In my case was stolen application with price $1.29 - pirates copies reach 100-300 per day, sales become dead.
So black list is the only way to protect my product for now. On Nov 17, 4:48 pm, Kaj Bjurman <[email protected]> wrote: > It's incorrect to believe that hackers/crackers wouldn't care about > removing the protection from a cheap products. The hackers/crackers > don't care about the price of the product, they just want to get > famous so they crack the most popular applications regardless of > price. They don't think in economical terms. > > People who are buying products are however thinking in econimical > terms, so they might be less interested in looking for a cracked > version if the product is cheap, so having copy protection on a $1 > product might be close to worthless. > > On 16 Nov, 23:04, Paul Turchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I highly doubt that anyone would do that for $1 application. Effort > > not worth trying. > > > On Nov 16, 9:55 pm, strazzere <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Since reversing an application is a rather menial task now, whats to > > > prevent a user from taking your application - stripping the protection > > > and re-releasing it? Not to mention that IMEI spoofing to an > > > application can be done with a little bit of research. > > > > More importantly, with your approach - what happens when someone > > > strips out the protection, throws it into a nice little program - then > > > bombs all the IMEI numbers they want? Then you'll have "pirates" being > > > blocked who well, never pirated your application. Seems like an easy > > > way to quickly make your blacklist pretty inaccurate. > > > > -Tim Strazzere > > > > On Nov 16, 2:02 pm, Rachel Blackman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:34 AM, nEx.Software wrote: > > > > > > Not to mention that just because someone might have pirated some app > > > > > at some time, doesn't mean that they pirated your app. > > > > > That's why it needs to be able to check against Google Checkout or > > > > > whatever payment processor is used... > > > > > Also not to mention how many people buy out-of-contract phones off of > > > > eBay to toy with new techy stuff. What if someone gets their phone's > > > > IMEI blacklisted in your database, goes and sells their phone, and > > > > someone innocent now picks up the phone and finds abruptly they can't > > > > use any of the apps linked into this antipiracy thing? (And lest you > > > > say that wouldn't happen, look at how many of the Xbox 360 consoles > > > > that have gotten locked out of Xbox Live abruptly ended up on eBay, > > > > while the folks who got locked out go get new consoles. After all, > > > > Xbox Live uses similar security methods, where the lockout applies to > > > > the hardware ID, not merely the account.) > > > > > This isn't to say that antipiracy methods aren't desirable or useful. > > > > Just that if they bite /innocent/ users as well, you'll have a headache > > > > to deal with. Look at how many 'I can't see this app in the market!' > > > > threads we already have, and how much frustration there is just from > > > > developers over that. Imagine the users adding to that with 'I paid > > > > for this app off the store, but when I try to run it claims I pirated > > > > it!' > > > > > In general, as a software developer, I tend to think that antipiracy > > > > methods that allow some pirates through are better than antipiracy > > > > methods that might flag innocent users as wrongdoers. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
