Related
I browse the market every day and I see this guy putting apps that consistently get low reviews. His highest ranking app is 3 stars. He spams the market with apps that are overpriced photo galleries that show pics and play sounds of one specific thing. I think we should help him get the message that his high refund/low ranking rates are not giving him. Please reply if you agree that his apps need to stop spamming the market. If you have not tried one yet, look here. I am not doing this to be mean, but he needs to be told not to quit his day job.
Where's the option for "No. I dislike spam apps, but I hate censorship more." ?
So if his apps were malicious would you vote to have them removed? Do you feel spam filters on email are censorship? They fill your box with junk in hopes of making a few dollars off of you. I am against censorship but his apps are rediculous.
So if his apps were malicious would you vote to have them removed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are rules in place for the Market in regards to malicious apps. There would be no need to vote because the gatekeepers of the Market have already said malicious apps would be removed.
Do you feel spam filters on email are censorship?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course not. The key difference is who gets to decide what is removed. With a spam filter, each user gets to decide whether he wants to see content or not. Any system that removes apps from the Market (that aren't infringing the basic rules as stated above) without your knowledge and consent is basically censorship, whether the decision is made by ten people at Google or a hundred people on xda-dev.
Not if your email provider passes your email through spamhaus you dont. Also I would ****LOVE**** to have a configureable filter but I doubt we will. As an acceptable alternative, I would like for consistantly low rated and highly returned items to be removed. Guess what walmart does if a product gets returned 80% of the time it is sold. Do they ask you?
Also, I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just stating my view on the subject.
Darkrift said:
Also, I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just stating my view on the subject.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't care to start a fight either; I'm just pointing out that what you are proposing is a path down a slippery slope, and it generally goes against the "open participation" ethos of Android. You should also keep in mind that one person's junk may be another mans treasure. Would I ever buy one of Khalid's lame $5 joke apps (literally, they're joke books!)? No probably not. That doesn't mean that someone else might not want it.
Edit: Just as an example, back in the early days of Market before developers could geotarget the regions for distribution, some Chinese developers put up some app whose interface was completely Chinese. I think it was a Chinese input method or a frontend for a Chinese website. Regardless, the ignorant fresh T-Mobile masses downloaded it, didn't understand what it was for, and then promptly uninstalled it and rated it zero stars. If you do a filtering system based on ratings, you are giving every uninformed ignoramus an equal say in whether an app is allowed to stay or go.
The Markets sucks! It needs the possibility for user to set their own filter
e.g.
dont show apps publiced by Khalid Shaikh! lower than 2stars, more expensive than x$ and so on..
only show apps of a specifig language (e.g. for traffic,taxi,bus,tv gadgets..)
sort for recently updated and so on .. that's what the market app really needs!
bassbox said:
The Markets sucks! It needs the possibility for user to set their own filter
e.g.
dont show apps publiced by Khalid Shaikh! lower than 2stars, more expensive than x$ and so on..
only show apps of a specifig language (e.g. for traffic,taxi,bus,tv gadgets..)
sort for recently updated and so on .. that's what the market app really needs!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the market app needs customizable local (meaning on a user's own device) filters. That will partially solve the problem of crap apps littering the marketplace. However, I think overhauling Market client is low on the Google Android team's priority list. Unfortunately since it is a proprietary closed source app, there is no way for the dev community to take the matter into its own hands.
You would think that the king of searching would have some sort of decent searching on their own platform..
jashsu said:
Yes, the market app needs customizable local (meaning on a user's own device) filters. That will partially solve the problem of crap apps littering the marketplace. However, I think overhauling Market client is low on the Google Android team's priority list. Unfortunately since it is a proprietary closed source app, there is no way for the dev community to take the matter into its own hands.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am planning on developing an interface to the Market which allows for custom filters. I have a prototype Yahoo Pipe, which uses Cyrket to display Market data and allow simple filters. Basically, I can filter out apps that have certain words in the title, are from a certain developer (or more than one), or are below a certain rating threshold.
I will have to agree though on the statement about censorship. While it is true that his apps may be without any true merit, I do not believe that they are (or he is) breaking any of the Market rules or developer agreements. Unfortunately, as we've seen in the the "free" market and the iPhone AppStore, people are willing to download and even spend money on useless apps. I think as long as there is a market for this type of app we will continue to see them. Now, unfortunately that means we all have to deal with him, his apps, and others like him and his apps until either the Market allows for better filtering/sorting or a developer creates this for the community... It is much needed nonetheless.
nEx.Software said:
I am planning on developing an interface to the Market which allows for custom filters. I have a prototype Yahoo Pipe, which uses Cyrket to display Market data and allow simple filters. Basically, I can filter out apps that have certain words in the title, are from a certain developer (or more than one), or are below a certain rating threshold.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats awesome. if its anything like BarTor its going to be good
nEx.Software said:
I am planning on developing an interface to the Market which allows for custom filters. I have a prototype Yahoo Pipe, which uses Cyrket to display Market data and allow simple filters. Basically, I can filter out apps that have certain words in the title, are from a certain developer (or more than one), or are below a certain rating threshold.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's good to hear. What I meant is that the actual Market App itself cannot be modified to work the way we want it to. While being able to display Market data with filtering on a PC is nice, the bulk majority of users are still going to be suffering the standard Market app interface.
Unfortunately, as we've seen in the the "free" market and the iPhone AppStore, people are willing to download and even spend money on useless apps. I think as long as there is a market for this type of app we will continue to see them. Now, unfortunately that means we all have to deal with him, his apps, and others like him
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There will be more, that much I can assure you. As the Android platform grows, there will be more opportunist developers seeking to make a quick buck. It really is like spam. You throw a line out and because digital publishing is free, anything you get back is profit. There is basically no monetary risk involved in creating and distributing crapware. Atleast we won't have to suffer iPhone's idiotic ninety-nine cent "custom" name dialers. Although the number of soundboards posted daily is reaching dangerous limits...
I intend to make it an Android app. While it won't be a permanent fix,it might be what is needed to get Google moving on updates to the official Market app.
Anyway, on another note. I haven't looked at any one of the apps in question but I would venture a guess that they are in violation of copyright laws and as we have seen with the Tetris clones, Google does take action on matters of copyright. Maybe the best recourse then is to inform this developer of the copyright issues either directly or through Google.
?
Frankly i can't agree with having a dev (does this word really apply in this case) removed from the market for producing crap. However i am completely in favour of spamming his inbox with as much crap as i can possibly manage just to see how he likes it. Free porn search here i come!
Anyone wants to help it's --EMAIL REMOVED-- Yes this is a very childish response but i'm pissed with having to sift through his crap every morning, i think it's only fair!
Ideally google can resolve this issue by allowing to create a list of blocked developers. And the ability to block any apps containing the word soundboard would make my day
nEx.Software an app that was basically cryket.com for the android would be awesome. What would really be sweet was if it had an independant comment system that was filterable as well. So we could ban commenters based on their username, words, etc... Filtering by ratings, developer, keywords, etc.. I love it already. Just link the products to their entries in the market. Basically, cryket for the android with comments... I CAN HAZ IT NOW PLZ K?
Also, I'd love to add IndiaNIC, LLC to the filter list. I'm sure *someone* out there likes that they're putting out 300 e-books about India a day, but I'm sure tired of scrolling past them.
The last thing I'd want is to see rigorous policing on the Android Market. He's spreading expensive crapware but I'm sure people are buying it and I'm sure some actually enjoyed it. I don't think removing his apps from the market is the best solution, keep the market as free from censorship as possible if you ask me.
I think the best solution is market search filters as discussed above.
I agree, the ability to "ignore" certain developers would be nice. The new developer I would instantly add to this list would be IndiaNIC, LLC. or whatever the hell they are called. They have about 40 apps on the market, and I don't think a single one has a comment.
/if anyone affiliated with IndiaNIC, LLC reads this, no offense, but please get the message when nobody is buying what you're selling
The more I think about it, the more I realize a filter would be a better idea than removing junk from the market. While I do not agree that anyone will find his apps useful, I do see the point in letting them choose. But at the same time we should be able to choose not to see his crap. As for IndiaNIC, I disagree with placing them in the same category. They have products with good ratings and seem to be making at least SOME useful apps. While I agree they put out too many at once, they seem to have a market for their apps unlike Khalid Shaikh.
Still, a filter would be better for all. I wish I could edit the poll now to add that as an option
ryan75 said:
/if anyone affiliated with IndiaNIC, LLC reads this, no offense, but please get the message when nobody is buying what you're selling
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spammers don't need to "get the message"! They know exactly what they are selling (junk). The whole point is they are trying to make a quick buck. And in the immortal words of P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute."
Nevermind the fact that all of those texts can be downloaded for free from manybooks or feedbooks and then read on FBReaderJ...
androidplayground (link removed to comply with forum rules, google and take the first result, it's the ****hole in question)
This actually disgusts me.
I won't lie, I'm pro-piracy, and don't mind sites that host apps for free download, but profiting off someone else's work is frankly, sickening.
They do have a contact page, why not let them know how much you appreciate your hard work being stolen?
Looks pretty shady anyway, I'd much rather use the Android Market.
I agree. Charging people do get software you stole is worse than stealing it in the first place IMO.
I feel like I just took a trip back to a 1997 Geocities website
this is pretty much a site that leads to warez and shouldnt be posted. i am just saying.
brian_v3ntura said:
this is pretty much a site that leads to warez and shouldnt be posted. i am just saying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And changed.
It's being hosted by hostedsolutions, their contact info is here:
http://www.hostedsolutions.com/contact/
I'm sure they'd like to know what's on their servers.
Wow that's ballsy.
They even link back to the xda forums for formatting and rooting info.
And Dev's they are taking paypal payments. File a complaint with Paypal too.
They used a privacy company to hide who they are.
And then they used Tucows address as their domain registration address?
The whois phone number rings to a looped recording telling you to go to the privacy companies website. Which does not seem to work.
To bad these A$$munchs didn't also make the stupid Android7 Flash Player. We could have killed 2 birds with one stone.
If the site ever starts 'offering' SetCPU, I will do whatever is in my legal power to take them down. I can't do anything about those Chinese or Russian websites, but if it's hosted in the USA, they're going down.
ThrashWolf said:
This actually disgusts me.
I won't lie, I'm pro-piracy, and don't mind sites that host apps for free download, but profiting off someone else's work is frankly, sickening.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Piracy is piracy. Don't think somehow a for-free piracy distribution site is any more justified than a paid one. If anything, for-free distribution sites hurt developers more than paid sites: which one do you think attracts more pirates? (Note: Don't somehow come to the twisted conclusion that I support piracy of any kind; I don't.)
The difference between the two jashsu is that there is a large contingent of the "try before you buy" type of pirates out there. They'll get a warez version of an app, and if they like it, they'll often uninstall it and pay for the market version. However, if they pay for it through a third party website, the original developer never sees that profit.
Thats not to say I support piracy, because I dont. I fully believe that people should be compensated for hard work. I'm more than willing to pay for an app up front, and if it sucks, the dev will find out by reading the refund notice when i uninstall it within 24 hours.
kusotare said:
The difference between the two jashsu is that there is a large contingent of the "try before you buy" type of pirates out there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please show me some numbers. To get the ball rolling, i'll post a link.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-more-serious-than-first-though-on-iphone.ars
"The numbers that developers might find most interesting are the ones that show "conversion rates" from "lite" versions to full. Only one out of every 14 average users tends to purchase the paid version of an app after using the lite version, which is just under 7.5 percent. For pirates, the conversion rate is less than half a percent, or one out of every 233."
I download apps. If I like 'em, I pay for them. I'll usually go for a "lite" version if one exists. Anyway, rather than have this thread derailed into a debate about piracy, can we get back to the topic at hand?
I've notified the host, lets see if that does anything.
Sigh. Nothing like a little bit of piracy to set a forum on fire. Doesn't matter what forum you're visiting, could be a forum for food - and the first mention of piracy is bound to bring up what I like to call the forum nazis. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and no amount of gestapo trolling will change that. I find it interesting that people break various laws of various countries / cities / states daily and of course, it's overlooked. Someone makes mention of piracy and all of a sudden you've got the ePolice regime banging on your every post as if it were going to change something. What's my point? None, really. (But there again, there's also no point in bashing piracy, it's not going to make it any less existent.)
DarkNytefire said:
Someone makes mention of piracy and all of a sudden you've got the ePolice regime banging on your every post as if it were going to change something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope you don't think that I assumed my post would change ThrashWolf's perception on piracy. I was merely pointing out how humorously sad this statement is:
This actually disgusts me.
I won't lie, I'm pro-piracy, and don't mind sites that host apps for free download, but profiting off someone else's work is frankly, sickening.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean.. maybe i'm the only one who finds that just a bit hypocritical? I would have been completely okay if he/she just said "hey dudes, theres a paid piracy site, lets get it shut down" or "I like piracy". But to go and say "I am a pirate, but these other pirates disgust me".. idk.. maybe it's just me, but that's just ridiculous.
Then again what do I know?
Also they spam the android market with there links so make sure if you see it report it as spam.
Doesn't anyone pay for their apps anymore ...
I'll admit it, I pirate apps too, but only to either try it or if I have no other way to even purchase the application.
The thing is, being a high-schooler, I have a cheap, prepaid credit card that only allows transactions in USD. Many apps aren't available in the Market in currency other than Euros or Pounds so I have no other choice to use the apps than to pirate them.
This kind of behavior where people are selling pirated copies instead of just making it available for people who otherwise can't even buy them is really annoying though... anybody thought of a way to get them shut down?
I'm honestly debating to pay for a membership and email every dev that has an app on their. The other known site I've already found 6 apps from me on their and they were removed. But since this place charges just to get a peak I'm very tempted to pay and make sure every company knows and can write C&D's to them and the host.
Piracy is always going to be an issue. Always. I have pirated apps before, usually to test out an app update I have already downloaded and refunded from the marketplace. If the update fixes things I had issues with, I will buy it. If not, then I delete it. I have bought and kept 21 apps from the marketplace so far. I believe my use of pirated apps is fair.
I am not trying to justify piracy, but merely stating it is a great tool for me. I am aware that a lot of people pirate apps just so they don't have to pay for them. I believe that is wrong. However when comparing those who distribute an app for free to those that charge for an app that is not theirs, I believe that the one who distributes for free is the lesser of the two evils. The one who distributes for free is going to reach out to more of the potential market yes, but the scumbags who actually charge for apps that someone worked hard on are the true thieves IMO. They affect a lesser share of the potential market, but keep in mind their "share" is willing to make a purchase in the first place, while the freeloaders "share" is questionable in that department.
Just my 2 cents.
Was reminiscing my HD7 days again...
When I had my HD7, most of the apps were, I will be honest, paid. Now before you pull the trigger on me, let me explain something.
A. I am not against paying for an app.
B. But is it necessary that a good app SHOULD b paid? (WhatsApp, Flipboard)
C. Many people do consider this as a deal-breaker before buying a phone. (My boss is one of them, to an extent I'm too.)
D. By good app, I don't mean mind-blowing 3D games. But basic apps like the ones mentioned above.
Shouldn't MS, being MS make deals with other brands and give the buyer some relief?
Opinions, view points, perspectives now welcome. :Z
Sent from my RaZr Nexus.
Apps are created to make money - or at least most of them are.
That being said there are different ways an App can make money:
1.) It connects to a service and by it's existence promotes that service or makes it easier to use that service. In those cases the service behind the App pays for the App. (Twitter, Facebook, etc. are prime examples)
2.) Advertisments - this is the route most free Apps to my knowledge take on the Play Store. Pretty obvious how this works but I actually would rather pay 99 Cent instead of having an advertisment in my face all the time.
3.) In App Purchases - those will come with WP8 but in my experience are most often used in a way that you get a basic App with severly limited functionality which is then made functional through those expensive purchases. I personally prefer to have a price upfront so I can decide if the App is worth it.
All in all and working in software development myself I believe that good apps should be payed and I do believe that they actually should cost more than they do today. People whining over a price tag of 99 Cents for something they are going to use every day. Buy a coke at McDonalds and you pay pretty much the same for it without much whining that it should be free. Most developers don't make much money on Apps (WP or otherwise) with prices being what they are. This is by the way one of the reasons why many developers go iOS first - iPhone users are far more likely to pay for an App than Android users (looking at the statistics).
Prices being what they are Microsoft and Nokia in certain regions added a gift card to phone purchases worth 20$/€. This might be an interesting strategy for the future as well.
No, the phone itself was probably expensive enough.
The monthly bill is probably more than you are getting out of it.
Where does it stop ?
Television was once free in many places, now I believe everybody pays for it.
If you want "premiuim" channels you pay more again.
We pay for internet connections.
If the developer of an application wants to charge for it so be it, if he wants it to be free so be it.
Freedom of choice.
LL13-
When TV is free it is paid for by the country that operates it. Somewhere someone has to pay for it. If it is payed through taxes you also pay for it although you might not notice. Pay-TV-channels are new - which means: they would not exist were they not payed. It is the same for many of those Apps. If Microsoft were to intervene to get certain Apps for free on the platform they would have to regain that cost somewhere which perhaps would drive up the per-unit-pricing of the phones.
I'm not trying to force people to make their App payed, of course it's the developers choice. But all this whining about 99 Cents for a good App you use frequently just has to stop. Effort goes into making those Apps, people spend time implementing and polishing them. They should receive something for that.
Soo, here i am thinking about the newest (and first) WP8 phone ever announced, the Samsung (insert weird name here).
Now on android i am having 90~ apps that i use daily.. now i am pretty sure i'll find them once the OS get's released but if everything will be paid that's a dealbreaker for me.. i don't want to pay too much for a phone and (0.99$ per app) 90~ $ more.
So nope, for me they should be free, actually app developers should decide.
Most of the apps on my last 3 wp7s were paid and most of them were awful. I do not mind paying for apps at all.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2
lamplighter13 said:
Television was once free in many places, now I believe everybody pays for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If your in the US, TV is free if you can live with the programming you will get. FCC mandates that all HDTV channels (non premium channels)are broadcasted over the air.
Depending on where you live you can get some but, you might only get a few (I get 4 and not the major networks but, it is free)
Not everyone pays for it...but, most people pay because they want more than 5-7 channels.
As for the topic on hand. I think there should be free apps, some apps I will never use if I can't try them.
It amazes me how cheap some people are! Devs work there nuts off to bring you apps and you don't think they should get paid for that hard work?
MS will NEVER demand that all apps be paid apps that's crazy1 They limit the daily submissions to stop crapware like soundboards that plague the play store. Its a choice the dev makes and most offer you the choice with free versions supported by adds or paid versions (supertube for instance). The WP market place even has a section for free apps and games etc and some rock (archery for one).
All in all i think MS has done a great job keeping app standards high. They could of gone the Android route and let anything pass just to get the numbers up but they didnt! Also not MS offer trials when android and ios normally have lite versions though i see more slipping into the market.
4.2 multi-user function does not allow apps to be shared between users on the same device. (An app can share the same storage space, but you'd still need to pay for separate copies for each user.)
I'll use OmniWrench's comment on ArsTechnica in lieu of my own argument:
"I ask this as someone who codes for a living - Do you really think families sharing a single device are going to buy multiple copies of the same app? How realistic an expectation is that? Allowing sharing of paid apps on a single device seems like a raw deal for devs certainly, but realistically how many people would actually buy the same thing 2 or more times on the same device?
...
"The consequence of this approach is that my wife will not use my android devices under her account, she'll just occasionally do some stuff "as me", so she won't "feel at home" with the device or android, and hence, won't be as likely to purchase her own device (or apps) down the road."
A counter-argument presented is that Android apps are cheap vs PC apps, so app-sharing isn't needed. But this faceplants upon closer examination. An Android app isn't the functional equivalent of a PC app. A mobile game doesn't have the same content as a PC game. There are also various money-making mechanisms (IAPs) being employed in mobile games that aren't in PC games. But the bottom line is per OmniWrench's above: It's not realistic to expect people to pay for multiple copies of the same app on the same device, no matter what the cost is. People will just use a single account, or they will resort to warez.
This segues into the piracy issue. We all know that apps piracy is rampant on Android, and it's a major detractor for developing the eco. Devs won't play if they can't make money. My feeling is that 4.2 will promote more piracy, by pushing erstwhile legit users to resort to the warez route to make multi-user work per their expectations, ie with app-sharing. It's a slippery slope: Once people make the decision to use warez for certain situations, the natural inclination is that they'll use warez for other situations as well.
Please participate in the poll above, and voice your opinions.
Wow... this really grosses me out. I don't share my phone, but I certainly expected to share my Nexus 7 tablet (with wife and three kids). I don't want any of them in my email or other communication apps, but I'm happy to let them use anything else. I'd really looked forward to easy, one-click, secure sharing of my tablet. But on reading this, I think that I'll just continue to use App Protector to lock down Gmail, etc. The bum thing is that I also have to lock down Chrome, because the bugger either logs users into mail.google.com automatically or offers to do so. Thus, I can't let family members use Chrome at all on my tablet (although Dolphin is a fine substitute).
The adding a second user feature is something that I will never even try.
--
I go through enough gadgets that my wife and kids end up with their own tablets = "I do not share my (latest) toys" .
No it does not, it enables multiple users to use their own apps on the same tablet. Turning one tablet into four different ones.
What people seem to be confusing this with is a "kid's mode", where a different user is allowed limited access to another user's apps.
Either way Google was damned if they did/ damned if they didn't. They let everyone have access to paid apps they tick off devs, they don't they tick off some users.
It is quite a poorly developed idea.
My nexus is a family tablet, with a shared Gmail account.
I was hoping to put on my own Gmail account as a new user to migrate & amalgamate the two accounts' purchases.
No dice.
Concerned Android User.
I knew this was coming in some form or another.The whole thing is whats the right solution..
I actually thought Google would end up putting some type of device id tag in each app. This would allow it to run only on the device it was purchases for. But of course as much as we change devices and buy new ones. This would be very flawed.
Then there is the Each app linked to one google account. The app can then only be installed on a device using that Google account and only on one device at a time.. Well CO-PILOT tried this.. It failed miserably because of the Administration overhead when users switched or upgraded devices.(I was frustrated beyond belief).
I know its different but with windows Apps and programs for the most part are based on cpu id .. well product key generated from that and coa key. To install on that S pacific pc only.
So what would be Fair to everyone. Especially the Developers.. That is what this is all about. fair to developers and still works for users..
My opinion.. Some apps like simple games email type apps and so on are not so personal and should be allowed to carry on as they are.. But i do see how the apps like high end games and work processors apps. Should be maybe Tied to a Device not so much a Google account.. Well rephrase that
They should be somehow tied to a Google account but allowed to Run on One Device at a time.Any user on that device. Maybe pay a small fee per device above its primary device..
We will all have to give some on this Subject to keep app development moving to better app quality . Keeping developers and users Somewhat happy.. But there is not a solution to Keep this fair for both...
I am willing to pay a slight extra amount to use Really good apps on multiple devices. But only apps that truely make my life easier. Well more fun with some of the games.(thou im not big with games )
Sorry this is such a long winded post . There is change in the air.. Someone should start a true real discussion about this. Get Google and app developers involved . Before Google just decides for us.. We will loose on both ends if they do Developers and users..
PIRACY IS NOT A ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM....
you can get around this.. Setup your google account on the second user . Install the apps.. Then remove the account. Should work..
Work around ... Add the second account for this test ..
Primary account is Erica .
second account Erica Renee
I installed my google account to the erica renee user account. Open play store.. go to your apps .They will show as if they are not purchased . EXIT play store. REBOOT THE TABLET. log back into the second account and then you will see apps purchased .. You can install the paid apps..
Exit back to home screen. Go into setting and accounts Open the google account and delete it.. The paid apps from the first account will Be there still and usable.
The app i used to try this was Sketchbook Pro.. So this is not that big of a deal . My huge post above i still agree i would pay a small extra amount to use apps on multi devices. If the apps were worth it..
The only thing I thought about using a second user account is for my 3yr old, since she figured out how to exit out of Kid Mode (I swear this kid is more tech savy than most adults I know)
Problem is, one size does not fit all.
I can certainly see how highly personalized apps, such as games, should warrant a re-purchase of the game. Maybe that's just the developer in me talking, but when you look like online games like SC2, Diablo3 ... you can borrow the "device" to someone, and they could play it, under your account, but it's not the same experience, and neither is it legal under EULas for these games.
However, it is also clear to me that purchasing, for example, a widget (such as HD widgets) should really be tied to device. I made a second account for my wife, and while I appreciate that we can now have different account for Words With Friends, I will not be rebuying HD widgets, so my wife's account loses that ability.
And there are gray areas. Does VPlayer warrant a re-purchase? I don't know. But I can name many very expensive desktop applications that I have used for decades now, sharing them with my family, under the same device - Office, Photoshop, every single single player game.... this is where the confusion comes from. people are just not used to this re-purchase model, and for good reason!
kangy said:
The only thing I thought about using a second user account is for my 3yr old, since she figured out how to exit out of Kid Mode (I swear this kid is more tech savy than most adults I know)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha! Our 3 year old has figured out the same thing on the phone. He figured out some combination of the right app, going to landscape and back and the brief appearance of the menu bar which gets him to the desktop. We're still not totally sure how he manages it because the sneaky little monster will only do it when we're not looking. No joke.
I was hoping the multi user mode would have allowed me to set up a profile with just the few apps I'll let him play with (he is great at Cut the Rope, Bad Piggies, and all the angry birds).
Google really didn't think about this too deeply. The lead account should be the administrator of the device and when installing an app should be allowed to choose to install "Just for you" / "All users" / "Specific users".. etc etc..
It seems like a really half baked idea especially with the shifting folder tree for user accounts.. Seriously who thought of that idea? It's beyond stupid. Linux has the most simple and effective user and group management and it seems Google tried reinventing the wheel by making it square.
styckx said:
Google really didn't think about this too deeply. The lead account should be the administrator of the device and when installing an app should be allowed to choose to install "Just for you" / "All users" / "Specific users".. etc etc..
It seems like a really half baked idea especially with the shifting folder tree for user accounts.. Seriously who thought of that idea? It's beyond stupid. Linux has the most simple and effective user and group management and it seems Google tried reinventing the wheel by making it square.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its more flat then square.. .
I totally agree with the deciding on What user to install for.. As well there should be settings in the admin account as to what type of apps a user can install. how much disk space they can use.. To really make it usable for what most in here want.. Limit time constraints and so on .
Im sure they will Build more into it as they go.. The way windows does multi user is awesome..
/user
/user/ erica
/user/ erica renee
/user/ guest
I have my /user /erica located on a second partition.. So if i wipe windows no worry about any data because now games email and everything uses the user account for the most part..
Something similar would be awesome..
Poll does not cover my use case.
My daughter can download free games on her ID. She can use my ID if she needs something I purchased.
Bringing up piracy in the context of multi-user is just stupid - people into stealing will and the rest of us won't.
Multiuser has nothing to do with it.
Current Google PlayStore works fine for me. I can download a paid app onto any device I register on my account.
Greedy developers who want more money out of me - can just go find a different customer. I won't buy their product.
I say that as a developer.
SoonerLater said:
Thus, I can't let family members use Chrome at all on my tablet (although Dolphin is a fine substitute).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, as if that's a bad thing. Chrome is horrendous. I also think having played apps only work on one user is stupid as well.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
I have a solution, though I'm not sure whether it's legal or not.
As you can still add multiple Google-accounts to a user, it's not really a problem, just can just add your google account to the other users,disable sync, switch to your account it in the Play Store, install the apps you want(it's just a matter of seconds,no second download needed)..problem solved.
As for your Kids, delete your Google-Account from their account after installing, the apps should still be available.
Worked for me.
I find myself agreeing with many of the sentiments voiced thus far.
I agree that this is part of Android's maturity process as it grows out of its phone roots. For phones, a per-user license model is the natural choice, as device-sharing isn't common. But once device-sharing is needed, this model breaks, and needs modification.
While there are various workarounds available as mentioned, I think there needs to be an official solution, if only for ease-of-use alone. Normal users shouldn't be expected to jump through hoops for a functionality as basic as sharing a device between family members.
For the short term, I think a restricted-mode (aka kid's mode) for the primary account would be very useful for a family device, more useful than the current fully-segregated acct scheme. This avoids any app-sharing abuse, as the restricted mode can't be used as an independent account.
For the long term, I think a more granular licensing scheme is needed for apps. Example: For a $5 app, an "auxiliary" license (say $1) may be offered for a separate account on the same device. This allows the dev to still make some money, but not large enough to push users to avoid paying the cost of a full second license.
I don't think a per-device scheme would be advisable, as it would get confusing and complicated when mixed in with per-user apps. The more complications to paying, the more people will opt for the easy way out, which is warez.
Speaking of piracy, yes, there will alway be people who pirate no matter what. But the facts are that piracy is a major problem for Android, because it is so damn easy and convenient for people to find pirated apps. The more hassle it is for users to pay for what they want, the more people will pirate. Think of it as a convenience function.
It's also a function of user expectation. As some said, we are used to the PC's per-device licensing model for family devices, and paying multiple times for the same thing on the same device just seems wrong, no matter how you couch the argument. I think users can be weaned away from this to the per-user model, but only gradually, and with carrots to lead the way. Doing an abrupt about-face like the current multiuser implementation would only antagonize the user, and be a recipe for increased piracy. Look no further than the music and movie markets for a taster of the draconian approach.
I consider it to be the same thing as two different devices. My solution there? The official Google one. I add my Google account to the Play Store so when I buy something, my wife can use her tablet, go into the store, switch to my account and install it. I'm in the same boat as one of the previous folks said and upgrade often so I don't anticipate having to worry about the multi user deal. I'd actually rather see the ability to add other accounts that aren't tied to a google account for more of a work / fun separation.
My experience is different.
I have separate Google account for buying app, email, and even contacts.
So, I can still share my purchased apps with multi user setup.
On my main account, I setup in the following order:
- google account for buying app
- then add my Gmail account
On second user:
- my wife Gmail account
- then add the Google account for buying app
And I have no problem installing my purchased apps on both users.
Note that I always buy apps, I don't pirate. Even app as expensive as TomTom.
The thing is... I want to share with my family members. Those are my families, we share a house, television, Nintendo Wii, etc.
I share a desktop computer pc with all the apps.
I always do that, and I don't think that's wrong.
And I don't want to change that.
That should be the way multi user setup in a single device.
If I have to buy multiple copies of app, then that's just greedy, and not practical.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------
I don't think I can agree with calling apps sharing an "abuse" and wrong.
I meant, if I have a tablet with an app there, I am may not give it to my wife or kids to play with it? Just because I bought only one license?
"Sorry kid, this is daddy's toy. You may not play this game, daddy only bought one license"
So for that, I must hide the tablet?
That's absurd.
I have never thought like that ever.
e.mote said:
I find myself agreeing with many of the sentiments voiced thus far.
I agree that this is part of Android's maturity process as it grows out of its phone roots. For phones, a per-user license model is the natural choice, as device-sharing isn't common. But once device-sharing is needed, this model breaks, and needs modification.
While there are various workarounds available as mentioned, I think there needs to be an official solution, if only for ease-of-use alone. Normal users shouldn't be expected to jump through hoops for a functionality as basic as sharing a device between family members.
For the short term, I think a restricted-mode (aka kid's mode) for the primary account would be very useful for a family device, more useful than the current fully-segregated acct scheme. This avoids any app-sharing abuse, as the restricted mode can't be used as an independent account.
For the long term, I think a more granular licensing scheme is needed for apps. Example: For a $5 app, an "auxiliary" license (say $1) may be offered for a separate account on the same device. This allows the dev to still make some money, but not large enough to push users to avoid paying the cost of a full second license.
I don't think a per-device scheme would be advisable, as it would get confusing and complicated when mixed in with per-user apps. The more complications to paying, the more people will opt for the easy way out, which is warez.
Speaking of piracy, yes, there will alway be people who pirate no matter what. But the facts are that piracy is a major problem for Android, because it is so damn easy and convenient for people to find pirated apps. The more hassle it is for users to pay for what they want, the more people will pirate. Think of it as a convenience function.
It's also a function of user expectation. As some said, we are used to the PC's per-device licensing model for family devices, and paying multiple times for the same thing on the same device just seems wrong, no matter how you couch the argument. I think users can be weaned away from this to the per-user model, but only gradually, and with carrots to lead the way. Doing an abrupt about-face like the current multiuser implementation would only antagonize the user, and be a recipe for increased piracy. Look no further than the music and movie markets for a taster of the draconian approach.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
Perhaps it could be something set at the app level by developers. If a developer doesn't mind his app being used by multiple users on a device then he can allow it in the app itself. However there will also need to be some way of managing this, perhaps via another option on the play store. a simple check box with "make this app available to other users of this device" would be more than enough, and it's either visible only on apps which allow it, or it's greyed out on apps that disallow it with an explanation why.
Devs could then offer single user and multiuser apps for additional cost.
adfad666 said:
Perhaps it could be something set at the app level by developers. If a developer doesn't mind his app being used by multiple users on a device then he can allow it in the app itself. However there will also need to be some way of managing this, perhaps via another option on the play store. a simple check box with "make this app available to other users of this device" would be more than enough, and it's either visible only on apps which allow it, or it's greyed out on apps that disallow it with an explanation why.
Devs could then offer single user and multiuser apps for additional cost.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would agree with this . But i think the best solution is to somehow bind each user to your google app account. And have the app limited to run on say 3-5 devices Only.. As to where you can remove a device when you retire it. Get a new one you can install your apps. Of course some type of device validation. Google has that now with wallet . As far the above with multi user a device. There needs to be in the app manager a way to make this app available for all users.. FIXES Both issues.
Great Replies everyone.. I am so glad to see this thread civil. they usually are not so much
Me and my friend, (who is a budding app developer for android) ran into discussion about "Android JB vs WP8", and after many aspects, we came to "developer benefits", there I said that Android is not good for developers bcoz people SIDELOAD app and nothing can detect a pirated app. That's the sad truth.
But on WP8 there's no way to SIDELOAD app, so No piracy of apps on WP8.
My friend said there are WP8 custom ROMS available and WP8 can also be rooted. So there maybe ways when people use Pirated apps on WP8 also.
So who is correct Me or my friend? Are there ways on WP8.
Sent from my GT-S5570 using xda app-developers app
Apourv said:
Me and my friend, (who is a budding app developer for android) ran into discussion about "Android JB vs WP8", and after many aspects, we came to "developer benefits", there I said that Android is not good for developers bcoz people SIDELOAD app and nothing can detect a pirated app. That's the sad truth.
But on WP8 there's no way to SIDELOAD app, so No piracy of apps on WP8.
My friend said there are WP8 custom ROMS available and WP8 can also be rooted. So there maybe ways when people use Pirated apps on WP8 also.
So who is correct Me or my friend? Are there ways on WP8.
Sent from my GT-S5570 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're correct, can't root and you can only sideload apps if you're a developer. No custom roms, no root, your friend's a fandroid who's insecure about their OS.
I think disabling Sideloading is better. Because Wallet services are coming to mobile so chances are high that someone might make app which will hack mobile payment passwords and accounts, using app which people sideload. This might make android insecure, when making NFC payments.
Sent from my GT-S5570 using xda app-developers app
Disable sideloading? And then how are dev supposed to test their apps on their phones ? - the emulator is not a good choice in some cases.
Also, there are no custom roms YET, but I am pretty sure there will be. There's nothing in this world that can be protected from hacking
timotei21 said:
Disable sideloading? And then how are dev supposed to test their apps on their phones ? - the emulator is not a good choice in some cases.
Also, there are no custom roms YET, but I am pretty sure there will be. There's nothing in this world that can be protected from hacking
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Developers can unlock their phones. Others can't.
Apourv said:
Me and my friend, (who is a budding app developer for android) ran into discussion about "Android JB vs WP8", and after many aspects, we came to "developer benefits", there I said that Android is not good for developers bcoz people SIDELOAD app and nothing can detect a pirated app. That's the sad truth.
But on WP8 there's no way to SIDELOAD app, so No piracy of apps on WP8.
My friend said there are WP8 custom ROMS available and WP8 can also be rooted. So there maybe ways when people use Pirated apps on WP8 also.
So who is correct Me or my friend? Are there ways on WP8.
Sent from my GT-S5570 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Blocking load of apps is a huge OVERKILL.
Say I wand to write an app, and distribute it freely, and do not want to put it on the market ?
What then ?
Besides that - if the IPhone with all it's locks and vaults can be set to load apps outside the Apple market,
it is safe to say that WinPhone will have the same crack.
Locking the device and limiting the user is a bad thing, and besides alienating your user base it will not do much.
Alienating your user base is never a good tactic, they will leave.
(People who plan to get WinPhone are most likely people who used WinMo - that was totally open to customization and apps from wherever)
Some developers looked into breaking the security on Nokia's WP7 phones and decided it would be to hard but of course there might be ways to do it anyway and allow custom ROMs. Aside from that Marketplace XAPs originally could be modified to be sideloaded on WP7 but this has changed several months ago, when Microsoft started to encrypt the XAP files.
As for modified firmware Microsoft is using Secure Boot to tackle the problem at a much lower level than Android and iOS devices do. Due to that it might be quite some time before anyone figures out a way to do it. And even phones like the HTC One X have not yet been broken (at least the versions that use Nvidias Tegra 3). It was similar with several Sony devices.
But in the end to enable this on a WP8 device it would mean HSPL, CustomROM and modified XAP-Files to allow for pirated Apps. Comparing this to Android where you only modify the APK and allow sideloading using a Checkbox I believe we will a lot more pirated Apps on Android than on WP.
As for: I want to provide my App for free without using the Marketplace - ähm... what would be the benefit to the user? Aside from Hacks they benefit from the fact that Apps are tested for stability, to be Malware-Free and that you can discover them without too much effort right from your phone.
The only thing I believe you're right is that actually lots of people will go for an OS where they can pirate Apps easily. There are enough threads around here were people tell you upfront that they believe that having paid several 100 $ for a device entitles them to get the software for free.
StevieBallz said:
....
As for: I want to provide my App for free without using the Marketplace - ähm... what would be the benefit to the user? Aside from Hacks they benefit from the fact that Apps are tested for stability, to be Malware-Free and that you can discover them without too much effort right from your phone.
....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, right.
Like we saw on apple store, and the android market.
(you must be either kidding, or naive)
And as for users thinking paying few 100$ for a device and thinking it entitles them for free apps - well -
people became used to having free programs, and there are many good free programs.
Besides that - I do not support software piracy, but I do believe that you should have the freedom to do whatever you want with the device you payed a lot of good money for, and that the manufacturer should not put you behind bars and in chains, just so they can make more profit from you.
And dont think otherwise - they lock the device for the sole reason of taking some percentage of the money you pay for the apps,
and no other reason.
So every app would have to pass through their, and only their checkout point, and bring them more money.
Android market has no certification process while Apple's and Microsoft's does.
I didn't try to imply that you would want it for the reason of pirating Apps but for most people this is the reason they desire that feature.
But in the end we're talking about the rationale for developers and that is where your (paid) Apps are a lot better protected on WP or iOS than on Android. If this actually benefits you in the case of WP is a different discussion due to the fact that your potential market is smaller. But given that even though Android has a much bigger marketshare than iOS by now developers make a lot more money on iOS it seems the closed marketplaces actually benefit developers in that regard.
StevieBallz said:
Android market has no certification process while Apple's and Microsoft's does.
I didn't try to imply that you would want it for the reason of pirating Apps but for most people this is the reason they desire that feature.
But in the end we're talking about the rationale for developers and that is where your (paid) Apps are a lot better protected on WP or iOS than on Android. If this actually benefits you in the case of WP is a different discussion due to the fact that your potential market is smaller. But given that even though Android has a much bigger marketshare than iOS by now developers make a lot more money on iOS it seems the closed marketplaces actually benefit developers in that regard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The same goes for PC apps.
And people still develop apps for PCs.
This is, in my opinion, some kind of propaganda (not to say brainwash) from the manufacturers,
who's only intent is to make more profit for themselves, and want to recruit the developers for their own goal.
Software piracy have been here since forever, and the software industry has always been growing.
I still hold my opinion that the manufacturer must not have me in chains and behind bars.
I believe the manufacturer must let me do whatever I want with my device.
Let me load whatever apps i want, from any source, and not limit me or force me to pay them more and more money over the life of the device.
I'm not saying that it is not a valid desire to be able to do those things - I said it benefits developers if they are not possible. They don't have to care about piracy that much. And instead of putting together a sophisticated scheme to protect their applications (like they have been doing on the PC for more then a decade) they can concentrate on the actual content.
Do you believe PC games that came on floppy discs asked you about keys from the manual just for fun or to avoid copies? Do you believe the industry moved to CDs only because of the additional space or because they could not be easily copied for quite some time? Does Diablo 3 require an online connection because they could not implement a game that could run on the PC only?
Providing those protections in the OS itself takes a big burden off most developers. The 30 % cut Apple or Microsoft take is a big part of what big companies would earn with their software, given that they already have payment solutions in place and might be able to provide storage and bandwidth cheaper. For Indie developers it would be a lot harder to organize all this.
But instead of answering the question on pirac that thread was about y you're completely missing the point and going on a crusade (and your points from a users perspective definitely are valid).
Apourv said:
Me and my friend, (who is a budding app developer for android) ran into discussion about "Android JB vs WP8", and after many aspects, we came to "developer benefits", there I said that Android is not good for developers bcoz people SIDELOAD app and nothing can detect a pirated app. That's the sad truth.
But on WP8 there's no way to SIDELOAD app, so No piracy of apps on WP8.
My friend said there are WP8 custom ROMS available and WP8 can also be rooted. So there maybe ways when people use Pirated apps on WP8 also.
So who is correct Me or my friend? Are there ways on WP8.
Sent from my GT-S5570 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are no WP8 custom ROMs, only WP7, and only for select devices. As far as I know, app piracy was effectively killed off even for a fully "rooted" WP7 device now that the apps come in an encrypted package. WP8 devices with an SD card can sideload apps, but it's a feature, not an illegal act. You get the encrypted package straight from windowsphone.com, and when you sideload it via SD card, it checks with the marketplace to see if you already own this app and if you have purchased it- otherwise you get the trial.
So android is significantly less secure in this area, your friend is wrong.
StevieBallz said:
I'm not saying that it is not a valid desire to be able to do those things - I said it benefits developers if they are not possible. They don't have to care about piracy that much. And instead of putting together a sophisticated scheme to protect their applications (like they have been doing on the PC for more then a decade) they can concentrate on the actual content.
Do you believe PC games that came on floppy discs asked you about keys from the manual just for fun or to avoid copies? Do you believe the industry moved to CDs only because of the additional space or because they could not be easily copied for quite some time? Does Diablo 3 require an online connection because they could not implement a game that could run on the PC only?
Providing those protections in the OS itself takes a big burden off most developers. The 30 % cut Apple or Microsoft take is a big part of what big companies would earn with their software, given that they already have payment solutions in place and might be able to provide storage and bandwidth cheaper. For Indie developers it would be a lot harder to organize all this.
But instead of answering the question on pirac that thread was about y you're completely missing the point and going on a crusade (and your points from a users perspective definitely are valid).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pretty much this.
As a developer, I love the fact that the WP marketplace protects my app from almost anything a hacker can throw at it, because it protects several aspects I invested in the app:
1) Time. A lot of time. I don't like it when people use what I invested months of research and coding for free, just because they are too lazy to search the marketplace, but are devious enough to google the app and download it from some obscure location (the irony).
2) My intellectual property: I've made the app, therefore I should have complete control over who can download it. How would you feel if you invested a lot in a car, and some random people of the street simply gets in and drives your car away?
3)Coding and researching is certainly not an easy task. If it were, then everyone would be a developer. Pirating my app is like asking me to give away my talents for nothing in return.
Although it is extremely easy for outsiders to judge my app and say it is not worth the money, they really have no idea how much time and effort was put into it. It is a service I provide for you, and as with any service you need to pay for it...upfront or by staring at adds.
Considering that without the OEM I would not be able to create the app at all, and you would not be able to use it either, it is only natural for them to ask a percentage of the profit from the app. It is how business works.
mcosmin222 said:
Pretty much this.
As a developer, I love the fact that the WP marketplace protects my app from almost anything a hacker can throw at it, because it protects several aspects I invested in the app:
1) Time. A lot of time. I don't like it when people use what I invested months of research and coding for free, just because they are too lazy to search the marketplace, but are devious enough to google the app and download it from some obscure location (the irony).
2) My intellectual property: I've made the app, therefore I should have complete control over who can download it. How would you feel if you invested a lot in a car, and some random people of the street simply gets in and drives your car away?
3)Coding and researching is certainly not an easy task. If it were, then everyone would be a developer. Pirating my app is like asking me to give away my talents for nothing in return.
Although it is extremely easy for outsiders to judge my app and say it is not worth the money, they really have no idea how much time and effort was put into it. It is a service I provide for you, and as with any service you need to pay for it...upfront or by staring at adds.
Considering that without the OEM I would not be able to create the app at all, and you would not be able to use it either, it is only natural for them to ask a percentage of the profit from the app. It is how business works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Comparing an App to a car is totally inappropriate.
If someone drove away in your car, you do not have this car anymore.
If someone installed an app you wrote - well, you still have another copy, and can produce a million more copies.
Som30ne said:
Comparing an App to a car is totally inappropriate.
If someone drove away in your car, you do not have this car anymore.
If someone installed an app you wrote - well, you still have another copy, and can produce a million more copies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He has a very simplistic view on piracy, which is what most people who think they're losing something have. It's hard for them to wrap their heads around new concepts like "pirated does not equal lost sales". It's mostly the RIAA's fault that the practice of sharing is deemed amoral and gave it the misnomer: "piracy". Actual sales lost because of piracy are negligible. I'm not saying it's ok for people to just take without paying, I'm saying you need to realize what is actually happening. Most "pirates" are poor students with no money to spare, kids who have no money of their own, and the most numerous "pirate" of all: those who cannot access a store to legally buy the product.
Sent from my Windows 8 device using Board Express Pro
Som30ne said:
The same goes for PC apps.
And people still develop apps for PCs.
This is, in my opinion, some kind of propaganda (not to say brainwash) from the manufacturers,
who's only intent is to make more profit for themselves, and want to recruit the developers for their own goal.
Software piracy have been here since forever, and the software industry has always been growing.
I still hold my opinion that the manufacturer must not have me in chains and behind bars.
I believe the manufacturer must let me do whatever I want with my device.
Let me load whatever apps i want, from any source, and not limit me or force me to pay them more and more money over the life of the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. And Also, Poecifer, your just the Fandroid, since the discussion was brought ou with no intention to accuse each other party and start a flame war as usual, so just stfu if you don't have anything useful to say.
As a wp developer, i'd like to say that not beeing able to sideload apps freely at times is just a pain in the a**...personally I own a Sony Xperia J and a Lumia 710...my friend is an Android Dev and doesn't have all this kind of limitation...