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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
I've been waiting for Google to become the typical corporation doing anti customer work, but to kick your developers squarely in the balls, that's a bold move.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Do you really believe that not being able to buy paid apps on non t-mobile firmware constitutes as shitting on your developers?
Yes, for exactly the same reason that putting SafeDisc or SecuRom into a game is shitting on your customers. It is an ineffective means of achieving the stated goal (prevent piracy) and makes life harder for the customer. You are paying Google for the right to develop applications for their platform, and then you're paying them again for the right to test them, because you're going to have to have a separate phone. Paying to be abused? I don't fucking think so. Lots of people pirate games just so they don't have to pay. Some people pirate games simply to get a version they can play without a CD. For instance, if I had a second battery in my laptop so that I could get good runtime and couldn't mount the CD, I would have to use Daemontools to emulate the CD so that I could just play the game. Or I could just download it. At that point, giving them money is an extra step.
In summary, not only has Google forced [responsible] developers [who will properly test their software] to spend more money than the average customer when they should be making things at least no more expensive for them, Google has just created for themselves a situation where giving them money for applications from the app store is just an extra step, at least if you are tech-savvy and want the developer phone even if you only intended to noodle on it occasionally. Let's see, encouraging piracy AND discouraging proper testing at the same time? How could I possibly criticize this decision from the almighty google?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What's the appeal of an android phone over an openMoko device?
The advantage is that it just works. Some people want to just buy a phone and then have a nice phone that does it's job well. They don't want to deal with inconsistent, half-assed software that you have to manually hack around with in order to get it to function at all.
(and this is coming from somebody who had been interested in the OpenMoko project for years before giving up on it)
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.
Like it's been said before in the comments, it is only the default dev phone firmware that cannot download paid apps. the phone itself is not locked out from downloading.
this firmware for example will allow paid app downloads. http://andblogs.net/2009/02/new-adp1-update-official-with-google-voice-and-more/
google developers DO NOT need to spend more money than the average consumer
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*
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.
The ADP1 is able to use both the TMobile US freq (1700MHz) and the 2100Mhz band (almost) everybody else uses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands#UMTS.2FHSDPA.2FHSUPA_frequency_bands_deployment
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.