Is there any difference between a ADP1 and a jail broken G1?
Pat
On Mar 29, 8:31 am, Disconnect dc.disconn...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes you can, and so long as you do not flash the t-mobile SPL you will be
fine. (For example, do not use any tmobile dreaimg.nbh files you might come
across.)
The firmware is different. ADP 1.1 is made by google and jail broken G1
probably runs on JF firmware which is a 3rd party developer.
2009/3/30 patg pat.gioann...@gmail.com
Is there any difference between a ADP1 and a jail broken G1?
Pat
On Mar 29, 8:31 am, Disconnect
Jean-Baptiste,
I've looked around and I'm still not clear on something.
If I order the ADP1, is there a possibility to flash the standard
TMobile US image and just the use the phone as a fully-functional,
locked G1?
Thanks,
Rodin
On Mar 2, 3:16 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com
Yes, you can do that, but you will fully lock your phone.
2009/3/29 Rodin rodin.lyas...@gmail.com
Jean-Baptiste,
I've looked around and I'm still not clear on something.
If I order the ADP1, is there a possibility to flash the standard
TMobile US image and just the use the phone as a
Such images aren't distributed to the public, and even if you got your
hands on one and managed to flash it, you could indeed end up locking
yourself out of your phone entirely.
It seems to me that if you want to do that you might as well sell your
ADP1 and buy a G1.
JBQ
2009/3/28 Rodin
Yes you can, and so long as you do not flash the t-mobile SPL you will be
fine. (For example, do not use any tmobile dreaimg.nbh files you might come
across.)
Safer and more functional images are available from http://jf.andblogs.net,
where he sets the security code to 0 (so you have root),
You might want to move this onto this thread;
http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform/browse_thread/thread/803fe73023a24536/
Al.
vendor wrote:
Then, could you create a virtual partition for the secure dirs and
encrypt it with key which only the System knows and when you flash the
I'm doing what I can to get a 1.1 update available to ADP1 owners.
At a high level the differences between 1.0 and 1.1 for the ADP1
should be about the same as the differences between 1.0 (TC4-RC30) and
1.1 (PLAT-RC33) for the US T-Mobile G1, but I do not have visibility
over the exact details
On Mar 3, 5:57 am, John Gruenenfelder jo...@as.arizona.edu wrote:
However, I plan to purchase an ADP1
very soon. My plan has always been to have this be my primary device. Like
many of the other hobbyists here on the list, I can little afford two
devices. I was very much hoping that the
Most importantly though, I'm really disappointed in Google's lack of
communication on the topic. I have to scour the web just to find a
hint of some idea of what's going on with the dev phone. There is no
official word or anything. Google should at least have a posting on
the Developer's
As far as I know by the time you remove from ADP1 the features that
would allow access to forward-locked apps (flashable, root, debuggable
system), you have essentially a consumer device.
JBQ
2009/3/2 vendor.net vendor@gmail.com:
Most importantly though, I'm really disappointed in
What do you think about the idea of two firmware versions for ADP1?
2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com
As far as I know by the time you remove from ADP1 the features that
would allow access to forward-locked apps (flashable, root, debuggable
system), you have essentially a
That wouldn't work, as you could download with the locked firmware,
flash an unlocked firmware, and get the files out.
JBQ
2009/3/2 vendor vendor@gmail.com:
What do you think about the idea of two firmware versions for ADP1?
2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com
As far as I
If you flash with the unlocked firmware you should delete the older first?
And to format the partition?
2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com
That wouldn't work, as you could download with the locked firmware,
flash an unlocked firmware, and get the files out.
JBQ
2009/3/2 vendor
You don't need for wipe the data and cache partitions when flashing
the boot, recovery or system partitions.
JBQ
2009/3/2 vendor vendor@gmail.com:
If you flash with the unlocked firmware you should delete the older first?
And to format the partition?
2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru
Anyway, we've wandered far off-topic with little chance of coming back
on-topic, this discussion should move to android-platform where it'd
make more sense so that we don't bother people who are just trying to
use the SDK.
JBQ, self-moderating.
2009/3/2 Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com:
Then, could you create a virtual partition for the secure dirs and encrypt
it with key which only the System knows and when you flash the system = you
loose the key?
2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com
You don't need for wipe the data and cache partitions when flashing
the boot,
Start a topic there:
http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform/browse_thread/thread/a1b7fb4cda42e807
Hope it is not threated as spam :)
On 3 Март, 00:22, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote:
Anyway, we've wandered far off-topic with little chance of coming back
on-topic, this
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:44:21AM -0800, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
Even if you don't want to trust Google at this point, I'm asking that
you trust me when I say that I'm doing everything that I can to get
this issue resolved.
JBQ
You've always been as forthright as possible for issues under
Jon,
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
As I see it you're not willing to factor in the difficulty level in
cracking the system and implementing a generic method as a
differentiating factor between the protection methods, whereas my
viewpoint is based on the level of effort
On Mar 1, 9:17 am, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote:
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
As I see it you're not willing to factor in the difficulty level in
cracking the system and implementing a generic method as a
differentiating factor between the protection methods,
On Feb 27, 2:25 pm, Java Developer supp...@cyntacks.com wrote:
Can I return my ADP1? I was completely mislead, and so was everyone
else. Now that I think about it, I believe American Express would
agree with me. I suggest we all start charge back procedures on these
bricks as they don't
On Feb 28, 7:06 am, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote:
This
isn't neccessarily about encrypting applications, in fact the system at
AndAppStore[1] doesn't rely on encrypting the application, it purely
relies on using an encrypted piece of data which thae application uses
to determine
Jon Colverson wrote:
On Feb 28, 7:06 am, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote:
This
isn't neccessarily about encrypting applications, in fact the system at
AndAppStore[1] doesn't rely on encrypting the application, it purely
relies on using an encrypted piece of data which thae
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
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
On Feb 28, 6:46 pm, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote:
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
Well, you all have certainly taken this discussion in an interesting
direction.
I would just like to add to my original posting. Hopefully we still
have some official Google person's attention.
I'm pretty understanding when it comes to deadlines not being met when
it comes to stuff like this.
No doubt that using a DRM solution that is not based on
forward-locking is the right long-term approach. We know what it would
take to implement it. There just wasn't enough time to do it.
JBQ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote:
JBQ,
You can do both
We can compare G1 and ADP1, but the intention of buying ADP1 is more
important. People buy ADP1 to develop apps for G1. Not to say: Hey,
I`ve got a hacked G1 and I can do whatever I like.. So in this case
ADP1 should do the same things as G1. We develop apps for G1, but test
them on ADP1, so we
vendor.net wrote:
People buy ADP1 to develop apps for G1.
Not necessarily. In fact, one can argue that is of secondary importance.
As I understand it, the primary intent of ADP1 was to provide a hardware
platform for firmware development.
One can certainly debate whether the priority of the
I know for one I feel a bit misled. I certainly expected it to
receive support going forward on a level with the G1, and other
devices from a software standpoint, including the Market. I also
realize I can use it for much more. The lack of paid app support for
my device really ticks me off, and
ADP1 is explicitly supposed to serve both purposes. Not having
official system images available affects both groups (SDK users who
can't test their code against newer versions of the platform, platform
contributors who can't revert their devices to a known state).
The boundary between the two
Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
ADP1 is explicitly supposed to serve both purposes.
Glad to hear it!
--
Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)
http://commonsware.com
_The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version 2.0 Available!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
It's really not an oversight. We've been working on this situation for
months, and we've known about it since before the first ADP1 shipped,
since right from day 1 there was no way for platform contributors
who'd have flashed a custom build to go back to the original build
that their device came
The incentive to release the ADP1 would have been smaller if the G1
had been available in more geographies, since for a lot of SDK-related
cases the G1 is an adequate development platform, but it wouldn't have
disappeared, and we'd probably have tried to make it happen on the
exact same schedule
I think we're getting two phrases mixed up here. DRM is a blanket term
for many technilogies (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management), I think what
we're taking about is the Android Copy Protection mechanism which is an
attempt to implement a set of DRM principles.
The
On 2/27/09, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote:
DRM in this discussion is a mechanism that allows developers to say I
don't want my application to be available on devices from which it can
be copied.
Given rooted devices, would it make more sense to look for DRM which
locked an app
What you're talking about is the reason that AndAppStore offer a
mechanism to lock apps to 'phones or users phone numbers. Copy
protection is a technology that has been consigned to the past on many
platforms to the extent that even pure digital distribution systems such
as Steam
It would make more sense to not rely on forward-locking for
copyright-related restrictions. It all boils down to finding time to
implement it.
JBQ
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Steve Barr barr8...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/09, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote:
DRM in this
Could you say a roadmap or something? Ex. I did`t know, I was only
speculating that you are working on this problem, but please share
information with us. We work together...
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.comwrote:
It would make more sense to not rely on
No roadmap or ETA, sorry.
JBQ
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM, vendor vendor@gmail.com wrote:
Could you say a roadmap or something? Ex. I did`t know, I was only
speculating that you are working on this problem, but please share
information with us. We work together...
On Fri, Feb 27,
Something unofficial? Not a strict plan like we will be done in 2 days, but
something more than:We understand your concerns and we will make an update
which will treat properly the paid applications and in the feature G1/G2 and
etc will be synchronized with the ADPs. Just an example. Because now,
Sorry, I don't even have visibility over such roadmaps or ETAs.
JBQ
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM, vendor vendor@gmail.com wrote:
Something unofficial? Not a strict plan like we will be done in 2 days, but
something more than:
We understand your concerns and we will make an update
Except you are allowed (and even, kinda, encouraged) to make your app
available in many places.
So how do you distinguish between I got it from andappstore or I got it
for free from the developer (both legit but not market) from Joe copied it
off his phone for me?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:34
We were hoping that it would get resolved very soon after the release
of the ADP1, and it's been taking much much much much longer than
anyone had anticipated (even myself, albeit a permanent pessimist when
it comes to schedules, didn't see that one coming at all).
Like I said above, this isn't
On Feb 27, 5:58 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote:
It would make more sense to not rely on forward-locking for
copyright-related restrictions. It all boils down to finding time to
implement it.
All DRM is breakable. I would strongly urge you not to invest any
developer time in
DRM tends to be based on Cryptography and yes, all cryptography is
breakable, but the aim of it is to ensure the information is worthless
by the time it's broken, so in the case of a license, the application
would should have been superseded by a newer version by the time you
expect someone
On Feb 27, 10:12 pm, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote:
DRM tends to be based on Cryptography and yes, all cryptography is
breakable
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
Cryptography is intended to be used for, and effective at,
transmitting a message secretly between two parties (A - B) without a
Jon,
To give you some background about me so you can understand that I'm not
just shooting in the breeze here, one of the companies I am director of
sells a piece of software I designed which securely stores information
using cryptography, the piece of software in question has been tested
I've just re-read your last paragraph and felt I should address some of
the claims you've made.
To crack the AndAppStore uses 1024 RSA encryption which is considered
secure, and even if a cracker got the public key used to decrypt the
license information in the application that would only
I'm personally wondering if they'll be another firmware update for the
G1 which introduces proper DRM (something like
http://andappstore.com/AndroidPhoneApplications/licensing.jsp) before
the ADP gets access to paid apps.
I know there are other issues to overcome with the ADP1, but allowing
Check this out guys,
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/02/25/google-blocking-paid-market-apps-from-dev-phone-1-users/
It seems Google has to do more work on the ADP 1.1 than G1, ADP owner
could be the private of paid apps.
On 26 fév, 01:26, vendor.net vendor@gmail.com wrote:
I know that
WoW! This sounds creepy!!!
Could someone of google confirm it? And will ADP1 support payed apps?
It is redicilus not to. After all we should be able to explore the
competitions apps... and this is only one of the things I came up to
right now.
I have started a new post here-
If you read the text you've quoted you'll find the answer from JBQ who
is an Android engineer from Google
If you're still uncertain, he posted a useful link;
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/search?group=android-developersq=adp1+updateqt_g=Search+this+group
Al.
Yeah, there was a comment on the article which makes a lot of sense to
me. How does Google give the 30%, and who does it give it to, on the
ADP 1. Accounting and admin nightmare.
S
On 26 Feb 2009, at 10:06, Al Sutton wrote:
I'm personally wondering if they'll be another firmware update
Is this the reason why I can not see/download these apps - Phonebook,
Bomberman, Pac-Man, de Blob and many other apps?
P.S. Phonebook and others are not paid, so I should see them?
Sena Gbeckor-Kove написа:
Yeah, there was a comment on the article which makes a lot of sense to
me. How does
I can't remember off the top of my head but I believe that was
something to do with copy protection. I don't think ADP1 Market
displays copy protected apps. Despite the copy protection not being
very effective. Somebody back me up here.
S
On 26 Feb 2009, at 20:28, vendor.net wrote:
Indeed, copy-protected apps aren't offered on devices where the
copy-protection is known to be ineffective.
JBQ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Sena Gbeckor-Kove s...@imkon.com wrote:
I can't remember off the top of my head but I believe that was
something to do with copy protection. I
JBQ, will ADP1 support copy-protected apps in the future?
Jean-Baptiste Queru написа:
Indeed, copy-protected apps aren't offered on devices where the
copy-protection is known to be ineffective.
JBQ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Sena Gbeckor-Kove s...@imkon.com wrote:
I can't
I'd say that the current design would make this hard, but I have no
visibility over what the future plans might be.
JBQ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM, vendor.net vendor@gmail.com wrote:
JBQ, will ADP1 support copy-protected apps in the future?
Jean-Baptiste Queru написа:
Indeed,
So the users who have ADP1 and want to develop apps will be stuck and
won`t have the chance to test the competitors apps?
This is cruel...
Jean-Baptiste Queru написа:
I'd say that the current design would make this hard, but I have no
visibility over what the future plans might be.
JBQ
On
Thanks Jean-Baptiste.
S
On 26 Feb 2009, at 21:10, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
Indeed, copy-protected apps aren't offered on devices where the
copy-protection is known to be ineffective.
JBQ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Sena Gbeckor-Kove s...@imkon.com
wrote:
I can't remember
On Feb 26, 10:17 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote:
I'd say that the current design would make this hard, but I have no
visibility over what the future plans might be.
I think the decision to restrict copy-protected apps on the ADP1 is
very unfortunate. It's trivial to break the
Totaly agree. This is funny! I believed in google and still believe. I
was so excited about android and ADP1 and the opurtunity to explore
competitors apps and code mine, but now I can`t do that. I still
believe that goolge will come with some solution. And there is one
more big issue: install
Completely agree also. I'm still in a WTF mood for the restriction of
selling applications outside the states. I don't get the point of selling
Dev1 phones to Canada but not allowing us to sell applications. I really
feel like Ok, go ahead and play with the SDK, pay around $550 to get into
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM, vendor.net vendor@gmail.com wrote:
JBQ, will ADP1 support copy-protected apps in the future?
On 2/26/09, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote:
I'd say that the current design would make this hard, but I have no
visibility over what the future
The problem is that you're fighting between two conflicting goals here:
-the need to have a root-capable debuggable and custom-flashable
device like the ADP1 for application development.
-the need to have a non-root-capable non-debuggable
non-custom-flashable device like a consumer device in
JBQ,
You can do both (after all apps on Windows, DOS, Linux, etc., etc., etc.
have been doing this for years).
The solution we offer at
http://andappstore.com/AndroidPhoneApplications/licensing.jsp works
irrespective of whether the 'phone is rooted, non-rooted, copied, spun
dry, etc., etc.,
PLAT-RC33 is the variant of Android 1.1 ported to Dream (G1) and
customized for T-Mobile US, so it's not the appropriate build for the
ADP1.
There's no news on that subject as there isn't anything to announce
yet. We're still pushing hard to get 1.1 available for ADP1 owners,
but some things
Thanks for the update.
S
On 25 Feb 2009, at 14:59, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
PLAT-RC33 is the variant of Android 1.1 ported to Dream (G1) and
customized for T-Mobile US, so it's not the appropriate build for the
ADP1.
There's no news on that subject as there isn't anything to announce
I would like to know if the ADP 1.1 firmware contains the cupcake?
Waiting for your response...
On 25 fév, 14:59, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote:
PLAT-RC33 is the variant of Android 1.1 ported to Dream (G1) and
customized for T-Mobile US, so it's not the appropriate build for the
Release 1.1 is thankfully not based on the cupcake development tree.
JBQ
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:59 AM, roland roland...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to know if the ADP 1.1 firmware contains the cupcake?
Waiting for your response...
On 25 fév, 14:59, Jean-Baptiste Queru
Shouldn't the dev phone get the new release earlier than the consumer
phone?
Normally the developers get the pre-release, or beta version earlier
before the product gets stablized...
It's because the cell phone is a special device which is service-
connnected, so the release priority is
I agree - thanks for the update and your efforts.
Is there anything the community can do to help?
On Feb 25, 6:59 am, Jean-Baptiste Queru j...@android.com wrote:
PLAT-RC33 is the variant of Android 1.1 ported to Dream (G1) and
customized for T-Mobile US, so it's not the appropriate build for
I know that you can`t tell us a date for the release, but can you tell
us if it will be released next month or something?
Is this the reaseon, why I can`t download some of the apps at the
market?
I thought that the update for the T-Mobile users came a long time ago.
This delay for ADP1 could
-I don't know when it's going to be released. I really don't.
-Indeed, as far as I know the android market client in 1.0 can't see paid apps.
-I expect that the difference between 1.0 and 1.1 for ADP1 would be
about the same as the one between 1.0 and 1.1 for the G1.
JBQ
2009/2/25 vendor.net
77 matches
Mail list logo
