We have had a few new "apps" uploaded to the click store which I have
concerns about.
Now, I know we should be somewhat robotic and just run the tests and
provide the feedback based on that alone. Once those apps hit the
store they then get downvoted to oblivion or upvoted to becoming
accepted by the userbase as "okay".
Here's some links for context.
https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/click-apps/881/
https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/click-apps/859/
https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/click-apps/880/
The one (from the same user) which troubles me more is this one:-
https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/click-apps/905/ - "Antivirus"
This app does _nothing_. The entire content of the app is one html
page which says it's WIP. https://pastebin.canonical.com/113043/ .
Putting an "AV" app in the store sets a bad example early on. "Why do
they need an AV system, I thought their security policy made apps
secure?".
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?
