Leaked documents purport to detail the terms and conditions for Amazon's rumoured Android app store, and it seems the former bookseller is taking mobile applications very seriously indeed. The terms and conditions were leaked to the Slashgear blog, and bear out earlier rumours that Amazon would be charging developers a one-time …
What a waste...
Why bother making 5 or 6 other stores when we already have 1 with access to every compatible app?
It's throwing money away
Because not all devices can be compatible
Archos devices are not compatible because they are designed for multimedia playback and don't carry hardware like GPS & compass. I don't see that as a reason to exclude them from using the marketplace app but that's exactly the situation right now. The standard marketplace app is only suitable for compliant devices and as Android walks into PMP / tablet land there are less and less of devices that match the spec. In other regards they might be perfectly compliant.
The market place app already filters apps based on screen size and some other attributes, so why not also filter on things like compass, GPS, hardware support for certain codecs and so on.
What a tit...
Why? Because you cannot get into the google store without a google account, not even for the free stuff. As soon as you have an account and log in google can start slurping all your data from your phone and profiling you.
Even if you use a John Doe google account do you trust google not to pull your phone number off your phone and cross reference that? I don't. All it takes is for your real name and phone no to be somewhere, anywhere on the web and bingo bango google know who you really are. Think I'm paranoid? Look in the settings for the google market app, see what it can access. Basically, everything.
Thanks but I'll keep my privacy.
Companies have been profiling people since the dawn of time, every time you buy something from Amazon they know who you are, what you like, what size pants you wear.
Finance companies are the worst, having access to all your financial details is way more powerful than looking at crap you have on your phone.
The thing that gets me is people lay their lives bare on places like Facebook and nobody bats an eyelid. Google takes note of the type of sites you visit and everyone acts like its a cardinal sin. (There are opt-out options to stop this by the way).
The market app acts as the installer, so yes, it does need access to everything. And yes, you are paranoid.
>Why bother making 5 or 6 other stores when we already have 1 with access to every compatible app?
We don't have access to every compatible App for a start, but another reason is because there are already millions of Android devices in S/SE Asia which don't have access to the official store - installing MarketPlace on uncertified hardware is quite tricky.
There are already several Android stores with their own Market type applications - http://slideme.org/ being about the best of the bunch. Its the one most frequently pre-installed on Android devices which can't access the official store.
Yes, it does come preinstalled on most phones ... but I think it doesn't for tablets as they have screens of larger resolution to the max Goggle have set for the marketplace.
Also, possible Amazon may be proposing to do some screening of apps so that they're lists contain more useful apps rather than 1000x the same basic slide the blocks puzzle with a different picture.
Unless Amazon can sign up EVERY phone maker (highly ulikely), they won't have anywhere near the userbase of the default Android Marketplace, and at $100 for dev accounts, they won't have the devs or apps either.
Sd for Tablets and Android Marketplace, the Android SDK (1.6 onwards) supports different display resolutions to support tablets.
The reason that tablets don't have the Android Marketplace, is that only Google approved devices can connect to the Google Marketplace (calling it Android Marketplace is rather misleading, as whilst anyone can make something than runs Android, Google get to pick and choose who can access their marketplace). That said, there is nothing stopping Android supporting multiple app stores, however I personally feel it will lead to confusion, and everything else will always be second fiddle to Googles own offering.
More likely they're gearing up to launch their own device?
Just speculating, of course, but the Kindle has proved that they can organise design and production of their own devices and that they have a platform that allows them to sell the things. I'm not sure what they'll do about the screen though — presumably if they went Android it'd be an LCD-type affair, which would severely complicate the Kindle message to consumers.
Google are not helping themselves here
The standard Android marketplace app is only shipped on a device that has passed the compatibility test suite (CTS). That's fine and dandy except the CTS is specifically written to define phone devices. What about tablet devices? What about set top boxes? What about esoteric devices like picture frame / alarm clocks? What about...? The CTS really needs to define classes of devices with core and standard profiles of compliance.
At the moment if an android device does not implement the mandatory phone features required by the CTS then it can't ship the marketplace app. That's why some tablets are implementing some peculiar features like GPS when there isn't a reason to. In turn that drives up costs to end users.
That's why AppsLib has sprung up and some other reputable alternatives. There also some disreputable and probably downright dangerous alternatives too.
Google need to fix the CTS NOW. Tablets are shipping right this minute and are falling through the cracks. Even if Android 3.0 is a while away, Google need to address the needs of tablets and adjust the CTS accordingly. Otherwise tablet devices won't bother passing the CTS and they won't bother shipping the marketplace app. If that happens they may not bother with any compatibility testing at all and things will fragment even further.
I thought the ability to make voice calls was ...
the criteria for having access to Google Apps.
The choice of alternative App stores will only enhance Android as speciality stores devoting themselves to certain areas of application use will make choice easier.
As for any membership fee, count me out. I don't pay to go shopping in a bricks and mortar shop and I won't pay to shop on-line, either.
The membership fee is for developers to list their applications in the store.
In your analogy, it's a supplier paying a fee to sell their products through a supermarket.
Suppliers do "pay a fee" to sell their products
It's usually call a "co-marketing" fee. See the numerous complains about supermarkets forcing their suppliers to pay them money for putting products on the shelves.
It should be a fee OR commission
I agree that if the Apps are commisionable to the store they should be allowed in free. These App tores rely on the labours of App writers .and good apps are an asset to a store not another cow to milk.
Good news imo
One store means no incentive to innovate.
Neither the android marketplace or the apple appstore are exactly easy to navigate and find apps - marketing is about how you display things not just what you have to display.
I give it 18 months before Apple follow suit.
You'll be waiting more than 18 months
If Apple see good ideas elsewhere, they'll simply incorporate the good ideas into their own products. See e.g. Sherlock/Watson or iBooks/Delicious Library/Classics, those being the first two examples that jump to mind.
And if it's just navigation that's an issue, you can solve that with any of the web-based front ends. Hopping to a specific product within the app store is just a URL away, and I'd be highly surprised if they didn't have exactly the same thing on the Google Marketplace, it not exactly being an innovation.
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- Vid Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- You stupid BRICK! PCs running Avast AV can't handle Windows fixes