Even if you have to buy a new sim .... you phone number will be on the new sim .. and the old one has been disabled by TMO ... which means a loss or stolen sim (once canceled) should not allow the phone to even boot up ???
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Incognito <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a great idea. I was thinking of using the device Id but this way > the user can always install his apps on any device that has his sim. If he > removes the sim then the app stops working. > > > On Mar 4, 2009, at 12:44 PM, James Clements <[email protected]> wrote: > > IMHO ... the best way for a dev to protect his app is to have it > register itself to the Buyers cell-phone number ..... then copies would not > work on other phones and the original buyer could backup the app in case > anything happens .... > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:37 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> These are good points. I was going to make a similar post but you've >> pretty much covered what I had in mind. I also thought there should >> have been a simple encryption scheme involved with "copy-protected" >> apps. All I can come up with is that implementing a minimal copy >> protection scheme was/is not a priority for Google and ADP users/ >> developers are unfortunate victims of poor decision-making based on an >> incomplete, but nonetheless advertised feature. >> >> On Mar 2, 3:35 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: >> > And why can we not have both? Your argument really does not hold >> > water. Think about everyone with G1s who have root and are on RC33. >> > Takes all of 30 minutes to root and update (thanks telnet). They are >> > not blocked from copy-protected apps, and yet can easily copy out copy >> > protected apps from the 'protected' folder, so it really does not make >> > any sense to ban ADP users from it. I mean really, all that implies is >> > that all Devs are pirates and thieves. Same concept for stores that >> > make you leave your bag outside when you walk in; they are calling you >> > a thief before you even enter. ADP1.1Holiday is locked out, which is >> > technically for Google employees only, so I guess they are all thieves >> > ^_~ >> > >> > My real only gripe is that; the 'copy protect' is so base it is almost >> > embarrassing. It really should be a vote to either remove the 'copy >> > protection' feature, or actually make something that is a bit harder >> > to crack (ie not just a folder that requires root). In reality, any >> > copy protection scheme will most likely be broken, but, if it is >> > harder to do, then likely people will not go through the effort for a >> > 99 cent app. For example how about these schemes (took literally 2 >> > minutes for me to think these up): >> > >> > When a user purchases a copy protected app, have the market encrypt >> > the APK file before it is sent for download. Then, when the installer >> > is run, have it call back to the google servers to obtain the >> > decryption key, which is tied to the user account. IE, for copy >> > protected apps, your user account will actually hold all of the keys >> > to allow installation on any device that is signed into your account. >> > The transfer of keys could even occur over SSL, making it very secure. >> > Throw in 128bit + encryption on the APK (openPGP anyone?). >> > >> > A even simpler method would be to have each dev sign their APKs with a >> > license key (think google maps style), which, when purchased would >> > store the key on the user's account. When run (or installed) the APK >> > can call to the server and see if the current user actually has that >> > key in their user account, else, it will not allow installation. Same >> > concept, but does not even need encryption. >> > >> > The point is there is a ton of ways to easily do copy protection that >> > works pretty well, and making a simple root protected folder is not >> > one of them, and, is quite frankly pretty half assed. The current >> > system that is implemented is really misleading for Devs who think it >> > offers any protection at all for their applications, and thus, if it >> > is not changed, it should be removed. Remember the golden rule, we >> > want security, not obfuscation! On that >> > note, this should have nothing to do with firmware, or the ability to >> > flash it, nor should the firmware have really anything to do with the >> > copy protection on the market or installer. Remember, those are closed >> > source anyways, so if you can flash new firmware to circumvent it >> > (which you currently can), it is a piss poor model that should be >> > scrapped. >> > >> > Sorry if this is a bit rantish, but I have yet to understand why >> > anyone would stand behind the current 'copy protection', defend it, or >> > even rationalize it. And remember, down the line, I bet most handsets >> > will be rooted, just like the G1 was; if there is a challenge, someone >> > somewhere will rise to it. >> > >> > So in short, to make the argument of firmware vs. market 'copy >> > protection' is bogus, and it should not even play a factor. The two >> > should be separate and autonomous. Devs have paid alot of money for >> > their ADP1 phones, and *gasp* might even use it for day to day use, >> > and might even want to buy something like bettercut (copy protected), >> > or a game or two to make it that much better. >> > >> > On Mar 2, 6:02 pm, Mark Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > vendor.net wrote: >> > > > Please vote for +1 if you agree that google should do something to >> > > > allow developers with ADP1 to access the paid and protected apps and >> > > > finally to release the new firmware we all are waiting for ADP 1.1 . >> > >> > > I don't think there is a vote necessary on the ADP 1.1 firmware -- >> that >> > > will be released when it's ready, and the core Android team has been >> > > fairly explicit and consistent in saying that it is not ready. The >> fact >> > > that it is taking so long is regrettable, but I see no reason to doubt >> > > that, when it's ready, it'll be released. >> > >> > > AFAIK, ADP 1.1 covers the paid apps access, meaning the only gap is in >> > > copy-protected apps, which the G1 supports and the ADP1 does not. >> > >> > > With respect to "allow developers with ADP1 to access the...protected >> apps": >> > >> > > -1 >> > >> > > This vote is based on a guess: they won't be able to develop an ADP1 >> > > firmware that supports copy-protected apps *and* can be used for >> > > firmware development. We'll either get one or the other, and a +1 vote >> > > means we get copy-protected app access and no ability to replace the >> > > firmware. >> > >> > > Right now, and for the foreseeable future, there will be more devices >> > > capable of accessing copy-protected apps than will be usable for >> > > firmware development. In fact, it's not completely out of the question >> > > that the ADP1 will be the only device *ever* truly usable for firmware >> > > development...if the other Android-based phones are all locked for >> > > carriers' use like the G1 is. >> > >> > > Right now, developers who have an ADP1 and need a G1 for the >> > > copy-protection issue can at least buy a G1 (e.g., one of the few >> > > hundred available on eBay for less than the ADP1 costs) and resell >> their >> > > ADP1. If the ADP1 gets locked down to allow copy-protected apps >> access, >> > > firmware developers are screwed, possibly forever. >> > >> > > If there's some evidence to suggest that the ADP1 will truly be able >> to >> > > support both roles (more than JBQ's assertion that dual-role was the >> > > original plan, since that may not reflect current reality), that could >> > > easily sway my opinion. Or, if firmware developers chime in and claim >> > > they don't need an ADP1 for firmware development, that too might sway >> my >> > > opinion. >> > >> > > -- >> > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com >> > >> > > Android Training on the Ranch! -- Mar 16-20, 2009 >> http://www.bignerdranch.com/schedule.shtml<http://www.bignerdranch.com/schedule..shtml><http://www.bignerdranch.com/schedule.shtml> >> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
