Mike Petrucci’s AppMakr Saga. Mike Petrucci decided to use AppMakr to put together an app aggregating his Twitter, blog, etc, feeds…only to have Apple reject it because it wasn’t of general interest. That’s a big difference between iPhone apps and, say, web apps (blogger has definitely never rejected someone for being of limited interest). It’ll be interesting to see what line Apple decides to take on this, and how AppMakr and similar companies push them.

Apple orders Android mention scrubbed from App Store. Speaking of Apple…they order a developer to take “Finalist in Google Android’s Developer’s Challenge!” out of the description of its app. Just silly.

In Europe, Challenges for Google. Much attention has been paid to Google’s business in China, but Europe (particularly Italy) poses difficulties, too—different copyright laws, different privacies laws, and different free speech traditions.

Google Buzz Privacy Issues Have Real Life Implications. However, Google has more pressing privacy concerns to worry about this week, with the rollout and reaction to Google Buzz. Google generally does just fine releasing a half-baked product and cleaning up the details later, but that’s a terrible idea when the rollout includes auto-sharing previously private information. It’s disturbing that this concern made it past however many rounds of internal testing Google did.

—Elisabeth Oppenheimer

Amazon Cracks Open the Kindle. Amazon is opening the Kindle to outside developers who can market their products in what sounds exactly like an App Store, down to the 70-30 revenue split and and light policing of apps. (One difference is that developers have to pay for wireless delivery.) It’s seeming like this is *the* model for the next few years. Speaking of which…

Computers Should Be More Like Toasters. The sale of the Apple Tablet could mark an important moment for generativity. Computers have been shrinking and phones have been growing—but the critical difference has been that anyone could still code for a computer, until now. The Tablet looks more like a computer than a phone, but will Apple will prescreen apps they way it does for the iPhone? Farhad Manjoo thinks that would be a good thing, but there are clear generativity costs.

The Splinternet means the end of the Web’s golden age. Josh Bernoff points out that, as we switch to appliancized computers and smart devices instead of PCs, the web becomes a “splinternet.” Websites show up and operate differently on each device. He thinks about how to handle this from a business and marketing perspective, advising: “Here’s what not to do: panic and try to unify things again. The shattering cannot be undone.”

Technology Changes “Outstrip” Netbooks. Meanwhile, the BBC considers the convergence among netbooks, smartphones, and tablet notebooks, and who the short- and long-term winners are likely to be.

Apple censors Dalai Lama iPhone Apps in China. An interesting look at how censorship works on iPhones in China. (The story was written pre-Google announcement, so some portions are out of date.) Apple, complying with local law, appears to be removing apps related to the Dalai Lama in the Chinese App Store, and a search for Falun Gong apps freezes the search page. On the other hand, it’s possible to access YouTube through an iPhone app, which isn’t always possible on a PC.

And in the crystal ball dep’t — from JZ’s book:

Imagine entering a café in Paris with one’s personal digital assistant or mobile phone, and being able to query: “Is there anyone on my buddy list within 100 yards? Are any of the ten closest friends of my ten closest friends within 100 yards?” Although this may sound fanciful, it could quickly become mainstream. With reputation systems already advising us on what to buy, why not have them also help us make the first cut on whom to meet, to date, to befriend? These are not difficult services to offer, and there are precursors today.

As usual, there’s an app for that… the “datecheck” app allows you to enter a name, phone number, or email address, and get information on your date. The categories are “sleaze detector” (check of criminal convictions & sex offenses), “$$$” (home ownership, etc), “interests” (gleaned from social networks), “living situation” (who they live with), and “compatibility”—although unfortunately, the “compatibility” check is still just a check of astrological signs. Now all they need is friends’ feedback rankings.

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

Android Market Badly Needs A Web Presence to Compete with the App Store. Jason Kincaid argues that, while there are fewer Android apps than iPhone apps, a better web system for browsing and choosing apps could really help Android. I think he’s right that Google could think creatively about how to push the Market past (or at least toward) the App Store, but he admits that the big caveat is that 90% of apps are bought over-the-air, not via the web.

Apple Approves “Tits & Boobies” and “Pussy Lovers” Apps. Apple’s app reviewers try to figure out what to do with a “tits & boobies” app that shows pictures of the birds of that name. “One thing is clear to me: Nobody is ever going to be happy with this process, which I’m afraid will remain imperfect forever.”

Inside India’s CAPTCHA-solving economy. One huge aspect of ubiquitous human computing is sending menial computing tasks abroad; the social and economic implications of that, obviously, are potentially enormous. This piece is a good description of the market for CAPTCHA-solving work in India, where the going rate for 1000 captchas is $2.

Google Rests Its Defense of Executives in Italian Privacy Case. Some of you may have been following this case—Google executives in Italy are being prosecuted for allowing a video of students bullying an autistic teenager to remain on Youtube. The video stayed online for two months, but was removed almost immediately when Google employees were alerted to its presence. Google rested its case a few days ago; a verdict is expected in January or February. None of the executives faces jail time, because they don’t have criminal records. But if they’re convicted, it will be interesting to see what Google decides to do with its future Italian operations.

Cellphone Encryption Code Is Divulged. A German engineer claims to have broken the code used to encrypt GSM phone calls, or 80% of the world’s mobile calls. There are steps between breaking the code and actually intercepting and deciphering calls, but this is the big step. He says he’s only “trying to push operators to adopt better security measures for mobile phone calls”—measures which exist, but haven’t been implemented.

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

It seems that future is already here. Business Insider reports that a group called “Get Health Reform Right,” composed largely of insurers, has been paying people “virtual currency” to send emails opposing health care reform to their representatives. It works like this: Facebook users play FarmVille or Mafia Wars (I blocked them long ago, and so was surprised to find that millions of people are now playing them). To advance past certain levels, you essentially need “virtual currency” to buy better weapons, tools, whatever. You can buy virtual currency with real currency, or you can fill out various surveys and be rewarded with virtual currency. Get Health Reform Right had players taking surveys, which culminated in an email to the relevant representative: “I am concerned a new government plan could cause me to lose the employer coverage I have today. More government bureaucracy will only create more problems, not solve the ones we have.”

That’s remarkably shameless—it’s not quite money-for-contacts, but it’s only a tiny step away, since GHRR is obviously paying to have the surveys inserted into FarmVille and Mafia Wars. Interestingly, the same scheme could work without even virtual currency payments. People clearly go a little crazy in pursuit of high scores, gold stars, and other gaming achievements. GHRR could just make its own Facebook game, and demand that an email be sent between every level. That’s not the same as paying money; is it unethical? My sense is yes—making it easy for already-concerned citizens to contact their reps is okay, but giving some external reward to people who may be totally disinterested is not. These fine lines will become important if the problem grows and there’s an attempt to make these practices illegal, instead of just unethical. (Of course, that assumes it’s possible to make it illegal—there’s the First Amendment, obviously, but this sounds a little like false advertising, which can be regulated.)

If this technique becomes frequently used, maybe it will just mean that short emails become meaningless noise in Congressional offices. I don’t think that would be good—there is a qualitative difference between GHRR’s actions and, say, political groups asking members who chose to join to send “virtual postcards” to their reps. Of course, maybe Congresspeople already ignore all form emails in the first place.

One interesting side note is that Apple recently faced a variation on this problem—a developer was paying users to pump up its iPhone app reviews (actually, giving the faux-reviewers free copies of its apps). Some concerned citizens noted this, wrote to Apple, and Apple kicked the developer and its 1000 apps out of the app store. We’ve certainly spent plenty of time worrying about Apple’s control over the iPhone on this blog, but this is the obvious upside: you can get rid of astroturfing pretty effectively. Even if (big if) GHRR’s actions were made illegal, enforcement might prove tricky if they moved beyond Facebook.

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

* As one commenter suggested, we probably need a better name for this phenomenon than ubiquitous human computing. Any ideas?

The Google Phone, Unlocked. Google is introducing a branded smartphone running the Android OS. Interestingly, it’s an unlocked phone, although because it’s GSM, it can only run on T-Mobile and AT&T in the US. I wonder if it will be subsidized by the carriers; if not, it could be a first step in helping break the carrier-subsidy model—discussed in this slightly out-of-date paper. Of course, even the iPhone couldn’t make it unsubsidized.

This Dumb Decade: The 87 Lamest Moments in Tech, 2000-2009. Not so much the future of the internet, but the recent past. Many of the recent lame moments have been covered in this blog (Danger Sidekick phones lose users’ data for weeks; Apple rejects Google Voice; Amazon removes 1984 from the Kindle). The old stuff is fun. I didn’t know that Facebook donated $9.5 million to a privacy-education foundation after the Beacon fiasco.

Obama to Name Howard Schmidt as Cybersecurity Coordinator, President Obama appoints Howard Schmidt, who also worked for President Bush, as his cybersecurity coordinator. Good to see that the administration is taking cybersecurity seriously, although they’re really looking at a different problem than the book discusses—threats to military and commercial infrastructure, rather than users’ endpoints and experiences.

Taxi Hack. A website allows users to criticize or praise service from specific taxi drivers, identified by medallion or license number. This has echoes of a future imagined in Chapter 9 of the book—you see a taxi, you punch in the number, and you have the driver’s digital reputation before you step into the cab (or choose not to).  (Hat tip: Emily Brill.)

Piqqem. A website crowd-sources stock picks. Of course, crowd-sourcing is all over the internet, but it seems it would be particularly treacherous if this website were subverted—say, by a company ordering its employees to vote its stock up.

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer and JZ

The Month of Apple Bugs. For one month, researchers released information every day on different bugs that infect Apple products (OS X, Safari, apps for Macs, etc.). They say they’ve found public release gets quicker results than “responsible disclosure” (i.e., just telling the vendor). That’s one model for cybersecurity…

There’s lots of coverage out there about the Supernova conference, “a forum to examine all of the opportunities and challenges created in the Network Age.” Here’s JZ’s talk (starting around minute 29) and a good text summary, along with some reactions:

Pondering a Rogue Cloud wonders what government and industry pressures cloud computing providers will face.

Beware the Rise of Closed Platforms “But further, Vogels [Amazon CTO] said that users should feel comfortable trusting Amazon because the company’s mission is to be a ‘customer-centric company.’ Which seemed to be exactly Zittrain’s point.”

Cloud Computing an Option for Disaster Recovery Vogels discusses one of the big upsides of cloud computing—your data might be safer. We’ve discussed this topic here.

And bonus JZ links: a talk at Singularity University on Civic Technologies and the Internet, and an interview with Amanda Congdon on cloud computing (with spooky music).

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

Generative Irrelevancy. Tim Sturgill considers Google’s video touting Chrome OS. He worries that it may be the “final nail…in the generative coffin,” but he also sees the virtue of moving beyond traditional OSes. See also JZ’s take on Chrome OS.

iDroid App Rejcted by Apple. Well, duh. Apple rejects an app that essentially just displays an ad for the Droid smartphone. “I kinda have to side with Apple on this one, although I think it would have been smarter for them to let the app through.”

iPhone or Droid. xkcd on the debate between the iPhone and the Droid.

iPhone upgrades – A One-way Control-Freak If you don’t like an update to the iPhone OS and want to revert to an earlier version, it’s going to be tricky. “We’re being told that such control is for our own good … [B]ut there are many of us who would prefer the freedom to take our own chances.”

App Rejections iPhone app developer starts a blog chronicling reasons for app rejections or slow acceptances, with the reasons for the decisions, in the hopes of helping people figure out “what you can (and can’t!) get away with.”

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

—Per Forrester Research, most apps “take at least six months of full-time work and cost between $20,000 and $150,000 to develop.” Which means that sales have to be quite robust to turn a profit.
—Nearly 60% of apps are rejected at least once (again, according to Forrester). That really surprises me—Apple’s recent letter to the FCC said that 95% of apps are accepted within 14 days. If it’s true that almost half the apps are being reviewed twice, that could strain an already-small staff that reviews apps.
—Only a few hundred developers can live off solely their App Store products.

The article also echoes a theme repeated on this blog—that the App Store can be “an anxiety-wracked marketplace full of bewildering rules, long odds, and little sense of control over one’s success or failure.” Of course, any entrepreneur will have those problems to some degree in every marketplace. But Apple’s unexpected and unexplained rejections don’t help.

As the article also points out (and we have too), App Stores knockoffs are springing up for all the different smartphones. So we may have a chance to see how different store policies play out over time.

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

We define everything that is on the phone. You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn’t work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers.

But this story is a reminder that he has a point. A Dutch hacker found a relatively easy way to exploit jailbroken iPhones—specifically, he hacked phones with SSH running where the default root password hadn’t been changed—and then sent the owners a text message saying that he had access to their files, and demanding 5 euros in exchange for instructions on restoring the default.

(Two questions: first, wouldn’t most people who hacked an iPhone know how to restore factory settings? Second, all that work for five euros? It seems this guy may not really be meant to be a hacker—he has since returned the money and apologized.)

So yes, Jobs is right: jailbroken phones are less secure (or at least require more expertise to secure -JZ). There have been remarkably few security problem with non-jailbroken iPhones. On the other hand, jailbroken phones do cool things (like run SSH). What Professor Zittrain’s work seeks is a way to balance those two truths. The App Store is one such balance, but perhaps leans too much on the side of authoritarian control (and the content-based censorship has nothing to do with security). That’s why we ought to explore other balances too.

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

So what did we learn? On the upside, we learned a lot about the approval processes for both the iPhone and Android phones; more on that in another post. On the downside, we didn’t learn much about why Apple rejected Google Voice. Apple said they hadn’t rejected it at all and that they were “continuing to study the Google Voice application and its potential impact on the iPhone user experience.” They added that they sometimes consult with AT&T about whether to accept apps, but didn’t in this case. Apple went on to worry about Google Voice based on such minutiae as whether users would still access their voice mail through the voice mail menu provided by touching the “phone” icon. Even if it’s true—which can be debated—that sort of worry seems both silly and patronizing to me. I understand that design is very important to Apple, but users want to download Google Voice, is it sensible for Apple to decide that the pre-determined user interface is more important? It comes back to what Steve Jobs said in an interview before the iPhone had even launched: “We define everything that is on the phone.” Should they?

Google originally asked the FCC to redact the parts of its letter relating to the rejection process. In a recent about-face, though, they withdrew that request and the FCC posted the full reply. Google says that Apple did reject the app, based on worries that it would duplicate iPhone functionality or confuse users. (An Apple spokesperson has registered disagreement with Google’s letter.)

Before Google issued the full letter, Michael Arrington at TechCrunch ripped apart Apple’s answers and did some advanced theorizing about what’s really going on here. His belief is that Apple was afraid that Google was subtly but surely taking over the iPhone user experience. “Search, maps, YouTube, and other key popular apps are powered by Google.” In other words, Google doesn’t just have apps competing with thousands of others in the store, but core apps that the average user relies on regularly. Apple’s claim to “define everything that’s on the phone” begins to ring hollow as Google takes over one function after another. If users stopped relying on even the phone part of the iPhone, Arrington’s theory goes, how much control down Apple retain over its product? Does Google start to have enough leverage to force changes that Apple disagrees with?

It’s a very interesting theory, one that I don’t know enough to evaluate fully, but that seems to accord with Google’s unredacted letter. (The iPhoneBlog takes another look at the idea here.) Worth noting, though, is how similar this is to the issues with cloud computing and PCs. Apple—or Dell, HP, etc—may control the hardware, but Google is making a big play for everything else. Just as a user could one day buy a PC that would boot straight to the Chrome browser, where the user’s documents are waiting in the cloud, a user could image turning on an iPhone, making calls on their Google Voice account, and doing all their work through Google apps.

What this means from a consumer or regulator perspective is that we have to take a wide view of potential sources of problems and blockage. Forcing Apple to make its app approval process perfectly transparent isn’t enough if Google has taken over much of the computing. If a smartphone equivalent to cloud computing takes off, all the worries we have in the PC context will have to be investigated here.

For those who believe in regulation, the FCC’s letter here was a good start, but only the beginning of a very long process. For those against regulation, this might be a prime example of a situation changing too complex and fast-changing to be amenable to FCC guidance.

—By Elisabeth Oppenheimer