was dangling in their faces), some quit there jobs, wreaked > > >>>>> their lives for > > >>>>> > it. Then when the ADC was over, Google had a bunch of apps and a > > >>>>> largely > > >>>>> > tested SDK. Google could now go to the carriers and say, "We > > >>>>> have something > > >>>>> > to offer." > > > >>>>> > Then Google clammed up, withheld the SDK, didn't tell the > > >>>>> community about it > > >>>>> > and refused to respond to answers when it became known. Strike > > >>>>> 1. > > > >>>>> > Then the developers waited for the open system to deliver their > > >>>>> apps and be > > >>>>> > able to compete against those on the inside track. Google > > >>>>> witheld that > > >>>>> > option as well: Strike 2 > > > >>>>> > Now we find out about the 30% witholding and 25 dollar fees. > > >>>>> It's not that > > >>>>> > these are very different than industry norms, but to some > > >>>>> developers, who > > >>>>> > were sacrificing so much, to find out they were a tool for > > >>>>> validating > > >>>>> > Android for Google, only to have to start shoving money out of > > >>>>> their pocket, > > >>>>> > adds salt to the wound. Maybe Google should donate that 25 fee > > >>>>> to a good > > >>>>> > cause, if its just to discourage bad apps from the app market. I > > >>>>> also think > > >>>>> > Google should wave the fee for all ADC entrants, after all > > >>>>> haven't they > > >>>>> > proven their commitment to the platform? > > > >>>>> > Shane > > > >>>>> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Ed Burnette > > >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > Not to worry, you can always host a .apk file on your web site > > >>>>> (taking > > >>>>> > > care to give it the right MIME type) and educate people to > > >>>>> turn on the > > >>>>> > > "Allow install of non-Market applications" option. Or use one > > >>>>> of the > > >>>>> > > other app stores. Or stick a Paypal donate button on your > > >>>>> site and > > >>>>> > > collect $25 from fans then use that to pay Google. Lots of > > >>>>> options. > > > >>>>> > > On Oct 22, 3:12 pm, "Ewan Grantham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > > Well, I'm going to have to seriously rethink releasing a > > >>>>> free application > > >>>>> > > if > > >>>>> > > > I have to pay for the privilege. Yes, I know I can use the > > >>>>> alternate > > >>>>> > > markets > > >>>>> > > > if I don't want to pay, but that cuts out a lot of potential > > >>>>> users. > > > >>>>> > > > Would have been nice to have been told about this before I: > > >>>>> > > > a) coded the app > > >>>>> > > > b) put it in the wild on a couple of the alternate > > >>>>> marketplaces > > > >>>>> > > > because now I either have to withdraw and resubmit, or > > >>>>> decide it's not > > >>>>> > > > something worth the trouble. > > > >>>>> > > > Anyone who has pulled down a copy of "Mars Lander" care to > > >>>>> tell me > > >>>>> > > > (privately at my email address, not through the list) if you > > >>>>> think it's > > >>>>> > > > worth a couple of bucks or not? > > > >>>>> > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Mark Murphy > > >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>>>> > > >wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > > Al Sutton wrote: > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> >http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-market-now-ava. > > >>>>> > > .. > > > >>>>> > > > > Even more than the $25 is the 30% cut for the carriers. > > >>>>> That definitely > > >>>>> > > > > leaves plenty of room for competing markets, particularly > > >>>>> if developers > > >>>>> > > > > pass some of the savings on to the consumers. > > > >>>>> > > > > -- > > >>>>> > > > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) > > >>>>> > > > >http://commonsware.com > > >>>>> > > > > _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version > > >>>>> 1.3 Published!- > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
