Google wrestles with the generative trade-off. Security experts have found another set of malicious apps in the Android Market and discovered that Google Docs regularly hosts phishing sites.

Falun Gong sues Cisco for facilitating official Chinese repression. Members of Falun Gong have sued tech giant Cisco in a U.S. court, alleging that the company customized its technology to meet government tracking and censorship needs and helped design China’s Golden Shield, the country’s infamous online censorship and surveillance firewall. The group also claims that Cisco marketed its technology as a tool to target government dissidents.

Hargreaves Review published. The review evaluates the fitness of the UK’s intellectual property regime for an internet age. It finds that IP laws put in place several hundred years ago are now stifling modern innovation and goes on to make ten specific recommendations for IP law reform to correct the problem. These recommendations include approaches to clearing patent thickets; dealing with orphan works; and transitioning to evidence-based, rather than lobby-based, IP policy; as well as rejection of a US-like fair use limitation.

Facebook users benefit from a Web of Trust. Clicking a link on your Facebook page that the crowdsourced Web of Trust service has identified as spammy or malicious will now bring up a warning that you may want to avoid the suspect site (and also check out Wikipedia entries on malware and phishing).

iFlowReader closes. Independent iOS e-book retailer iFlowReader shut down at the end of May. According to the company, Apple’s new e-book seller rules made it impossible to turn a profit. (The rules require sellers to give Apple a 30% cut of sales while at the same time limiting the seller to only a 30% commission, so the seller gets the commission from the publisher but then owes it all to Apple.) Company execs expressed frustration that, in their view, Apple maintained complete control over its platform and felt free to change the rules on developers, even after they, relying on the old rules, had been induced to make significant investments.

TiVo and EchoStar settle. The case involving a judicial order to EchoStar to send a remote signal disabling its customers’ DVRs ended in a whimper last month when the parties settled after the Federal Circuit held that EchoStar had waived its arguments that the disablement provision was vague and overbroad. EchoStar had asserted that it legally should not have been forced to disable the DVR boxes because it implemented a design-around instead so that the boxes no longer infringed TiVo’s patents. But the court didn’t reach the merits of this argument, since it held that the time to raise such issues was before the district court found EchoStar in contempt. So while we know that the Federal Circuit doesn’t have a problem with trial courts issuing a disablement provision to remedy patent infringement, we still don’t know whether the infringing party could avoid disabling its users’ products by pushing an update that replaced the infringing technology with a non-infringing alternative.

—Jennifer Halbleib

The U.S. government uses a PC control switch? The U.S. federal government obtained a temporary restraining order in April that allowed it to send to private computers unwittingly part of a massive criminal botnet a command that disabled the malware. In the past, the government has cut off or seized the command-and-control servers and computers that run a botnet, but here – without notice, because federal agents were still trying to collect the IP addresses of infected computers – the government issued a command to personal computers owned by innocent targets of the Coreflood botnet. Arguably, since Coreflood steals private data and loots victims’ bank accounts instead of just generating huge amounts of spam, the government had sufficient justification to order citizens’ (and non-citizens?) computers to kill the program. But in addition to concern that the command itself might unintentionally damage some private machines, such a path may be quite slippery. After all, prevention may be cheaper than disease; why shouldn’t the government push security software to all personal computers? And why shouldn’t it monitor citizens’ online activity to make sure they aren’t downloading programs from malicious sites? Nonetheless, how different is the command in this case from required residential building and health standards or mandatory vaccinations for schoolchildren? The government regulates personal safety in the real world when it implicates the broader public good, why shouldn’t it do the same online? And in the end, an individual can avoid running the command on his computer (and dodge the botnet risk, too) by simply disconnecting from the Internet.  Of course, that makes the computer slightly less useful.  The phenomenon is reminiscent of this Wired account from 2003, though note the reporter’s credibility appears to be in question.  (!)

Google’s questionable Grooveshark takedown. Last week, the Electronic Freedom Foundation criticized Google for removing the popular music service Grooveshark’s app from the Android Market. Google has said that it was responding to an RIAA complaint but has not explained the basis of that complaint. The company did not require notice before the takedown as provided for by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If the complaint was grounded in copyright, EFF noted that Google’s actions departed from its longstanding position of requiring such valid notice before takedown. Because the move coincided with Google’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, EFF speculated that it was designed to mollify any Congressional skepticism that Google was not committed to copyright enforcement.  Note that apps can still be added to a phone without having to go through the Android Market.

More consumers demanding iPads in place of laptop PCs. Last quarter, Apple’s profits exceeded Microsoft’s for the first time since 1991. Overall PC sales declined 2%, consumer PCs dropped 8%, and netbooks –  the inexpensive and mobile generative PCs most similar tablets like the tethered iPad – fell 40%.

Translating iOS to WP7. Meanwhile, Microsoft is contesting Apple’s dominance of the tethered device market. Microsoft now offers a tool that helps developers convert their iOS apps to Windows Phone 7 apps. It maps the WP7 application programming interface – the set of definitions and rules an app uses to communicate with the phone’s operating system – onto the iOS API, making it easier for developers to port their apps to WP7, giving Windows Phone 7 users access to more apps, and allowing Microsoft to compete with Apple in app marketplace size and range sooner.

And a related discussion of generative PCs and tethered devices including thoughts on JZ’s thesis in the book, as well as a take on his concerns about crowdsourced work.

—Jennifer Halbleib

While Apple and RIM pull the plug. This week both Apple and RIM removed controversial apps from their official app stores. Apple pulled an iOS app from Exodus International that propounded techniques and resources to treat homosexuality. And after several U.S. senators urged Apple, RIM and Google to remove the PhantomAlert app, which maps locations of nearby DUI checkpoints, from their respective app stores, RIM complied. So far, Apple has not removed PhantomAlert and Google refused to pull the app, saying that the app does not appear to violate Android content policies. Apple’s ultimate decision may shed some light on how it views its role as a benevolent gatekeeper: under what circumstances will Apple feel the need to step in and protect users from apps that are legal and don’t harm the device or expose personal data, but nevertheless contain content that users find offensive or believe is personally harmful? Similarly, should Exodus International come out with Android and BlackBerry apps, it will be interesting to see where RIM draws that line – and whether Google draws it. Of course, even if Google were to remove such apps from its official Market, Android’s open platform means that users could still download them from third-party app stores and sites.

And Google flips the kill switch. While Android owners may download third-party apps from Web sites that are independent of the official Android Marketplace, Google retains the power to reach in and remove apps from the phone without the owner’s permission. It recently did just that with over fifty apps containing code that, apparently as an initial step towards constructing a mobile botnet, rooted users’ phones. In this case, the apps were malicious and free. Google prevented users’ phones from co-option by a botnet and the users weren’t out any money. But by highlighting the precision and efficacy of tethering, Google may have put its remote kill switch on the table as a means for removing any illegal content. TiVo v. EchoStar showed us that some courts are willing to force an infringer to reach in and disable infringing devices that users have already purchased and installed in their homes. Courts may be less inclined to take such action against illegal content on a cell phone if it similarly means basically bricking the device. Cutting off innocent users’ phone service would be a much more disruptive remedy than frying their DVRs. But since Google has just demonstrated that it can excise the offending content specifically, why wouldn’t litigants ask courts for it as a remedy?

In the end, all four platforms decided what exactly their users own. Users buy a device, but what that device actually does is a service controlled by the platform. This service is subject to change at the platform’s discretion if, for example, it harms the device or doesn’t fit the company’s business model – and subject to change if senators, courts, advocacy groups, or anyone else can pressure the platform to take action.

Apple changes its policy on iOS e-book and subscription sales. If a company has an iOS app and allows users to buy premium content, such as e-books to be displayed by the app, with purchases made via a Web site (and therefore avoiding giving Apple a cut), Apple now requires that the company also allow users to make those purchases in-app (where Apple takes 30% of the price). Magazine or newspaper subscriptions sold through a browser must be available for the same price or less in iTunes as well. And publishers can no longer embed links in their iOS apps to Web sites that sell content. Furthermore, customers must be asked and then agree to release their information to publishers when they buy content through iTunes, so publishers are less likely to get the valuable consumer data they want for targeted advertising.

Google launches subscription payment service. After Apple announced its iOS subscriptions model Google followed with its content payment system, One Pass. One Pass operates across platforms. Customers who purchase content through their Google accounts can access it on their computers, tablets, or smartphones (though presumably not on their iOS devices, though there’s no technical reason this has to be the case). A spectrum of models is available to publishers: they can sell by the article, offer subscriptions, or provide day passes, among other options. Unless a customer opts out, Google shares customer name, zip code, and email address with the publisher. For One Pass service, Google takes 10% of sales revenue.

RIM tablet rumored to run Android apps. RIM may be developing software that would allow its PlayBook tablet to run Android apps. The move would increase the number of apps that can run on PlayBook more than six-fold to over 130,000 apps, making it more attractive to consumers. The tablet, promoted as the company’s answer to the iPad, is slated for release this year.

Facebook and the bright side of human flesh search engines. A woman who found a camera in New York City identified its owner in three hours by posting pictures from its memory card to Facebook and tagging her friends to solicit their help in the search. Web sites designed to reunite owners with their lost property exist, but both the finder and the seeker must know of them and go to the same one. Facebook doesn’t suffer from either problem. Although Facebook is not a fully public forum – most users restrict access to their profiles in some way – in this case it ended up being a big enough network to connect a helpful New Yorker with a grateful French tourist.

Boston promises a pothole-reporting app. It’s probably not something that Apple would have developed on its own initiative: an app that detects and automatically reports potholes using GPS and accelerometer data from the driver’s phone is in the works by the city’s “Office of New Urban Mechanics.” (!) While an unsafe driver may be wary of sending such information to city officials, the app’s developers see it as a new form of civic engagement. Perhaps we’ll see a pothole-filling app next year.

Google adds new security and crowdsourced ranking features. Google has recently added two new features. The first feature lets people with Google accounts add a second password. An account holder generates this additional code every time he wants to login, receiving it on his phone. It expires after a few minutes – giving the user time to log into his Google account – and so dramatically reduces the chance that it will be phished. The second feature is a Chrome extension that allows searchers to block sites that they don’t want to see in their Google search results. The user reduces unhelpful content farm results in her own searches, and Google draws on the information to tweak its rankings to decrease global content farm contamination of results.

Corporate strategies for information security and transparency. As more and more information is stored in the cloud and shared through networks, companies are increasingly susceptible to accidental or intentional disclosure of sensitive information. The Economist reports that corporations are taking a range of approaches to address the problem, from technological restrictions and monitoring (software or hardware that limits or watches what employees do with data) to cultural awareness (explaining to employees how particular acts put data at risk) or openness (sanctioning the release of more information to promote trust). Meanwhile, 40,000 individual Gmail account holders lost their cloud-stored emails and contacts this week because of a bug in a software update. Google is in the process of restoring users’ data to them — from backup copies on tapes.

Android app hacked to repeatedly text premium numbers. Hackers, apparently in China, have inserted code into a legitimate Android app that causes it to continuously text premium numbers. The altered form of the (already free) Steamy Windows app is available on unauthorized app sites. Once a user installs it, the app sends text messages to premium numbers, running up the user’s bill. It also blocks incoming texts from the wireless service provider that would normally alert a user that he has exceeded his text message quota. The hackers get a commission for each text sent to the specified numbers. Unwitting Android owners are at greater risk of attack, because unlike iOS owners, they can download apps from third party sites in addition to the official marketplace.  That makes them more generative — but also less secure, leading to the “generative dilemma.” (cached) [Cached because the cloud-based host for the deep linkable version of the Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It has vanished — ironic (or fitting?), given the book’s warning about the dangers of cloud-based platforms.

PCs as an endangered species. As the evolution of computing devices marches forward, PCs may be headed for extinction. Smartphones and tablets are increasingly marketed as PC replacements. These mobile devices can be used on their own, but also connect to a range of peripherals — laptop shells, monitors, keyboards, mice, even docks that turbo-charge performance with extra CPUs — for a more PC-like experience. For example, Motorola’s Android-based Atrix smartphone can run the desktop version of the Firefox browser when docked, giving the user access to cloud-based services like Google Docs in addition to the apps installed on the phone. But Firefox doesn’t run off the Atrix, it runs off a minimal Linux machine in the dock. And the Android app ecosystem doesn’t yet match the diversity of PC applications. Still, as mobile devices and the Web 2.0 apps and services (cached) they support become more sophisticated, it’s likely that they will expand out of their niche and invade the habitat currently occupied by PCs.

—Jennifer Halbleib

Zak Tanjeloff, chief executive of the app’s creator, DLP Mobile, said in a news release: “This app is certainly controversial, but can be helpful to people in relationships where this type of monitoring can be useful.”

Controversial, indeed; I think it’s awful and here I am spreading the word about it.

It was up in the Android app store until the NYT inquiry got it taken down.  The company behind it didn’t bother with a counterpart for the iPhone:

Mr. Tanjeloff said in a phone interview that his company had decided to build the SMS application for the Android platform because it would not need to be reviewed before it reached users.

“We can’t build it for the iPhone because it wouldn’t make it past the App Store approval process,” Mr. Tanjeloff said.

Here, then, a certain generative trade-off, one I’ve described more with viruses and trojans from afar than a fellow phone-user’s malice.  With the iPhone, apps like these just aren’t available — at least without the stalker having to jailbreak the targeted iPhone first.  On the more generative Android, it’s simply easier for bad stuff to brazenly find its way onto the platform since Google isn’t as obsessed with curating the selection of software for the phone.  And with Android, the official apps market isn’t the only source for software — so the banning of SMS Replicator there doesn’t exclude it from the phone; the enterprising stalker can install it from elsewhere.

Such software has been available for a long time on PCs, and few if any would say that its existence would be reason to upend the generative PC environment.  But the competition between Android and iPhone highlights that generativity really does come with some costs.  Should there be a well engineered Android worm that hops from phone to phone — either directly or by going through the SMS or email addressbook of each victim and recommending installation to the next — those costs will be even more drawn into focus, and the temptation may arise quickly to update Android not to be so open — or to exercise a kill switch targeting a particular piece of code.

It suggests the need, at least, for some easy-to-use auditing software for generative (or partially generative) platforms, Android, iPhone, and PC alike, so users can have a sense of what’s going on inside the device — and what data is going in and out.

To be sure, the generative dilemma trading off openness and security interests me because it runs so deep.  More superficial security problems can happen even on more locked down platforms, such as today’s revelation by Wired that a quick key sequence can apparently bypass an iPhone’s four-digit security code.  iOS update no doubt soon to follow.

Addressing the zombie invasion. U.S. officials are evaluating an Australian plan that targets the botnet epidemic. In particular, the American government is eying provisions that allow an ISP to notify customers with infected computers — since botnets typically run in the background of a user’s own applications, often the consumer is unaware that her PC has been taken over — and perhaps even quarantine maliciously co-opted machines by limiting online access. As the FOI book echoed in 2008, such a program increases security without resorting to perfect enforcement and may also encourage ISPs to provide consumers with tools to disinfect their computers, either as part of the service plan or for an additional fee.

iOS developer guidelines relaxed enough for torrent apps? Last week Apple approved its first BitTorrent app. But it turns out that Apple didn’t intend to allow torrent apps. Instead, the developer avoided the term “torrent client” in the app description, temporarily evading rejection. When Apple became aware of the app’s capabilities, it removed the app from the App Store.

Android apps share information. A Duke-Penn State-Intel study using the new TaintDroid tool revealed that half of thirty randomly selected popular Android apps send personal information such as location or phone number to ad networks, sometimes with surprising frequency. When an Android owner downloads an app, he or she has to give permission for the app to collect personal information. But from that sole initial disclosure it’s usually not clear when information will be accessed and how it will be used. Privacy policies are often unintelligible. Hopefully utilities like TaintDroid will soon be available in downloadable form to allow Android (and iPhone) owners to monitor in real time what information their apps are accessing.

Italy demands that Apple remove an offensive app from the App Store. Child pornography? No. Graphic violence? Not so much. Italy is upset that a travel app characterizes the country as the home of the Mafia (also of pizza and scooters). Since Italy knows Apple can remove the app, it may feel entitled to demand that the company do so whenever Italians’ dignity is the least bit bruised. In a walled garden, the country of Da Vinci need not cultivate perspective.

RIM jumps on the anti-fart app bandwagon. RIM takes the position that apps that keep users coming back and convince them to purchase upgrades or additional content are more valuable to RIM and developers than fart apps. But should the value of an app be determined ex ante by device-makers or set by user behavior? Good search and rating systems seem like a better way to run an efficient app store — one that allows both apps that provide “ongoing entertainment value” and inexpensive, one-off apps that may serve important, if temporary, functions. (Ever unexpectedly have to entertain a child for an afternoon?) Still, nice of CompuServeRIM to tell us what we want. Because listening to users and developers isn’t a plan that’s going to work.

Can a wireless provider block texts it doesn’t like? New York federal court was presented with that question in a case where T-Mobile blocked all texts from a texting service because one of the service’s clients provided information via text on legal marijuana dispensaries in California. Under the recently proposed Google-Verizon net neutrality principles (analyzed here), a wireless company would have latitude to discriminate based on the sender, recipient, or content of the message as long as its practice is transparent. But it’s hard to see how the discrimination in this case is required because of the “unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks.” We’ll have to wait to see how courts address the issue as the parties have settled the case. Although the full terms of the agreement weren’t disclosed, it “requires T-Mobile to stop blocking the New York-based EZ Texting service’s thousands of clients, if they meet T-Mobile’s approval. The medical-marijuana info service, which used texts to tell its users where the nearest medical-marijuana store was, remains blocked.” (emphasis added).

The future of HR. Social Intelligence will help potential employers determine whether you are a good hire and monitor you (with real-time updates) when you’re on the payroll by trolling your public social network profiles. “[C]ompany spokespeople emphasize liability. What happens if one of your employees freaks out, comes to work and starts threatening coworkers with a samurai sword? You’ll be held responsible because all of the signs of such behavior were clear for all to see on public Facebook pages. That’s why you should scan every prospective hire and run continued scans on every existing employee.”

iPhone expression that’s more than skin deep. Children and adults with disabilities affecting speech are converting their iPhones to alternative communication devices. Smartphone apps that are mobile, easy to use, and even cool give a voice to autistic kids and stroke victims alike.

—Jennifer Halbleib

Unfailingly quotable Steve Jobs summed up Apple’s position on third-party development tools when the restrictions rolled back this month were originally instituted in April: “We’ve been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.” At the time, many Internet news outlets considered the new rules a nativist response to the release of an Adobe cross-platform app development tool, which allows programmers to write apps once using Flash and then create variations for multiple mobile operating systems. Now Adobe’s tool and others like it are back in the game. The major remaining restriction, that an app can’t download any code, appears legitimately motivated at least in part by security concerns. But Adobe notes that Flash content in apps or the Safari web browser still is not allowed — developers can create apps with Flash but users can’t view Flash video.

Other restrictions imposed by Apple this year limited the analytic information an app could collect when the developer used an advertising network owned by a company that also made a device or an operating system. For example, AdMob is owned by Google, as is Android, so developers using AdMob couldn’t access the same information as, say, those using Apple’s iAd. Developers use ads to pay for free apps and need analytics to accurately target the ads to users. In an important corollary to loosening restraints on app developers, Apple now seems to permit unrestricted collection of analytic information by any mobile ad platform. If true, it will allow more mobile ad companies, and Google and AdMob in particular, to compete for app developers in the iPhone market.

Although the review guidelines are behind the iOS developer fee pay wall, they quickly leaked onto the Web. Apple must still approve every app, but now the company is providing some ex ante guidance for developers. However, the wording of the press release and guidelines is vague and broad, and terms are undefined. What’s “amateur”? To qualify as not amateur, does an app either need to look professional or be an idea so cool that Apple doesn’t care how polished the app is? The judges at Apple retain substantial discretion in interpreting the guidelines. But now at least their interpretation is confined within more precise parameters than Steve Job’s “porn, malicious, bandwidth hog, illegal, privacy, and unforeseen.” The judges are human, so they will make mistakes. But if they’re also good judges, their mistakes will be fewer in number, both because they have the guidelines in hand — which may have been true before the guidelines were public — and because developers will work to adhere to the guidelines and avoid the grief of getting rejected. Already, highly anticipated apps like those with Google Voice are being reinstated under the new regime.

Nevertheless, the powers-that-approve at Apple won’t be entirely “good” from the point of view of users, because these judges are never entirely accountable to consumers. In a perfectly free market they would be, but not in a world of two-year contracts, exclusive service providers, and trapped data. Apple must take into account corporate interests, regulatory concerns, input from their business partners, developer needs, and the like, as well. Not that perfect accountability is necessarily desirable; most U.S. judges are life-tenured, free from the control of the citizenry (mostly). This situation allows them to make decisions for the long-term benefit of society rather than being pressured to give into immediate demands that will cause bigger problems later. But federal judges are insulated from all constituencies, not beholden to several masters. iOS users and the developers that program for them know that Apple takes other considerations into account besides users’ first-order best interest. Perhaps Android will challenge Apple’s curation with a search-based approach that relies on users’ judgment of what apps they find valuable and what is the appropriate number of, say, fart apps.

That said, the shift in Apple’s policy is reason for optimism. While Apple can change its mind and rescind the changes, as JZ notes, once you crack open a platform, even just a little, it’s hard to go back. As soon as users and developers rely on the increased freedom, they will consider it unfair of Apple to backtrack. Perhaps Apple is slowly relinquishing control of the iOS platform.  First came the SDK, then more liberal development rules, what’s next?

—Jennifer Halbleib

Communicating with the e-book mothership. If the latest must-read on Kindle is dotted with typos or has a few pages missing, there’s a good chance Amazon offers a patch to correct the error. It’s a handy Internet-enabled functionality, although one can imagine at the extreme authors continuing to update their work ad infinitum, making it impossible for a reader to say he or she has read an e-book since content is always subject to change. Information flows in the other direction on the Kindle superhighway too, as Amazon apparently keeps track of what readers are highlighting. There’s some creep factor in Amazon knowing what ideas Kindle readers think are important, even if the most highlighted passages are in works as deep as The Lost Symbol. But the information is also so interesting.

The remote control. In April, Sony quietly revised the End User License Agreement that came with the latest PS3 firmware update to allow the company to change how an owner’s console operates in whatever way it wants, no notice or permission required. Now the FCC, at the request of the MPAA, has given cable and satellite providers the right to remotely disable output connections on consumers’ set-top boxes, leading consumers to ask “What did I buy?”

Curated Computing is the new name in town for the experience provided by the tablet non-PC. This particular term is meant to accentuate the “less choice, more relevance” aspects of that experience. It rolls off the tongue more smoothly than “contingently generative” and sounds less regressive than an “appliance,” but it connotes somewhat life aboard the Axiom. However, its proponents suggest that curated computing devices are meant to exist alongside and supplement traditional PCs. Let’s call that a worthy goal and the best of both worlds.

iPhone pillow talk with Steve Jobs. A ValleyWag reporter last week exchanged late-night emails with a defiant Steve Jobs on the iPhone’s ability to give people “freedom from” data theft, battery hogs, and porn. The emails speak for themselves, giving a little insight into Jobs’ perspective on the benefits and aims of the iPhone. He gets a little snarky at the end, but then again it’s 2am when he’s responding, and he never has a chance to clarify his comments, unlike the Gawker reporter.

Android outsells iPhone. During the first quarter of 2010, phones with the Android OS grabbed 28% of the U.S. market share, surpassing iPhone’s 21% (RIM’s Blackberry is still at the top with 36%).  Although Android benefited from Verizon’s buy-one-phone-get-one-free promotion and iPhone continues to lead worldwide, it appears Google is getting closer in Apple’s rearview mirror.

McAfee prevents computers from booting up in new virus-protection strategy. Centralizing security software in a few big providers concentrates expertise to solve problems, while also meaning that there are only a few–albeit strong–security systems the bad guys need to breach in order to wreak widespread havoc.  But in a previously under-appreciated risk, a flawed update of widely-used antivirus software can cut out the middleman and accomplish the same havoc directly.  A McAfee software update mistakenly identified a critical file as a virus and quarantined it, causing computers around the world, many of which automatically install updates, to repeatedly attempt to boot up.  One source estimated that 800,000 PCs were affected.

Taking [re-]generativity seriously. A Connecticut mayor donated her kidney to a Facebook friend last month after seeing his desperate status update.  The patient’s doctor had suggested that he try publicizing his need through social media, using an online connection to a forge a real-world bond.

Whoops: Five days later, Steve Jobs announced modified Apple developer rules banning use of “intermediary” tools such as Air—in other words, there will be no more cross-platform development. Adobe employees: not happy.

This is starting to sound pretty antitrust-y. It’s hard to think of any logical reason Apple cares where an app’s code originates—unless, of course, it just wants to hurt Adobe at every turn. Unfortunately, it’s been hard to find knowledgeable people analyzing actual antitrust law—anyone know of a good blog? (For what it’s worth, this old post from the Antitrust Law Blog indicates that the tech sector, including Apple, is under heavier scrutiny from the DOJ and FTC.)

Not surprisingly, there are rumors a lawsuit is brewing.

As usual, there’s another chapter in this saga: Flash translation. In a related but not identical story, Apple has long been hostile to Adobe’s Flash multimedia platform, citing stability and security concerns for refusing to offer Flash support for the iPhone and iPad. This puts websites that use Flash in a tough spot and limits iUsers’ access to content—75% of web video according to Adobe. Enter RipCode, which has developed a server-side translator solution. If an iPhone user attempts to access a Flash video, the “transcoder” detects the platform and translates the video into a compatible format. Since the transcoder is run off the website’s server, it doesn’t require Apple’s approval. Assuming it’s reliable, this is a nice example of a how the generative web allows enterprising developers to solve problems (or, depending on your point of view, do end-runs around the rules).

—By Jennifer Halbleib and Elisabeth Oppenheimer

• Developers are banned from making public statements about the terms of the Agreement.
• Apps developed with the SDK can only be publicly distributed through the App Store and at Apple’s discretion.
• Reverse engineering (including what is considered fair use under copyright law) is prohibited.
• Developers cannot create an application or program that would interfere with any Apple product, not just the iPhone.
• Apple’s liability to a developer is limited to $50.
• Apple can revoke/kill an App at any time.

Google’s Android Software Development Kit License Agreement is very different from its iPhone counterpart.  Not only is there no ban on public statements, but the Agreement is itself publicly available online.  In addition, as we knew, developers don’t have to distribute apps through the Android Market or get Google’s pre-approval if they do (though Google can remove an app if it’s a security risk or violates the Agreement).  If developers don’t use the Market, Google doesn’t take a cut of the profits.

These differences can significantly affect development of the smartphone ecosystem.  On one hand there is the iPhone walled garden, aesthetic and secure but limited; on the other is the wide world of Android, with great potential for variety but also unknown risks, where rules exist, but enforcement is responsive, not preemptive.

Both models may end up coexisting, each phone attracting its own set of users.  Those choosing Android would be willing potentially to sacrifice some security – or take some responsibility for ensuring that what they install on their phone is safe – for novel functions and greater utility, not to mention the cutting-edge cool apps.  iPhone users would opt for a carefully curated set of verified apps at the expense of the most innovative, and riskiest, apps.  Apps that are both useful and safe may transition between platforms, established on Android and subsequently accepted on a case-by-case basis for the iPhone.  Apple may use Android as a testing ground to prove the security of apps that violate iPhone’s strict guidelines but are useful enough to warrant an exception.

Conversely, one of the models may be adopted entirely, the other fading from prominence into history.  For Android to prevail, developers must continue to grow the Market and users judge innovation worth the security risks.  Google itself can maximize this tradeoff by encouraging good apps and vigilantly removing dangerous ones.  But it also requires developers and users to take some responsibility.  Developers by self-policing can prevent the Market from turning into a minefield for users, both by designing secure apps themselves and using the developer community forums to maintain standards across developers within the Market.  Users will have to think before they download and provide feedback to the Market should something go wrong (or right) that can be incorporated into the decisions of other users.  In this scenario, Android would supersede the iPhone much as the Internet replaced AOL and CompuServe.

Alternatively, the iPhone may poach Android to extinction by pilfering all the best apps that Android has tested, leaving only the harmful or useless apps in Android’s exclusive domain.  Or one of JZ’s concerns may materialize – the government may realize the potential for easy control and mandate tethering or users may prefer security to generativity and choose to be penned and shepherded by Apple.

It will be interesting to see how all the players – Apple, Google, developers, users, governments, and watchdogs – influence which story prevails.  Right now, the divergence between the paths forged by Apple and Google is broad.  Will the future follow one or strike out down some middle ground?

–by Jennifer Halbleib