On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Alan Pope <alan.p...@canonical.com> wrote: > > Now, I have a sense of humour, and I can accept that we may end up > with a bunch of stupid trashy apps which don't achieve a lot in the > store. But there's something a little different about an AV package > which has no disclaimer to say it does nothing. > > I can imagine this app (and as a byproduct our platform) getting > laughed at heartily if this thing and apps like it are approved with > no caveat. In the same way Windows Phone got laughed at for containing > hundreds of webapps and no real apps, but this is worse in some ways > as these are non-functional "apps". > > So, my question, should the store policy (for now?) have some kind of > guideline that an app does what it says it is going to? Should we > manually review some of these apps (as we're early on in the life of > the store) to weed out these interesting cases? > > Or should I just be a monkey and flip the switch?
I can't find the publishing policy anywhere on the website, I will rectify that soon. Related to this, this is the current policy: 4.0 Malicious 4.1 Impersonation Applications that impersonate an authentic application created by someone else. 4.2 Deceptive behaviour Doing things which deceives the user into actions. An example is showing dialogs as if they are from the OS layer or trying to trick them into installing applications. 4.3 Personal information You're not allowed to steal information from the user or republish it, essentially anything that is not public. 4.4 Illegal activity We don't allow illegal activity of any form 4.5 Viruses and malware We don't allow any sort of viruses, trojans or malware. 4.6 Apps that create markets Applications should not create alternative or competing markets within themselves I think the case you bring up clearly violate 4.1 and 4.2, so it's clearly something to take down. I do agree that keeping the store pro-actively clean within reason will benefit everybody and set the right tone as it develops, so we should do that whenever we can. We just need to formalise the process a bit more which I thought would take longer for us to get to. But I guess, yay success! I'll but the right framework in place. Related, we do have a task to bury bad apps quickly and flag the ones at the very bottom for manual inspection. It will likely get some attention close to or after RTM, though. I think the combination of some low-effort policing and some basic flagging and burying of bad apps should be enough to get us through this first stage in the market. Having said that, I welcome other suggestions or proposals. -- Martin -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers Post to : ubuntu-appstore-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-appstore-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
