Linked by David Adams on Thu 31st Mar 2011 16:41 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption If you download and use what appears to be a version of the commercial "Walk and Text" Android app from a file sharing site, you're in for a surprise. When you run it, it shows you that it's being "cracked" but it's really gathering information from your device, in preparation for an e-smackdown. It sends a bunch of personal information (name, phone number, IMEI) off to a server, and, just for lulz, text messages everyone on your contact list:
Permalink for comment 468612
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Nice !
by gerg on Thu 31st Mar 2011 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice !"
Member since:

The problem with the 24 hour refund period (which historically went as far as 48 hours) is it was, by far, excessive. With very few exceptions, it doesn't take 24 hours to review an application. If it does, you should have deferred your purchase until such time you can commit the time required to evaluate. Generally you know within the first couple of minutes. And frankly, its even a tiny minority of applications which can not be reviewed in something less than five minutes.

The biggest problem with twenty four hours, especially for games, is people would download, play the game until content, and then uninstall. The issue is, the user got their $1 worth of fun but the developer didn't get his payment in exchange. It was extremely common.

Seriously, what exactly are you evaluating where you need more than five or ten minutes? Furthermore, what do you need to evaluate beyond fifteen minutes which user comments haven't already helped guide. That is, after all, one of the primary reasons developers are subjected to abuse and frequently flat out lies - is to protect you, the user.

IMOHO, I'd be fine with maybe something as long as thirty minutes or an hour but anything beyond that is completely out of line and is unjust to developers more so than users. The twenty four hour period was just abusive on developers and simply unnecessary.

As for the ad-blocker, that's really unfair. You need to keep in mind, most developers are ONLY able to generate income from ads because pirates prevent a profit otherwise. With licensing now available, that starting to change, a little, but you're still taking money out of the developer's pocket. You're punishing the developer for the actions of pirates; which makes it doubly wrong.

Developers would love not to have to mess with ad ware, as it makes the applications bigger and takes time to add. But realistically, what you're doing only harms developers and the platform. I sincerely wish you would reconsider. At the least, what you're doing is very unethetical. You're accepting the application in exchange for displaying ads. As such, you're taking from the developer and not fulfilling your part of the contract.

Edited 2011-03-31 22:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3