Recently in Google Category

The recent hype and hullaballoo surrounding the Amazon Appstore has made me think. Do I ever really want to post any of my apps there? Short answer: No, never. Here's why.

First of all, I am immediately turned off by the sign up process. It says that initial sign up is free, but then after a year it will automatically charge you $100? I see a few problems with that. One, is there a way to cancel my account? I don't believe there is. I believe that, once you sign up for it, you're going to loose $100 to them per year no matter what you do. And secondly, $100? A person can get on the Android marketplace for $25, and that's a once per lifetime purchase. Simply for the money reasons, I won't be signing up.

Second, what's the real draw behind the Amazon AppStore? It says Amazon on it? That's not enough for me. The Android Market comes preinstalled on every android device that gets made. The Amazon market gets preinstalled on no devices, and can't even work on most AT&T droids. I don't see why, then, I should publish there.

Another problem with the appstore, which is a minor one, is the fact that there is no easy way to remove an app from sale. One has to go through an email channel, and plead to have an app removed from sale. Every other appstore has an easy way to remove it from sale, in most cases just a button. Even the struggling AppWorld has this. Seriously, amazon. Get with it.

Lastly, the free app of the day. This is the thing that's been getting the most negative publicity. Amazon, every day, decides to take one paid app and make it free for every Amazon AppStore customer. As a consumer, this is great. "Free apps!!" everyone says. But from a developer standpoint, this is really scary. Everyone will download your app for free. What if 1,000 people download your $1.99 app? You're out a large sum of money. Why? Amazon doesn't give you anything but free marketing, and no profit as a result of being the free app of the day. As a developer, i have no desire to loose all my possible profit for an app I put time into. No way.

In short, i will never put any of my apps on the Amazon AppStore. I see absolutely no compelling reason to do so, and even more reasons to stay far away.

All for now!

Well, the 2010 holidays have come and gone. For me, they were a time to spend with family, and also playing with my newest gadgets and tech. So here, I offer you a roundup of the neat things I got, and recommend that you go and check some of these things out for yourself.

First of all, we got, for our house, a new Hitachi TV. It's pretty swell, but that's not what I want to talk about. Remember way back when, when I had said that we had gotten a Logitech Revue from Adobe MAX? Well, a few weeks ago that arrived, but we were still without a tv to plug it in to. Well, that has changed.

We hooked it up, it completed its system updates, and within 20 minutes we were rolling. At first impression, it's a very slick and refined system. You can set it up to connect to your netflix account, cable box, tv, stereo system, and just about anything else that can be controlled. Currently, we have it set up to control only our TV, as the basic cable we subscribe to does not come with a cable box. Now, many people had complained about the controller that goes with the Revue. I do agree on some level with their complaints (i.e. it's bulky, and almost too big), but to a much larger level I do not agree. Honestly, I enjoy being able to sit down on my couch and dial up a youtube video or web address without having to use the keypad on my remote. Having the full keyboard there is extremely helpful. Pair this entire system with the logitech harmony app for iPhone or Android, and you have a perfect home entertainment system. I highly recommend this one.

The next thing I received is a Seagate FreeAgent GoFlex. This drive has 1TB of storage, which is about triple what I had before. Half of this drive is now my Time Machine backup, and the other half has become my main unit for external storage. I don't have much to say about this drive, except that it's fast, reliable, and small. I highly recommend this one too.

Lastly, the thing that I liked the most was the Nook. For those of you who don't know, the nook is essentially Barnes & Noble's answer to the rest of the E-Reader market. Now, I did not get a NOOKColor, nor did I want one. I don't have much faith in an LCD display being as readable as an E-Paper display. I trust those much more. So far, it is a very fast, ver versatile e-reader. I can from it very easily download books off the B&N market, and also use Borders Desktop to sync books to it from the Borders eBook store. The E-Paper display seems to be very quick to refresh, and the small touchscreen on the bottom also seems much more responsive than I had expected it to be. This too, I highly recommend for any student or anyone who reads a lot and doesn't like to carry around many books.

In the end, the holidays went pretty well for me. What about for you? Let everyone know how your holidays turned out in the comments!

All for now!

As everyone out there on the internet already probably knows, Adobe this year at their annual MAX conference has given out some pretty fantastic prizes. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend MAX this year, however my father, James, is currently there. So what has he come away with? Well, here's the major things.

First, at yesterday's keynote address, amidst a slew of announcements about new features in the Flash and Flex platform, Adobe gave all MAX attendees a free Motorola Droid 2. Their hope in doing this is that everyone will take these fancy new devices and install AIR and get developing with the new version of Flash Builder that the announced. Flash Builder "Burrito", as it's called, has the Flex SDK 4.5 Hero built in. It has built in a template for an AIR for android AIR application. I have yet to try building for this, as my small Motorola Backflip cannot handle AIR. Once James gets home with the Droid, I hope to try it out and post some videos of how to get an AIR app running.

Yesterday the also announced some fantastic new technologies that will be built into Flash player. First of which was completely accelerated 3D graphic in flash running at 0% CPU. That's amazing. Now, for me, that will not make a difference as I still have an ancient macbook and just watching youtube videos makes my computer's fans go into overdrive. Also they officially announced AIR for TV. I have a feeling that this will eventually be installed onto Google TV devices as an additional platform for building apps.

In addition to this, at the end of the keynote address today, every MAX attendee received a free Logitech Revue with Google TV. This really is a fantastic giveaway. It shows that Adobe is really pushing towards alternative technologies to iOS for entertainment. Again, I haven't tried this out for myself, but once I have one in the house, I will try it out and post some videos.

In all, it seems from afar as if this year's Adobe MAX conference is turning out to be quite the fantastic experience. It's too bad I missed it!

All for now!

I'm not sure if anyone has seen this yet, but if you go to Google right now, and click the "I'm feeling Lucky" button with no search terms entered, a strange thing happens. Watch this...

What is it counting down to? The Google Code Freeze? The end of the world? Or is it just the new year.. You decide.

All for now!

Google,New Year,End of the World

From www.macrumors.com:

CNET reports that Apple, Google, and twenty other companies have been sued by Eolas Technologies for patent infringement related to the use of browser plug-ins and Ajax to offer interactive content in Web browsers. The move comes several years after the conclusion of a similar lawsuit brought against Microsoft that resulted in an initial $521 million judgment in favor of Eolas, although the suit was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
Eolas' suit is not to be taken lightly. Although the earlier Microsoft case took many years to resolve, and Eolas by no means won a complete victory, the patent involved did overall withstand heavy legal challenges despite many on the Web rallying to Microsoft's aid. Microsoft and Eolas won't describe terms of their 2007 settlement of the patent case, but Eolas did say it expected to pay its shareholders a 2007 dividend afterward.

The Microsoft suit, as well as the new one targeting Apple and others, focused on a patent held by Eolas stemming from work performed by Eolas founder Michael Doyle while at the University of California, San Francisco. The patent, which covers the use of such technologies as Flash and Java plug-ins, was the subject of intense scrutiny during the trial and was initially overturned by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before being reinstated and serving as the basis of the judgment against Microsoft.

The new suit also includes the use of Ajax Web development techniques for which Eolas has recently received a second patent as an extension of the original. Defendants in the new suit include Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, Go Daddy, Google, J.C. Penney, JPMorgan Chase, Office Depot, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises, Staples, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Yahoo, and YouTube.

From my mind:

As far as I can tell, Adobe and Apple probably won't pay them for this, and the suit will just die out over the course of years. As far as Google goes, they might pay up, because they have enough money in the bank.

I heard about this patent a few months ago and quickly dismissed it as uninforcable. However, it is clearly attempting to be enforced, and we'll just have to see what happens later on.

Seriously, how do they expect to shut down all of Flash and all RIAs?

All for now!

Adobe,Apple,Flash,Flash Killer,RIA,Eolas Lawsiut,Eolas vs. World

I know it's been a while since the Apple-FCC conversation over the google voice app, but here's the text anyway. this text retrieved directly from Apple.com.

Today Apple filed with the FCC the following answers to their questions.

We are pleased to respond to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s inquiry dated July 31, 2009, requesting information regarding Apple’s App Store and its application approval process. In order to give the Bureau some context for our responses, we begin with some background information about the iPhone and the App Store.

Apple’s goal is to provide our customers with the best possible user experience. We have been able to do this by designing the hardware and software in our products to work together seamlessly. The iPhone is a great example of this. It has established a new standard for what a mobile device can be—an integrated device with a phone, a full web browser, HTML email, an iPod, and more, all delivered with Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch user interface.

Apple then introduced something altogether new—the App Store—to give consumers additional functionality and benefits from the iPhone’s revolutionary technology. The App Store has been more successful than anyone could have ever imagined. Today, just over a year since opening, the App Store offers over 65,000 iPhone applications, and customers have downloaded over 1.5 billion applications.

The App Store provides a frictionless distribution network that levels the playing field for individual and large developers of mobile applications. We provide every developer with the same software that we use to create our own iPhone applications. The App Store offers an innovative business model that allows developers to set their own price and keep more (far more in most cases) of the revenue than traditional business models. In little more than a year, we have raised the bar for consumers’ rich mobile experience beyond what we or anyone else ever imagined in both scale and quality. Apple’s innovation has also fostered competition as other companies (e.g., Nokia, Microsoft, RIM, Palm and Verizon) seek to develop their own mobile platforms and launch their own application stores.

Apple works with network providers around the world so that iPhone users have access to a cellular network. In the United States, we struck a groundbreaking deal with AT&T in 2006 that gives Apple the freedom to decide which software to make available for the iPhone. This was an industry first.

We created an approval process that reviews every application submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to protect consumer privacy, safeguard children from inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Some types of content such as pornography are rejected outright from the App Store, while others such as graphic combat scenes in action games may be approved but with an appropriate age rating. Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.

We’re covering new ground and doing things that had never been done before. Many of the issues we face are difficult and new, and while we may make occasional mistakes, we try to learn from them and continually improve.

In response to your specific questions, we would like to offer the following:

Question 1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store? In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected? Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

The following applications also fall into this category.

• Name: GVDialer / GVDialer Lite
  Developer: MobileMax
  info@mobile-mx.com
• Name: VoiceCentral
  Developer: Riverturn, Inc.
  4819 Emperor Blvd., Suite 400
  Durham, NC 27703
• Name: GV Mobile / GV Mobile Free
  Developer: Sean Kovacs
  sean@seankovacs.com

We are continuing to study the Google Voice application and its potential impact on the iPhone user experience. Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Apple’s Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its “Google-branded” user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices.

Question 2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?

Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.

Question 3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?

Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.

There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T’s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T’s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.

Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?

Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T’s 3G network.

Question 5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons? Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers? If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?

In a little more than a year, the App Store has grown to become the world’s largest wireless applications store, with over 65,000 applications. We’ve rejected applications for a variety of reasons. Most rejections are based on the application containing quality issues or software bugs, while other rejections involve protecting consumer privacy, safeguarding children from inappropriate content, and avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Given the volume and variety of technical issues, most of the review process is consumed with quality issues and software bugs, and providing feedback to developers so they can fix applications. Applications that are fixed and resubmitted are approved.

The following is a list of representative applications that have been rejected as originally submitted and their current status:

• Twittelator, by Stone Design Corp., was initially rejected because it crashed during loading, but the developer subsequently fixed the application and it has been approved;
• iLoveWiFi!, by iCloseBy LLC, was rejected because it used undocumented application protocols (it has not been resubmitted as of the date of this letter);
• SlingPlayer Mobile, by Sling Media, was initially rejected because redirecting a TV signal to an iPhone using AT&T’s cellular network is prohibited by AT&T’s customer Terms of Service, but the developer subsequently fixed the application to use WiFi only and it has been approved; and
• Lingerie Fantasy Video (Lite), by On The Go Girls, LLC, was initially rejected because it displayed nudity and explicit sexual content, but the developer subsequently fixed the application and it has been approved with the use of a 17+ age rating.

Apple provides explicit language in its agreement with iPhone developers regarding prohibited categories of applications, for example:

• “Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple’s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory; and
• Applications must not contain any malware, malicious or harmful code, program, or other internal component (e.g. computer viruses, trojan horses, ‘backdoors’) which could damage, destroy, or adversely affect other software, firmware, hardware, data, systems, services, or networks.”

And we also provide a reference library that can be accessed by members of the iPhone Developer Program that lists helpful information such as Best Practices and How To Get Started.

Question 6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications? What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

As discussed in the response to Question 5, Apple provides guidelines to developers in our developer agreement as well as on its web site regarding prohibited categories of applications. These materials also contain numerous other provisions regarding technical and legal requirements that applications must comply with, and Apple uses these standards in considering whether or not to approve applications.

Apple developed a comprehensive review process that looks at every iPhone application that is submitted to Apple. Applications and marketing text are submitted through a web interface. Submitted applications undergo a rigorous review process that tests for vulnerabilities such as software bugs, instability on the iPhone platform, and the use of unauthorized protocols. Applications are also reviewed to try to prevent privacy issues, safeguard children from exposure to inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly. Apple also established an App Store executive review board that determines procedures and sets policy for the review process, as well as reviews applications that are escalated to the board because they raise new or complex issues. The review board meets weekly and is comprised of senior management with responsibilities for the App Store. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of being submitted.

If we find that an application has a problem, for example, a software bug that crashes the application, we send the developer a note describing the reason why the application will not be approved as submitted. In many cases we are able to provide specific guidance about how the developer can fix the application. We also let them know they can contact the app review team or technical support, or they can write to us for further guidance.

Apple generally spends most of the review period making sure that the applications function properly, and working with developers to fix quality issues and software bugs in applications. We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates.