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

The previous week, Apple filed a lawsuit against HTC, claiming the Taiwan-based phone maker infringed on 20 patents related to the iPhone.

The lawsuit was filed concurrently with the U.S. International Trade Commission and in U.S. District Court in  Delaware.  For the ITC claim and the complaint in the Delaware action, click here.

Ostensibly, the fight is between proprietary software and services (Apple) and open systems (Google).   But the Times describes the battle as intensely personal, with CEOs Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt engaged in nothing less than World War III.  Who will win?

• None Found

Analysts have said that mobile app stores in 2010 will experience more than 4.5 billion downloads, with about 80% of those being free to end users.  Games remain the most popular apps purchased.

As the industry grows, consumers will continue to experiment with downloads.  Apps for social networking, shopping, as well as productivity and utilities continue to grow and garner more money as smartphone mobile devices with Internet and app capabilities expand.

Gartner says that as the market becomes more saturated with cheaper smartphones, users will become less tech-savvy and more hesitant to pay for apps.  As a result, the firm thinks  that advertising sponsors will see growth.

By 2013, the company expects about 25% of revenues will come from paid-for apps and advertising-sponsored free apps as the industry will likely become more advertising and sponsorship based.

App developers will need to find not just the right revenue model, but the the right platforms.  The professionals at appslawblog can answer questions about how to get an app-based business off the ground. Contact them through this site.

• 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

According to the Firm’s website, the blog contains reporting and analysis that has emerged in the past 20 months as “a multidisciplinary  resource on issues relating to consumer protection and advertising law.”

Is this a new trend: law firms creating their own apps?  What types of law apps might this lead to in the future?

• None Found

Call it crowdsourcing, online rating or real-time reporting. The Web allows for immediate, detailed consumer commentary on products and services.  That feedback has extended to cell phones and reached the airline-security experience through the “Survey on the Spot” app for the iPhone.

On the Spot Systems in Newton, Mass., has launched the TSA Airport Security Screening Survey that gives people who tub their carry-ons, take off their shoes and sometimes get wanded to rate their experiences. This is not a rogue app; the Transportation Security Administration wants to know how it is doing. Survey on the Spot also allows travelers to add photos and comments to help the TSA improve the national security system, says On the Spot Systems in a press release.

Photos of suspected terrorists? Rants? Don’t look for them on a Web site. On the Spot generates proprietary information for clients, most of which appear to be fast-food and casual dining chains, based on our informal search on the company’s Web site. The TSA app is geo-based; launch it and it figures out which airport you’re trying to traverse to your plane. The commercial clients use zip codes to locate their nearest restaurant or coffee shop.

Ratings in the public sector are relatively rare when compared to the private sector and independent sites that span across the Web. One wonders whether there might one day be a survey for rating the cop who pulls you over for speeding, the judge who hears your case, the attorney who represents you, and the court clerk who takes your fine payment.

• None Found

The App Rejections site should help app developers better understand why certain apps were rejected, thereby avoiding those mistakes themselves. The site is set up as a simple blog and is therefore easy to read and follow.

Adam Martin, the site’s author, occasionally infuses his insights into the posts, providing some of his personal opinions and theories regarding Apple’s review process.

ReadWriteWeb reports that the blog’s purpose is to explain exactly why particular applications have been rejected. Posts examine information regarding API’s (Application Programming Interface) used or rules broken for example. The site is also useful because it reviews apps that had been previously rejected but later make it into Apple’s App Store. These posts are entitled “approved” or “overturned” (overturned refers when an app went through some sort of appeal process brought by its developer).

As the site catches on, perhaps Apple will, too, make it easier for developers to understand their review process. In the meantime, this site is a great utility for other developers to gain some insight that they would not ordinarily be able to obtain.

If a developer wishes to have his or her experience with Apple documented on App Rejections, Martin can be contacted through his company’s Twitter account, redglassesapps.

• 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

It was created by Eric Koester, an associate at the law firm of Cooley Godward Kronis LLP.  He thought of the idea while attending a weekend retreat for aspiring entrepreneurs at Microsoft’s campus and essentially created it on the spot with the help from some others.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the app is more or less a game to help you remember who people are in your social network. According to the ABA Journal news, the app pulls a photo from the users LinkedIn account and then asks the user to name that person from a list of four names to choose from.  There is a point system for correct matches, timeliness in answering, and additional points for identifying that person’s employer.

Although Apple takes 30 percent of the royalties, Koester and the people who helped him create the app stand in line to each get about $7,000.  Not bad for one day’s work, even for an attorney.

• None Found