Despite the explosive growth of Android, application developers have voiced their share of complaints about the platform. Eric Chu, group manager of Android, tried to address some of those concerns today while speaking to an audience of developers at the Inside Social Apps InFocus conference in San Francisco.
Most specifically, he talked about the rejection of “mobile arcade application” Kongregate from the Google Android Marketplace.
“It’s clear within our terms of services that you should not distribute a competing marketplace or store,” Chu said. Applications that sell physical products or virtual goods are fine, but competing app stores are not. And Kongregate, in Google’s eyes, was clearly an app store. (I’m pretty sure Chu wasn’t commenting on the fact that Kongregate was just added to the Marketplace again. With the new app, in an attempt to get around Google’s restriction, games aren’t downloaded onto the phone.)
That seems like an interesting statement coming from Google, which is constantly touting its openness, especially when comparing Android to Apple’s App Store. But Chu said it’s important to distinguish between Android as a platform, which is totally open, and Google’s Android Marketplace, which Google needs to control more tightly, so that apps deliver a good user experience across multiple devices. If developers don’t like the Marketplace’s restrictions, that’s why there are a number of other Android app stores.
“Competition is always good,” Chu said.
Another big topic during the panel was the Marketplace’s lack of support for in-app payments, which has been cited as one of the reasons that Android app developers aren’t making as much money as their counterparts on the iPhone. Chu said his team is working hard to add that feature as soon as possible. In the meantime, he said Google doesn’t want developers using other in-app payments options in the Marketplace — because again, it wants to protect that user experience.
Next Story: Sequoia Capital rakes in $1.3B for the Valley and China Previous Story: Superstar Marc Bodnick leaving Yelp, Facebook investor Elevation Partners
Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
bench craft company reviews
Cutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
benchcraft company scam Despite the explosive growth of Android, application developers have voiced their share of complaints about the platform. Eric Chu, group manager of Android, tried to address some of those concerns today while speaking to an audience of developers at the Inside Social Apps InFocus conference in San Francisco.
Most specifically, he talked about the rejection of “mobile arcade application” Kongregate from the Google Android Marketplace.
“It’s clear within our terms of services that you should not distribute a competing marketplace or store,” Chu said. Applications that sell physical products or virtual goods are fine, but competing app stores are not. And Kongregate, in Google’s eyes, was clearly an app store. (I’m pretty sure Chu wasn’t commenting on the fact that Kongregate was just added to the Marketplace again. With the new app, in an attempt to get around Google’s restriction, games aren’t downloaded onto the phone.)
That seems like an interesting statement coming from Google, which is constantly touting its openness, especially when comparing Android to Apple’s App Store. But Chu said it’s important to distinguish between Android as a platform, which is totally open, and Google’s Android Marketplace, which Google needs to control more tightly, so that apps deliver a good user experience across multiple devices. If developers don’t like the Marketplace’s restrictions, that’s why there are a number of other Android app stores.
“Competition is always good,” Chu said.
Another big topic during the panel was the Marketplace’s lack of support for in-app payments, which has been cited as one of the reasons that Android app developers aren’t making as much money as their counterparts on the iPhone. Chu said his team is working hard to add that feature as soon as possible. In the meantime, he said Google doesn’t want developers using other in-app payments options in the Marketplace — because again, it wants to protect that user experience.
Next Story: Sequoia Capital rakes in $1.3B for the Valley and China Previous Story: Superstar Marc Bodnick leaving Yelp, Facebook investor Elevation Partners
Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
benchcraft company scam
Cutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
benchcraft company portland or[reefeed]
benchcraft company scam
bench craft company reviewsCutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
bench craft company reviews Despite the explosive growth of Android, application developers have voiced their share of complaints about the platform. Eric Chu, group manager of Android, tried to address some of those concerns today while speaking to an audience of developers at the Inside Social Apps InFocus conference in San Francisco.
Most specifically, he talked about the rejection of “mobile arcade application” Kongregate from the Google Android Marketplace.
“It’s clear within our terms of services that you should not distribute a competing marketplace or store,” Chu said. Applications that sell physical products or virtual goods are fine, but competing app stores are not. And Kongregate, in Google’s eyes, was clearly an app store. (I’m pretty sure Chu wasn’t commenting on the fact that Kongregate was just added to the Marketplace again. With the new app, in an attempt to get around Google’s restriction, games aren’t downloaded onto the phone.)
That seems like an interesting statement coming from Google, which is constantly touting its openness, especially when comparing Android to Apple’s App Store. But Chu said it’s important to distinguish between Android as a platform, which is totally open, and Google’s Android Marketplace, which Google needs to control more tightly, so that apps deliver a good user experience across multiple devices. If developers don’t like the Marketplace’s restrictions, that’s why there are a number of other Android app stores.
“Competition is always good,” Chu said.
Another big topic during the panel was the Marketplace’s lack of support for in-app payments, which has been cited as one of the reasons that Android app developers aren’t making as much money as their counterparts on the iPhone. Chu said his team is working hard to add that feature as soon as possible. In the meantime, he said Google doesn’t want developers using other in-app payments options in the Marketplace — because again, it wants to protect that user experience.
Next Story: Sequoia Capital rakes in $1.3B for the Valley and China Previous Story: Superstar Marc Bodnick leaving Yelp, Facebook investor Elevation Partners
Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company portland orCutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company portland orCutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
bench craft company reviewsCutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
benchcraft company scamCutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
how to lose weight fast benchcraft company portland or benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam benchcraft company scamCutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
benchcraft company portland or Increasing fees and decreasing revenue have sent some eBay sellers looking for an alternative way to make money. Many found just what they wanted at Ecrater.com, a free estore web hosting service with an excellent Alexa ranking. Advanced sellers, however, may prefer Shopify.com or Vstore. Store owners who have some experience in HTML, php and MySQL, and beginners who have time to learn, will find more options to customize and organize their stores with Shopify and Vstore.
Shopify's website is sleek and simple. Beginners to ecommerce may find it difficult to use at first. There's no frequently asked question page or help section on the home page. There is a community forum and blog where users can get information about everything regarding making money with estores. Some of the featured Shopify stores on the Shopify blog are elegant and well designed.
Alexa information regarding Shopify shows recent traffic to be lower. This could be due to a variety of factors. Shopify's ranking is above Vstore's, although both rank in the top 35,000. (Ecrater.com's Alexa ranking is around 16,000.) Vstore offers basic and premium webhosting store services. However, all store owners must start with the basic, free store before being given the opportunity to upgrade to premium.
Beginning to intermediate computer users may prefer Vstore web hosting when it comes to editing templates and managing store settings. The basic estore ecommerce features include product reviews by customers as well as sellers, cross selling tools, specials and best-seller tools, coupons and gift certificate options, customer printable catalog, unlimited categories and subcategories and bulk upload.
Unlike Shopify, Vstore's site offers more immediate information regarding product details and help. The feature list is very detailed (five pages) and set up for comparison of basic and premium hosting and ecommerce services.
Like Ecrater, Vstore recommends Doba and Worldwide Brands (WWB) if you need inventory. Since WWB holds a serious eBay seller supplier reputation, finding them recommended isn't surprising. Doba runs frequent pricing specials, as does WWB. Newbies and beginners who do not have a current supplier or stock of inventory to sell may want to start small, selling items from home that aren't needed or wanted or buying locally and reselling online.
There is life after eBay and there are successful store owners operating ecommerce businesses without listing at eBay, Amazon or Half.com. Booksellers who are no longer happy with Abe and Alibris might want to take a look at free estore hosting. The bulk lister options allow the uploading of tab-delimited or comma-delimited files, making it easy to quickly stock your new estore.
While both Vstore and Shopify offer more customization than Ecrater, there are some differences. Vstore's home page menu is quite lengthy with extensive help options visible. Shopify's menu is simple and sleek. No FAQ. There is a forum and support contact information. Potential store owners can easily check both sites out before committing to one or the other.
If you're really motivated and have plenty of inventory or plenty of interests, you can diversify and open stores on both sites. Vstore allows the sale of lingerie if your photos feature lingerie and not women in lingerie. Adult stores are not allowed. Nor are wicca and some other products. Shopify doesn't make their policy clear regarding store types, but while checking out the forum, a click on one poster's page revealed an adult store in France. The ability to read French isn't necessary since product photos are quite clear.
If, for any reason, you're considering making money online with an estore, do take the time to check out Vstore and Shopify's free ecommerce options. If you already have products, you can open a store without any upfront cost. All you will have to pay are merchant fees after an item sells.
big seminar 14Cutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
big seminar 14Cutting back on salt in teenagers' diets by as little as one-half teaspoon, or three grams, a day, could reduce the number of young adults with high blood pressure by 44 to 63 percent, according to new research presented Sunday, Nov. ...
'The Daily,' unveiled on Wednesday, combines print, video and graphics.
Given that some economists still debate the root causes of the Great Depression, little wonder that a multitude of competing stories still vies for affirmation as explanation for the financial crisis of 2008.
big seminar 14
