Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Straightens Out Its Stance On Paid Apps

Posted by kdawson on

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."

12 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. "Free" applications also affected by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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. :(

    1. Re:"Free" applications also affected by severoon · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't understand. I loaded the article, read the first three posts, but didn't see a flame, a troll, or a "F1R5TTT p05ttt!11!1!eleven!1!". Where am I?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  2. Re:People like to be locked in? by Hannes2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    seriously: please show me the counterpart to iphone/android that works as flawlessly as email works compared to facebook. and don't say openmoko -- I already own one, and it sucks monkeyballs as an everyday phone.

  3. Re:People like to be locked in? by Nursie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, yes it does.

    Have you been following the android dev work for it though?

    One of the more recent images even had GPRS working...

  4. Why isn't "Android" in the article title anywhere? by booyabazooka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:application for running applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This was previously tried and failed. It was called 'Windows 3.x'.

  6. Re:application for running applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wouldn't work. Under the Android security model, apps run as different UNIX users. They don't have access to each other's secret bits. "Secret bits" includes the APK itself if the app is copyrighted.

  7. Re:application for running applications by StripedCow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ok, what i meant was a "platform-in-a-platform", which has its own operating semantics, independent from the underlying os. in that way, you can still develop for a "locked" phone, since you just target the platform-in-a-platform instead of the real platform.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  8. Re:And I thought Google wasn't evil... by colonslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. "Paid Apps" by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:"Paid Apps" by docwhat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apps have two "flags" that can be set:
        * Paid -- a payment is required.
        * Copy Protected -- The user isn't allowed to copy the app.

      With ADP1.1, you can see and download applications as long as they don't have the copy protection flag turned on.

      This means you can purchase apps or download the free ones; unless the app is copy protected.

      This is because the copy protection is simply filesystem based: the apps are placed in a directory only root can access.

      If you have an ADP1.1, the you can access this copy protected directory.

      Google claimed that they deliberately didn't do "forward-locking" because it was error prone and ruined the experience for users.

      Ciao!

      --
      The Doctor What (KF6VNC)
  10. Re:Bullshit spin, keeps many producers out of mark by SilentTristero · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.