Slashdot Mirror

FTFY, don't project your inadequacies onto everyone else.

Are you slow? Do I need to draw you a picture? Here, I'll quote myself. Read it out loud if you need to.

First of all, all of the developer documentation is written assuming java and Eclipse so you are hamstrung out of the gate using anything else. Secondly, for RAD, there is no drag and drop gui designer for monodroid, There are no tablet specific api's on monodroid so you are always going to be a step behind other developers. Worst of all, there is a performance penalty so by definition, there are some applications that can be written using java that will be too slow to deploy to users on monodroid.

Monodroid is not as advanced as the Java kit for android development. That is a monodroid inadequacy.

First of all, all of the developer documentation is written assuming java and Eclipse so you are hamstrung out of the gate using anything else.

So if you know C# and have developed functionality already you don't need to learn those java/eclipse aspects, you can leverage existing knowledge.

You imply that you have mobile development experience. Now, I doubt it. The mere fact of knowing the language does not make you an Android developer, be it C# or Java. You have to be familiar with the apis, the app lifecycle, the idiosyncracies of the platform. Best practices. All of that and more is documented in excruciating detail at http://www.developer.android.com/ and it assumes java. You don't get that for mono.

Tablet-specific APIs? What is it you need that you seem incapable of doing with scalable code? or is it that you aren't/can't do scalable code?

Really? And here's more. None of that is available with monodroid.

Welcome to software development, since you're new here

What's that you were saying about projection?

FTFY, don't project your inadequacies onto everyone else.

Are you slow? Do I need to draw you a picture? Here, I'll quote myself. Read it out loud if you need to.

First of all, all of the developer documentation is written assuming java and Eclipse so you are hamstrung out of the gate using anything else. Secondly, for RAD, there is no drag and drop gui designer for monodroid, There are no tablet specific api's on monodroid so you are always going to be a step behind other developers. Worst of all, there is a performance penalty so by definition, there are some applications that can be written using java that will be too slow to deploy to users on monodroid.

Monodroid is not as advanced as the Java kit for android development. That is a monodroid inadequacy.

First of all, all of the developer documentation is written assuming java and Eclipse so you are hamstrung out of the gate using anything else.

So if you know C# and have developed functionality already you don't need to learn those java/eclipse aspects, you can leverage existing knowledge.

You imply that you have mobile development experience. Now, I doubt it. The mere fact of knowing the language does not make you an Android developer, be it C# or Java. You have to be familiar with the apis, the app lifecycle, the idiosyncracies of the platform. Best practices. All of that and more is documented in excruciating detail at http://www.developer.android.com/ and it assumes java. You don't get that for mono.

Tablet-specific APIs? What is it you need that you seem incapable of doing with scalable code? or is it that you aren't/can't do scalable code?

Really? And here's more. None of that is available with monodroid.

Welcome to software development, since you're new here

What's that you were saying about projection?

From here:

Research is showing that the key piece needed (and why some OG Droids with GB builds are able to run it unmodified) is the Stagefright media framework. Stagefright is SUPPOSED to be included in 2.2, but it looks like most OEMs decided not to ship with it for whatever reason.

It looks like most GB builds out there have Stagefright installed (as they should), which would explain why they seem to work with nothing more than a quick tweak to build.prop.

What's interesting is that the only official mention of Stagefright I can find is in the high-level 2.2 changelog for developers, and even there only in passing. No API docs & no reference so far as I can see. Googling only gives me a bunch of posts on the forums asking where to get more info, with no answers. Closed APIs? on my 'droid? WTF.

Wonder why Netflix came up with this wonderful idea of using a media framework that is available on such a minuscule number of devices. Is it because it's the only one that has some hardware or at least OS-level DRM support, perhaps?

Keep in mind that the *any* device that supports USB Host mode can be an Accessory. There's a full open source reference implementation for Arduino, but the protocols are documented and open and you can implement it on any hardware you like.

Docs and Specs: http://accessories.android.com/

Google IO Talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7szcpXf2rE

The Android mascot is open (Creative Commons Attribution license) , you can start a business selling those

Can anyone point me to the Android web browser code used in Honeycomb? Seeing it also uses the same LGPL WebCore and JavaScriptCore modules I'd like to have a look. I've tried via the http://source.android.com/ but couldn't get any of the updates that may have been introduced in Honeycomb.

Thanks.

No, not "just like" java classes. You don't really even have to write your own obnoxious vm-side glue anymore (except for more advanced apps), just use the ready made NativeActivity.

It's not exactly posixy, but don't confuse posix and native.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_Extensions_for_C%2B%2B#Design

applications written in Managed C++ compile to CIL â" Common Intermediate Language â" and not directly to native CPU instructions like regular C++ applications do.

The NDK in contrast, allows compilation of native arm libraries. The application as a whole is running "in" the VM, like a Java app that calls a JNI interface, but it's definitely executing actual native code. This is readily apparent looking at the sample apps. sample apps

Or were you just confusing the NDK and SDK?

http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_Extensions_for_C%2B%2B#Design

applications written in Managed C++ compile to CIL â" Common Intermediate Language â" and not directly to native CPU instructions like regular C++ applications do.

The NDK in contrast, allows compilation of native arm libraries. The application as a whole is running "in" the VM, like a Java app that calls a JNI interface, but it's definitely executing actual native code. This is readily apparent looking at the sample apps. sample apps

Or were you just confusing the NDK and SDK?

http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html

Just grab droid48, an HP48 emulator. I was scouring ebay looking for a replacement for my trusty HP15C, until I found this and installed it on my phone. I still think the 15C looks cooler, but the 48 does everything I need.

From the SDK: All applications are written using the Java programming language.

A search +java +site:android.com will make it abundantly clear what Google is "presenting".

Excellent. You can use the Java language to program for Android. Now show me the Java VM that Google produced like Microsoft did. So far, the only VM I've seen mentioned is Dalvik.

Second request addressed above.

Not really, no. Google is not creating a Java VM that only works on Google devices. They are not claiming to implement Java and breaking compatibility with other Java environments. And even if you take offense to coding in Java for a Dalvik environment, anyone can take the Apache License Dalvik VM and port it to other platforms (which more than one entity is doing).

You and several posters are being deliberately obtuse.

I thought thats what you were doing. I mean - your nickname implies that. But lets not fall in to the trap of calling each other names while forgoing a good conversation on the issues at hand.

You make a very interesting point. There are similarities between Google's DalvikVM and Microsoft's JavaVM. But there are also some pretty stark differences as well. And I find it a stretch to imply Google is causing confusion in the Java application space, damaging the write-once / run-everywhere promise of Java, and creating a lock-in subset of Java in the process as did Microsoft.

From the SDK: All applications are written using the Java programming language.

A search +java +site:android.com will make it abundantly clear what Google is "presenting".

Second request addressed above.

You and several posters are being deliberately obtuse.

Agreed that a "read from sdcard" (read_external_storage) permission should exist.

However, the write_external_storage permission exists since API level 4 (android 1.6). Previous OS versions implicitly allowed that permission.

http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html#WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/data/data-storage.html#filesExternal

Technically, your camera app could mark the files private to only itself; then you'd have to use it to view them (not a gallery) and share them (or copy to a temp area to be shared).

Agreed that a "read from sdcard" (read_external_storage) permission should exist.

However, the write_external_storage permission exists since API level 4 (android 1.6). Previous OS versions implicitly allowed that permission.

http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html#WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE
http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/data/data-storage.html#filesExternal

Technically, your camera app could mark the files private to only itself; then you'd have to use it to view them (not a gallery) and share them (or copy to a temp area to be shared).

it's nearly useless.

One of my few serious complaints about Android is a serious lack of BlueTooth support. Except for normal phone calls and streaming music you can all but forget it.

You were saying?,

Bluetooth File Transfer, formerly Medival Bluetooth FTP works fine without root on every phone I've had (HTC Dream, Motorola Milestone, HTC Desire Z).

If you've got root you can do a lot more. I think there may even be BT tethering w/o the requirement for Root access but I've never looked into this in any detail.

Perhaps you were thinking of an OS which competes with Android and has a lot of restrictions.

Then another depends on another application because it doesn't make sense outside that context, and thus states so. (on a sidenote in this case often the application will just ask you to download to the other if you wish to use the feature).

Ideally, if application A depends on application B, one of the following scenarios should occur:

• Application A does not appear in the list of applications to buy until application B is installed. This model would work similarly to Android Market's existing filtering based on device capabilities.
• Application A appears in the list, but if you don't have application B installed on the device, installing application A will install application B first. And if application B is a paid application, the list price for application A would include the price for both, in order to discourage developers from flooding the market with free or cheap applications that depend on a specific expensive application.

I'm not specifically talking about games here, because I still don't think that's the main use of a device

Apple has even marketed iPod touch as a PSP replacement. From this page: "iPod touch is the most popular portable game player in the world. And with tens of thousands of games and other applications in almost every category just a tap away at the App Store, iPod touch has more games than any other platform." Other than the iDevices, which handheld device 1. is specifically for games and 2. allows individuals and small businesses to develop for it?

You want your phone to notify you when a new Cyanogen release is out and upgrade over-the-air as a clicky friendly operation? There's an app for that.

...now, there's nothing wrong with sticking with what your phone vendor provides -- anything modernish ships with Android 2.2, and developers will be building their apps with 2.x support for a looong time -- but the "community" option isn't the hassle you think it is.

If there cant be a happy medium where I get to keep my privacy, and the developers get fair compensation, then I'm not interested. I'm not the only one either, more and more people are not interested.

Have you tried Privacy Blocker? It claims to be able to strip code for certain accesses from apps. I have not tried it, so don't know whether they're just blowing foam or not.

There are a number of scanner apps in the market that do a much better job in the first step of this process, which is taking the picture. They then concentrate their efforts on producing a clean usable PDF of the document. I tested one of these and found that the PDF rendered by it was much better than the PDF produced by Google.
Everything is crisp and readable.

If the first fails, its no wonder the second OCR step fails.

"Roguelike" means "like Rogue", no more and no less. There's no need to try to seek some deeper meaning in there.

It's a silly problem, really, in which there's an organic development of forms, and then someone decides to justify their personal preferences by making up some abstract definition after the fact so that they can claim that things they don't like are objectively inferior to things they do like.

Full disclosure: I enjoy playing the Android port of Angband on my T-Mobile G2.

The Register article you reference is talking about Android 3.0 and there is no indication that's what the Army does or intends to use. That seems very unlikely, since Android 3.0 is supposedly intended only for tablets. Though it's unclear when or if Android 3.0 will be released as Free and Open Source software, 2.x versions are actually unconditionally Open Source.

I wouldn't try to dispute any of your complaints about Google's use of data. However, I think that's unrelated to this issue because the Army does not need to give any data to Google in order to use the Open Source releases of Android. Since the Army has their own communications infrastructure, they have no need for Google's or anyone else's and would be foolish to rely on outside providers.

Whatever the DoD decides, it ought to use something that is fully under their own control, not some 3rd party, yet is maintained.

So, you're saying that any smartphone platform the DOD uses should be developed solely by them with no outside help from companies or any FLOSS development community. If they do that, they can maintain it to whatever level they want, given enough manpower. It seems the point of the project to use Android as a basis is intended to save money versus developing a platform from scratch. Not only would it take a lot more of the Army's time to develop their own system from scratch, but it would be a lot harder and more expensive to get phone manufacturers to support it.

Instead of a "Smart Phone"... Apple, Windows, Android... pffft give me a PC-DOS based phone :P Then I can write my own apps in GWBasic :)

Ha ... well, I can't give you DOS, but there is this.

To the general public. Search for developer FA53 on the market.

https://market.android.com/search?q=FA53&so=1&c=apps

I just wrote a simple Android app. It took me about 4 months in my spare time. A company with people working on things full time could of course do things faster, but I'm pretty sure Angry Birds took more than a month to write. It probably took at least a month of testing. And I don't think the art in AB is mediocre.

https://market.android.com/details?id=net.sourceforge.gemrb&feature=search_result

I've been playing the GOG version of PS:T on this for a few days and it's working surprisingly well. Only thing to note is that, with the GOG version at least, you have to set all the CD paths in the cfg file to './data'.

Actually Angry Bird's Rio was not exclusive to Amazon. You can get it on the Android Market, you can get it from iTunes. So it clearly isn't an exclusive in any possible sense of the word.

Amazon AppStore
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004SBS8LA/ref=bt_atcg_mine_img_0?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0PHR5R090MXJ5QMY29TC&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1293151222&pf_rd_i=2478844011
Android Market
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.rovio.angrybirdsrio&feature=search_result
iTunes
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/angry-birds-rio/id420635506?mt=8

Clearly you can see it is available in two places for Android and also for the iPhone. So clearly not an exclusive to anyone.

Many of these "Wi-Fi only" devices can't officially be upgraded past 1.6, past 2.1, or past 2.2.

You missed my point. Why if 1.6 and 1.5 only makes up less than 7% of the market should developers even bother maintaining compatibility, which is precisely the reason quoted by Halfbrick a while ago that Fruit Ninja doesn't support multitouch. I mean should I as a developer still write applications that support Windows 9x just because a pittance of the population use it?

It's not the problem that users aren't or can't upgrade. Its that the developers aren't coming to the table taking advantage of the new features... even now old features.

http://developer.android.com/sdk/ndk/index.html

Yes, because c/c++ code cannot be used (irony)

Yes, psx4droid was removed, but it's freely available (with source) from his website. And it was probably removed because of the name psx4droid. FPseis still available in the android market.

I would consider "I won't use an app with ads" an unreasonable requirement, but it's obviously something that you're passionate about so I'll say to each his own. The problem is that if 99% of the market doesn't feel the same way that you do, then it's likely that you might not be able to find a single app in a category that fits your needs. Angry Birds has about a billion competitors though, so I think that's something different than what I'm talking about.

My problem is when I see apps like this or this that are obviously over-reaching. I don't think that it's just the case that most people don't look at the permissions of apps they're installing, though I do think that is part of the problem. I think that permissions of apps that the maker knows will come pre-installed on phones quite often have these crazy permissions (since the user didn't do the first install they didn't read it), and I think that there are also categories of apps where there are few competitors where they've essentially all agreed to ask for too much because like I said the "nuclear option" of not installing any app from an entire category is rarely taken.

I would consider "I won't use an app with ads" an unreasonable requirement, but it's obviously something that you're passionate about so I'll say to each his own. The problem is that if 99% of the market doesn't feel the same way that you do, then it's likely that you might not be able to find a single app in a category that fits your needs. Angry Birds has about a billion competitors though, so I think that's something different than what I'm talking about.

My problem is when I see apps like this or this that are obviously over-reaching. I don't think that it's just the case that most people don't look at the permissions of apps they're installing, though I do think that is part of the problem. I think that permissions of apps that the maker knows will come pre-installed on phones quite often have these crazy permissions (since the user didn't do the first install they didn't read it), and I think that there are also categories of apps where there are few competitors where they've essentially all agreed to ask for too much because like I said the "nuclear option" of not installing any app from an entire category is rarely taken.

Only the mobile phone carriers should be allowed to collect large, but unknown, piles of personal information silently and without oversight! It is an outrage that others would dare to step onto the rightful domain of these oh-so-helpful surveillance buddies.

On a more serious note: What I would really like to see in Android(and other mobile operating systems; but a 3rd party build of Android is pretty much the only one where this would ever see the light of day on any hardware that isn't a laptop-size dev board...) is a supplement to the existing system of granular access-request application permissions:

Spoofing.

At present, you can see what permissions an application demands(perhaps not at quite the level of granularity that would be ideal; but the concept is good, and refinements aren't fundamentally challenging); but you have no way of pushing back against an application that seems a bit uppity, other than refusing it. What would be ideal would be a way of setting up multiple instances of the various Android content providers. One set of instances would be the 'real' one, populated with actual system data(address book, location, etc, etc.) Other instances would be various flavors of 'fake', either generated by applying an overlay filter to the real ones(ie. I might want to give an application that uses location data access to 'location data, but truncated to ~city level accuracy', which would be a content provider generated by a simple mathematical operation against the genuine content provider for location data), or auto-generated to look plausible; but be completely unrelated to the truth(ie. an 'address book' consisting of a simple dump of 47 name/number pairs from a phone book). This would allow you to push back against applications that demand more than they need to know; by allowing you to fulfil their architectural 'requirements'; but choose for yourself which are actually necessary for what you want to do(if you want a navigation app to work, you do need to give it your real location. If you just want dining recommendations, you may only feel the need to give it city-level accuracy, and feel no need whatsoever to give over your real address book for 'social dining integration'...)

Such a system would have additional benefits: it would make tasks like separating work/personal(or personal/er... 'extracurricular' if that is your style) architecturally clean and much lighter-weight than virtualization. You could have multiple true address books, say, one accurately reporting your personal contacts, and one accurately reporting your work contacts, and you could point twitfrienddroidfeed at the first and seriouscorporatemail at the second.

Does anyone know how they collect geographic information when the application requires neither coarse location nor fine location?

The lack of those Android permissions either makes this a bigger story than simply Pandora sending information, or it makes me skeptical of the researchers' claims.

Maybe (and this is only a guess) they turn on WiFi and look at nearby SSIDs, the same way Google does.

The app has permission to alter network state and look at WiFi settings: https://market.android.com/details?id=com.pandora.android

The "religious fundamentalism" you deride is responsible for developing the system that millions are using on desktops, media boxes, phones, etc., for free. The only reason people work for free is when they are working for an ideal.

As far as your specific concern about video drivers, Ubuntu doesn't (and can't) distribute nVidia's proprietary graphics driver. But downloading and enabling it is as easy as clicking System> Administration> Hardware Drivers.

The last time I checked, fundamentalist preachers don't have "click here for a keg" signs in their churches.

Yep, the Android OS needs to get stable, and the hardware underneath it, or does it?. Google Platform Versions shows 2.2/API8 as the largest group, but that will change, again. Linux Devices has a more complete summary article. I say "does it" as the diversity of hardware did not hurt Microsoft. If anything it hurt Linux users trying to migrate off cheaper Windows hardware (Winmodems are first in mind).

Off Topic: My phones get a 60 day warranty bake in before being rooted (it is my hardware, don't lock it). Having the backup modem for the laptops is just a plus. The CDMA Nexus S may change that thought on rooting, but then I would have to pay the extra $30. That $30 may cost Sprint a sale on a Nexus S and a Evo 3D. For my 1-2GB per month with only limited backup modem usage, $30 is too much.

OTOH, I know two small business owners who thought that the EVO would make a nice WAP, as in drop business DSL and use their phone for the office laptops. I guess the suits at Sprint chose charging extra to have the tethering feature easily available over capping or tiered usage plans.

If you have an Android phone, and you prefer HP calculators to TI, you have the option of Droid48. It's a port of the X48 project, and it works pretty well for me!

I smell Microsoft.

Go here to download the Android source code. Then read the license here:

The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org.

As others have already suggested, the FSF friendly way to "gain control of and final say over customization" is through the trademark, not the software license. There is no evidence in this article that this is not the path Google is taking, yet we got a plethora of posts saying "On noes! Google has become evil!".

You know the funny thing? This is yet another example when Google does something very good (standing against software patents in this case) and then gets slamed with make-believe charges that they are doing something evil. It is clear, to me at least, that is is just another foray in Microsoft's attacks on Google because they know they can't complete technically. It's like this decade's version of what was reported in the Halloween documents

I smell Microsoft.

Go here to download the Android source code. Then read the license here:

The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org.

As others have already suggested, the FSF friendly way to "gain control of and final say over customization" is through the trademark, not the software license. There is no evidence in this article that this is not the path Google is taking, yet we got a plethora of posts saying "On noes! Google has become evil!".

You know the funny thing? This is yet another example when Google does something very good (standing against software patents in this case) and then gets slamed with make-believe charges that they are doing something evil. It is clear, to me at least, that is is just another foray in Microsoft's attacks on Google because they know they can't complete technically. It's like this decade's version of what was reported in the Halloween documents

I am confused here a developer produces 2 similar apps puts one on google market and the other on other markets.

App1 works as advertised and costs a couple of bucks
App2 is a trojan but is free on the third party app sites.

App2 is pretty much a clone of App1 and made by the same author no less. The end user has not pirated App1
he/she downloaded App2 which was offered for free.

Just where does piracy even enter into it? There are lots of apps which are ad supported and free and also a paid for version which is ad free. Why would the end user think that the free version of this particular app isn't legitimate?

Even directing the user of app2 to app1 isn't that suspicious after all many trial versions will nag you to buy the paid version. Normally on the first time you run the application and still haven't decided if its worth buying yet.

This authors business model appears to be very little different to the one used by the antivirus 2011 malware vendors who tell you your infected and attempt to get you to purchase a "full" version to make the problem go away.

Even the name isn't distinctive, its so generic that anyone might use it for a program for texting while walking.

So really it appears there is only one criminal here and that is the guy/ company that created both of these applications and he/they are liable to be sued in civil court and or prosecuted under computer crime legislation in criminal court.

In my country the cost of the texts are trivial but the damage to someones character is worth a good few thousand and it is very likely the author would be found guilty. (typically 14,000 compensation ten years ago)

The computer crime statutes here would also leave the author liable to a large fine or jail time.

Anyway Incorporate Apps will be added to my do not recommend list.

https://market.android.com/details?id=com.incorporateapps.walktext&feature=search_result

https://market.android.com/details?id=org.allbinary.game.minispacewar.vector

Odd, I use Google reader on my Vega, it's first release was pretty poor but it really nice now.
Additionally you don't check "pixel counts" on android you allocate assets depending on device categories

http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html

It is BS because they've put a lot of thought into it. If the app looks like crap it's probably because the developer did everything they say not to do on this page:
http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html

iOS apps can look like crap too when the developer doesn't do what you need to do there for screen independence.

However, there are certain new features that 3.0 brings, such as fragments, and action bars and stuff like that.

Check it out, Google's trying to redefine "fragment" in Android as a *good thing*.

He was talking about the Fragment UI class, fuckwad.

Handy meme, but just over 90% of devices are running at least 2.1 (API level 7).
Citation
Perhaps you can tell me what specific API features from 2.2 and 2.3 you're looking to implement?
Won't hold my breath :-D

Android is licensed under the Apache Software License 2.0.. Only the kernel (i.e. linux) is GPL.

Not that it matters, because the copyright holder can do whatever he wants with the code, even after he has given it to others under an open source license (like the Apache license or GPL). Accepting contributions dilutes the copyright ownership, but to deal with that contributions to Android are only accepted after a Contributor License Agreement is signed.

Android is licensed under the Apache Software License 2.0.. Only the kernel (i.e. linux) is GPL.

Not that it matters, because the copyright holder can do whatever he wants with the code, even after he has given it to others under an open source license (like the Apache license or GPL). Accepting contributions dilutes the copyright ownership, but to deal with that contributions to Android are only accepted after a Contributor License Agreement is signed.

Then how will users on AT&T (the only nationwide GSM carrier in the United States

How is that Android's problem. The issue is with the US allowing it's telco's to do whatever they wanted.

Besides, there's sideloading which AT&T has been able to do nothing about.

Also where's the AT&T Iphone where I can install applications from any source I like.

The developer of Tiny Wings has no time to port it to Android.

Once again, how is one person/organisation's bad time management an Android problem.

The Tetris Company routinely files OCILLA notices to get Tetris clones taken down from Android Market.

The rights owners to Scrabble got Scrabulous taken down from the App Store? Now you're not even allowed to try to put a Scrabble clone up there.

My point being, if you wanted to create a tetris clone and call it tetris you could publish on your own market or site...

Or you could just install one of the numerous clones from the android market.

Are you blindly swinging at Android or trying to prove that Apple like control is a good thing because I cant tell.

It's the ADT Plugin for Eclipse, jackass. If you'd taken a glance at the Dev Guide you wouldn't have had to type out that dumb comment.

It's the ADT Plugin for Eclipse, jackass. If you'd taken a glance at the Dev Guide you wouldn't have had to type out that dumb comment.

It's not called Google Market (was it called that before?). Anyway, it's Android Market now. Even if it were Google Market, I think that would be OK, as long as they understood that they weren't getting rights to the word "Market".

That's why there can be both MS Office and Corel Office.

Regarding "Oil Company": right. Oil Company is the analogue of App Store. A company; what kind of company? Oil company. A store; what kind of store? An app store, not a stationery store or a candle store.

To Apple's way of thinking, no oil company could call themselves a company after the first black-turtlenecked one did. It would be:

Standard Oil Company
American Oil Corp.
Anglo-Iranian Oil Group
Arabian Oil Herd
Venezuelan Oil Posse

Or maybe:
American Greasy Stuff Company
Anglo-Iranian Black Slippery Goo Company
Arabian Ebony-Colored Fuel Company
Venezuelan ? Company