We can compare G1 and ADP1, but the intention of buying ADP1 is more important. People buy ADP1 to develop apps for G1. Not to say: "Hey, I`ve got a hacked G1 and I can do whatever I like.". So in this case ADP1 should do the same things as G1. We develop apps for G1, but test them on ADP1, so we need the same conditions. And we also need to test other developer`s applications like paid ones.
On 27 Фев, 04:47, Jean-Baptiste Queru <j...@android.com> wrote: > The problem is that you're fighting between two conflicting goals here: > > -the need to have a root-capable debuggable and custom-flashable > device like the ADP1 for application development. > > -the need to have a non-root-capable non-debuggable > non-custom-flashable device like a consumer device in order to > maintain forward-locking guarantees. > > Intuitively, it should be theoretically possible to implement a design > that can switch between the two modes with the proper guarantees (i.e. > wiping the relevant partitions clean when going from a > forward-locking-capable build to a non-forward-locking capable one). > That'd require resources, of course, which would then have to be > pulled from other tasks. > > That being said, from the point of view of application development, > you need to expect that the differences from one consumer device to > another (e.g. which apps are installed by each user) will be greater > than the differences between an ADP1 and consumer devices like the G1 > (ignoring for now the issues about 1.0 vs 1.1 on ADP1 that we're > working on). Worrying about the differences between e.g. one ADP1 and > one G1 seems to be ignoring the differences between the thousands of > G1s out there. > > JBQ > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Steve Barr <barr8...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM, vendor.net <vendor....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > JBQ, will ADP1 support copy-protected apps in the future? > > > On 2/26/09, Jean-Baptiste Queru <j...@android.com> wrote: > >> I'd say that the current design would make this hard, but I have no > >> visibility over what the future plans might be. > > > I think a lot of us just want their Dev Phone to be as close as > > possible to a customer's phone so we can test and have confidence in > > our Java apps before putting them out on the Market. Should we go to > > Holiday and be done with it? It would be great if there was some > > official blessed "upgrade" that would let us have a customer-like > > phone. I'm willing to nuke whatever's currently on the my phone to > > get it to that point. > > > Otherwise, perhaps some return/refund program should be put in place. > > > Steve > > -- > Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru > Android Engineer, Google. > > Please don't contact me directly. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
