
Google's mismanagement of the Android Market - mbateman
http://nanocr.eu/2010/06/27/googles-mismanagement-of-the-android-market/
======
extension
The Android market does not make me want to buy apps. This is its greatest
failing.

Apple's app store actually feels like a _store_. It's fun to spend money
there. There are many different ways to discover new apps of all types. Each
one typically has as much info and screenshots as I want to see.

In the Android Market, I have the category charts that never change, the
firehouse of junk and spam that is "just in", or search, which is only really
useful if you already know the name of the app you want. The descriptions are
tiny, the screenshots are ugly and often missing, and the comments are mostly
YouTube caliber.

If they can't make it fun to buy Android apps then the whole platform is going
nowhere.

~~~
ajscherer
I don't believe I've ever had fun buying PC software, but that platform went
somewhere. What is your reason for believing the smartphone market is
different?

~~~
Groxx
"somewhere" being primarily Microsoft, Adobe, and virus scanning applications,
all of the above for large amounts of money and frequently purchased as
necessities. The market for smaller desktop applications is pretty hard, and
seems to mostly get along by the PC user-base being utterly _massive_ , not by
any ease-of-use.

Applications on OSX are a bit nicer, as there's rarely an install/uninstall
process at all, and an enormous amount of the people I know with macs have
bought several smaller applications for various minor needs. Nothing that
can't be faked by text files / Excel, but a nicer interface makes a
difference. Things like Sparkle also mean people update _far_ more frequently.
I don't see that much in my Windows-using friends, especially in the non-geek
sectors. But OSX has a much smaller market share, and I have a feeling that a
lot of the successes are due to things like MacHeist, pulling in $1/2 million+
over a couple days, which _do_ make buying software _fun_. One can argue that
they also dilute the money pool by devaluing them when not on sale, but the
amount of effect that has is nebulous at best.

------
jsz0
A few other issues:

\-- There's no in-app upgrade option. If you install a lite or trial edition
you have to search the Market for the full version and install it on top of
your lite/trial version. So if you happen to search for an app, buy it, and
install it sometimes it just won't work (because you were supposed to install
the lite/trial first)

\-- Apps without meaningful descriptions should be deleted or hidden by
default. A changelog is not a description.

\-- Apps that start off saying "doesn't work with..." should be deleted or
hidden by default or only shown on the Android devices it does work with.

\-- It would be fantastic if you could sort searches by downloads, ratings,
etc. You'd think since Google is a search company they could figure this one
out. Maybe in 2.2?

~~~
dpcan
Most of the problems you describe could probably be policed by Google, but
Google has asked the developers to do this, and it is definitely a problem.

POINT 1 -- There's no in-app upgrade option.

True, but you can quite easily link RIGHT TO the app you require your user to
purchase. It's actually super easy to do, I don't know why some don't do this.
However, maybe you are referring to the ability for an app to initiate a self-
update, in which case, I'd love to know how to do this.

POINT 2 -- Apps without meaningful descriptions should be deleted or hidden by
default. A changelog is not a description.

App developers are given 325 characters to tell the entire story of their apps
AND describe why we require an update. It's awful. Have you ever written a
Haiku? Every time I try to create an app description AND include a changelog,
it's like geeky Haiku.

I feel like an idiot replacing the word "for" with a "4" because of this space
limitation. It's embarrassing.

POINT 3 -- Apps that start off saying "doesn't work with..." should be deleted
or hidden by default or only shown on the Android devices it does work with.

App developers can put a target SDK, minimum SDK and even max SDK in their
Manifest. I'm not sure why more don't.

\-- It would be fantastic if you could sort searches by downloads, ratings,
etc. You'd think since Google is a search company they could figure this one
out. Maybe in 2.2?

Agreed.

Though I'd like to one-up this and ask that there be a "Featured Apps" option
where Google employees show off obscure but cool apps.

Then, how about a "Sports" category in Games? I for one would be really happy
to see this.

~~~
Groxx
_the ability for an app to initiate a self-update, in which case, I'd love to
know how to do this._

Seen Sparkle[1]? It's all the rage in the OSX world. _Thousands_ of
applications use it. It'd be a good place to start. Beyond that, there's also
Google's Update Engine[2], also for OSX, which does updates file by file, and
I believe can even work with just changesets (Sparkle replaces the whole .app
bundle). At least, I _think_ Update Engine was started by Google...

Or, if you want to go for "epic" in-place self-updating, something could be
done which mimics how some Linux kernel upgrades can be swapped while the OS
is running. That's a neat trick. I believe Nginx can do the same, it'd
probably be an easier start. Unless the binary is locked when downloaded, I
don't see why _that_ at least shouldn't be possible.

Though, all that said, IANA Android developer, and don't know what limitations
are in place. _Could_ be it's just flat out impossible, I honestly don't know.

[1]: <http://sparkle.andymatuschak.org/> [2]:
<http://code.google.com/p/update-engine/>

~~~
masklinn
> Seen Sparkle[1]? It's all the rage in the OSX world.

Sparkle doesn't exist to upgrade your app from e.g. paid to free.

~~~
Groxx
Minor nitpick, compared to it not being open source, so it's not an ideal one
to begin with. There's no reason a nearly-identical system couldn't be used as
a paid-upgrade tool; just download the license file that was purchased in-app,
and have the newly-updated application read it in.

It was chosen for conceptual design of something which has _radically_ changed
the application-updating playing field by being so successful. _Normal_ people
update regularly with Sparkle; how many have you seen ignore a Java / Windows
/ Adobe update for the thousandth time?

~~~
masklinn
> Minor nitpick

Uh no it's pretty major.

> compared to it not being open source, so it's not an ideal one to begin with

Sparkle is not open source? Are you high?
<http://github.com/andymatuschak/Sparkle>

~~~
Groxx
gah, my mistake. Must've been thinking about something else.

------
nl
One weakness of the Android market that isn't discussed as frequently as it
should be is that most [1] developers can't actually sell apps for Android.

Unless you live in one of the countries listed on
[http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/bin/answer.py?an...](http://www.google.com/support/androidmarket/bin/answer.py?answer=150324)
you can't sell paid apps.

Too bad for all those Indian & Chinese developers who've built out the Apple
AppStore's inventory. On Android those positions in the catalog get filled up
with free, half finished apps that the developer abandoned when they realized
they couldn't sell it.

And those free apps remove opportunities for paid apps to develop.

[1] Yes - I understand a lot of apps come from countries on the list. I still
argue it excludes more than it includes.

[edit: corrected link to country list]

~~~
fierarul
Wow, I didn't even know they don't cover the whole of the EU countries --
disappointing.

~~~
ergo98
It doesn't even cover Canada, which is a close geographic and legal neighbor
of Google.

~~~
fierarul
Yeah, this simplifies matters quite a bit.

------
Groxx
So, the moral of the story:

Google needs to make their Android store more like Apple's app store. The
openness is getting filled by crap / spam / questionably-legal apps.

Someone actually _admitting_ that there's a benefit to filtering! Who saw
_that_ coming?

~~~
dejb
Android users and developers aren't totally dependent on their app store like
iOS users are since they can install software from outside the store. This is
where the openness comes in, NOT because of what they chose to allow in their
app store. For this reason Google could actually make their app store a lot
stricter than Apple's without attracting the same level of criticism. However
I think that both companies are keen to see the 'total apps available' number
increase regardless of quality.

~~~
Groxx
But how many non-geeks will be installing software outside that store? The
first doorway _matters_ , and it's been left wide open. There's even a note
pinned to the frame inviting vampires across the threshold.

Personally, I'd think a multiple-store method should work best, where each
store can control what's in it. A "kid-safe, parent-approved" store would be
useful, as would "experimental", "anything goes", and "cryptic dogma but
generally good". A way to select which ones you want to look in, and you're
golden.

Though I realize I've just described a package manager with configurable
sources.

(unless this is possible currently? haven't heard anything, and it would make
the blog post nearly a moot point...)

\--- edit:

I was referring to the openness of the _store_ , not the _platform_ , as
evidenced by referring to "[Google's] Android store". Maybe it would've been
clearer if I said "Android Marketplace"? Should I edit it while there's time?
The openness of the platform is utterly _fantastic_ , I wouldn't want them to
change that for _anything_.

~~~
dejb
> But how many non-geeks will be installing software outside that store?

Depends how strict the app store policy is I guess. If Apple allowed this
option then I'm sure a lot of geek and non-geek users would take up the
option.

> Personally, I'd think a multiple-store method should work best

Agreed. Payments would be difficult and I guess they would want to discourage
a 'pirate store' as well. But different listing criteria would be useful.

> I was referring to the openness of the store, not the platform

>> Someone actually admitting that there's a benefit to filtering! Who saw
that coming?

I don't think the idea that assisting users to filter their options was ever
controversial or surprising. With your multiple-store idea the openness of any
particular store wouldn't be such an issue.

~~~
Groxx
There's been a redonkulous amount of uproar over Apple's filtering of their
own store. Often coinciding with people saying the world would be a better
place if only Apple would allow their app, and if puppies fell from the sky,
and nobody had to go to work, they could just bang on these drums all day.

Granted, it's the _only_ store, so it's a different situation. It's just a
nice reversal, where Android fanbois have been ripping on Apple fanbois for
having such a closed store, and now the benefit of that closing is being made
apparent. There's not much Android ripping here, most people here are at least
somewhat geeky, and would _love_ to see Android become bigger and better than
iWhatever.

edit: as to the first point, I'll still say "very few", unless _drastic_ steps
are made to make it easy to choose from the very first interaction. There's a
lot of change-fear out there in normal people - change means you don't know
where your favorite button is any more, and it now breaks in new and exciting
ways instead of the ones they could somewhat predict.

~~~
dejb
I'm not really that interested in fanboyism. The principles at stake in
comparing open vs closed systems are orders of magnitude more important.

------
andybak
Have a filter option in the Market app a little bit like safesearch. You'd
have a single slider. 3 or 5 positions (low moderate high etc).

Filtering would work in a metascore comprised of several metrics. The metrics
would be opaque and Google would tune them regularly like it does with it's
search ranking.

Example metrics might be:

1\. 'Spam' score based on app description.

2\. 'Spammy Developer' score based quite simply on the number of apps released
by this developer (this would immediately clean up most dross but people would
quickly find ways to game it)

3\. User ratings (weighted by the rating given to that user by other users)

4\. Ratings derived from Google's web rankings of the app's web presence

Problem solved. Can I have some money for that please Google?

~~~
mattparcher
I may be misunderstanding your suggestion, but this system would require
Google to admit that there is spam in the store, no? And if there is spam (as
we can clearly see) why not just remove it instead of asking the user to
manually hide it?

~~~
andybak
Becuase they would then be committing to a manual review process and all the
scaling problems that would incur.

------
dalore
Isn't this just an opportunity for somebody to start their own android store
and police it better?

~~~
nooneelse
Also, if you don't like the browsing experience in the Market application,
there are alternatives for that too. Like AppBrain, which lets you browse for
things online, organize what you find into lists, and queue applications for
install on the phone.

------
ZeroGravitas
Kind of reminds me of Google's _mismanagement_ of Youtube. That's full of
copyright infringement and yet folk seem quite happy to put their stuff on
there.

I doubt they would have grown so big, or been able to win their recent
lawsuit, if they'd had to green light every item that went up in advance.

------
nailer
I've probably reported about 15 scam or infringement apps in the market to
Google.

Zero have been removed.

------
ajmurmann
The problem is not only the existence of such Apps on the store but that they
rank so high. Google should know how to give good apps a prominent spot and
rank scam apps low. That would solve many problems without censoring or
banning anything.

~~~
jrockway
Judging from the people trying to buy an Evo on launch day, it wouldn't
surprise me to find that the apps listed are the most popular.

Some of the best apps simply aren't popular. Locale is an essential, but it's
$9.99 price point (!!!) makes it unattractive to all but the most hardcore
users. Free ringtones may be useless, but people like free, even if it's
shitty.

~~~
adbge
If that's the case, maybe Google should "feature" apps based on more metrics
than simply popularity, if they don't already. It would be neat to see some
sort of app suggestion engine where Google shows you personalized app results
based on your download history.

Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think we're going to see a lot of quality-of-life
(and fragmentation) issues ironed out once Android hits a more stable release
cycle where development is more focused on optimization and bugfixes than
adding new features.

------
jokermatt999
You know, despite the Android app store having plenty of these crappy "Free
ringtone!" apps, I'd still take it over Apple's controlled/censored (yes, I
would call some instances of their app removals censorship) app store. It
doesn't really matter though, since I can install whatever I want through .apk
anyway, but I'd just like to say that not all users are getting fed up and
asking Google to remove apps.

That being said, damn browsing Google's App Store sucks. It's horrible.
Seriously, there needs to be some much better organization, lengthened app
descriptions, easier to use and better filters, and just an overall better
experience.

------
rodh257
Given the openness of android, can we make our own 'better android market'
application + website? May not be worth the time investment given most people
would use the market anyway, but might make Google wake up...

~~~
zsouthboy
Another point is that the Market application is Google proprietary - when you
grab the AOSP source, you don't get the Google apps (Maps, Market, etc.)

Android is open source and manufacturers can use it without the consent of
Google, but to include the goodies above they have to go through a vetting
process (not saying that's a bad thing).

A completely open source implementation / replacement of the Google apps would
be very useful.

------
Tichy
I had somebody steal my content and create an iPhone app from it, too. The
copyright holders should contact the Google Market about the infringements.

That said, the market certainly is not perfect yet. But not too bad, either.

------
devonrt
Agreed. The Android Market is an absolute ghetto compared to Apple's App
Store. It makes me think there's room for a third party to build a better,
more heavily curated marketplace for Android apps.

------
DLWormwood
Why in the wide, wide world of sports does a "iTunes App Store" app even
_exist_ in Android's storefront? Who would download such a thing, even
assuming it's some kind ad-impression scam app?

~~~
skbohra
The whole iphone/ipad business works because there are people who don't care
about openness, things which look obvious to me and you are not as obvious.
Many businesses work just by exploiting the ignorance of buyers. Apple is
master of that art.

~~~
czhiddy
Apple grew to become the 2nd largest US company by market cap through customer
ignorance? Yeah, that sounds plausible.

~~~
skbohra
Its not the ignorance of users by company, its the ignorance of mass about the
open standards we talk about. Being big doesnt mean you are doing it all good.

~~~
ThomPete
The proof is in the pudding.

Whether you like apple or not and there is certainly much to not like about
them even if you like most of their products, you can't ignore that they have
built the strongest digital ecosystem out there. Stronger than FaceBook or any
other competitor.

Contrary to most others this ecosystem is built on paying customers which is
quite an accomplishment. It includes both music, video, applications and now
the Apple Store app which gives you access to the apple products. I don't even
want to know how many people will be tempted to press buy on that one.

This is not about ignorance of mass, it's about reducing the friction to
almost zero while still maintaining some level of quality.

In all other business situations this is the main goal.

What really baffles me about the Android App store is just how much friction
there is. It's a complete mess to be quite honest.

Even though google should be applauded for their open approach, let's not
forget that they do this for one thing and one thing only. To expand the reach
of their adds.

~~~
ThomPete
"ads" not "adds" sorry

------
ergo98
To reply to the first paragraph of the article-

>Earlier this week, CNET ran an article critical of the permission model of
the Android Market. Google’s response to the criticism was that “each Android
app must get users’ permission to access sensitive information”. While this is
technically true, one should not need a PhD in Computer Science to use a
smartphone. How is a consumer supposed to know exactly what the permission
“act as an account authenticator” means? The CNET opinion piece “Is Google far
too much in love with engineering?” is quite relevant here.

Is it?

Just to be clear, it is my belief that on the iPhone all apps have the run of
every bit of functionality provided by the sandbox. Meaning if one app can
access contacts, all apps can access contacts. If one app can get your
location, all apps can get your location. If one app can pull your contacts
and your location and send it to a web service, then all apps can do the same.

On Android this isn't the case at all. On install you had to explicitly
confirm the required rights.

The Android model is a thousand times better, at least assuming they avoid
user fatigue where people simply OK anything.

It could see improvements for sure, though. For one I'd like to see optional
permissions. When I installed Barcode Scanner I was a bit perplexed as to why
it asked to access my contact list. Turns out it's because it can create
barcodes from contacts. Nonetheless, that should be an optional permission
that I could set to yes (checked), no (red x), or ask on demand (cleared),
defaulting to ask on demand. It would make me far less nervous about apps that
seem to unnecessarily ask for the kitchen sink.

~~~
bombs
This is mostly true, except for location. The iPhone has always asked for
permission before providing your location to apps (even to Apple's
preinstalled apps, like Maps) and as of iOS 4, you're able to see a list of
apps that have asked for your location, whether you said yes or not (with the
option to change) and whether the app has accessed your location in the last
24 hours.

------
skbohra
the link doesn't work for me

Edit: it works now

------
jrockway
The Internet has child porn! Let's all switch to AOL!

