[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[Dianne Hackborn]

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 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 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 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.



>>

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[Luke Hutchison]

It's an impediment and a deterrent, which is all the root protection is
intended to be -- but it would be more effective and harder to circumvent
than rooting a phone.


On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Jon Colverson  wrote:

>
> On Mar 2, 6:27 am, Luke Hutchison  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Would a more elaborate DRM system really make a practical difference
> to you? In the context of the Asian retail piracy that you mentioned,
> any DRM system would seem completely irrelevant to me.
>
> --
> Jon
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[Jon Colverson]

On Mar 2, 6:27 am, Luke Hutchison  wrote:
> 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.

Would a more elaborate DRM system really make a practical difference
to you? In the context of the Asian retail piracy that you mentioned,
any DRM system would seem completely irrelevant to me.

--
Jon

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[Al Sutton]

Market doesn't stop downloading of applications to devices that don't 
support copy protection because users with a rooted US G1 firmware are 
allowed to download the apps (see http://strazzere.com/blog/?p=185).

I'm going to play devils advocate here because I can see where many of 
the posters are coming from;

If what's been deployed is a response to developers asking for copy 
protection and forward locking why was a scheme implemented that 
couldn't be used on devices which had been sold months before the system 
was rolled out? JBQ said it was a time constraint, some will say it's 
because Google assumed that ADP1 users would the extra facilities to 
crack the copy protection,.

My personal view is that it's a side effect of project management and QA 
failures on the project which have resulted in the deployment of a 
solution which neither meets developers needs nor does it vastly 
increase the effort needed to copy and run applications on another device.

Al.


Dianne Hackborn 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  > 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
> mailto: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.
>
>
> >


-- 

* 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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[Luke Hutchison]

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  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 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 > > 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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[Dianne Hackborn]

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  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 
> 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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[Disconnect]

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 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.
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[Al Sutton]

The AndAppStore method can use the Android ID (source code is on the 
page Howie mentioned), and the Cupcake release adds measures to stop 
users altering the Android ID on the device which make it a more 
reliable thing to use.

Al.

Howie wrote:
> Al Sutton has developed something like this for use in
> AndAppStore.com.  More details @ 
> http://andappstore.com/AndroidPhoneApplications/licensing.jsp
>
> I don't know of anyone making use of AndroidID.
>
> On Feb 27, 12:53 pm, lukehutch  wrote:
>   
>> Has a registration token system been discussed anywhere as an
>> alternative?  e.g. each paid user gets a cookie that is based on the
>> AndoidID, and the app periodically checks in with a central server to
>> ensure that the given cookie/AndroidID combination are valid and paid-
>> up...
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2:08 pm, Eric Veenendaal  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.
>>>   
>
> >
>   


-- 

* 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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[Howie]

Al Sutton has developed something like this for use in
AndAppStore.com.  More details @ 
http://andappstore.com/AndroidPhoneApplications/licensing.jsp

I don't know of anyone making use of AndroidID.

On Feb 27, 12:53 pm, lukehutch  wrote:
> Has a registration token system been discussed anywhere as an
> alternative?  e.g. each paid user gets a cookie that is based on the
> AndoidID, and the app periodically checks in with a central server to
> ensure that the given cookie/AndroidID combination are valid and paid-
> up...
>
> On Feb 26, 2:08 pm, Eric Veenendaal  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.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[lukehutch]

Has a registration token system been discussed anywhere as an
alternative?  e.g. each paid user gets a cookie that is based on the
AndoidID, and the app periodically checks in with a central server to
ensure that the given cookie/AndroidID combination are valid and paid-
up...


On Feb 26, 2:08 pm, Eric Veenendaal  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.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-developers] Re: Assuming Developers are Pirates

[mark . kahrl]

   I don't think it matters that much, developers actually paying for
software? Unlikely in any case.



On Feb 26, 11:08 am, Eric Veenendaal  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.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---