But using Rockstar's trademarked logo and product names is against the law and should not be allowed, whether the app is malicious or not.Houseman said:
Android Users Should Avoid These GTA 5 Apps
- Thread starter Josh Engen
- Start date
A lot of phones running Android are cheap feature phones, and the users don't tend to use apps as much as iOS users do. So, going by the raw installed base is not the best measure to use. It's kind of like with the Wii - there are more Wiis out there, but not as many third-party games are made for it, because Wii users don;t tend to buy games as much as PS3 or Xbox users.Cheeseman Muncher said:
The other thing is that the developers may have had more experience with iOS than Android development - and being that there are fewer different types of iOS devices, there are fewer complications, compared to developing for the number of vastly different hardware models in the Android world. This is not an uncommon thing - in fact it's typical for apps to be released on iOS before Android. For many of these reasons, especially for paid or premium apps, for which iOS has a much bigger market.
It hasn't been the Android Marketplace for 2 years now, it's now the Google Play Store. If you're to have any credibility when attempting to slam a mobile store, at least get the name right.Josh Engen said:
Secondly, the person to blame for this is the user. Before install, every app has to have permissions reviewed and okay'd explicitly by the user. Not being suspicious why a GTA 5 app would want to see everything and the kitchen sink on your phone is nobodies fault but your own.
The Play Store is an open place, like the Android OS is. That makes it susceptible to malware making its way on there. That's why Android has in it multiple things like "don't allow apps from unkown sources", built in malware scanner to Android, a number of AV apps, and the permissions system. They are all tools to help you protect yourself from this sort of stuff. If you don't use those tools wisely, there's no one to blame but yourself.
That initial statement is entirely dependent on the market. It's true in emergent markets. But in established western markets, most Android phones are high to mid range smart phones.Aardvaarkman said:
Speaking as someone who has done Android development:
The issue of fragmentation is just as prevalent on iDevices as it is on Android, it just comes in a different form. Android has a built in framework designed for compatibility, and all phones need to go through a framework compatibility check before they are licensed to be called a real "Android device", as opposed to a device that simply uses the Android OS.
I have no experience in iOS development, but have spoken to professional iOS developers:
iOS is actually more difficult to develop for, since the XCode framework and iOS API's are relatively difficult to work with. Couple that with the fact that you're basically expected to retain backwards compatibility to, at least, the iPhone 4 and iPad 2, and you have yourself a fragmentation issue as bad as Android to get around. XCode has almost nothing in the way of compatibility libraries like Android has. Simply being able to update most devices to iOS 7 is one thing, but the feature loss the older you get in device terms is another, until it gets to the point where you may as well not have bothered.
The only reason why people often make apps for iOS first is not from an issue of ease of development, but because iOS is still ahead of Android in terms of people willing to spend money on apps (though that gap is closing, due to a larger amount of high end smart phones running Android coming out and enticing previous iOS users).
It's impossible to scoff at the Android Marketplace, since it no longer exists.Infernal Lawyer said:
Just so you know, Google handle the Play Store administration. Their primary goal is for it to be an open store, where anybody can submit apps to, unlike iOS which is heavily curated by Apple to allow apps that only suit them.
That openness creates susceptibility for crap like this getting on. Google's Bouncer program, a server side AV checker is still not fully implemented, and they must tread lightly with it anyway, unless they too heavily get involved in curating their open system.
Like I said above, Google has provided in Android a set of tools, including the permissions system, for the user to identify stuff like this. If a game guide app is asking to see your contacts and SMS messages, you might not want to install it. If you do, then you've only yourself to blame when all your contacts start getting odd text messages that are charging you £1.50 a time.
They certainly should be. They are offering a service where they distribute applications. It should be up to them to check that the applications that they are offering are legitimate. Just as any website owner has a duty to ascertain whether its content is non-infringing.Houseman said:
After all, if you run a restaurant, it's up to you to not serve customers poisonous or disease-ridden food. The restaurant doesn't get a free pass by saying that it's up to the customer to report their death before they remove the dangerous food. The restaurant gets shut down if they do that.
It seems to me that Google just wants all of the benefits and profit, but with none of the responsibility.
To be honest, the permision reviewing is kinda crap for androids. the way androids work is sometimes you need very vierd services to acess some simple things. when installing a game asks you for a clock permission only to find out it wants to know the time of the day (something that it doesnt tell you) its really annoying. half the permissions from programs i use i dont even know what for. and letsn ot forget "need acess to maps to use your GPS" crap.Griffolion said:
The whole android system of permissions need a desperate rework and secondly there needs to be a way for the program creator (i refuse to call them apps! app is a cracking program meant to hack into regular programs and use them illegaly, but phone market seems to have taken over this name now) to explain the permissions. you should be able to add comment to every permission that would show up when the user is asked to review permissions.
ALso user should be able to pick and choose. for example i would like to install a certain program but does not give it acess to my GPS. the program woudl work fine without it, i dont want this particular boscure function it uses it for. but no, i must take it all or none. from a user perspective this is bullshit.
I love android, but theres A LOT that can be done better.
P.S. i think it should have kept the android marketplace name. at least that one told you what it is. google play store sounds something like store that sells games made by google. but google keeps renaming its products all the time i noticed. like the recent talk rename.
By this logic, Escapist should run now and crosscheck my avatar with every copyright on earth in vain hopes that it will find somone using exact same picture. how many new users escapist gets a day? 100? more? they would need hundreds of people to do this.Aardvaarkman said:
No, they wouldn't. All they'd have to do is contact the company submitting the content, and check whether it is the legitimate company submitting the app.Houseman said:
Except the Youtube model doesn't work. It isn't effective in protecting copyright, and it isn't effective in protecting Fair Use.
Well, I don;t get "mad," but Youtube shouldn't be hosting a lot of the content that it does. It's one of the worst sites on the internet when it comes to ethics and quality.
Except for the fact that they aren't.
I'd prefer a legal marketplace over some dodgy "open" marketplace. What exactly do you mean by "open"?
Would you be happy if your local farmer's market sold you carrots laced with cyanide? Wouldn't want to impede the "open" market, after all. Who cares if you're not getting what's advertised, as long as it's open, right?
If they need so many employees that it is uneconomical to run a legal business, then maybe they should not run the business in the first place?Strazdas said:
After all, running an illegal drug manufacturing business entails quite a few expenses and risks. You need manufacturers, you need smugglers, you need enforcers. So, by that logic, we should abolish all drug laws, because it makes it more difficult to run a drug cartel?
And that doesn't just apply to illegal activity. Many perfectly legal businesses are required to comply with laws and regulations that require hundreds of of employees to manage. I'm not sure when "requiring hundreds of employees" to enforce became an excuse to break the law.
I can write a program in an afternoon and post it on Google Play Store and i have never had a "legitimate company".Aardvaarkman said:
I'd prefer a legal dictatorship over some dodgy "open" democracy. i guess we both wont get what we want.
Open means that anyone can publish, opposite to apple alternative where you can publish only if they like it.
Well, i guess we should shut down the internet then.
The benefits of such business far outweigh the shotcomings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
And the benefit of such requirements outweigh the costs. however in the case of crosschecking every logo/avatar submitted it does not.
Law in theory at least should be a set of rules most beneficial to the state, not some abitrary order that everyone must obey no matter the cost. If the law creates more problems than it solves, it is a bad law and should be abolished.
And that's a serious problem for Android and the Google Play store. And it's one of the main reason it's riddled with malware, fake and fraudulent applications.Strazdas said:
Strawman. Laws and rules don't imply a dictatorship.
Indeed. But trademark law is not bad law. It doesn't create more problems than it solves. In fact, it's very helpful because it helps people determine that they are actually buying the product they want to buy, and not a knock-off. If it wasn't enforced, there would be dozens of companies selling, for example, cars with the BMW trademark, that are not made to BMW specifications.
Trademark is one of the better laws out there. And it's certainly a lot better than copyright law, which has become rather degraded.
I agree that trademark law is a good law. i however disagree with your suggested responsibility shifting. Trademark owner is repsonsible for keeping and protecting its trademark. There is a reason laws are introduced that trademarks go bust if they are undefended when copies appear. it should be up to the trademark owner to locate and identify such activities, at which point they should request google to take them down and google would. it is however not googles responsibilities to protect other peoples trademarks.Aardvaarkman said:
Ability to self-publish is not a problem but a healthy feature.