Slashdot Mirror
Google Straightens Out Its Stance On Paid Apps
Julie188 writes "When the Android Market began offering paid apps last month, developers with the unlocked version of Google's Android phone quickly learned that they couldn't access them. The policy, which threatened to alienate the small developer base that Google needs to nurture at all costs, didn't make much sense. And now, with the release of Version 1.1 of Android for the developer phone, developers can access paid apps — as long as they aren't copy-protected. But in a weird way, that's good news. Very few developers currently copy-protect their Android apps simply because Android's copy-protection scheme is notoriously weak."
With this change "free" (as in beer) applications which also set the copy-protection bit will also be excluded from the market. A bit weird, why would you prevent copying of a gratis application.
Now if I only get WLAN working on my Android. The university network uses IEEE8021X,TTLS,PAP. But wpa_supplicant keeps timing out during authentication. :(
Why would anyone buy a device or choose a platform that locks them in?
iphone/Android vs open general purpose device that doesn't need a sim card to work.
Facebook vs email/jabber
Not copy protecting your software actually gives you a bigger market to sell to.
Can someone please call the RIAA and inform them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Okay, perhaps someone needs to develop an application that can run other applications, and which does not impose any copy restrictions. Then you only have to download/buy an application *once*, and you're basically freed from this nonsense. Perhaps also a good idea for the iphone.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
> And I thought Google wasn't evil...
you made my day...
Apple has apparently decided that "App" is a new word meaning software on a cell phone, but that doesn't make it true for the rest of the world.
Google doesn't sell that many applications. A pertinent notice, though.
I don't think this is evil.
In this case, Google isn't using copy protection out of greed, or to try to control users' behavior - this copy protection is an option for developers.
Just because they're selling guns doesn't mean people have to shoot themselves in the foot.
I am still trying to figure out what that means. I figured one of the pages linked to would define it, but no. Does it just mean software that is for sale, or is it more nuanced than that?
Fuckin' newspeak. :(
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This article to me, seems like nothing more than trying to spin something very wrong into a fain positive.
Yes this will generally force developers to not protect apps. But then why even offer the protection to start with? It's like it does not exist.
The positive side is as stated, fewer apps will be protected. But think about that - why is that really positive? If you can always re-download apps from the store, what good does that do an end user? If you don't really need it for backup, to most users a protected or unprotected app are about the same.
Now lets look at the negatives. Lots of companies writing apps like games or stuff with custom video/audio content they spent a lot of money developing, will simply not develop for the phone if there's no protection. Not being able to download your own app makes it harder to test.
Sure we'd like all apps to be DRM free and unprotected, but the reality is this will keep a lot of bigger app developers off that platform. If you want OS platfoms to succeed, then you have to grow the platform substantially and until Google rectifies this the app store will see little serious growth. Myself I am inclined to a practical perspective that it's better to have some protected apps than a floundering platform (it's not floundering yet by any means but a drag on growth like this will matter in a year).
From a technical perspective this comes about from the app DRM just being about protected folders which developers can access, Google needs a more solid solution.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Google does not have a shortage of Market problems. Take a look at some of the basic issues both developers and users are fighting.
The Android Market Help Forum seems to have lots of people needing help but few real answers or solutions. Google has a black-eye right now and they desperately need to do something. It seems the Android Market is suffering from very fundamental problems - so much so, Google should be embarrassed.
Someone needs to tell Microsoft this...
The developer devices are open. If there was a way to keep developers out, then it wouldn't be an open platform anymore. Producers can keep their DRM infested crap to themselves thank you very much.
From a technical perspective this comes about from the app DRM just being about protected folders which developers can access, Google needs a more solid solution.
There is no more solid solution. ADP phones got root, and the OS is fully open source (no HDMI-like "protected path").
End of story.
Google are selling footguns here, rather than using them. Whether other people choose to buy them is entirely up to them.
(1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
Just because they're selling guns doesn't mean people have to shoot themselves in the foot.
I'm a European, and I honestly believe that American gun laws is just another way to express stupidity.
Do I need, say more?
Will I be able to compete against Android... if popular apps for android are locked to Googles platform?
If so, then what's the point of the DRM?
I don't think this is evil.
Content protection = DRM = Evil
Am I wrong...?
Note: I don't like bashing Google, but we need watch out, they may be just as capable of creating a monopoly as Microsoft...
Somewhat offtopic:
Just because they're selling guns doesn't mean people have to shoot themselves in the foot.
I'm a European, and I honestly believe that American gun laws is just another way to express stupidity.
Oh, and yes... Don't give me a gun because I WILL shoot myself in the foot!!! :)
- If not for fun than, at the very least to prove my point
Sigh... this is still a big disappointment. When this all exploded last week on the developer's forum, I made a post to ask one of the Google/Android employees to clarify the situation.
Timing wasn't a big issue for me, I just wanted an assurance that at some point in the future I could use the developer phone to both develop my FOSS program and use the phone as my primary device. That means that I might occasionally want to actually buy something from the store.
But all I got was a rather unclear response. And now the "fix" is released, but it only goes half way. A lot of developers are still going to enable the stupid copy protection flag whether they need to or not and whether it really provides any useful protection. In the end, as a hobbyist developer, this hurts me since the single phone I can afford is less useful.
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
I own a normal, non-dev G1. I am not a t-mobile customer.
I can't buy paid apps.
Why? Google won't say why, won't respond to questions on this. It makes little sense.. but it seems that their current restrictions (what country you can buy from) are based upon whether or not you are a t-mobile customer, and in what country.
I haven't (yet) heard of anyone being able to buy apps, without a t-mobile sim. Can anyone refute this?
The same as "podcast". They want to own all popular terms to drive their market. Only "Steve" freaks follow the herd.
There is no more solid solution. ADP phones got root, and the OS is fully open source
So what? It's not like the iPhone app DRM hasn't been broken, you need to make SOMETHING reasonable by default available even if it can (and will) be broken later.
The simple truth is that producers care more about there being an attempt to protect product rather than actual success. It's to Android's detriment they cannot get past the point where you are at, unable to move past the fact that DRM never actually works long term and so you would do nothing - baby steps for these people man, baby steps. The fact that people like you just say there's no real solution scares them off all the more, and could eventually really marginalize something that would otherwise be a great platform.
You don't seem to realize I want Android to succeed here.
As of now, I give 2nd place marketshare to the Pre in two years.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A bit weird, why would you prevent copying of a gratis application.
Because you don't want it to turn up everywhere on the internet. Example: I released a open beta test of my Symbian OS application [1] and soon after it turned up everywhere on the Warez sites. That would not have been the problem. But the copies turned up without any reference to the beta test program or the application homepage or anything.
The vain Warez supplier would not give any credit to the author at all. Authors don't exist for them. Psychological understandable: If they given credit to the author they would need to admit to them self that they are thieving bastards. This is new generation of software pirates which have nothing in common with the hackers of my youth.
So yes: I would consider to set the "no-copy" flag on even on gratis application.
Martin
[1] http://fx-602p.krischik.com/