Jon, Thanks for expanding on your previous email. I'm always willing to admit when I've made a mistake, and I'm always willing to learn, so I hope you'll continue the discussion until either we agree to disagree or come to a consensus.
The point I'm putting across is that the protection offered by both systems isn't *absolutley* equivalent because relying on Android Copy Protection stops an application being made available to potential users with ADP1s or devices where Market isn't available and method to circumvent it and get an unprotected copy of any application secured using it has already being widely circulated. Compare this to the AndAppStore method which doesn't limit who the app can be sold to, doesn't limit the distribution mechanism (apk's can be downloaded from an authors homepage and still use the AndAppStore method), and, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a method circulating which can be applied to any and every protected application to get a protection free copy by following a simple set of instructions (if there is I'd welcome information on it so we can work on fixing the flaw it uses). If you go to the very highest level, yes, all DRM can be cracked if people are willing to put the time in, but saying they're equivalent by looking at things with that level of abstraction is, in my view, like saying that a push-bike and a car are the same because they get you places faster the walking; It's true that they both will, but one involves a lot more effort than the other. Al. Jon Colverson wrote: > On Feb 28, 6:09 pm, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote: > >> If you're talking about modifying the binary to remove the license >> checking, >> > > Yes, that's what I was getting at. I didn't want to simply say it > because talking about ways of circumventing DRM is legally shaky > ground. > > >> well, if someone is willing to do that for every single update >> of an application, then they are certainly determined enough to do a one >> off rooting of their 'phone and get past the Android Copy Protection >> mechanism, so again. >> > > My point is that the effectiveness of both systems is equivalent, so > why should Google go to the effort of implementing an elaborate system > when the simple system works just as well and is already implemented? > You might say that removing the checks from the binary is difficult, > but the problem is that only one person needs to figure out how to do > it and release an automated tool to do so and then the floodgates are > open and anyone can do it. > > Anyway, I apologize for getting a little flame-y in my previous posts. > Did I mention that I dislike DRM? It tends to get me a tad riled up. > > -- > Jon > > > > -- * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * ====== 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
