Related
http://www.artfulbits.com/Android/antipiracy.aspx
If your a Dev please support them, if you need assistance msg me i can send u code that will allow your app to automatically send a message to this company with a users information that has stolen your app or tried to steal it.
pentace said:
http://www.artfulbits.com/Android/antipiracy.aspx
If your a Dev please support them, if you need assistance msg me i can send u code that will allow your app to automatically send a message to this company with a users information that has stolen your app or tried to steal it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm all for cracking down hard on piracy, but there are three big flaws with this solution:
1) How would Artfulbits verify that an app reporting a device is a "dark" device is making that report in good faith? If a bunch of pirates wanted to render this service pointless, they could just create apps that flood the service with false positives.
2) It is possible (although difficult) to link IMEI to a user/owner. This makes a publicly accessible database of "dark" IMEIs somewhat shady in terms of being a breach of privacy.
3) Finally, if this service is to be useful, apps have to have some way of acting on the information in the database. That is just going to lead to folks "cracking" apks to remove the IMEI-checking routines, or simply using leakproof firewalls to prevent the app from accessin the IMEI database.
Thoughts?
There is not going to be a way to completely stop piracy. Google just needs to step up the way the market works to prevent some of the piracy.
I understand devs deserve money for their hard work (and the log of my google checkout shows I support them) but I personally dont want any app reporting any information about myself or my phone. If there is a list of which apps do I will find an alternative for better or worse and not use the app. Not to knock on those who support this method, I just personally dont like it.
rondey- said:
There is not going to be a way to completely stop piracy. Google just needs to step up the way the market works to prevent some of the piracy.
I understand devs deserve money for their hard work (and the log of my google checkout shows I support them) but I personally dont want any app reporting any information about myself or my phone. If there is a list of which apps do I will find an alternative for better or worse and not use the app. Not to knock on those who support this method, I just personally dont like it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well considering my app has been pirated 3x as much as it has been downloaded legally i would be willing to let go of the few that are not comfortable with their imei being registered on a website which only happens if u are stealing an app, most apps out there gather more information from you than that without you even knowing.
I don't get why people would install this program. If it detects pirated software on your phone then who the hell are you letting you use your phone? Lets say you know you have pirated software well then of course you wont install this program. If you know your running a clean rom and have no reason to suspect pirated software your giving up a lot of information for a false sense of security. So unless this is forcibly installed on everyone's phone I don't see what's the point.
psychoace said:
I don't get why people would install this program. If it detects pirated software on your phone then who the hell are you letting you use your phone? Lets say you know you have pirated software well then of course you wont install this program. If you know your running a clean rom and have no reason to suspect pirated software your giving up a lot of information for a false sense of security. So unless this is forcibly installed on everyone's phone I don't see what's the point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not a program you install. It is a database. App developers write routines into their programs which access the database. If an application suspects that it was illegally pirated, then it will send the user's IMEI to the database.
This is stupid idea. Go to the source of piracy if you want to fight it.
Give people access to paid apps on market and they won't download illegal copies form rapidshare...
su27 said:
Give people access to paid apps on market and they won't download illegal copies form rapidshare...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Riiiight... because if you give pirates the option to pay they'll definitely all pay right?
This database thing bothers me.
Not because I might be stealing programs..
but because I might find one and not know its "dark"
Suddenly I'm on some blacklist because I thought an app was cool?
I just did a search on one of the torrent sites, and found a file to DL.
It has 231 apk files and 2 .bak files. (I'm assuming the bak files are for a cracked version of the paid apk) but many of these files are a)old versions or b) free already.
Normally I would say SCORE! I don't have to DL to the g1, then back up, uninstall, transfer to the pc, and store.
Last time I tried a file like that, more than half were for cupcake, and would not work on my donut. Recycle bin.
With this Database I would get tagged as a cheater the first time I tried to install any of those files that were marked. But I have no idea they are "dark" before hand.
While I thank the Dev's for the work they do.
{Seriously, Thank you Developers!}
I'm a student, and I'm poor, which means I'm cheap.
I have several free apks stored away. Hell, I still used youtube downloader 1.2...until it quit working last week. Why, because I don't want to spend money just to have a cool phone.
If you really want to make it hard on the thieves... someone make a program that cripples another program, until the user requests the full version. Then it reads the Imei number from the phone and sends an upgrade request to a server. The server requests payment. Server verifies payment. The server issues a hashed password based on the Imei, which is then sent back to the phone as a password. Customer never sees the password.
This is what Doc to go appears to do. I could be wrong.
Now make it so that program can be imbedded in any other program.
Now thieves need a whole crap load of hacking to find enough hashed passwords to find the hash.
If the hash is added to at random intervals, or a different hash is used based on the Imei number, they might never find the hash.
Besides that, how the heck does a program know if it has been stolen?
How can it tell between a stolen program and a wiped phone that is getting reinstalled with backed up apk's?
jashsu said:
I'm all for cracking down hard on piracy, but there are three big flaws with this solution:
1) How would Artfulbits verify that an app reporting a device is a "dark" device is making that report in good faith? If a bunch of pirates wanted to render this service pointless, they could just create apps that flood the service with false positives.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exists several strategies, for example the most popular is "honey pot" strategy. When vendor especially making leak of software or prepare specially application to track piracy.
jashsu said:
2) It is possible (although difficult) to link IMEI to a user/owner. This makes a publicly accessible database of "dark" IMEIs somewhat shady in terms of being a breach of privacy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For example in our country sufficient IMEI of the phone to find it owner and it location, of course if you have police under your shelders. That is why I am thinking that IMEI is a good identifier.
jashsu said:
3) Finally, if this service is to be useful, apps have to have some way of acting on the information in the database. That is just going to lead to folks "cracking" apks to remove the IMEI-checking routines, or simply using leakproof firewalls to prevent the app from accessin the IMEI database.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Solution is not perfect, but can be easily enhanced. HTTPS protocol with certificate checks will make firewalls and redirections useless.
What functionality exactly you have in mind?
[email protected] said:
While I thank the Dev's for the work they do.
{Seriously, Thank you Developers!}
I'm a student, and I'm poor, which means I'm cheap.
I have several free apks stored away. Hell, I still used youtube downloader 1.2...until it quit working last week. Why, because I don't want to spend money just to have a cool phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Leave according to your money. what can I say... spend less, work more.
[email protected] said:
Besides that, how the heck does a program know if it has been stolen?
How can it tell between a stolen program and a wiped phone that is getting reinstalled with backed up apk's?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Several simple steps:
- install software only from well known web sites, Android Market, Handagoo, SlideMe, etc.
- try to use trials and if it does not exists but you want to try, contact with developers. In most cases developer will provide you version for testing.
- if your phone is placed into black list, then you can contact "blacklist" vendor for explanation and fixing.
jashsu said:
Riiiight... because if you give pirates the option to pay they'll definitely all pay right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You see - that's your problem - you want to fight the enemy instead of prevent war.
In my country there are many people who would pay for android programs because they are quite cheap. But we have no access to paid market. That is why we download apps illegaly.
Now, what do you think will faster stop us from stealing apps:
A. Calling us pirates and thieves
B. Giving us access to paid apps
su27 said:
Now, what do you think will faster stop us from stealing apps:
A. Calling us pirates and thieves
B. Giving us access to paid apps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are making the incredibly flawed assumption that piracy only happens because people have no access to the paid market. Are some people put in this situation? Yes, probably. But the majority of pirates likely DO have access to the paid market and simply don't want to pay.
I am a bit confused, what does this ban people from? The market in it's entirety?
If that is the case, I would think you'd see an outburst of pirating once people couldn't access the market anymore. And that would also prevent people who may not feel like dishing out $100 for a navigation solution from purchasing numerous $1-10 programs that they would actually use on a daily basis. I think this methodology is flawed.
Piracy will never be completely stopped. However, making it harder for people to pirate your software is the best prevention. Instead of saying "Oh, you might have installed a pirated copy of XXX on your device, so now you can't purchase any more programs legitimately, so keep on stealing!". Due diligence falls on the hands of the software creators. If piracy is something you want to prevent (or at least inhibit) for your software, create an IMEI checking device key required to be granted after receipt (and clearance) of payment. Similar to CoPilot, granted it still gets cracked - it is much harder and much less widespread, and a simple update renders it useless to those who used the cracked version (check all over these forums for people complaining about it).
Also, implement trials that don't require the user to pay for them, giving them only 24 hours to try something out before they decide they need their money back. Even Microsoft lets users go 30 days without activation (last I checked) to try out Windows. They do not (to the best of my knowledge) make great attempts to prevent their software from being copied, but instead make it harder on those who do pirate it. Blocking system updates (of course everything has a workaround or crack, but making it harder on someone is oftentimes a great deterrent), preventing new feature installation, etc.
I am not condoning piracy, nor am I condemning software publishers. Just trying to make a point, which is this:
If you take someone who has stolen a program (for whatever reason/justification they may think of) and punish them by revoking their access to purchase said program (or any other program), you have thus reinforced their reason/justification to not purchase any programs.
Now, i may be wrong here, but looking at their source code to integrate into applications, there seem to be 2 things: 1) the device has to have a data connection, otherwise the code doesnt know whether the device is blacklisted or not, at which point it defaults to assuming it isnt, which overall is a good thing for users who have paid but for whatever reason dont have network at that time, however it is easy enough to stop an application from accessing the network, or even a specific site (ie the site for your imei number on their page).
secondly, is this meant to run on the first run of an app, or every run? if it is every run then i can see people getting annoyed by the unnecessary data usage, whereas if it is only on the first run then someone still has access to all their pirated apps from before they were on the database.
please note the only coding i have done is some fairly simple C, so i could be wrong, but anyone can check this if they want: http://www.artfulbits.com/Articles/Samples/Piracy/Integration.aspx
I think that by now most people know that I don't honeycoat things, so I'll just say it... this idea is RETARDED.
1) The application needs to use the API to get the IMEI. If you start using the IMEI to blacklist phones, a minor modification to the API causes the application to always read a string of 0's. Defeated.
2) The application needs PERMISSION to read the IMEI (android.permission.READ_PHONE_STATE). If you start requiring programs to have this permission, people will simply DENY it this permission (yes, it IS possible to block a permission)... this is ESPECIALLY the case when the application has *no good reason* to read the phone state.
3) As has been mentioned before in this thread, HOW DO YOU KNOW that an application you are downloading is pirated? Many applications are FREE to download, and virtually NONE of the pirated apps are labeled as "THIS IS PIRATED".
4) Connection to the internet can be EASILY blocked. Lots of ways... firewall, hosts, permissions, etc. Again, defeated.
Oh, and to those saying crap like access to paid market won't stop piracy, NOBODY SAID IT WOULD!!! It *WILL* reduce it though, since there ARE people out there who WOULD buy apps *IF THEY COULD*.
daveid said:
I am a bit confused, what does this ban people from? The market in it's entirety?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read the description again more carefully. This does not impact a user's ability to access the Market, as it is not a Google product. In case your comprehension is lacking, i'll explain it very simply:
1. A developer decides to use the Artfulbits Anti Piracy Database (shortened AAPD) with its app.
2. A user downloads this AAPD-enabled app from the market.
3. When said app is run, it sends the IMEI of the device to the Artfulbits server. The server returns a color code corresponding to the number of times that IMEI has been reported by other AAPD-enabled apps for piracy. The app can then do whatever it wants with that information. This can be anything from deleting itself to crippling its own functionality.
4. App can also detect if has been pirated (by checking to see if the app has an entry in the user's personal Market account or some other method). If the app detects it is pirated, it will send a report to AAPD.
Another point Artfulbits failed to consider is that not all Android devices will have IMEIs to report.
Is piracy really that much of a problem? I mean most apps cost <3€ and I don't think I am the only one who values his time higher than saving 3€. I rather pay once and get updates via Market than check warez-sites for updates, and I think that most think that way?
There are just two apps that I ever considered to pirate. One was a dictionary for 20$ but I ended up buying it. The other is CoPilot which I would never buy since I don't own a car, but since it is not cracked anyway, I was not forced to really think about it.
I don't see anything good coming from that database. I.e. if my phone would be entered by mistake, you can imagine what problems that would cause for devs whose apps I bought, which I assume would suddenly stop working then.
You really need to think about whether the negative side-effects of such measures like this database are worth the (presumably very small) benefit.
Is there any workaround...?
Whats the problem ?
All the apps i have ever bought / downloaded, via the market work fine.
I believe this is what he's talking about
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Android+Market/thread?tid=107185eea74e4005&hl=en
http://androinica.com/2009/02/23/some-paid-apps-unavailable-on-unlocked-phones/
It appears that as of February, Google made it so whenever a developer selects the "Copy Protected" option when listing their application on the marketplace, that application will not appear for any rooted phone or developer phone. Basically it seems they did this because a rooted or developer phone can extract the APK file after purchasing an app, and then return it while still keeping the application.
I recently became aware of this today as I was working with a developer to determine why his application would not appear in the market. It's a shame - the majority of the root community is not out there to STEAL apps, we support our developers, I was trying to find his application on the market so I could BUY it. I really wanted to purchase the application and now I have no way to do it, simply because I wanted to use my phone to it's full extent instead of being stuck on the stock firmware.
rabeatz said:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Android+Market/thread?tid=107185eea74e4005&hl=en
http://androinica.com/2009/02/23/some-paid-apps-unavailable-on-unlocked-phones/
It appears that as of February, Google made it so whenever a developer selects the "Copy Protected" option when listing their application on the marketplace, that application will not appear for any rooted phone or developer phone. Basically it seems they did this because a rooted or developer phone can extract the APK file after purchasing an app, and then return it while still keeping the application.
I recently became aware of this today as I was working with a developer to determine why his application would not appear in the market. It's a shame - the majority of the root community is not out there to STEAL apps, we support our developers, I was trying to find his application on the market so I could BUY it. I really wanted to purchase the application and now I have no way to do it, simply because I wanted to use my phone to it's full extent instead of being stuck on the stock firmware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any example of apps not showing up on the market for us?
Gilliland12 said:
Any example of apps not showing up on the market for us?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Search for the application Accudial on the market. It's copy protected. I get 0 results. Thats the one Example I am aware of but it also could be related to the fact that I'm on a 2.0.1 ROM instead of the older ones, switching back to test again. It's kind of hard to determine whether or not there are apps being hidden from us, if we don't know the app exists how are we gonna know it's hidden from our results?
It's because your on a Eclair rom..just searched on the WG 10 (Donut) and got AccuDial and AccuDial Free
Yeah I'm switching back to the latest CM ROM right now. But when I was running 2.0.1/Eclair, I was trying to download an application designed for 2.0 and it did not appear in the market - the developer said the only requirement he placed on it was that the phone be 2.0 or higher, so we came to the conclusion that it was the copy protection blocking the app.
But regardless of that - what about those links in my first post? Google Employees reply in those articles openly admitting that access to copy protected apps have been blocked from rooted and dev phones. Did Google quietly "undo" this between now and then? I can't find anything that says they did.
rabeatz said:
Yeah I'm switching back to the latest CM ROM right now. But when I was running 2.0.1/Eclair, I was trying to download an application designed for 2.0 and it did not appear in the market - the developer said the only requirement he placed on it was that the phone be 2.0 or higher, so we came to the conclusion that it was the copy protection blocking the app.
But regardless of that - what about those links in my first post? Google Employees reply in those articles openly admitting that access to copy protected apps have been blocked from rooted and dev phones. Did Google quietly "undo" this between now and then? I can't find anything that says they did.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can find all of those apps they mention.
Dunno.
rabeatz said:
Yeah I'm switching back to the latest CM ROM right now. But when I was running 2.0.1/Eclair, I was trying to download an application designed for 2.0 and it did not appear in the market - the developer said the only requirement he placed on it was that the phone be 2.0 or higher, so we came to the conclusion that it was the copy protection blocking the app.
But regardless of that - what about those links in my first post? Google Employees reply in those articles openly admitting that access to copy protected apps have been blocked from rooted and dev phones. Did Google quietly "undo" this between now and then? I can't find anything that says they did.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They did lift the "block", I know of at least 2 protected apps that I can use, Nesoid and Mobile Defense (not protected anymore but it ised to be)
Right now, I can only find Accudial Free but not Accudial. I'm on Cyan 4.2.9.1.
Maybe that's because I'm not in the US??? Or that I don't have a Google Checkout account???
Thanks!
rabeatz said:
Yeah I'm switching back to the latest CM ROM right now. But when I was running 2.0.1/Eclair, I was trying to download an application designed for 2.0 and it did not appear in the market - the developer said the only requirement he placed on it was that the phone be 2.0 or higher, so we came to the conclusion that it was the copy protection blocking the app.
But regardless of that - what about those links in my first post? Google Employees reply in those articles openly admitting that access to copy protected apps have been blocked from rooted and dev phones. Did Google quietly "undo" this between now and then? I can't find anything that says they did.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was a long time ago.
supremeteam256 said:
That was a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The fair labor standards act was passed in 1938. Still in effect today. Just because Google made the change 10 months ago doesn't mean it suddenly was removed.. Whenever I search on the topic all I can find is info that says that access to copy protected apps been disallowed, can't find any article that mentions them removing the block.
I'm not saying it hasn't been removed, but it's kind of hard for me to know whether or not i'm being blocked from applications, I don't know what ones are copy protected and what ones aren't, or if theyre being blocked from me, because they simply wouldn't show up and I wouldn't even know they exist.
If the block has in fact been removed, it'd be nice to see if anyone could find an article that mentions it. Everything online talks about the block being placed
rabeatz said:
The fair labor standards act was passed in 1938. Still in effect today. Just because Google made the change 10 months ago doesn't mean it suddenly was removed.. Whenever I search on the topic all I can find is info that says that access to copy protected apps been disallowed, can't find any article that mentions them removing the block.
I'm not saying it hasn't been removed, but it's kind of hard for me to know whether or not i'm being blocked from applications, I don't know what ones are copy protected and what ones aren't, or if theyre being blocked from me, because they simply wouldn't show up and I wouldn't even know they exist.
If the block has in fact been removed, it'd be nice to see if anyone could find an article that mentions it. Everything online talks about the block being placed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Search Nesoid, that is a protected app. If you see the paid version then they lifted the block
Have you ran market enabler?
supremeteam256 said:
Have you ran market enabler?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's that...?
Edit: Got it... http://code.google.com/p/market-enabler/ And it works... Thanks for the tip...!
Edit 2: Market Enabler works by mimicking certain APNs, be sure to backup your current APN first and restore it after getting the apps (it can be done within Market Enabler).
Cheers.
New to android and captivate, so excuse me if I'm missing something..but it seems that with one's google account being tied into all the functions, including buying in the market with the credit card on file with google..there has to be a setting to not allow the device to be used with a different sim..or some kind of security that will lock down your google account if the phone is stolen? Is something built in..or is there an app out there that people generally use for peace of mind?
EDIT: All of the recent Nokia phones I've had has a setting to not allow a different sim to be used
fldude99 said:
New to android and captivate, so excuse me if I'm missing something..but it seems that with one's google account being tied into all the functions, including buying in the market with the credit card on file with google..there has to be a setting to not allow the device to be used with a different sim..or some kind of security that will lock down your google account if the phone is stolen? Is something built in..or is there an app out there that people generally use for peace of mind?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very interesting. I too would like to know the answer. This is one of the many reasons why I NEVER use:
A) Mobile Banking
B) Purchases of any kind that includes Plastic
C) Setup any accounts that wire account info
Call me paranoid, but hey, it will save you a ton of headache on that unfortunate "if" day. Please keep us posted.
So does anybody have an answer...or at least some kind of marketplace app that is used for security?
So is nobody interested in security? Or is there just no simple solution..one thing that I miss on my Nokia N97 is the remote lock..send a text of a secret word, and poof the device is locked...done
I think people are interested to some degree but no widely known easy method. And just an fyi, rooting your phone and gaining superuser privileges - as many of us have done - creates a big security hole for trogin malware attack, so if you have rooted your phone take care and know what your installing and try to pay attention to anything using super user privileges.
Hey guys, I want to pass this app along to everyone here who is having problems activating WP7.
Note: This does NOT activate phone, it allows you to download ANYTHING thats in the Market.
I do NOT believe in warez! I am posting it here because of the people who cant activate WP7.
Also, this is NOT my app so I take no credit for this, just passing it along.
Overview: 3 ("free") WP7 MktPlace enables you to download Apps/Games for
specific regions (i.e. en-US, en-GB, fr-FR, de-DE) or specific devices (i.e. htc, dell, samsung) from the marketplace.
They also get auto-signed, so you can install them on your developer unlocked device.
After it's downloaded use "Tom XAP Installer.exe" to install it.
Make sure you have Zune running in background and usb is connected.
Some apps will give you error because it's for a different phone but I had almost every app install that I tried.
You can either use the search feature or leave the search box empty and click search for more results.
Your phone also has to be unlocked to install apps.
MOD EDIT:: ATTACHMENTS REMOVED - SEE LAST POST BEFORE THREAD WAS CLOSED.
Something that bypasses legitimate activation is definitely NOT allowed here. We are here to make it possible for users to run WP7 on their devices. Whether they get the OS activated or not is their own business. Bypassing legitimate activation is definitely possible but definitely illegal and therefore IS NOT allowed here.
Attachments in OP removed.
Thread closed.
OK, I'm frustrated.
I have been trying to add my gtab to my devices on the new Market site, and have so far been unable to do so. Actually, that is not exactly true. I can get it to show up partially.
I have a Droid phone, and I see the phone when I go to my Market Account, Settings, My Devices. I enter the new nickname for my tablet.. [tablet, gtablet, Viewsonic G-Tablet, Malata ... all tried separately], I check the "show in menus" option. Press the Update button on the right. And nothing happens. The Maker, Model, Carrier columns for the tablet are empty, with only a hyphen. I cannot enter information directly into these columns, and whenever I try to download something, only the phone shows up. When I click on the little black triangle to expand the devices, I DO see the GTablet there. But it is grayed out with a question mark beside it. It says it is not compatible with this device. Every single app is not compatible with my tablet?
What am I missing?
Full Market fix
You need to change the build.prop file. Use steps 1-5 here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=861044
Ya funny thing is, I think mine showed up (and someone will correct me I bet) as VS GTablet Advent Vegan 5.1.
Something like that but I thought oh they even know I am running the VEGAn ROM. Interesting indeed.
i'm runing vega5.1 and i had to do nothing... he just appeared..
but yesterday i had to do the market fix again and it disappeared.. LOL
weird
tysonkam said:
You need to change the build.prop file. Use steps 1-5 here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=861044
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my build.prop is correct and does not appear on market...
like i said before, it appeared then after fixing market again it does not
Same. I had to do the market fix again, and then my device disappeared. It was showing the TNT-Lite version beforehand, but now - nada.
tedlogan42 said:
Same. I had to do the market fix again, and then my device disappeared. It was showing the TNT-Lite version beforehand, but now - nada.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had the EXACT same thing happen to me. It was there as a malata gtab running tnt lite, and I had to do market fix again. Now its like it was never there. Is there anyone we can talk to at google about this? Like a customer support type?
Sent from my GTablet-TnT-Lite using Tapatalk
Maybe it is just the simple fact that this tablet is not supposed to be on the market at all. So calling Google to ask why your tablet with the hacked market doesn't work probably won't get you very far.
What is the big deal with this web market anyway? I have no problem using the market app on the tablet.
Agree
Sprdtyf350 said:
Maybe it is just the simple fact that this tablet is not supposed to be on the market at all. So calling Google to ask why your tablet with the hacked market doesn't work probably won't get you very far.
What is the big deal with this web market anyway? I have no problem using the market app on the tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 I just use the market on the tablet.... My device(for now) is showing in web market.
My G-Tab running Vegan 5.1 is working in the new market with no changes or modifications except editing the nickname. I installed an app to it via the new market already. Since I have a Droid also, I kinda like the ability to install on either or both devices. YMMV, apparently...
Nvidia VEGAn-TAB-v1.0.0B5.1
My tablet showed up under the web-based market as: "Nvidia VEGAn-TAB-v1.0.0B5.1 ". I added a nickname and downloaded some applications. Since I wasn't connected to the internet at the time it was held in abeyance. Once I got a wifi connection, boom down they came. So I can now peruse the market at work or as I monitor these forums, find an application, purchase it (or not) while I am still thinking about it and have it update the tablet the next time it connects. Not bad functionality for someone like me whose work environment is wifi restricted.
I still have one issue I would like to see Google fix. I purchased a application under one gmail account but after reflashing from tnt-lite to Vegan Tab I put my other account on the device first. Now I can't update that application without some tricky effort. Not sure I want to go through that effort or pay the $5 again
While that was me being stupid, I proposed to Google that I could envision the case where I might want to purchase an application with my work credit card and put that on their tablet and also purchase an application with my personal credit card. Their current schema doesn't allow for that. I can see where with telephones it might be a little more personal but tablets may start becoming shared devices say within a family.
What they seem to have for that situation is the ability to use more than one CC with the account. In that case you could use your work CC for some and personal for others.
Not a help for your situation, but it does address the situation you proposed.
Sprdtyf350 said:
Maybe it is just the simple fact that this tablet is not supposed to be on the market at all. So calling Google to ask why your tablet with the hacked market doesn't work probably won't get you very far.
What is the big deal with this web market anyway? I have no problem using the market app on the tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The point was that there is no reason for Google to not support the g tab with ANY Rom. They support the galaxy tab, the. Streak too. Why is it ok for those devices? Is it because they are tied to a service and not just WiFi?
Sent from my HTC Liberty using XDA App
Frrrrrrunkis said:
The point was that there is no reason for Google to not support the g tab with ANY Rom. They support the galaxy tab, the. Streak too. Why is it ok for those devices? Is it because they are tied to a service and not just WiFi?
Sent from my HTC Liberty using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google has prerequisites that must be met for a device to have official and supported Market. GPS and cellular radio are on that list if I'm not mistaken.
Sent from my Viewsonic G Tablet running TnT Lite 4.2.1 w/ Clemsyn's Kernel using Tapatalk Pro
anjenaire said:
My tablet showed up under the web-based market as: "Nvidia VEGAn-TAB-v1.0.0B5.1 ". I added a nickname and downloaded some applications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm getting the same showing up in my market access, but where we differ, is I have yet to have an application actually download to my tablet. I've gone through 5-6 different apps that did show the G-Tablet as a compatible device, and these were not installed on my tablet before going to the web market...
The big difference now is I am seeing lots more apps using the legacy Market app on the tablet.
I figured the first week or so would be pounding the web market, and things seem to be settling down, if just a small bit.
Frrrrrrunkis said:
The point was that there is no reason for Google to not support the g tab with ANY Rom. They support the galaxy tab, the. Streak too. Why is it ok for those devices? Is it because they are tied to a service and not just WiFi?
Sent from my HTC Liberty using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that they are not trying to give us a hard time as much as they are just trying to have some sort of way to keep things manageable. I mean, they set certain guidelines that devices need to follow to get market access so hopefully most of the apps will work. GPS, and cell type data connection are a couple requirements. Why? I don't know. Guess they had to start somewhere.
I think it is also done so developers can build apps that hopefully work for the types of devices that do qualify. Imagine how hard it would be to make apps that worked on every variation of Android out there. How often do we have issues with apps that don't work on one rom, but work on a different rom.
Maybe it was just to try and keep the market from being like the wild wild west...
Apple has it pretty easy. There are only a couple of hardware platforms they need to worry about. How about Android? There are probably a 1000 different hardware variants out there.
I really won't be surprised if they come up with a way to keep all non qualified devices off the market. Not that big of a deal really if they do though.
So far my tablet is showing on the new market and allows me to download apps to it. I'm running vegan tab 5.1 if that helps anyone...
Sprdtyf350 said:
I think that they are not trying to give us a hard time as much as they are just trying to have some sort of way to keep things manageable. I mean, they set certain guidelines that devices need to follow to get market access so hopefully most of the apps will work. GPS, and cell type data connection are a couple requirements. Why? I don't know. Guess they had to start somewhere.
I think it is also done so developers can build apps that hopefully work for the types of devices that do qualify. Imagine how hard it would be to make apps that worked on every variation of Android out there. How often do we have issues with apps that don't work on one rom, but work on a different rom.
Maybe it was just to try and keep the market from being like the wild wild west...
Apple has it pretty easy. There are only a couple of hardware platforms they need to worry about. How about Android? There are probably a 1000 different hardware variants out there.
I really won't be surprised if they come up with a way to keep all non qualified devices off the market. Not that big of a deal really if they do though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are probably right, i tend to lean towards everything being based on how these companies can make the most money. Like if what i said is true, maybe then google gets a bigger kick back from the carriers, or phone manufacterers. Its ATT 's fault really, lmao, since everything they do is based on getting more money from me as a subscriber. it seems loke they try to make evry feature, an extra charge, without lowering the standard monthly fees. (i know i am most likely wrong, it just seems this way to me). I am not askin for free stuff, it just seems like they keep the services i want out of my pockets' reach.
Sent from my GTablet-TnT-Lite using Tapatalk
Web market woes
I can confirm web market was working running TNT Lite... stopped working after redoing market fix. Web market working again... after flashing Vegan and wiping data.
For the people with working web based market: did you change your android id? if you did, did you change it to a different devices id or did you use one from an emulator?