Database Develop

Copyright infringment all over the market

I am not a lawyer and I don't know too much about this... but isn't it illegal to sell apps such as sound boards and pictures that are copyrighted on the market or anywhere for that matter if they don't have the rights from the owners?
I am seeing a bunch of apps on the market with icons from other copyrighted pictures and apps such as soundboards that use copyrighted content. Doesn't it make it illegal for the devs to sell them w / out copyrights?
P.S im not complaining just inquiring.

mmafighter077 said:
I am not a lawyer and I don't know too much about this... but isn't it illegal to sell apps such as sound boards and pictures that are copyrighted on the market or anywhere for that matter if they don't have the rights from the owners?
I am seeing a bunch of apps on the market with icons from other copyrighted pictures and apps such as soundboards that use copyrighted content. Doesn't it make it illegal for the devs to sell them w / out copyrights?
P.S im not complaining just inquiring.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It probably is illegal, but until someone claims copyright, no one will do anything.

Karolis said:
It probably is illegal, but until someone claims copyright, no one will do anything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, it would be a good way to clean up the market wouldn't it? =P

amgupt01 said:
Well, it would be a good way to clean up the market wouldn't it? =P
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but I don't think if anyone but the copyright holder will complain, Google will do anything.

Well, you could always mark the app as innappropriate and email the dev and stuff...

yea the sound boards are copyright infringement but the themes aren't. the themes use pictures you can find through google and most people dont care about it. You then have the sound boards that use trademark words and catchphrases. selling these would probably be considered illegal just like bootlegging. They take a sound thats supposed to be approved to be sold and sells it without the consent of the people or companies behind it.
If you complain about the paid ones then they'll be taken down along with the free ones because the companies will want to be compensated for the use of their property even in a free way.

whoops double post lol

wizern23 said:
yea the sound boards are copyright infringement but the themes aren't. the themes use pictures you can find through google and most people dont care about it. You then have the sound boards that use trademark words and catchphrases. selling these would probably be considered illegal just like bootlegging. They take a sound thats supposed to be approved to be sold and sells it without the consent of the people or companies behind it.
If you complain about the paid ones then they'll be taken down along with the free ones because the companies will want to be compensated for the use of their property even in a free way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just because you can find an image through Google or find it on a message board, or hanging on a wall in a mall does NOT mean you have any rights to it.
The second point to your argument is right though. Most people won't really care to pursue it.
Now, the things that piss me off are people posting things such as books (military guides for one) and CHARGING for it. It's not their book and if I recall correctly from way back in 1997 when I was in basic training, not supposed to be for the general public.

I've wondered about this as well.
My limited knowledge says that as long as they are using public domain images from the net without any posted copyright notices and they are free on the Market, then they are probably OK.
Those who are selling apps that use copyrighted material are opening themselves up for prosecution.
Now some apps that are for sale.....say Doom for example. You buy the Android port, but you download the proprietary doom.wad file separately after purchase. Now the gray area here is that the Doom app actually is setup to go ahead and download it for you right out of the box. But I think it's using the shareware version, so it's probably OK.
Ditto for MAME....you download the emulator....how and where you obtain the ROMs are your business. Many of the original copyright owners are no longer legal entities anymore, and others that *are* still around have graciously donated their ROMs legally. But there are still plenty of illegal ROMs floating around. I suspect it's just a drop in the bucket compared to music/movie illegal sharing.

In all actuality, as long as the material (photos, music, and video) are public domain you can use them and even charge for them. For instance look at things like South Park and Family Guy. These shows use a lot of copyrighted material as parodies, they pay little to no royalities on these materials. And you might think these TV shows are free to watch, but think where they started... on a paid cable network.

1) Images, sound clips, video, etc. available on the internet are NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN unless noted as such. Do we get away with a lot? Yes... However, it doesn't mean that if someone wanted to pursue the matter, they wouldn't win.
2) It's copyrighted, no such thing as copywritten.
3) The sound clips and video you see on TV are either paid for or they use the "celebrity likeness" legalities which if deemed necessary, we can go into further.

I don't think anyone ever said that things on the net are public domain. And not all parodies are paid for. It all depends on the situation.

neoobs said:
I don't think anyone ever said that things on the net are public domain. And not all parodies are paid for. It all depends on the situation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suppose you have completed law school as well. There are a lot of semantics on this topic.
Long story short, I take offense to people charging for information that isn't public domain (such as field manuals for soldiers).

neoobs said:
For instance look at things like South Park and Family Guy. These shows use a lot of copyrighted material as parodies, they pay little to no royalities on these materials.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WTF are you talking about? Unless you work in finance for the companies that produce South Park or Family guy you have NO IDEA what they do or don't pay for.

Someone in another forum made a good point. Sometimes the devs are selling the time and coding that allows the app or game to be used on the android. The actual app/ game is not what they are selling.
But I see where that can be a fine line to the owners of the apps. If I made a paid app for the pc and someone ported it to android and are making money off of it and not giving me royalties I would be upset. Even if he was selling his time and his coding. Its my app.

mmafighter077 said:
Someone in another forum made a good point. Sometimes the devs are selling the time and coding that allows the app or game to be used on the android. The actual app/ game is not what they are selling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see how that's a good point. If you photocopy a book or copy a CD, you can't sell "your time" that you took to make it. Otherwise people selling copies of DVDs on the street would never get busted. That has to be the most retarded argument I have heard thus far.

momentarylapseofreason said:
I don't see how that's a good point. If you photocopy a book or copy a CD, you can't sell "your time" that you took to make it. Otherwise people selling copies of DVDs on the street would never get busted. That has to be the most retarded argument I have heard thus far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you serious?
Making a copy and making a code are two totally different things. I am not saying it is right sell the code for someone elses ported app but to compare simply making a copy to creating a code is like apples and oranges.
Making a photocopy is simply duplicating.... Creating a code so that an app can work for different platform takes time and effort. Its like taking someones invention and enhancing it.
I am also not saying this is legally correct. Its just a good point.

You have to realize that in the instance of a sound board, the copyright holders have no reason to complain especially if it's free.
We are basically looking at free publicity and distribution of the material in a non-profitable manner, meaning, the infringer isn't making money selling the copyrighted works- so why would the owners have a gripe about it?
Now if there were full episodes, or these were being sold, I'm sure they may stand up and say something.
Basically- it appears that it is, in fact, copyright infringement- but there is little to zero reason to file a complaint about it by the copyright holder, why complain about hundreds of thousands of people enjoying your work and all the free publicity with zero negative side effects?

mmafighter077 said:
Are you serious?
Making a copy and making a code are two totally different things. I am not saying it is right sell the code for someone elses ported app but to compare simply making a copy to creating a code is like apples and oranges.
Making a photocopy is simply duplicating.... Creating a code so that an app can work for different platform takes time and effort. Its like taking someones invention and enhancing it.
I am also not saying this is legally correct. Its just a good point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If there is one thing that I learned in my copyright law class, it's that you can be a stupid infringer. Meaning, just because something took more time and effort, and you get no profit from it, doesn't mean you aren't an infringer all the same- just a stupid one.

vr24 said:
If there is one thing that I learned in my copyright law class, it's that you can be a stupid infringer. Meaning, just because something took more time and effort, and you get no profit from it, doesn't mean you aren't an infringer all the same- just a stupid one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stupid infringer or not, some of this stuff gets a bit ridiculous. I just found this app, Flash Keyboard, doing pretty much whatever they can to get installs. I've seen fake wallpapers (text bubbles like raindrops), video of a virtual keyboard (not available), and today a post using the images of Snoopy, Mickey & Minnie, and Hello Kitty.
(note: could not provide links, as I'm a new user, but they can be found with a simple facebook search)

Well Done Apple

###

reading the story, within the first paragraph, i can see that 90% of the problem was this guy's fault, not apples. he had an entire year, of his daughters life, not backed up? being a father of 3, 99.9% of what i take pictures of are my kids. i have my phone instant upload to my google account, i also copy all pics weekly from my phone to my media server, which makes redundant copies, these copies are then imaged to a 3 resource. not sure why this guy went a year without backing anything up.
this guy also has no real idea as to what he's talking about. apple forcing you to use icoud? google already a cloud based os? you only have to use the cloud if you choose to. apple and google know that if they try to force people into cloud based operating, they would lose most of their business oriented users, and those without unlimited data plans.

You're right about the GPS on the SGS1, it sucks!

I know! Why would they even do something like that?

svtfmook said:
reading the story, within the first paragraph, i can see that 90% of the problem was this guy's fault, not apples. he had an entire year, of his daughters life, not backed up? being a father of 3, 99.9% of what i take pictures of are my kids. i have my phone instant upload to my google account, i also copy all pics weekly from my phone to my media server, which makes redundant copies, these copies are then imaged to a 3 resource. not sure why this guy went a year without backing anything up.
this guy also has no real idea as to what he's talking about. apple forcing you to use icoud? google already a cloud based os? you only have to use the cloud if you choose to. apple and google know that if they try to force people into cloud based operating, they would lose most of their business oriented users, and those without unlimited data plans.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suppose you got a point.
Did you read the part about the internal policies? I suppose it's some of the employees fault, not entirely Apple. But still, not everyone has a media server, lol.
Screw you Clan vv3 and Phobia. Hope someone messes up your lives one day.

Sounds like massive failures all around. Certainly foolish not to create backups, but also horrible policies and actions on the part of Amazon and Apple.

I agree with you. That many photos, the should of been backed up. At least he admitted beforehand that on his part most things were wrong. But then come Apple and Amazon, who clearly have more power over security, but simply failed to to stop this hacking. Doesn't really count that much of a "hacking" if Apple/Amazon let them get that info nice and easy. But and the end of the day, it was the criminals fault. Same goes for the scrib who stole my phone.

Dude obviously has issues if he didn't care that he destroyed all that just to hack someone's Twitter. Odds are they'll brag about it to the wrong person and get dimed out.

MissionImprobable said:
Dude obviously has issues if he didn't care that he destroyed all that just to hack someone's Twitter. Odds are they'll brag about it to the wrong person and get dimed out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We totally understand where you're coming from, but the fact is, not EVERYONE has the knowledge of computers that some of us do, and not EVERYONE knows how to back-up their files. This could happen to the regular joe-schmo who just has a computer to communicate with their family relatives over facebook or twitter or whatever and also buy **** off amazon. BOOM and it just so happens that some person takes your information and takes everything you have and you really cant do anything.
this guy might've been a technology journalist but he was clearly dumb enough not to back up any of his stuff and to chain all your stuff together? come on...

Not sure what you're on about. I'm saying that the dbag who hacked him seems to have zero remorse that he helped wipe out all of that important info just so he and his friend could say they hacked a gizmodo twitter.
Heck, for all that effort they could be doing something in the real world worth getting notoriety for.

MissionImprobable said:
Not sure what you're on about. I'm saying that the dbag who hacked him seems to have zero remorse that he helped wipe out all of that important info just so he and his friend could say they hacked a gizmodo twitter.
Heck, for all that effort they could be doing something in the real world worth getting notoriety for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, sorry.. realized I replied to the wrong person lol.. you're right. Hackers aren't supposed to be doing this to the general public. REAL HACKERS are supposed to be trying to hack into company security systems under the companies employment to find security flaws for that specific company. those guys just wanted to **** with mr. honan

MissionImprobable said:
Not sure what you're on about. I'm saying that the dbag who hacked him seems to have zero remorse that he helped wipe out all of that important info just so he and his friend could say they hacked a gizmodo twitter.
Heck, for all that effort they could be doing something in the real world worth getting notoriety for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last page, he is sorry that his Mac was wiped
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

MissionImprobable said:
Not sure what you're on about. I'm saying that the dbag who hacked him seems to have zero remorse that he helped wipe out all of that important info just so he and his friend could say they hacked a gizmodo twitter.
Heck, for all that effort they could be doing something in the real world worth getting notoriety for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing about hackers is that they've got potential, but they just don't want to use it.

Help for Speech on Piracy

So, today we were assigned to write a 3-5 minute persuasive speech for Engrish class. My topic is "why piracy is not bad".
Can you guys help with some arguments?
Thanks!
Mods: let me know if this is inappropriate for this forum.

Why piracy isn't bad? That's the first!

Piracy is essentially "copying" rather than thievery.
Art shouldn't be "owned" it belongs to the people.
Content makers refuse to make art freely available and instead force people to "pirate" it to have it at their fingertips in the new digital age.
And finally XDA isn't the place for this discussion.

iurnait said:
So, today we were assigned to write a 3-5 minute persuasive speech for Engrish class. My topic is "why piracy is not bad".
Can you guys help with some arguments?
Thanks!
Mods: let me know if this is inappropriate for this forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good subject and certainly interesting.
However I don't see this topic lasting long because it enters an area that XDA would rather not have discussed in the forum sections.
Good luck with your paper!

Piracy, per say the duplication and distribution of copyrighted material, is not considered good in any way. Its illegal and promoting it is not allowed on XDA.
Sent from the phalanges of my hand to the facet of your cranium.

Um piracy is bad.
It's obtaining a copy of copyrighted material. Yea, it's fine to install it, but once you use any tool to not pay for activation, that's where it gets illegal.
Same with music. And art should not belong to the people. Then what would copyrights be for? You think I want my photos to be freely available to everyone without any compensation?

They call it piracy and stealing
-i prefer to call it freedom!
Sent from my W a t e r m e l o n running jelly bean 4.2.1

What kind of piracy? Torrenting, illegal file sharing, ripping movies?
This video would be great for statistics . . .

If I take a picture with my phone's camera of the Mona Lisa and print it life size (which is quite small) on a photoprinter to hang in my living room, it's legal.
If I film a film with my phone's camera to review later at home, it's illegal, while I'm doing the exact same thing .
Piracy has been the stepping stone for many young artists. A recordscompany asks insane amounts of money to publicize your music, money which no starting artist has. Radiochannels won't play your music without you paying them for it. Pop it on youtube/tpb and it doesn't cost you thing, and it reaches everyone.
That is why so many people are made to believe piracy is bad: it's missed income for companies. Not the artists, the companies. Of the song you buy, 8 cents at mos goes to the artist. the rest goes to the label and copyright company. Ditto for games, the 3D artists and scriptors get a low pay, while the company and coyright company earns big bucks for doing nothing. That is fundementally wrong. Money should go to those who earn it, not those who profit off other people's work! And guess what they blame pirates for: doing what the copyright company does.
What people dont seem to understand is that piracy is not the same as copyright infringement. When you take someone else's product and claim it as your own, that is copyright infringement.
I'm a graphic designer, I deal with copyright daily. Having someone else post my work on his tumblr with credit is perfectly fine. As long as he doesn't call it his own work!. See the core issue, there? Credit where credit is due. Nobody on TPB is claiming a film made in Hollywood as his own, they're not infringing on anyone's copyright, and they're not making money off it.
If you consider sharing anything with copyright as illegal, you are also not allowed to like stuff on facebook (it shares), retweet something (sharing someone else's tweet)... (Which is what SOPA and ACTA would have done. They would have completely destroyed the free internet. Just so someone else can make money. It was never about censorship, it was about money. (If it isn't about sex, it's about money and power. The very core of humanity, right there.)
Used to be you could go to a music store and listen to the whole album. Now, you can't. Oh you can listen to samples on iTues, but if you don't have a credit card, which millions of people dont, you can't get into the itunes store. Everywhere else you have to pay to listen.
The same goes for Google Play. In europe we use Maestro, not credit cards. (Direct withdrawel). You can't get a credit card if you don't have a steady, high income, and paying with them in stores costs extra, if its even possible. Google Play only works with credit cards (to use mobile payment, you need to make a wallet account, which requires a credit card.) so everyone under 25 of the 750 million nhabitant of Europe can't buy apps in google play. Devs can whine all they want, that's just the fact. They (we) literally can't buy your apps! As such, piracy becomes the only option.
Sony has recently been looking into new ways to make 2nd hand games impossible. Many a company preceeded this. Thus taking away your right to sell what you don't need. Simply because they don't get income from 2nd hand games.
Piracy is a way to tell the greedy companies that we don't accept their near mob-related practises. A lot less destructive than rioting, I'd say.
And last but not least: The European Court Of Human Rights has recently declared convictions for file sharing to be in direct violation of Human Rights. Dear America, Welcome to the 21st century. Where the EU is the more civilized continent. They can no longer convict anyone in Europe for file sharing.
http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/cou...tions-for-file-sharing-violates-human-rights/
Essentially, it's only 'piracy' because people are missing out on money when people share things. And that's why piracy isn't wrong: Greed is.
Hope some of this is of use I'm in a lecture on research, so plenty of time to type a rant or two (I actually did a paper on this topic for uni...)
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2

ShadowLea said:
If I take a picture with my phone's camera of the Mona Lisa and print it life size (which is quite small) on a photoprinter to hang in my living room, it's legal.
If I film a film with my phone's camera to review later at home, it's illegal, while I'm doing the exact same thing .
Piracy has been the stepping stone for many young artists. A recordscompany asks insane amounts of money to publicize your music, money which no starting artist has. Radiochannels won't play your music without you paying them for it. Pop it on youtube/tpb and it doesn't cost you thing, and it reaches everyone.
That is why so many people are made to believe piracy is bad: it's missed income for companies. Not the artists, the companies. Of the song you buy, 8 cents at mos goes to the artist. the rest goes to the label and copyright company. Ditto for games, the 3D artists and scriptors get a low pay, while the company and coyright company earns big bucks for doing nothing. That is fundementally wrong. Money should go to those who earn it, not those who profit off other people's work! And guess what they blame pirates for: doing what the copyright company does.
What people dont seem to understand is that piracy is not the same as copyright infringement. When you take someone else's product and claim it as your own, that is copyright infringement.
I'm a graphic designer, I deal with copyright daily. Having someone else post my work on his tumblr with credit is perfectly fine. As long as he doesn't call it his own work!. See the core issue, there? Credit where credit is due. Nobody on TPB is claiming a film made in Hollywood as his own, they're not infringing on anyone's copyright, and they're not making money off it.
If you consider sharing anything with copyright as illegal, you are also not allowed to like stuff on facebook (it shares), retweet something (sharing someone else's tweet)... (Which is what SOPA and ACTA would have done. They would have completely destroyed the free internet. Just so someone else can make money. It was never about censorship, it was about money. (If it isn't about sex, it's about money and power. The very core of humanity, right there.)
Used to be you could go to a music store and listen to the whole album. Now, you can't. Oh you can listen to samples on iTues, but if you don't have a credit card, which millions of people dont, you can't get into the itunes store. Everywhere else you have to pay to listen.
The same goes for Google Play. In europe we use Maestro, not credit cards. (Direct withdrawel). You can't get a credit card if you don't have a steady, high income, and paying with them in stores costs extra, if its even possible. Google Play only works with credit cards (to use mobile payment, you need to make a wallet account, which requires a credit card.) so everyone under 25 of the 750 million nhabitant of Europe can't buy apps in google play. Devs can whine all they want, that's just the fact. They (we) literally can't buy your apps! As such, piracy becomes the only option.
Sony has recently been looking into new ways to make 2nd hand games impossible. Many a company preceeded this. Thus taking away your right to sell what you don't need. Simply because they don't get income from 2nd hand games.
Piracy is a way to tell the greedy companies that we don't accept their near mob-related practises. A lot less destructive than rioting, I'd say.
And last but not least: The European Court Of Human Rights has recently declared convictions for file sharing to be in direct violation of Human Rights. Dear America, Welcome to the 21st century. Where the EU is the more civilized continent. They can no longer convict anyone in Europe for file sharing.
http://falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/cou...tions-for-file-sharing-violates-human-rights/
Essentially, it's only 'piracy' because people are missing out on money when people share things. And that's why piracy isn't wrong: Greed is.
Hope some of this is of use I'm in a lecture on research, so plenty of time to type a rant or two (I actually did a paper on this topic for uni...)
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I cried a little while reading it Xd
Sent from my W a t e r m e l o n running jelly bean 4.2.1

This is one well known author's views on piracy, enjoy the argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Is the chemical aftertaste the reason why people eat hot dogs, or is it some kind of bonus?
Neil Gaiman

jugg1es said:
This is one well known author's views on piracy, enjoy the argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Is the chemical aftertaste the reason why people eat hot dogs, or is it some kind of bonus?
Neil Gaiman
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for linking jugg1es...found this fascinating!

Some people simply cannot access content without pirating then when they do they become fans and now feel glad to pay

Brace yourself, in Chromecast ads are coming

You knew it was only a matter of time before someone figured out a way to fill their wallets off users by annoying them to death..
http://bgr.com/2014/02/12/chromecast-ads-coming-soon/
I will copy and paste a reply I left about this on Reddit
I can see it now for apps like Plex when Casting goes free (whenever that happens)
"We will Cast your content right after this short advertisement"
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.

styckx said:
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I agree, the trouble is that video content doesn't really work like software. Every new episode would be a "major" release. It's not like you can release a movie in 2-minute segments. Well, maybe if you're J.J. Abrams...
I don't mind ads as long as I have the option to pay to get rid of them. Even Netflix could opt for a cheaper ad-supported tier if they wanted to.
To be honest, I like apps that are free with ads and paid without as it gives me a way to try the app for a period longer than the Play Store's 15 minutes.

[HOWTO] Chromecast/Netflix outside USA without VPN
Ad Blocking - DD-WRT Wiki
bhiga said:
To be honest, I like apps that are free with ads and paid without as it gives me a way to try the app for a period longer than the Play Store's 15 minutes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or that too.

Brightcove is pretty big VOD provider, but yeah, that would work as long as the stuff you want to watch isn't hosted there.
YouTube could be uber sneaky and host the ads on YouTube itself so then it would be all-or-nothing.
On the plus side, YouTube could become the resurrection of AdCritic. I miss that site...

Talk about a blast from the past. Have you seen -
http://creativity-online.com/

I think everybody is struggling to find ways to make money from this technology. Google doesn't make any money on the hardware, and consumers just don't want to pay much for software (which is why the old PC software business model is gradually failing, and you see even companies like Microsoft going to Office 365-type subscriptions). So the result is they have to find a way to make money from subscriptions, fees, and/or advertising.
Google aren't the only ones considering advertising. Mozilla just announced that they're going to start putting ads in Firefox, inserted in the page of recent sites that appears when you open a new tab.

DJames1 said:
you see even companies like Microsoft going to Office 365-type subscriptions). So the result is they have to find a way to make money from subscriptions, fees, and/or advertising.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The worst thing I've encountered so far with the subscription model is how it virally forces others to buy in.
Case-in-point, I got an Adobe InDesign file that I needed to look at. Fine, I have InDesign CS6. I load it up, and it tells me I can't open it because it was made in InDesign CS7.5
At least Microsoft has Office viewers. I was stuck with the InDesign thing - either go back and ask for a flattened version or subscribe, luckily I had the opportunity to just ignore it.
Like freedom, free software truly isn't free - at least not as long as people need to eat and pay bills. Renewable energy and homesteading may be the zero-cash way, but then we won't have enough time to code!
Maybe we need to come up with some "business productive" games. People-powered OCR Hangman?

Well I'll repeat something else I said
I'm guilty of being an old timer. I came into Android with 1.5 (CupCake).. The Market and Android community used to be a thriving community of freeware, innovation and great discussion.. I just hate what it turned into. It's like a gold rush and the end user is the gold and everyone is trying to sell you their bridge. I just hate how it got like this. I don't mind paying for stuff but it seem anymore it's a constant and quality has taken a back seat. It's like people stopped doing this for fun and a hobby and started trying to make a business.. Anything that is anything that is in demand someone will find a way to charge you for now a days.
P.S. I don't mind subscription services like Netflix etc. Dumb stuff like Plex Pass is a joke though. You're subbing monthly to unlock in-app features. Doesn't make any sense..

DJames1 said:
I think everybody is struggling to find ways to make money from this technology. Google doesn't make any money on the hardware...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do we really know that?
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...tions-despite-strong-nexus-5-chromecast-sales
Biggest seller or a best seller in Q4 2013, depending how you take that article.
The packaging probably costs nearly as much as the product.

True, when it's easy for lots of people to make apps, the market gets crowded and confused.
Doesn't help that the rating system doesn't take into account that people use ratings maliciously to complain or penalize the developer for things often that are user error or out of the dev's control.
PlexPass gives other things like their cloud thing, but yeah, it is kind of "pay to be in the beta club" but hey, if it works for them, funds their continued development, and people are willing to pay, I don't have to like it, but I can't really criticize them either.
And with the $75 PlexPass lifetime, it's the same cost as a mid-range piece of software.
On Google profits, I'm sure Chromecast sold well, we can see from the lack of rootable units on shelves...
Of course they won't tell us how much they're making (or losing) on each sale. I bet most of the profit was Google Play.

I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop - until the accountants got involved, because their job is to cover that up. Not whining or ranting, just stating a known part of the corporate income game.

EarlyMon said:
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop - until the accountants got involved, because their job is to cover that up. Not whining or ranting, just stating a known part of the corporate income game.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. Especially given the volume they produced at, I'm sure they negotiated some killer discounts with the manufacturers. :good:

bhiga said:
True. Especially given the volume they produced at, I'm sure they negotiated some killer discounts with the manufacturers. :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/7070288
Job's open.

My issue is not with the ads being there, this is a Google device so ads were to be expected be it from Google or someone else. My issue is with it being video ads, my DSL line is shaped during the day and I don't need this hogging the bandwidth preloading videos while I am trying to browse the web. I wish my country would get "first" world in terms of broadband just so this [email protected] stops bugging me...
/fingers crossed Eureka guys ad-block this .

EarlyMon said:
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think Google is losing money on the Chromecast hardware, at least not deliberately. But I do think they priced it not to make any money on the hardware.
Think about it:
- Google is not a hardware company. They deliberately try to stay out of the hardware business because they realize that the margins are really low. They make their money on fees and services. They only introduce hardware products as an enabler to get new things started.
- They are undercutting everybody else on price to have the cheapest brand-name media streamer. It's in the same price range as the cheapest Chinese no-name Android TV sticks.
- They introduced the Chromecast with an offer for 3 months free Netflix, which is 2 months more than Netflix normally offers. That's a $16 value for which Google undoubtedly compensated Netflix, although probably at a discounted rate. When Chromecast sales took off the first day, Google canceled that offer immediately, indicating both that they had allocated a limited budget for it, and that the price of the Chromecast would not bear it without losing money.

I'm very confused. So someone created a SDK for developers to include ads on Chromecast apps and people here are upset by this? Please tell me why.

We should keep in mind here, it's not Google inserting ads here, it's Brightcove who is enabling developers to insert video ads compatible with Chromecast. As the title of the linked article says, "Third Party Provides Way For Developers To Add Ads To Chromecast"
I doubt Google will see any of this revenue as Brightcove built this technology using the Cast SDK for their engine.
The key part here, and I could be totally off-base, is that it sounds like a library that a developer would add to their app - essentially using Brightcove's "Cast" function and player. That makes sense since Brightcove has an HTML5 player already in use by sites on the web.
For example, instead of developing my own HTML5 page that Chromecast would go to in order to play a video, I would just trigger the Brightcove "Cast" function, passing it the location and my key/ID. Chromecast would then run the Brightcove player app which plays the video content I chose with inserted ads. The fact that it's being advertised as "seamless" tells me the ads are being stitched into the video content and delivered as a single stream, rather than a playlist drawing from separate sources.
Aside from ad revenue, the huge plus for developers here is that Chromecast-enabled apps wouldn't even need to use the Cast SDK directly, because they're using the Brightcove casting engine. That means the specific Chromecast-enabled app wouldn't need to be on the whitelist or register with Google because it's really the Brightcove app that Chromecast is running. Brightcove is responsible for making sure the engine keeps up with Chromecast updates and changes so that's another burden off the developer.
A "no ads" version of an app that uses the Brightcove player may use the same request to Brightcove, just with a flag saying not to insert the ads. The "gotcha" here is that because Brightcove is the player for the video content the app uses, blocking Brightcove or the Brightcove app would block all casted video from the app.
Of course Brightcove probably shares in the ad revenue, so maybe they won't allow developers to use their engine without ads, in which case the theorized advantages to the developer go away for a "no ads" version as they'd still need to register and use the Cast SDK directly.
But likely Brightcove may take the gamble that enough people are cheap and use ad-supported versions that it covers the paid apps that aren't showing ads. Or maybe part of their developer agreement makes the developer pay for non-ad versions somehow. Just theorizing from the business perspective...

styckx said:
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you Sir, these are true words. I agree you to 100%

styckx said:
Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The PC software model had very few ongoing costs. You boxed up a CD and after that, the costs you incurred were mostly just support costs. Streaming video is not cheap. If you plan on charging once in a lifetime, then you will be out of business very quickly.

@DJames1 - those are good points, I'd like to counter with what the market will bear.
After the Google TV and Nexus Q flops, I don't think that Chromecast could have done better at a higher price point, even if it started out with more apps and features. I think that they had to plan for this price point and knew that going in.
As for the initial Netflix deal, I don't know if anyone besides the accountants know how that worked. Not a personal criticism, just saying - Netflix has a vested interest in DIAL succeeding. It makes secure delivery easy for them. Their revenue models for this sort of thing aren't trivial, see Roku's license deal for example.
Netflix will give newcomers a free month for watching Philip DeFranco on YouTube.
So between their giveaway budget for promotions, surely compensated in part by the content providers and anything paid back by Google in the form of free advertising, I think that entire initial allocation for Netflix with Google was all virtual money, if such a thing exists. Iow, lots of return on investment on both sides but actual investment costs in real dollars - closer to zero.
@bhiga - agree. This reminds me of the AirPush SDK, and quite a few others who seek out devs with revenue schemes.

De-Google-ing my Note 9

Hi guys. I'm starting this thread in hopes of sparking a conversation and a concerted effort to rid ourselves as users from the clutches of Google and other big tech companies. I am sick and tired of Google tracking me and attempting to force feed me ads on a daily send constant basis. Then selling my info to other companies such as Facebook. So, I have started down the path of decluttering (De-Google-ing) my device(s). I am primarily interested in securing my device as much as possible and protecting my privacy.
So far, I have reformatted my entire device to factory default settings installed and using F-Droid (FOSS) for all my apps. I use Yandex as my search engine (I am often to suggestions and recommendations) in the "private browser" app. I use Aurora instead of Google Play store, New Pipe for YouTube-ing, Frost for Facebookingand SlimSocial for Twitter. I have stopped using Google keyboard and any other Google apps. I have abandoned gmail and replaced it with proton mail instead. So far, no ads and as far as I can tell, no tracking. I have also installed a VPN and am using it religiously—Cyber Ghost, a $99 for 3 years subscription with support up to 8 devices.
However, I am still very much connected to Samsung for I am not privy as to whether or not Samsung is as sinister as Google and Facebook.
Again, I am open to all suggestions, corrections and recommendations. Thank you and I hope to engage with you all.

leave it up to them yandex russians to protect your privacy.
but seriously. the most dangerous thing you can do is acctualy think that the steps you take are really making your life private.
vpns just channel the traffic to an other end point and does the queries for you then sends the data encrypted to you.
the queries are still made on the www. account info and all things you store or access online is still accessible by the www. vpn companies just fool you into thinking that the data being relayed to you is the only weak link. plus the free ones mine your data.
best thing you can do is not use social media. its made to invade your privacy. its designed to fool you into giving as much of your personal life info as possible and sell your habits to add companies so they can in turn send you quatered adds.
the minute you use the internet you void your privacy regardless of how you think the measures you take are working or effective. and what are you going to do about the 100 and 1000's of companies being hacked and their data mined and sold every month? you cant do anything about that. plus its much better for hackers to get their info from a big company because you get much more than just 1 dude that does his banking online and chat every now and then.there is no money to be made from 1 individual.
if you think people are specifically after you, you are gravely being fooled by the vpn ad campaigns that have been poping up everywhere about "privacy".( they must hide the fact that they also get hacked very well.its just that the media hasint picked up on it yet)
anyways who want to waste time on an end user/device?
when again you just need to hack equifax like a few years back and you get the motherload instead.
all in all I've abandoned the thought of real privacy. its futile.( even abstinents dosen't work because companies and governments don't secure customer data correctly. and unfortunately if you are born, you must be branded and labeled and filed away.)
live your life. just know that what ever you do you can't escape big brother and your data from being leaked by the big companies that say that it is secured with them.
the whole infrastructure relies on them companies and the habits we have been embraining ourselves and our children with is the problem.. we live our lives intertwined with the services and devices that we take for granted and have clicked next next next through polices and consent forms for over 25 years now whithout even giving it a second though. we're in over our heads now and it is a little late to back out. this was al dine by design and all voluntarily. its crazy how marketing is evil.
a cabin in the woods is the easiest and most secure thing one can do. anything shy of that is a waste of time and a false feeling of privacy.
anyways I'm going around in circles now.
one thing for sure is that the criminals we think that we need cover from are not who we think they are.
they are the FCC dealing with big telcos, they are the big media giants spewing false information and fabricates facts. they are in our governments in the highest ranks pushing hidden agendas and most of all they are the big social media platforms remodeling our society each day under our noses at our expense.
but hey this is not new. the internet police is just tring to make you think it is and spend 9.99$ a month for a vpn lol
good luck.

I just stopped using as many Google apps as I can and switched over to MS Office apps and use Samsung services where I can too...

bober10113 said:
leave it up to them yandex russians to protect your privacy.
but seriously. the most dangerous thing you can do is acctualy think that the steps you take are really making your life private.
vpns just channel the traffic to an other end point and does the queries for you then sends the data encrypted to you.
the queries are still made on the www. account info and all things you store or access online is still accessible by the www. vpn companies just fool you into thinking that the data being relayed to you is the only weak link. plus the free ones mine your data.
best thing you can do is not use social media. its made to invade your privacy. its designed to fool you into giving as much of your personal life info as possible and sell your habits to add companies so they can in turn send you quatered adds.
the minute you use the internet you void your privacy regardless of how you think the measures you take are working or effective. and what are you going to do about the 100 and 1000's of companies being hacked and their data mined and sold every month? you cant do anything about that. plus its much better for hackers to get their info from a big company because you get much more than just 1 dude that does his banking online and chat every now and then.there is no money to be made from 1 individual.
if you think people are specifically after you, you are gravely being fooled by the vpn ad campaigns that have been poping up everywhere about "privacy".( they must hide the fact that they also get hacked very well.its just that the media hasint picked up on it yet)
anyways who want to waste time on an end user/device?
when again you just need to hack equifax like a few years back and you get the motherload instead.
all in all I've abandoned the thought of real privacy. its futile.( even abstinents dosen't work because companies and governments don't secure customer data correctly. and unfortunately if you are born, you must be branded and labeled and filed away.)
live your life. just know that what ever you do you can't escape big brother and your data from being leaked by the big companies that say that it is secured with them.
the whole infrascturuce relies on them companies and the habits we have been embraining ourselves and our children with is the problem.. we live our lives intertwined with the services and devices that we take for granted and have clicked next next next through polices and consent forms for over 25 years now whithout even giving it a second though. we're in over our heads now and it is a little late to back out. this was al dine by design and all voluntarily. its crazy how marketing is evil.
a cabin in the woods is the easiest and most secure thing one can do. anything shy of that is a waste of time and a false feeling of privacy.
anyways I'm going around in circles now.
one thing for sure is that the criminals we think that we need cover from are not who we think they are.
they are the FCC dealing with big telcos, they are the big media giants spewing false information and fabricates facts. they are in our governments in the highest ranks pushing hidden agendas and most of all they are the big social media platforms remodeling our society each day under our noses at our expense.
but hey this is not new. the internet police is just tring to make you think it is and spend 9.99$ a month for a vpn lol
good luck.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oy vey! Thank you very much for yor contribution. It is very much appreciated and I see what you are saying.

AndroidUser00110001 said:
I just stopped using as many Google apps as I can and switched over to MS Office apps and use Samsung services where I can too...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How has this been working out for you? What are your thoughts on Samsung's and Microsoft privacy policies etc?

Nonetheless, what are some good and viable alternatives to Google and optimally "securing" one's device (taking everything bober10113 has said).

michel5891 said:
How has this been working out for you? What are your thoughts on Samsung's and Microsoft privacy policies etc?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like the other poster said, I gave up on worrying about privacy. I made the switch for other reasons and privacy was down on the list...
I just do not like what Goolge has been doing lately, especially blocking ad blockers soon in Chrome so I switched to MS Edge on Android and the Chromium version of Edge for desktop and the rest of the apps just followed through. I am seeing how the switch works for myself and if all goes well I will switch back to MS for the small company I work for.
I gave up on Gmail, Google Drive and all their office apps so far and I stopped using Nexus/Pixel phones for the first time in 10 years. I started with the S9+ which I enjoyed for a couple of months and then got a Note9 during a holiday special and now I cannot wait for the Note10.
Privacy is what it is nowadays... We should all own our data and if we choose to let be used as companies are doing now then we should get a slice of all the money being made but I doubt it will ever get to be something like that.

michel5891 said:
How has this been working out for you? What are your thoughts on Samsung's and Microsoft privacy policies etc?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't think that they are any better than Google's. Majority of the companies out there that are international had to adhere to the EU rules of privacy, so a lot of them have adopted those standards. NOT ALL OF THEM. That's why all of a sudden you are getting new agreements from all the major companies that touch each section of land on the world.
I still don't trust any of them even to that point.
This is morbid. I have been thinking a lot more about death, debt, privacy and such, and I have come to the conclusion that I honestly don't care about my own anymore because it has been stolen, including my wife's. Future children though, I worry about them because you don't even have to mention their name on the internet and somehow every major company knows about them.
Ever had a conversation with someone without actually looking something up on the web, and then a day or two later Google and other ads start showing things concerning what you were talking about to someone in person? Yeah, it has happened to me numerous times now I can't even count anymore.

Jammol said:
Ever had a conversation with someone without actually looking something up on the web, and then a day or two later Google and other ads start showing things concerning what you were talking about to someone in person? Yeah, it has happened to me numerous times now I can't even count anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
YES!!! I noticed this a few months ago. My wife and I were talking about some random subject and BAM there it was in my Google discovery feed.
I mentioned that to her and she thought I was crazy until it happened again.
My friend was over last week, he mentioned something about a car he is fixing up and once again in my Google feed...
*EDIT*
I am not going to go as far as saying they are listening because my wife did say she looked up what we were talking about later on that day on her phone so I am guessing it is more GPS based then Google listening to give them the benefit of doubt for now. I need to ask my friend if he searched anything while here...

You want to De-Google your phone? Sell it and don't get an Android phone. Don't get an iPhone, either. In fact, get one of those huge car phones from the 80s. I can't add really anything that hasn't been said, other than some slight humor, but again, if you want privacy, stay off the internet.

AndroidUser00110001 said:
YES!!! I noticed this a few months ago. My wife and I were talking about some random subject and BAM there it was in my Google discovery feed.
I mentioned that to her and she thought I was crazy until it happened again.
My friend was over last week, he mentioned something about a car he is fixing up and once again in my Google feed...
*EDIT*
I am not going to go as far as saying they are listening because my wife did say she looked up what we were talking about later on that day on her phone so I am guessing it is more GPS based then Google listening to give them the benefit of doubt for now. I need to ask my friend if he searched anything while here...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is what I'm trying to prevent. Exactly the same thing had happened to me. We were simply discussing an AC unit; never looked it up or mentioned the name of it and the exact make and model in the room we were in showed up.

michel5891 said:
This is what I'm trying to prevent. Exactly the same thing had happened to me. We were simply discussing an AC unit; never looked it up or mentioned the name of it and the exact make and model in the room we were in showed up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah it's super duper creepy. Funny thing is since I refreshed my Note 9 up to PIE, I haven't given assistant or google search any permission to use my microphone and I don't even have them setup!

this might help:
https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/6030020?co=GENIE.Platform=Android&hl=en
turn voice activity off. also check your history to see if it has any recording...