Dianne -- I suspect that most people in the community do not share the view that Google is treating developers (including, shock, their own kind, googlers running the holiday image!) as pirates and criminals -- and I don't agree with the original poster on this point -- however thanks for spelling it out. Google is generally doing a good job of walking the line of openness vs. corporate realities with Android.
That said, I am personally surprised (as are many in the community) that the only form of app protection is unix user permissions. (I am sorry if this has been discussed to death already somewhere, it probably has been.) I will be releasing some apps in the future and am interested in finding a way of preventing piracy in any apps I chose to release as paid apps on the market, in a way that does not rely upon the phone being unrooted. One of the big markets for one of my apps will almost certainly be Asia, and I know firsthand how high the likelihood will be of pirated apps being available on retail shelves there, helpfully pre-installed by distributors. The extra benefit of having an app protection system that does not depend upon lack of root access on the phone is that those that want to root their phones retain the freedom to do so, a freedom that I personally and fundamentally support while also supporting the right of both Free/OSS and commercial app developers to do what is best for them according to their financial needs and value systems. Does Google have any plans to support security based on phone number, Android ID, gmail address or similar? (Do developers get a list of these details for all paid-up users, for example? -- I think not, currently?) If that sort of security system is intentionally not planned, is there a reason for it? Every protection system can be circumvented (hence the near-uselessness of DRM) but if any protection at all is to be put in place, I'd feel more comfortable with not tying it to root for my own apps. Thanks! On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Dianne Hackborn <hack...@android.com> wrote: > The whole premise of this discussion is wrong. What has happened is: > > 1. The developer asked for their application to be copy protected with > forward locking. > 2. The user is running a phone that is unlocked, so can not do that kind of > copy protection. > 3. The Market does not allow the user to download the app, because their > phone does not support a feature the developer has requested. > > It has nothing to do with assuming anyone is a pirate, it has to do with > doing what the developer has asked. > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Disconnect <dc.disconn...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I meant to reply earlier, didn't get a chance. >> >> Something you may (or may not) find amusing. So far, google has only >> assumed their OWN EMPLOYEES are thieves. (Yes, they've said the same >> restrictions are in the unreleased adp1.1 image, but since its unreleased >> that could still change..) >> >> There is NO image for the adp1 that allows paid OR protected apps >> (including free-protected and paid-unprotected). The holiday image is for >> google employees only, on the phones they received instead of a bonus last >> year. So..yeah. Google has acted to indicate that they believe, given the >> chance, their employees will steal applications. (Funny, and kinda sad. >> Although they'd be getting just as much of a roasting if they had gone the >> other way with it.) >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Eric Veenendaal <e...@ericveenendaal.com >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> I just wanted to start a thread expressing my displeasure with the >>> choice to block copy-protected apps from being made available to >>> ADPs. The thing that drew me to the android platform was the fact >>> that it had such a lower barrier to entry. I can't afford to have two >>> phone plans going. The idea of investing $425 to allow me to have one >>> device to both develop for and use for my day to day life was very >>> attractive. However, Google's recent assumption that developers will >>> pirate drm'd software simply because they can is ridiculous. If >>> someone wanted to pirate software, they'd simply open a t-mobile >>> account, unlock the phone, and save $300+. I hope Google reconsiders. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dianne Hackborn > Android framework engineer > hack...@android.com > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to > provide private support. All such questions should be posted on public > forums, where I and others can see and answer them. > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
