The odds are pretty good that if you’re a big consumer of mobile apps, the private information on your phone has been collected and sent somewhere without your knowledge.

xxxxxx

xxxxxx

That’s a scary thought for consumers and a tantalizing one for attorneys in the small but growing arena of apps security. San Francisco-based Lookout says in its Apps Genome project report that 1 in 3 free iPhone apps and 3 in 10 free apps on Android access the location of the phone user. The report also says that 14% of iPhone apps extract personal information, as do 8% of Android apps.

Permission may be written into the user agreement, but is it prominent enough? And what assurances do apps makers give that the information will be both protected from hackers and not shared without the user’s permission?

We already have read horror stories about how corporations such as Monster, Second Life and Hell’s Pizza have had their customer databases hacked. While we may feel better that Apple vets its apps, Android apps come from an unrestricted market.

An iPhone has been breached, and so it’s a matter of time before snoopers find their way into the databases of legitimate apps makers and operators. The people who gave permission — and especially the people who did not — may have cause for action. How large could damages be? How well insured or solvent are some apps makers whose software contains flaws? And is there any third-party liability from companies that sell tools for building faulty apps?

Small, inconsequential breaches will likely not produce large damage claims, but could set import precedents for manufacturers, software developers, systems managers and data warehousers. Watch for the full report from Lookout and keep an eye on the dockets.

• None Found

Several suits relate to new touch-screen abilities we have come to know and love with the newest generation of smart phones.  To get a better look at the confusing web of lawsuits, take a look at the New York Times graphic.

It is unfortunate to see this mess, as intellectual property is supposed to foster enhancements in our society. But now we are seeing companies trying to prevent enhancements by patenting work so no one else may pursue it.  Even worse, some companies have only profit in mind and thus seek to reap financial rewards from the lawsuits rather than from applying the patents to products or services.

As the New York Times reports, Apple recently sued HTC, potentially affecting current and future HTC Android phone owners. It seems unlikely that a court would issue an injunction against HTC or Google in part because of secondary effects such as rendering millions of cell phones useless.

But that will not stop Apple, which has sued not only in U.S. District Court in Delaware, but also with the U.S. International Trade Commission. Apple wants the commission to prohibit further imports of HTC phones that Apple claims infringe on its patents. Apple may be targeting HTC before or perhaps even instead of Google because is HTC is a smaller, more vulnerable company that cannot afford protracted litigation. HTC could be easier to take down first or, at least, settle with Apple.

With so many pending cases, the future of patents in the mobile technology and cell phone industry is murky. We can hope that suits will be settled and the companies will go back to producing technology. That is how the patents should be used: to inspire innovative technology, not limit it.

• None Found

The company plans to add platforms like Google’s Android, Nokia, Symbian, and Palm.  Furthermore, the firm will introduce API (application programming interfaces) to bring  in content on the Web or in other databases.  And customers will be able to integrate their apps with online services such as Facebook, Twitter, and OpenTable.

One challenge involved in developing an app is determining the platform.  Computerworld reports that BuildAnApp ameliorates this dilemma with proprietary software that enables the app to be delivered on three of the most influential smartphone platforms.

BuildAnApp has 16 basic templates, including one titled “other” that allows for a wider range of page types selected from other templates.  Computerworld says “the company is also developing a ‘pro’ version of the service for skilled developers creating more sophisticated applications.”

BuildAnApp in all likelihood will not support superior development such as that from Rhomobile and Appcelerator, which support languages such as Ruby, JavaScript and HTML.

The company’s focus is to ease development for smaller businesses.  The user picks a template, chooses typical types of pages and populates the app with information.  Once finished, the developer can keep the app private by requiring a password.

Because the program is in beta, customers have a free 30-day trial, after which time they can pay $7.99 for a one-time content or app update or pay $14.99 per month to make unlimited updates.  Customers can take it one step further by paying $59.99 for unlimited updates for six months.  BuildAnApp will also submit the developed app to Apple’s App Store for $19.99, which includes resubmissions in the event that the app is rejected.

Computerworld mentioned an interesting analogy: “Analysts liken the emergence of a service such as BuildAnApp to the evolution of Web development from pure HTML coding to easy-to-use design services such as GeoCities and Blogger.”

A small business could use a mobile website but apps have advantages.  For instance, consumers can access and use the information even when out of range of their wireless networks; an app layout may not only look better than a mobile website, it may also be easier and more logical to use; and apps generally run faster because they operate locally.

• None Found

One of these developers is Joe Hewitt, who worked for Firefox and its acclaimed developer plug-in Firebug. He was so agitated with Apple’s policies that he handed off the Facebook iPhone app to another engineer at the company. Ars technica believed that his decision could have been due to an issue with his Three20 framework rather than issues with the Facebook app. However, he later reported to ars technica that it was because of another experience which he was not at liberty to disclose.

The Three20 framework initially derived from work he did to create the Facebook app and it was named for iPhone’s 320-pixel-wide screen. The open source framework is used by several iPhone developers, which gives them drop-in support for several user interface enhancements in their own iPhone apps. Then Apple stepped in by rejecting apps that relied on the framework and used a private API (Application Programming Interface) call, which goes directly against the controversial iPhone Development Agreement. Although Hewitt should have been aware of this issue, it is likely the reason he decided to break away from iPhone development.

Other developers have proposed different reasons for discontinuing their development with Apple. Second Gear developer Justin Williams cited to the way the App Store is being managed and the risks involved for most developers. The recent rejection of Google Voice for iPhone is one example of what Williams was referring to. Fed up, when Williams attempted to transfer his apps to another developer that purchased them, the Apple Developer Connection prohibited this action, making the transfer much more difficult and costly to its users (who had to re-purchase the app), further illuminating his frustrations with Apple.

Apple leaves a sour taste in developers’ mouths for multiple reasons. Developer Rogue Amoeba, maker of many audio apps for Apple, ran into a development problem that derived from an intellectual property issue. Rogue had a minor bug they needed fix in its Airfoil Speakers ToCall app, the update’s purpose was solely to improve the way audio was received and did not change any functionality.

Regardless, Apple rejected its update multiple times. The reason was both predictable and simultaneously illogical: The app uses Apple-approved images and icons. The original app had already been approved and was in the App Store, it used the same mechanism, and Apple had provided developers public API for accessing these very images. And yet, Apple rejected the use claiming that it was an inappropriate use of “Apple-owned Graphic Symbols.” Like Hewitt and Williams, Rogue Amoeba got so aggravated by its experience that it is no longer developing for the iPhone either.

Developers are starting to question whether they should invest so much time and effort into iPhone development only to have their apps or ideas rejected. These frustrations that Apple has caused could be good news for Google’s Android. But it is unknown whether developers will give Android a try next.

The good news for Apple: in the app world there are plenty of other developers waiting for a chance to catch lightning in a bottle.

• None Found

What’s the significance? One Wall Street analyst said that Google is now in a better position to take on Skype.

OK, but what about boosting Droid? The phone and Google operating Android system are Web friendly. If I am a college kid in Europe and I find a free, open Wi-Fi spot, wouldn’t I prefer to use that no-cost connection than dial home and pay overseas charges? And if I had an phone app for VOIP, wouldn’t I prefer to dial or text through a Droid phone than boot up the laptop and open videoconferencing software?

And if that is not how Droid works now, how long before it does?

• None Found