Sorry I am neither responsible for PR nor an engineer on the Market (nor really have much to do with any of the internal Google code at all), so I can't really answer your questions. I can probably safely say, though, that from a platform perspective we really see root-unlocked phones as our preferred way to distribute Android, so you can take from that what you want. :} (And btw, to address some other comments I have seen, the application forward locking functionality was actually a part of the first 1.0 platform; it is not something new that was introduced for Market.)
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Luke Hutchison <luke.hu...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
