I tried to read all of the posts to see if someone else mentioned it, but didn't see one that did. Aside from the problems with Google Checkout not being widespread, there is a huge problem with the functionality of the market. At least once a month I get an email from someone that says they bought my app but the download would not complete. They demand their money back from me. This is annoying for two reasons. One, it is entirely possible that their order was never charged. If you look over your checkout account, there are several attempted purchases every single day that didn't go through. It happened to a friend of mine that tried to purchase one of my apps, and I know there was money on his debit card. This is a lot of money in lost sales. The second reason it is annoying is because I am being wrongly blamed for Google's incompetence. When customers complain to me that an app they purchased wasn't downloaded, it is the equivalent of buying a PS3 off of Amazon and complaining to Sony that Amazon never shipped it. I've never once gotten a support email from an iOS user about the same issue. And over a two year period there have been dozens from Android users. Google also has MUCH less developer support than Apple does. They simply do not care about us or our opinions. Period. They seem to view the market as an after thought as well. Why should I make them my primary platform under those circumstances?

Speaking as an iPhone, Android developer who looked into Blackberry, I can say that there was that fee. The $200 "bought" you 10 app reviews. After that you had to spend another $200 to get another 10 reviews. The same can be said of feature phone makers like Nokia that, until recently, required you to have 3rd party signing that costs quite a bit of money while Apple and Google where doing it for free. But in the end, Blackberry still relies heavily on J2ME. They extended the platform enough to be a smart phone years ago. In fact, to practically invent the term. But they have been surpassed and failed to keep up with the times. The days when cell phone software went for $4.99 have came and gone. It is sad for developers. But RIM and feature phone makers adapted very slowly to taking the initial investment out of creating apps. And in the process they were surpassed in profitability by app stores with a smaller barrier to entry. I'm not going to pay more to make less. You either roll with the punches or you get knocked out by them. Nokia offers free signing now, and Blackberry is now free as well. The difference is that J2ME is still fine for feature phone development. Blackberry needs to give developers closer access to the metal, and to provide a much higher level of development tools than they are currently offering if they want to remain a smart phone competitor. As it is now, they are sort of the bridge between feature phones and smart phones. QNX was a good start, forcing us to develop in Actionscript was a bad lead off to that good start.

Well, as a developer with apps on both markets, last year's thinking is reflected in last month's sales reports. And Angry Birds is still at the top of the charts. Do you have any market data to back up your claims?

Getting developers to Android tablets isn't just a matter of getting more units out there than iPad. There are already more Android phones out there than iPhones, but there is still more money to be made on the iPhone than on Android. What Android needs to do is get the type of users that are willing to pay for apps. iPhone users pay for apps. Even Rovio didn't want to release Angry Birds on Android because they didn't think enough Android users would be willing to pay for it. Maybe Rovio can afford to support themselves on ad revenue, but the average developer is going to have it much harder.

I am stuck with Hughesnet, due to living in the boonies. They impose a 425 megabyte limit on my downloads even at the $100 a month plan. The only time it is unlimited is between 2am-7am, which I'm betting isn't enough time to grab an entire OSX distribution. Just getting XCode and the iOS SDK became a race against time once the file hit the 4gb range. I guess I can stay up until 2, then set an alarm for 7 to pause the Mac App Store download until 2 am the next morning. But still, I'd really like to just pay a few extra bucks and have them ship me a DVD. It doesn't even have to come in a fancy box.

The Android Market in general is pretty broken because of the lack of even a rudimentary review process. The other day I was looking at the new releases in the Sports Games category and there were about 5 or 6 pirated ebooks of Harry Potter, the Twilight Series and several others. Needles to say, this is not only illegal, it's in the wrong category. This has been a problem in the market since its inception and Google still has yet to do anything about it. If they are unwilling to have someone at least look over the titles and categories that an app is placed in before allowing it on the market, in order to cut back on massive copyright and trademark violations and make browsing the store by category possible, why do we think they'll take any preemptive strike against malware? Google doesn't even give Android developers a convenient way to contact them. It seems to me that they wanted the Android Market to be a set it and forget it kinda thing. Will the negatively publicity form the malware for them to change that stance? I doubt it.

My roommate, my neighbor, and a friend of mine have all been hit by rogue anti-virus programs on Windows in the past 3 weeks or so. I've had the same thing that happened to you happen to me twice today. I guess someone has decided to bring the rogue anti-virus scam to Macs. Thankfully, it isn't so easy to get administrator access to a UNIX machine and the scammers have to actually ask permission to install their virus. Fixing my roommate's computers was a pain in the ass, and my neighbor had to go to work before I could figure out how to fix his.

For someone who is always harping on freedom, Stallman doesn't seem to understand it. I am FREE to charge for my software so that I can eat and pay my bills. My customers are FREE to pay for it if they so choose. The exchange is mutual and consensual. Commercial software developers only FORCE our customers to pay for software if they want to use it. Until we start forcing them to pay for software they don't want, the only evil is him trying to take our FREEDOM of choice away. Stallman isn't some savior, he's the very fascist that he claims to be rallying against.

I think the point he was trying to make is that there is no difference between a studio audience of hundreds watching a show live then tweeting spoilers and thousands of people going to the first screening of a movie and doing the same. I don't think your some instead of most logic takes this into account. Unless you are suggesting that most people who see a move go to the very first showing. Or that the amount at that first showing all across the nation is miniscule compared to the amount of people in a studio audience.

Clearly this person is trying to get the phrase 'application cache' into google's cache.

So, what you are saying is that at least one website will bend to the will of Google? Youtube might be huge, but it is still just one website.

Does Chrome really have the market share required for this move to have any effect on the decisions of web designers?

I did read the article. The courts can get a search warrant to come into my home and take whatever they want, but I doubt that any judge would ever say about my home that I have "no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy.” If you have a profile, and you set it to private, than there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any privacy against the actions of the courts. Maybe I'm arguing semantics, I just think it was poorly phrased on the part of the judge.

It seems to me that this completely nullifies any privacy policy in force on any website. If you have no "legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy" with a privacy policy in force, than how can an employee of the website in question, or the management themselves, get in trouble for violating said policy? Judges really need to be careful what garbage they spew out, lest they set the wrong precedent.