We have never said it's to "keep market activity authentic". I am not quite sure what you mean by "authentic" in this case.
The purpose of requiring a Checkout buyer's account is to establish some baseline authentication and identity verification of the people uploading applications. (The process of signing up for Google Checkout includes a basic identity verification check.) The one-time $25 registration fee partially defrays the operating and transaction costs of the Market. We realize that the $25 fee is an inconvenience to many developers, but it's a necessary compromise to keep the Market quality high. - Dan On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Eric Mill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 ยป > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
