I can see the potential for a problem if developers publish Market and non-Market versions of their apps to comply with Market T&Cs (e.g. with different billing/licensing code). If the Market updater tries to update any app on the device that it knows exists in Market then it could result in the Market version overwriting a non-Market version and the user left with a non-working app (because they bought via the non-Market apps billing system). Similarly if the developer does a shoddy job when integrating veecheck it could update a market version to a non-market version, but this is to do with the integration and not veecheck itself.
But I guess the only thing we can do is wait and see what Google roll out. Al. Tom Gibara wrote: > I think it's pretty unlikely that the veecheck library could interfere. > > The market is backed by a remote database of published applications, > and (I assume) a local database of previously installed applications. > I guess that the market will identify the availability of application > updates by comparing these two datasets. > > This is quite independent from veecheck which polls and filters an XML > document obtained over HTTP - though its operation ultimately depends > on exactly how it's employed: it can be used to direct users to > download the latest version from the Android Market or from external > sites (such as andappstore). Even in this latter case, after a > download from an external site, subsequent updates can continue to be > installed from the market (I can confirm that this works for me). > > At worst, I anticipate, a user may receive two notifications (or more > if updating apps are installed, eg. OIUpdate). > > The situation for paid applications is of course uncertain at this > point, but I would expect that a paid application installed from the > Android Market will be restricted to updates originating from the > market. But I can't see any reason why veecheck couldn't be used to > inform users of updates at the market. > > Having said that, I think it's almost certain that the Android Market > will evolve to provide a robust and effective update notification > system for the applications it hosts. > > Tom > > 2009/2/10 plusminus <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Hi, > > any ideas if Veecheck will interfere with the Android-Market-Updater? > > Best Regards, > plusminus > > On Feb 3, 12:13 pm, Al Sutton <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > http://www.tomgibara.com/android/veecheck/ > > > > Al. > > > > mat wrote: > > > Anybody knows how to resolve this issue ?? > > > > >> Hi All, > > >> Can you provide some example code forautomaticupgradeof > > >> application? I have URL where the new version is hosted, so > after the > > >> user start the application I'd like to download new version > from given > > >> URL, reinstall and run the new version. > > > > >> Regards > > > > -- > > ====== > > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > > subsidiaries. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
