wow
--
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, vis
On some Motorola devices, I get an NPE when calling
LicenseChecker.onDestroy():
android.os.MessageQueue.enqueueMessage:183
android.os.Looper.quit:173
com.android.vending.licensing.LicenseChecker.onDestroy:281
Example device:
Motorola CLIQ / DEXT
model: MB200
display: CUPCAKE.1.4.8
Also:
Motoro
>how a pirated app can be updated 5 minutes after a submission ?
I actually have seen a repeatable case where the Market app will start
tracking an app as if it were purchased when it wasn't. Back when my
G1 was running Android 1.5, I had one of my paid apps installed
already, then tried to buy
Have you had a look here?
http://developer.android.com/guide/publishing/licensing.html
Greets
Nicholas
On 3 Sep., 12:15, Droid wrote:
> The sample App (android-sdk-windows\market_licensing\sample) red lines
> on :
>
> import com.android.vending.licensing.AESObfuscator;
> import com.android.ven
Oh, OK, found it now. I have to reference the library project to get
rid of import red squiggles.
On Sep 3, 11:15 am, Droid wrote:
> The sample App (android-sdk-windows\market_licensing\sample) red lines
> on :
>
> import com.android.vending.licensing.AESObfuscator;
> import com.android.vending.l
The sample App (android-sdk-windows\market_licensing\sample) red lines
on :
import com.android.vending.licensing.AESObfuscator;
import com.android.vending.licensing.LicenseChecker;
import com.android.vending.licensing.LicenseCheckerCallback;
import com.android.vending.licensing.ServerManagedPolicy
> In a nutshell, what I'm hoping LVL can grow into is a system that
> packages license verification in a way that is really really hard to
> remove. It seems like we've got half of that equation nicely under
> way with LVL in its current form.
The sort of anti-piracy system you're after is essent
I have implemented the LVL to send event on private webservices each
time the market respond an NOT ALLOWED.
Five minutes after the submission to android market, some events were
throwed.
How can this be possible ?
how a pirated app can be updated 5 minutes after a submission ?
On 27 août, 08:11
I suggest you start a new thread for this issue; this "sticky" topic
is better used for generalized discussion of LVL, not debugging of
individual issues.
String
On Aug 26, 5:31 am, Feelsocial wrote:
> Hi String , i have uploaded and saved my new licensed version 2 of my
> application on market.
HI Trevor Johns. i am testing in AVD of froyo 2.2 (Google API) and
login with my market account in google account. The question is that
when i changed the my app version from 1 to 2, google licensing server
not allowing me to use app. Where when i again change it to 2 from 1,
its allowin me to use
Had time to take a look at this raw data. You can see results here if
you're interested. Some things surprised me: http://bit.ly/bSaoBe.
On Aug 25, 1:46 pm, keyeslabs wrote:
> > Um there is a culture of piracy *everywhere*. :}
>
> > If you are saying that because you think most people are pirat
Hi String , i have uploaded and saved my new licensed version 2 of my
application on market. And testing on my emulator but its still not
allowing. My version 2 is still not published? Moreover, application
licensed version 1 was running fine.Help me plzz..
Thanks,
On Aug 21, 2:29 pm, String w
I agree and I don't see how people are missing this valuable point you
make Mark.
Currently we are at: crackers must modify the program code to allow
piracy
>From here there are two ways to make piracy more difficult:
A) Make secure, non-rooted phones reject apps so that even a cracked
app won't
Tim,
Removing or stubbing calls to licensing service inside Market App is
difficult, since those calls use encrypted responses. This is not
trivial to mess with.
The LVL library and the application, or the communication between them,
is the easier point of attack. In fact, the original blo
Maybe this is a dumb question, but what are some ROI benchmarks for
piracy prevention (for Android apps)?
For example, if a publisher spends X dollars on piracy prevention
(however effective it may be) the revenue goes up (or down) by Y
dollars.
Just curious if piracy prevention is more objective
Isn't that only because the APK gets decrypted and written to "disk"
as opposed to only being done in transient memory as the application
is launched? There's an application startup overhead obviously to
decrypting the APK on-the-fly, but seems like a much higher bar than
just cp /data/app/foo.apk
How about allowing the dev to specify response int values in the Dev
Console?
The recent "crack" script would (probably) not be able to work out which
code means what. Therefore, a pirate would have to crack each app
individually.
That's right isn't it? The automation only works because LICENSED
Encrypting the .apk is like forward-locking; it is easily defeated on
rooted phones.
On 08/25/10 13:33, keyeslabs wrote:
>
> That's not what I was picturing. Isn't there some way that we could
> do both? Apps downloaded from market could be encrypted and only
> decrypted by the OS when used (in
> Um there is a culture of piracy *everywhere*. :}
>
> If you are saying that because you think most people are pirating Android
> apps... I think your perception of things is probably pretty off. I know
> lots of people who have Android devices, and none of them even think of
> turning on the op
> Yeah there we are. As far as I can see, the next step in preventing piracy
> is to not allow users to install apps outside of Market at all.
>
> We're not going to do that.
That's not what I was picturing. Isn't there some way that we could
do both? Apps downloaded from market could be encryp
I'm not sure how this would make code modification impossible?
You patch the application, make it always return a "yes, it was ok" to
the licensing service inside the apk. Application then requests
authentication, it fails, failure comes to application which still
continues to say "yes, it was ok"
Sorry if things are coming off that way Dianne. I'm passionate about
this topic (obviously), but I only admire and respect you (in
particular) and the Android team in general. You've saved my butt
more than once. :)
I'm invested here. I'm all in on Android and success of the platform
matters t
25.08.2010 21:04, Dianne Hackborn пишет:
If there are other suggestions that will actually make things harder
without doing that, I would certainly like to hear them.
Um, make the Market App side of LVL check that the application making
LVL calls is signed with the same key as the .apk uploade
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:25 AM, keyeslabs wrote:
> I don't completely buy the assertion that PR wasn't part of the
> equation in designing, announcing, blogging, and writing press
> releases about LVL. Piracy is one of the biggest thorns in the side
> of Android at the moment. If Google does
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:13 AM, keyeslabs wrote:
> Again, my contention is that something stronger than obfuscation is
> needed to lock the APK down. OS-level APK encryption support in
> addition to license verification. I would like to see us get to the
> point that users must choose to root
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Mark Carter wrote:
> Yes, I want a simple way to reach out to a market that is likely to be tens
> (hundreds?) of millions of users in a couple of years' time.
>
> I see lots of tablets out there that don't run Android Market but run my
> app fine (unless I enable
> All copy protection systems have two parts - something they bind to,
> and the obfuscation that makes it harder to rip that binding out.
This is basically correct, if you assume that things like encryption
are bundled under the umbrella of obfuscation.
> So there are obviously two ways copy pro
I don't completely buy the assertion that PR wasn't part of the
equation in designing, announcing, blogging, and writing press
releases about LVL. Piracy is one of the biggest thorns in the side
of Android at the moment. If Google doesn't recognize that as both a
technical AND a PR problem, the
> LVL is flawed in the same ways that AAL (and other similar approaches)
> is flawed. Google could do better, and I hope that they will.
I think it's wrong to focus on what Google could or could not do here.
Did you read my reply to your original mail? If so what did you think
of it?
All copy pr
That's clearer, thanks.
Presumably if you upload apps hacked this way to the Market, your
account will get pulled. And since this is the only way of getting
apps into the Market it remains safe?
On Aug 25, 8:36 am, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Carl Whalley
> wrote:
>
On 25 August 2010 10:31, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
> Er I was referring to helping protect apps against piracy. :}
>
I would hope LVL supporting more devices should help against piracy ;)
On 25 August 2010 10:31, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
>
> And as far as supporting devices that don't have the mark
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Mark Carter wrote:
> One thing that would help would be to remove the dependency on the Android
> Market app and open up the licensing system to support sales outside of the
> Android Market. The aim here is for devs to have a simple way to support
> Android devic
One thing that would help would be to remove the dependency on the Android
Market app and open up the licensing system to support sales outside of the
Android Market. The aim here is for devs to have a simple way to support
Android devices that don't have the Market app, not to avoid the 30% cut.
G
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:20 PM, keyeslabs wrote:
> LVL is flawed in the same ways that AAL (and other similar approaches)
> is flawed. Google could do better, and I hope that they will.
> Obfuscation isn't really going to do much to improve the situation.
> What is really needed is O/S-level an
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Carl Whalley
wrote:
> I'm curious about something regarding signing. If someone does as this
> hack shows and patches the apk, they need to resign the new build. If
> they then put this version out and its widely distributed, can't
> Google see the certificate used
I'm curious about something regarding signing. If someone does as this
hack shows and patches the apk, they need to resign the new build. If
they then put this version out and its widely distributed, can't
Google see the certificate used to resign it, compare with the
original and just revoke the n
Seems like I was unfortunately very right on this prediction. Just
off by a few days :).
LVL is flawed in the same ways that AAL (and other similar approaches)
is flawed. Google could do better, and I hope that they will.
Obfuscation isn't really going to do much to improve the situation.
What i
Um, no. You should read up on public key cryptography.
Their substitute server will not work, because it will not have the
proper private key corresponding to the expected certificate. So to
get started, they'll have to also replace the public certificate that
it's expecting. That would be in the
Do you obfuscate the URLs that contact the Android Market Licensing
server? If you do not, the first thing that the crackers will do is
replace your server URLs with bogus ones with a a hex editor, and your
whole system is dead in the water. Please advise.
On Jul 27, 1:53 pm, Trevor Johns wrote:
very good
--
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 option
Thx String 4 reply. I will try your recomendation . I will upload my new
updated version app on market but not publish it. And then test, the
licensing server response. I hope its will work fine to me...
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 2:29 PM, String wrote:
> I think you need to upload an APK with versi
I think you need to upload an APK with versioncode="2" to your Market
console. You don't need to publish it, but you do need to upload and
save that version before LVL will give a correct response for it.
String
On Aug 21, 9:15 am, Feelsocial wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am facing the problem in licen
Hi all,
I am facing the problem in licensing of my old published paid apps.
Basically i have paid app which is published by version code 1. I
implemented the license code on it, it working fine to me. Licensing
server giving the response or allow that you can use it. But once i
changed version cod
I put license check in my app and wanted to test it
I use device with myem...@gmail.com
>From documentation
This response will be sent to devices using myem...@gmail.com or the
Test accounts listed above for applications you have uploaded to
Market. Additionally, this account (but not the Test acco
Perhaps, but you didn't answer my question. Anybody else?
Also, in the included sample app, the license check is triggered
during onCreate. This means that when I click "Buy App", go to the
market, then immediately hit the back button, it goes back to the app
and doesn't check again (at least no
As stated earlier obfuscating the app doesn't help much. It's easy to
find the license check in the byte code and change it, so the app is
not really protected. There is still much work left for the developer
to find a solution to prevent the app from working if it is not signed
with the original d
Will there eventually be a way to obfuscate automatically during .apk
export in eclipse? The ant method looks relatively easy to setup, but
I'd like to know if this is coming. (Especially since it's /strongly
recommended/ in the docs)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
On Jul 31, 11:21 pm, keyeslabs wrote:
> Speaking as someone who has traveled this road before with my own
> implementation of basically the same approach, obfuscation will be
> critical. With AAL, it took about three days for someone to crack the
> app.
There are various ways to make this harder
And even if you skip the "request refund" step, we'll see a large number of
license checks for a single account in our logs.
So, not only can we disable that account, but we'll also know who was
responsible. :P
--
Trevor Johns
Google Developer Programs, Android
http://developer.android.com
On T
As soon as you request a refund then the license server will return
NOT_LICENSED for that Google account.
On 3 August 2010 12:37, andreas.walt...@googlemail.com <
andreas.walt...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 11:21 pm, keyeslabs wrote:
> > ... someone to crack the
> > app. The process loo
On Jul 31, 11:21 pm, keyeslabs wrote:
> ... someone to crack the
> app. The process looks something like this: decompile the apk using
> a freely available open source tool, find the code that invokes the
> licensing check, skip it, recompile and repackage the apk.
Isn't there is a much simpler
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:17 AM, James W wrote:
>
> Hate to say it, but if Apple can do it, why can't Google...?
>
>
Google don't want?
Tom
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Android Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to android-deve
On a slightly different note - in case anyone was wondering...if a
user has paid for an app and then inserts a sim card from a non-paid
app country (so that he can no longer see paid apps on the Market),
the LVL still correctly returns that the user is licensed. I was
expecting this, but its good t
Thanks, guys. Of course, my UK bank accounts are currently pointing to
my HK address, but I guess I could change them back, or open another
UK based account.
Anyway, I will let my vent stand on behalf of everyone else in the
world who doesn't have that option!
Hate to say it, but if Apple can do
I can confirm that. If you are a resident of country where you can
sell your apps from, meaning you have an address and a bank account,
you can still sell apps. It's not like Google is checking your IP
address when you are uploading your app.
On Aug 2, 4:10 pm, Mark Carter wrote:
> AFAIK, wheth
AFAIK, whether you can sell apps or not is dictated by the country of your
Google Developer account.
So if your Google Developer account (or is that Google account?) is
registered in the UK, you can move to HK and still sell paid apps.
On 2 August 2010 10:00:20 UTC+2, James W wrote:
> Yes absol
Yes absolutely.
Not really the ideal place to vent, but the delay in rolling out to
other countries is beyond ridiculous and incredibly frustrating.
It has got to be self defeating also.
I moved from England to Hong Kong, so now I cannot buy apps, I cannot
sell my apps, because HK is not support
I will bump that thread
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/97e2ba40f258f21b
until I will get a reply.
Thanks :)
On Jul 27, 7:55 pm, Trevor Johns wrote:
> Android fans,
> For those of you who haven't already heard through our blog, we've
> just launched the And
Just noticed this. Excellent news! Thanks.
Now to find some time to explore it... :)
--
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, se
Speaking as someone who has traveled this road before with my own
implementation of basically the same approach, obfuscation will be
critical. With AAL, it took about three days for someone to crack the
app. The process looks something like this: decompile the apk using
a freely available open s
This sounds great, but is completely useless to me as Im in Ireland
and no paid apps available to my potential users, so I've gone ahead
and made my own user registration and payment system based around
PayPal. A complete waste of my time, but what can ya do?
>From Reto Meier:
"Unfortunately I ca
It was the obfuscation messing up this line in LicenceChecker:
new Intent(ILicensingService.class.getName()),
I changed this to
new Intent(ILicensingService.Stub.getDescriptor()),
and added a correspinding static function in ILicensingService.
Since the docs recommend obfuscation, I think the
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> Does this mean that apps installed on SD card are not going to be able to
> store private data (Context.MODE_PRIVATE) on device?
>
No that is a totally different thing. All installed apps have a private
data directory, non-forward-locked, f
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> Does this mean that apps installed on SD card are not going to be able to
> store private data (Context.MODE_PRIVATE) on device?
AFAIK, the app's local files (e.g., getFilesDir()) is still in the
on-board flash, not on the SD card, even if th
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Dianne Hackborn wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Joseph Earl wrote:
>
>> Any chance you guys are working a solution for large applications that
>> will work across Android 1.5-2.1?
>>
>
> No those platforms are already exist; it would make no sense to mod
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Joseph Earl wrote:
> Any chance you guys are working a solution for large applications that
> will work across Android 1.5-2.1?
>
No those platforms are already exist; it would make no sense to modify them
to support new features.
> Currently the only secure way
if you are using an emulator, make sure you use the "Google APIs"
add-on for API 8 (2.2) in revision 2.
Instructions for the setup:
http://developer.android.com/guide/publishing/licensing.html#acct-signin
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Pent wrote:
> Building with eclipse it seems OK, but via A
same problem here:
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/8f09bd1993d14f13
On Jul 30, 5:24 pm, Pent wrote:
> Building with eclipse it seems OK, but via Ant I get:
>
> I/LicenseChecker( 2115): Binding to licensing service.
> E/LicenseChecker( 2115): Could not bind t
Now don't get me wrong, I am sure Google did a better job of it than
ARM did, but I learned to hate licensing servers from the bitter
experience of using ARM's licensing server for their development
tools. We had continual problems with false negatives, i.e, the
program refused to run because it co
Building with eclipse it seems OK, but via Ant I get:
I/LicenseChecker( 2115): Binding to licensing service.
E/LicenseChecker( 2115): Could not bind to service.
W/ActivityManager( 85): Unable to start service Intent { act=av }:
not found
Any hints ?
Pent
--
You received this message because
With the new LVL we can have only one build for Free trial and for
Full version,
it's really "find your adjectives" that we need to upload two
identical copyes of the same software with different package name,
don't you think?
On Jul 28, 6:01 pm, Joseph Earl wrote:
> Not with this system as far
I just posted my toughts on the integration process in a separate
thread on this forum, as I didn't want to hijack this one. It might
be interesting read for some people:
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/d54f65beff467b26#
--
You received this message becaus
A third-party obfuscator is not strictly required, but it certainly adds an
additional level of security. We even mention it in our developer docs:
The LVL provides a full Obfuscator implementation called AESObfuscator that
> uses AES encryption to obfuscate data. You can use AESObfuscator in your
Not necessarily.
Rather than force users to go to your site to purchase a license code/
key, you'd need to allow users to purchase from Android Market as
usual, and then ask them to enter the Google Checkout code when the
app first launches.
Your own system can then deal with verifying the Checkout
Joseph thanks for your reply, using my own system means that I can't
sell my software on the market.
Am I right?
On Jul 28, 6:01 pm, Joseph Earl wrote:
> Not with this system as far as I'm aware - users will have to purchase
> a new license when changing to a phone running a different OS.
> You'l
Any chance you guys are working a solution for large applications that
will work across Android 1.5-2.1?
Currently the only secure way of doing it is by targeting Froyo only
(using 8 as minSdkVersion) - however it will be at least a year, more
likely 3, before this an acceptable solution to present
Not with this system as far as I'm aware - users will have to purchase
a new license when changing to a phone running a different OS.
You'll have to continue using your own system if you want this kind of
functionality.
On Jul 28, 12:44 pm, sblantipodi wrote:
> Hi all...
> When you bought my soft
Excellent!
Thank you
On Jul 28, 6:44 am, sblantipodi wrote:
> Hi all...
> When you bought my software you bought a license, this license can be
> ported from android to other platform like Symbian, Winmob, bada,
> JavaME, Blackberry...
>
> Every customers who bought my license is registered on o
Hi all...
When you bought my software you bought a license, this license can be
ported from android to other platform like Symbian, Winmob, bada,
JavaME, Blackberry...
Every customers who bought my license is registered on our database,
(email address and device id),
this let me generate a new act
Please open Android Market to more countries. This is really cool
feature but currently useless for me.
And also I would be happy to use this for in-app purchase if possible.
Tom
On 28 čnc, 11:32, Mark Carter wrote:
> Ok, just figured this out. The version code of the app I was testing was not
Ok, just figured this out. The version code of the app I was testing was not
one that was recognised by the Android Market. So, it is the combination of
package name and version code that needs to have been published.
Its sort of explained in line 2317 of the docs :)
"Once an application is uploa
Really required in the Republic of Ireland too, Android devices are
getting quite popular here and the time has come to open the paid
market
On Jul 27, 9:24 pm, Sebastian Rodriguez wrote:
> I agree with Anton Persson. When will Google realize that opening the paid
> market to all the other countr
Seems that this call in AESObfuscator is taking a few seconds:
SecretKey tmp = factory.generateSecret(keySpec);
--
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 uns
I'm getting NOT_MARKET_MANAGED when using my own gmail account on my
N1 and using "Respond normally". The app is a paid app on the Android
Market. The only difference could be the app signature (I'm debugging
so not doing production signing). My gmail account was used to publish
the app and I have
Great stuff,
I'll certainly be implementing this as soon as I can.
Thanks :)
On Jul 27, 6:55 pm, Trevor Johns wrote:
> Android fans,
> For those of you who haven't already heard through our blog, we've
> just launched the Android Market licensing service:
>
> http://android-developers.blogspot.
ProGuard obfuscates your compiled code.
The Obfuscator referred to in the Licensing Server doc obfuscates
licensing info retrieved from AppMarket.
On Jul 28, 7:44 am, sblantipodi wrote:
> I haven't understood if using this library external obfuscation
> (proguard for example) is needed
> for sec
I just wanted to say a big thank you!
Stephen
On Jul 27, 10:55 am, Trevor Johns wrote:
> Android fans,
> For those of you who haven't already heard through our blog, we've
> just launched the Android Market licensing service:
>
> http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/07/licensing-service-
I haven't understood if using this library external obfuscation
(proguard for example) is needed
for security reason or if we can avoid using external obfuscator, it's
quite a pain using proguard in netbeans plus android sdk.
On Jul 27, 10:24 pm, Sebastian Rodriguez wrote:
> I agree with Anton Pe
I agree with Anton Persson. When will Google realize that opening the paid
market to all the other countries is crucial for the market environment :(
We don't have access to them here in Singapore either.
But this is a major step already, let's hope for even better!
Seb
On 28 July 2010 04:19, Ka
OK, great. Thanks for the info.
--
Kostya Vasilyev -- http://kmansoft.wordpress.com
28.07.2010 0:55 пользователь "Trevor Johns"
написал:
It's implemented in the library.
Cache contents are protected using a swappable Obfuscator class. We include
a standard obfuscator implementation that encryp
It's implemented in the library.
Cache contents are protected using a swappable Obfuscator class. We include
a standard obfuscator implementation that encrypts cache data using AES-256
and an application-specific key, along with a copy of the device ID. This
prevents tampering with cache data, or
Is caching implemented in the library or in the Market app?
I am concerned about potential abuse, such as replacing cache contents.
--
Kostya Vasilyev -- http://kmansoft.wordpress.com
28.07.2010 0:23 пользователь "Trevor Johns"
написал:
Developers can chose whether to implement response cachin
Developers can chose whether to implement response caching or not.
Assuming caching is enabled, we require a network connection for the first
license check, but then the user can go offline for a period of time before
requiring another license check.
--
Trevor Johns
Google Developer Programs, An
I saw that entry, and have a question.
What will happen if the user doesn't have network connectivity? Many
users turn of data traffic when they travel to other countries, but
the probably still want to use the licensed applications.
On 27 Juli, 19:55, Trevor Johns wrote:
> Android fans,
> For
Yes. There's a code sample that's bundled as part of the library download.
You'll find it in $SDK_ROOT/market_licensing/sample.
--
Trevor Johns
Google Developer Programs, Android
http://developer.android.com
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:55 AM, sblantipodi
wrote:
> excellent, is there some code s
excellent, is there some code sample on how to use this new apis?
On Jul 27, 8:42 pm, Kostya Vasilyev wrote:
> What's great is that it's available on all Android versions starting
> with 1.5 (i.e. it's not a Froyo only feature).
>
> -- Kostya
>
> 27.07.2010 21:55, Trevor Johns пишет:
>
>
>
> > An
That, and the ability for folks to actually access the paid-for apps...
Sweden, like probably many countries still, have no access to the paid
apps... When will Google understand that this is critical for them to keep
the momentum? If the status quo persists, people we give up, pack their bags
and
Excellent! Now all we need is a subscription payment model and we can
actually make some money!
-John Coryat
--
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 unsubs
98 matches
Mail list logo