Slashdot Mirror
Google Dev Phone 1 Banned From Paid Apps
ScrewMaster points out an short article according to which purchasers of the G1 Android phone's developer-oriented variant will be out of luck if they want to buy apps from Google's application store. "Google is not going to allow programmers who have purchased the Dev Phone 1 to purchase paid apps from the Android Market. I just signed up as a G1 developer, and was about to plunk down the $399 for a Dev Phone 1, but now I'm going to have to think about it. I know that Google is interested in preventing (cough) 'piracy,' but does this seem like the right way to go? I know the Dev Phone 1 is primarily a developer's tool, but I would like to actually use the thing, and not have to spend another $180 from T-Mobile for a regular G1 just for the privilege of buying software." I hope this isn't true; the unlocked G1 looked like a pretty cool phone, especially (being unlocked) for travel to countries where pre-paid SIM cards are the norm.
I'm interested in preventing privacy too.
How many times does it take to realize that crackers will get around any kind of protection? Especially on an open source platform.
As a company like google grows, practices like these are only going to become more common. They have to start "protecting" their interests. Not that it will work, but it's the natural reaction, much like a "fire hot, fire bad" reaction.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
It's not the device that is banned...
I have a Dev Phone 1, I created an app for it, and I couldn't see my own paid-app on the Market. Installing the Google bonus phone firmware let me access paid apps on the Android Market.
- Google allows you to return apps up to 24 hours after purchase for a refund.
- The Dev phone allows total access to the restricted location where purchased programs are stored. It is restricted to prevent copying.
- It is entirely possible to copy the contents of the restricted folder on the Dev phone once a program has been purcahsed, then return the app.
- It can then be distributed and modified at the Dev's wish, against the licensing terms of the app.
It is the wrong way to go about it, but let's be honest; The only thing which they can test with purchasing is the install mechanism, and they can do that anyway. They already have their app.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
So the value of the device is now significantly less than $399. I can't test my final app's "out of box experience" on it. Since apps can publish interfaces to their individual capabilities, I can't test mashup compatibility with third-party apps. I can't give it to my coworkers to use it as a regular daily phone with other apps for general walkaround usability testing. There's no way I'm going to pay full retail price for a hobbled device.
[
You could always, -er, ah, *cough* pirate them.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Those of us who would like to do iPhone development have to buy an iPod Touch if we want to use a "developer device" that isn't our main phone. That so-called "developer device" doesn't even have the full hardware capabilities. Considering the fact that the iPhone is still a fairly buggy platform, you develop on your main phone at your own risk. I've owned my iPhone for 3 months now, and even after reboots and firmware reinstallation, I still cannot get the speakerphone to work anymore.
So please, stop complaining. $399 is not a hefty price tag if you are serious about developing on it. Sure, it would be nice if you had no restrictions, but you do have more freedom than your biggest rival platform.
So don't buy them - get them from your favorite torrent tracker instead. What else would Google expect? I mean they are supposed to be tech savvy, right? Not like the suits at Microsoft and the creative types at Apple who might make this mistake accidentally because they thought it would be good for business, or make their brand seem more hip.
This mechanism is guaranteed to be entirely ineffective. Sooner or later someone will sit down with the two phones and figure out a) how to get full access to the dev area on a normal phone and b) how to convince the app store that you have a retail G1 when you have a dev phone.
The simple truth is that it is impossible to prevent piracy, and shitting on developers is the best way to guarantee that your platform will fail. Remember when Apple "accidentally" expired the development OS for the iPhone? Remember the wave of resentment? Well, Apple fanboys would stand by Apple if Steve Jobs came to their house while they were asleep in the basement and raped their mom. Google's position in our minds is much more precarious because they only have technical proficiency, not sexiness.
Do you really believe that testing your app on your dev phone is sufficient? Because if you do, I sure hope you're not making G1 apps, or that yours will come with a warning "NOT PROPERLY TESTED". You need to test your app on a phone just like what the user will have, and with a bunch of other apps on it too. Otherwise you're making the kind of pathetic test that has enabled Microsoft to roll out release after release of Windows that doesn't work on totally standard configurations.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's still a cool phone. You're banned only from using apps where the apps are only available from the Google store, and which cost money. It's not as if you're banned from developing apps, or using free apps, or using apps you've installed via alternative means, or anything like that.
Essentially, any developer who insists on payment and who insists on using only the Google avenue for distribution will find they're not making a lot of sales to users of free (as in freedom) phones. That's a choice they make, just as those who develop paid apps for Windows that insist upon using copy prevention techniques also lock themselves out of other markets. You've not going to run that software under GNU/Linux.
This is a website where a significant number of people have chosen to use Free operating systems, and where even the non-free software that most of us use under those Free operating systems has been made in an environment in which the authors have made a conscious decision to allow the software to install on an environment they have no control over. You and I know it works. You and I know that those of us using distributions like Ubuntu are having a much more relaxed, friendly, and productive time than we do using the non-free platforms, despite some developers boycotting - consciously or otherwise - our platform and not making their software available for it.
If you want a G1, there's no good reason to let this news stand in the way of you doing so. Do it. Add yourself to the numbers of those with unlocked phones. Make developers choose between locked down and free, rather than making them choose locked down by default.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This action reminds me of tactics used by Ebay sellers. "I said the screen was in good shape; I never said it was attached to the laptop." - sethpackard. "We said you could buy a G1 development phone; we never said you'd be able to use it." - google
If google did this to me, I'd file a credit card chargeback and return an empty box to Google with tracking. I will not be ripped off by ANY dishonest seller, whether it be an ebayer or a corporation. Reverse-scam the scammer and teach them a lesson.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
While Android may have an app store, you are not required to buy your apps from it. Despite what the TFA says, you can still actually use it.
If it's an unlocked dev phone, and you're a dev, can't you come up with a workaround? Though I admit it's a PITA, as a non-dev that seems like the obvious solution.
Something strange is going on. These limitations turn the G1 Dev into just a unit and functional test platform for your application. You need another G1 to perform integration tests, but if you could debug the integration system easily why would you need the G1 Dev? I wonder if Google does develop applications in that way.
I know that when I tried to get Nameco Pac Man it would tell me I could not. All other marketplace apps I could download - even if they sucked and I later deleted 'em.
I thought there were so many OSS apps for Android, who needs to buy apps for it?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Maybe I have already spent $399 for the platform and don't want to spend another $199 to buy a second one just so I can use the phone as my daily communications device.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Also, I've noticed a bunch (at least two) tethering apps, which are (a) paid, and (b) require root access (e.g., developer phone). I wonder if there is any connection here...
From what I can tell, this article isn't true! I have a developer phone and have purchased apps within the last week, and right after I read this, I went and purchased another app. So don't know why the guy thinks developer phones can't. Peace, -Nick
When Google announced the Android phone and cellphone carriers started to talk about how much better this was than OpenMoko I figured this was where things were going. They didn't care for OpenMoko because it was too open. The Android phone is thoroughly Tivoized... which is fine for a single-use device like a Tivo, or a plain old dumb phone, but it makes a mockery of the whole idea of a smartphone.
I bet Palm's new phone is locked up tighter than a drum, too.
Oh, the irony. Microsoft's smartphones are the open ones. Way to kill my schadenfreude, you bastards.
What's the appeal of an android phone over an openMoko device?
The latter is designed to be completely open to you, top to bottom, for the purposes of being completely open.
Android is "more open" perhaps than some previous phone offerings, but its clear that your free-as-in-speech rights are not part of the equation.
When I have some reason to ditch my $75 ebay unlocked GSM phone, I'll probably grab an openmoko. I was impressed enough with all of the knobs you get with the P2ktools on a motorola phone, but it's always clear that these are hacker tools designed to work around corporate issues.
I'd rather just spend my money on a phone (and with an organization) that thinks "you get uid 0" is a selling point.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
...because what am I supposed to do if I'm an Android dev (which I am intermittently) and a customer wants to know why there's a problem with my application and another application when my application used to work fine...? We must be in a perfect world now.
Loading...
I have paid, including the developer fee and taxes, $450 for an ADP1 from Google. One of the key selling points for developers is that they can publish hooks that are available to other apps, called "intents." Most major actions, like "call so and so," or "go to the home screen" are done with intents. New ones can be added and then called by other apps.
In light of this, I think it is pretty shitty of them to restrict access to software that will be publishing intents that applications I develop could interact with. I suppose I'll have to independently contact developers and see if they'll play nicely.
This is a trick. Lot of people like you are going to & purchase an app after reading the article.
Hence the article.
I thought Google had learned from Apple that making your developers mad is a bad idea. I guess they didn't.
In that thread, many people tried to point out to the idiotic Engadget editors that the whole point of a Dev phone is that you can change it. It should be bloody obvious that an over-the-air update to the OS would not happen in these phones. As it would wipe the changes made.
It is amazing how many people seem to take the ADP to be a "sim-lock" free G1. Is is not. It is an unsupported (as far costumer service goes) developer phone, which does not meet the same expectations that consumer G1 do. One of these is the over the air update.
I bet Google's workers are pretty peeved that the "bonus" they got last year can't download protected apps from the Android store. Granted there aren't many of them yet, but that is nearly certain to change soon.
I live in an area that has piss-poor coverage from T-Mobile.
I wanted the G1 and considered the dev phone.
However, I did it cheaper. I bought a G1 on eBay for $329.99 (w/shipping) and paid $24.99 for an unlock code. Setup the APN info for AT&T and I have a (almost 100%) functioning G1.
I do not have 3G as AT&T uses different frequencies and the G1 cannot use them. So, I am on the Edge/GPRS network.
I have yet to get MMS working.
Other than that, I am happy. And I did it for $350.
Something worth mentioning is that you don't need a DevPhone to develop applications. You only need a DevPhone to be able to install non-Google OS images.
So if you're "just" an application developer and not an OS hacker, then just get the normal phone.
--- I'm sure using a computer was fun back in the 80's. *sigh*
I'd be happy to pay for some apps but, it looks like I'm stuck pirating now. Thanks google!
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
Your post is not nonsense. The responder is just grinding his axe...
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
T-mobile will unlock the G1 for you. If you've been a customer for more than 90 days, they will provide the SIM unlock code for you. T-mobile is the best at doing this.
Same old bullshit lockdowns.
Someone at T-Mobile has pressured someone at Google into doing this so nobody, not even developers, can have a "real" G1 without it being locked to T-Mobile.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
The thing that all of these reports are ignoring is that 1.1 (which is required for paid apps to even show up) isn't even available for the ADP1 yet. (And no, the holiday version doesn't count.)
People need to wait until 1.1 is actually available for the ADP1 and _then_ see if there is a problem accessing paid apps. There probably will be a problem, but until we are looking at 1.1 running on an ADP1 this is all just conjecture.
The summary says the unlocked phone is popular in countries where pre-paid sims are the norm. Anybody know if it will work in Canada with the pre-paid sims for the Fido/Rogers network? If it does are the features crippled by the network provider?
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
There is no difference (as far as I can tell) between the Dev1 and a rooted G1. The firmwares are interchangeable. There's also no evidence Google is even deliberately keeping Dev1 users out. They just haven't released an updated Market App for the Dev1 yet. Even if they did, it would be stupid since it's pretty trivial to put on the rooted retail firmware.
Whether it's aps or apricots, some people will steal. That's life. Some security measures are reasonable "to keep honest people honest" so long as they don't piss off the customers who actually wanted to pay them.
I have a G1 and a non ADP image. If you cannot see the paid apps trust me when I say "You are really, really not missing anything."
The holiday 1.1 firmware, which is the rc33 equivalent for the phones google gave to their employees, is also unable to see __protected__ apps on the market.
The important part is protected, not paid. You will be able to see/buy unprotected paid applications, but not protected paid applications. So the holiday 1.1 adp firmware is 'banned' from purchasing protected apps as the news says.
This is really a pittance to pay. Game console developers have to pay $5K, $10K and even $20K for a devkit and still be locked out of production unit features. For example, a PS3 dev unit cannot play blu-ray movie discs. Google probably would like to insure that those who sign up for development are say, going to actually do development.
It might be possible to crack the protection but Google should still not leave the barn door open and support piracy. If they do then they will kill the commercial side of the App Store or will at least get sued by App Store developers: "We wrote this cool app, but Google just made it easy for pirates".
Engineering is the art of compromise.
...because what am I supposed to do if I'm an Android dev (which I am intermittently) and a customer wants to know why there's a problem with my application and another application when my application used to work fine...? We must be in a perfect world now.
Well, from what I've been reading Android does a pretty good job with task isolation ... hopefully your scenario won't play out too often.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.