Related
Hi I just figured out a way to get unrestricted access to google books , magazine, movies and TV from outside the US. {I am from india}
It involves no rooting or side loading. I am editing the video on how to get it done, will upload as soon as i finish. you will get the $25 free credit too using the following work around.... wait for it....
madhavkishore said:
Hi I just figured out a way to get unrestricted access to google books , magazine, movies and TV from outside the US. {I am from india}
It involves no rooting or side loading. I am editing the video on how to get it done, will upload as soon as i finish. you will get the $25 free credit too using the following work around.... wait for it....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i assume it involves using a US VPN?
Plus you need a US credit card in order to buy any of the said magazines, books, movies etc... So it's pointless.
heh, I just want the $25 credit!!
Not really,
i'm out of USA, and could buy a movie and a book with a US VPN + International credit card.
Just give a US Zip code, the billing address vs register are not checked.
but my problem is: when i back to my N7 or my Gnexus i couldn't see the movie because it recognize that i'm out of US (My Google play movie version ends with "br").
boto said:
Not really,
i'm out of USA, and could buy a movie and a book with a US VPN + International credit card.
Just give a US Zip code, the billing address vs register are not checked.
but my problem is: when i back to my N7 or my Gnexus i couldn't see the movie because it recognize that i'm out of US (My Google play movie version ends with "br").
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it works but I have seen people with suspended wallet accounts because of these fake addresses. People were crying even on this forum because of this issue. Not everyone face this problem but probably they do random checks.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
saadi703 said:
Yes it works but I have seen people with suspended wallet accounts because of these fake addresses. People were crying even on this forum because of this issue. Not everyone face this problem but probably they do random checks.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good to know, i will take off my "fake" address, i have no reason to keep it if i couldn't see what i'm buying...
the way is wait for google decide to sell stuff in my country...
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
i guess this is a general subject, but fits in this forum because we're (nexus users) probably more affected than the rest of the android world. In short, i'm not liking Google's thirst for collecting info in order to sell us ads, tailor and filter information that gets to us, or even sell our info to other companies (android police had an article a while back about a company who was doing this). But let's go back in time a bit first...
My first android device was back in 2010, and i've been through a few htc and samsung devices, galaxy nexus, nexus 4 and of course nexus 5. Now, whoever had a galaxy nexus might remember how android was back then, ICS just came out, it was the first version that could actually compete with it's rival OS's, and the official builds on the galaxy nexus were very close to AOSP.
On the nexus 4 we started to see some changes, Chrome replaced AOSP's browser (Browser) even though it was still not ready for that role yet and despite it coming a long way to where it is now, IMO it's still not as good as the stock browser was. Google Play Music also replaced Music as the default music player and so on..
On the nexus 5 Hangouts replaced stock Messaging (in my opinion it also is not ready for that role yet) and last but not least we're witnessing how G+'s Photos is going to replace Gallery (which is simple and fast, works great, and has a mighty lil photo editor).
Let's add to that Photosphere, a feature exclusive to nexus devices, and the Google Experience launcher (exclusive to nexus 5). So we've reached quite a big divergence from AOSP.
Another thing is how Google is forcing it's social network, either through binding playstore/youtube comments with it, photos, G+ sign in, Game hub (Play Games) etc.. Basically, you have to have G+ to be able to do simple stuff.
Also, we all know that one of the reasons they killed microSD support was to get people to use their cloud services, Keep, Drive, GMusic, G+ autobackup photos...
Other than forcing it's services, Google likes to tailor things for us. A simple example is the Youtube app, it's default opening screen is "What to watch" instead of subscriptions.
Also, Google Now is a cool concept, and it can be very helpful, but it kind of adopts the concept of offering you the info (it thinks) you need, according to certain algorithms. And that's the way Google's search engine has been functioning for years. And it's not only a Google thing, everybody does it, facebook, yahoo etc..
If you've read this far, and this subject interests you, watch this TED talk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s
I've been thinking about this subject for a while, and honestly, i have mixed thoughts about it. I use Google's services and i actually like Google as a company -despite the lil rant above- but i try my best to control what info i share with them, and i'm definitely not liking the route Google is taking with android, causing fragmentation even between nexus devices, closing down a lot of open source services and forcing it's own, and tailoring stuff for me. I don't need someone to think or make decisions on behalf of me, i want to be able to decide what i want to see/read/know about/use. I also want android to stay as open sourced and available to everyone as it can be.
So what's your take on this subject? do you have any concerns about your privacy and the info you share with Google's servers? and how about the android -or should i say Google- experience on the N5 compared to AOSP or past experiences you had with previous nexus devices, do you see any difference?
Google uses your data to build out great services. They also get a lot of money for advertising, and that's just the way it is. Do you think they should give Maps and Gmail away for free to people without getting something in return? Everyone who buys a Nexus device or uses Google's services understands this. You said in your post that Google forces their services on us, but you aren't being forced to use a Nexus device, or use Maps and Gmail. You made that decision yourself, so I don't understand why you're complaining.
Oh no, Google can't do nothing bad. It's Apple's fault.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
I don't really understand what you are getting at. If you don't like all of the Google services then why not install cyanogen mod? The sole purpose of a business is to make money for it shareholders and Google is a business. They provide amazing apps and services for "free". I put free in quotes because you are indirectly paying for it. No one is forcing you to use Google phones or Google services.
Edit* okay I do understand what you are getting at but I don't feel that Google is hiding it from its users. It's no secret that Google sells ads. That is their business. They can become a more successful business if they gather more information about its users. I am aware of what Google does when I use its services and I accept it because I use the services they provide and don't have to pull out my credit card.
It's not that hard to understand; why are we all flaming this dude? He was just asking for everyone's opinions.
I agree with you 100%. Especially as I initially made the switch from CM9 to CM10, I was really wary about Google Now. It seemed like it was collecting waaaayyyyy too much info. The G+ integration in Google Play and Youtube also ticked me off.
However, the more I think about it, Google is still being sensible. Google Now can't be compared to Siri because Siri can't do crap; Siri just takes what you say and searches it up. Google Now can be turned off, and if you don't want it always tracking your location, just turn off location and it'll turn off all the location-based cards.
I'm also intrigued (not concerned) by Google's recent actions, especially with the acquisition of Moto, the release of Moto X and Moto G, and the introduction of so many GPe devices. Perhaps Google feels threatened by Samsung and feels the need to tighten its grip? The Nexus/GPe community used to be solely dominated by Samsung, but now it's seen entrances by HTC, LG, Asus and Sony. It seems to me that everything Google has done in the past few months has been forced by Scamsung and Crapple, and that we shouldn't really feel concerned in any way...yet.
The whole world runs on information and EVERYONE is trying to collect as much as possible. You might as well let it benefit you. Imagine if you had to pay for an email client, gps, countless news subscriptions, data hosting, and on top of that, had to pay for every new software version as it was made available. Even paid services are focused primarily on learning as much about you as possible. At least they are trying to learn what interests you to offer you something you might actually want!
I for one am very sad to see Google's Android deviate so far from pure Android. I am not a fan of the Google Experience launcher and I miss the beautifully simple AOSP experience. Even when I do run stock android, I fill it up with Google services. I think the point here is that you should choose what you want... ESPECIALLY with a Nexus device. The Nexus has become too commercial with the N5.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using xda app-developers app
I dont want anyone selling my data. I do appreciate that I use many Google services for free so I'm happy for their bots to analyse my data to sell tailored advertising to support these services.
-----------------------
Sent via tapatalk.
I do NOT reply to support queries over PM. Please keep support queries to the Q&A section, so that others may benefit
rootSU said:
I dont want anyone selling my data. I do appreciate that I use many Google services for free so I'm happy for their bots to analyse my data to sell tailored advertising to support these services.
-----------------------
Sent via tapatalk.
I do NOT reply to support queries over PM. Please keep support queries to the Q&A section, so that others may benefit
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Long as i dont get junk in my email or mailing address, besides what do you got to hide huh? unless you're al qaeda right? or some terrorist..
Google doesn't sell your info to other people, and nor does it "read" your inbox or someone is "reading" it, it looks for certain keywords then deliver ads based on that... test it your self on your phone email your self with any subject and just make a random sentence containing the word viagra, you will now receive ads that have to do with "Male enhancement pills".. google does this to provide cheap devices such as the chromecast and nexus line they want you to buy it in return for your interests then deliver ads based on that then google gets paid by the advertiser or the marketing campain, so lets just call this instead of google stalking you or like mining your information like gold think of it as google trying to see what you're interested into and deliver that to you!
oh also inb4 someone says punctuation is your friend
I've always been very bugged about this that's why I try to download privacy apps to control what permissions they are asking for
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Google is just a modern day netzero (from back in the days). The sooner you realize that, the better you'll be able to set your expectations.
That being said everything you find worrisome, you can substitute with a different service. It's not being forced to you.
The reality is, you made a calculation that the benefits outweighs the costs. You just may not be conscious of it.
Lastly, the nexus line is pure Google, it's not pure asop. It's Google flavored android, just as htc one is htc flavored android.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 12:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 AM ----------
nohcho said:
Oh no, Google can't do nothing bad. It's Apple's fault.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stawman
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
markdapimp said:
Long as i dont get junk in my email or mailing address, besides what do you got to hide huh? unless you're al qaeda right? or some terrorist..
Google doesn't sell your info to other people, and nor does it "read" your inbox or someone is "reading" it, it looks for certain keywords then deliver ads based on that...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is exactly my point. You seem to be arguing my point back to me, which makes no sense. Perhaps you misread my post
Nothing online belongs to you.. there are many ways to stay frosty on android.
Sent from my AOSP on HammerHead using Tapatalk
i guess some people didn't get my point, maybe since English is not my native language.
Anyways, as i mentioned in my previous post i do use Google services, and i'm grateful that most of them are free. But it's getting harder and harder to control your privacy. Look at the new location concept in kitkat, you can't switch location OFF completely from the power widget, you have to take additional steps and go into settings. Furthermore, on previous versions, you could use GPS, let's say for sport tracking apps, but deny location from all Google apps. Now you can't do it anymore, even if you use "device only" Google's apps (and facebook and others) are able to ask for your location.
Same goes to the Photos app, if you log in your G+ account, and choose photos from the slide menu, you'll see all your photos, even if they are still only on your device (autobackup OFF), something like the GMusic concept with on-device/cloud music. Honestly, i don't want my photos on G+, and i have a feeling i'll be forced soon to upload them whether i like it or not, just like the location thing.
Also i want to be able to choose what G services i want to use. AOSP still gives that freedom, but no one can deny that Google progressively is stopping to develop AOSP apps, and it's forcing it's own. I think some around here take stuff that Cyanogenmod or the Paranoid team (and others) do for granted. I think people should be thankful for things like 8Sms , Focal and so on, and recognize the effort put in them, and help (test/report bugs) and donate to those devs to encourage them to polish these apps and make them even better. Honestly, i think we were lucky to get to choose what sms client we want as default, if it was up to Google, we wouldn't have that option available.
And lastly, look at what happened to App Ops, it would've been a nice tool to give back control to the end users, but it was killed in the last update with a statement that it was never meant to go public. If they are afraid some people will misuse it and break app-functionality (then whine about it) , well they could've put it in Developer Options right beside ART and the rest of the stuff that can potentially break things on your device.
So as a conclusion, i do like and use Google services, but i also don't want to be forced to share my private data, i just want to be able to do it in the range that i'm comfortable with, and putting everything on Google's servers does not make me feel comfortable :good:
You're never forced to share your data... You don't even have to use your real name on an account!
Sheesh.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Cirkustanz said:
You're never forced to share your data... You don't even have to use your real name on an account!
Sheesh.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's cool, can I use your name when buying my next phone.... how about my Google store/wallet account, oh yeah and PayPal
makes you wonder why so many laws in the past prohibited such practises... they must of been real stooooopid!! haha
also if it was a bad thing lots of literature would have been written about it, warning us
meangreenie said:
That's cool, can I use your name when buying my next phone.... how about my Google store/wallet account, oh yeah and PayPal
makes you wonder why so many laws in the past prohibited such practises... they must of been real stooooopid!! haha
also if it was a bad thing lots of literature would have been written about it, warning us
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't be silly.
You can pay cash for an Android phone. You can even pay cash for a Nexus 5.
You have the option of paying for mobile purchases with your carrier account, and have you never heard of a pre-paid visa card? There are all kinds of ways to get one without providing any personally identifiable information of any kind. The point of google store purchases being an invasion of your personal information is also entirely moot as you can very easily use an Android phone without making a single purchase on the play store.
You don't even have to use wallet, in fact most Android users CANNOT even use wallet to its fullest since they don't have NFC in their phones.
For real now, if you think your personal data is so valuable and sacred, have fun not having a checking account, loan, a real job, or a real place to live.
You don't even have to have google services running on your phone. This is XDA...install a custom rom and just don't load gapps. Or be even more lazy about it and just disable those apps in settings and they don't run.
That's me being silly. See how that works?
Here's my theory on the issue...
The way I see it is that a person has three choices:
1. Go completely off-the-grid, paying (limited) bills in cash, never engaging with the internet, and forgoing many modern technological conveniences.
2. Allow some personal information here and there, trying to maintain control by engaging with services that can be discontinued when they "cross the line".
3. Allowing access to all personal information online, engaging with anything and everything.
The third is simply not an option for me. I have no desire to have for-profit corporations spamming me with offers for crap I don't want and selling my private, personally identifiable information to anyone and everyone.
The first is really not an option, either. I don't want to be completely cut off from friends or have contacting them be excessively difficult. It is convenient to pay my rent, utilities, and other bills online. Frankly, I'm not good enough with any type of work that allows one to go off the grid to make a living.
So, that leaves me with the second option. I monitor changes to privacy and terms of service policies for the services that I use. I try to limit the services that I use. Obviously, I have a bank account and that comes with the need to provide some information to the bank, but also the ability to monitor my money and immediately flag appropriate people if anything suspicious happens. I have a Google account and a Nexus 5, ergo I use Google's services. And here's what's important to me: I can delete my Google account any time I want. With something like Facebook, it was a lot more difficult to do that once I became uncomfortable with my of the changes Facebook was making. Also, with Google, I can opt-out of many of the services that make me uncomfortable, such as targeted advertising or using my +1's as endorsements. If that ever goes away, I will absolutely reconsider my position. I maintain multiple Google accounts, actually, as a means of limiting who can see what information about me. I have a personal account, which has the most information about me and which is as locked down vis-a-vis Google as I can make it, but which allows my friends and family the best means of interacting with me. I have a professional account, which has only information relevant to my work. I have an "partial-incognito" account, which does not have explicitly identifiable information about me. I have a few completely incognito accounts, which I only ever access through very restricted circumstances, like a proxy server, and have absolutely no information that could be tied back to me. Frankly, that's about the best I can do.
I have chosen to make a tradeoff, information for convenience. The line where I am willing / unwilling to make that tradeoff is a massive grey area and I constantly reevaluate it. Sure, it's annoying to have to stay on top of it, but it's a fact of modern life. As long as Google gives me the option to delete my account whenever I want, I give them the benefit of the doubt and continue providing (limited) information about myself in exchange for some extremely useful services (unfortunately, this isn't the same deal I can make with the NSA).
Lokitez said:
Here's my theory on the issue...
The way I see it is that a person has three choices:
1. Go completely off-the-grid, paying (limited) bills in cash, never engaging with the internet, and forgoing many modern technological conveniences.
2. Allow some personal information here and there, trying to maintain control by engaging with services that can be discontinued when they "cross the line".
3. Allowing access to all personal information online, engaging with anything and everything.
The third is simply not an option for me. I have no desire to have for-profit corporations spamming me with offers for crap I don't want and selling my private, personally identifiable information to anyone and everyone.
The first is really not an option, either. I don't want to be completely cut off from friends or have contacting them be excessively difficult. It is convenient to pay my rent, utilities, and other bills online. Frankly, I'm not good enough with any type of work that allows one to go off the grid to make a living.
So, that leaves me with the second option. I monitor changes to privacy and terms of service policies for the services that I use. I try to limit the services that I use. Obviously, I have a bank account and that comes with the need to provide some information to the bank, but also the ability to monitor my money and immediately flag appropriate people if anything suspicious happens. I have a Google account and a Nexus 5, ergo I use Google's services. And here's what's important to me: I can delete my Google account any time I want. With something like Facebook, it was a lot more difficult to do that once I became uncomfortable with my of the changes Facebook was making. Also, with Google, I can opt-out of many of the services that make me uncomfortable, such as targeted advertising or using my +1's as endorsements. If that ever goes away, I will absolutely reconsider my position. I maintain multiple Google accounts, actually, as a means of limiting who can see what information about me. I have a personal account, which has the most information about me and which is as locked down vis-a-vis Google as I can make it, but which allows my friends and family the best means of interacting with me. I have a professional account, which has only information relevant to my work. I have an "partial-incognito" account, which does not have explicitly identifiable information about me. I have a few completely incognito accounts, which I only ever access through very restricted circumstances, like a proxy server, and have absolutely no information that could be tied back to me. Frankly, that's about the best I can do.
I have chosen to make a tradeoff, information for convenience. The line where I am willing / unwilling to make that tradeoff is a massive grey area and I constantly reevaluate it. Sure, it's annoying to have to stay on top of it, but it's a fact of modern life. As long as Google gives me the option to delete my account whenever I want, I give them the benefit of the doubt and continue providing (limited) information about myself in exchange for some extremely useful services (unfortunately, this isn't the same deal I can make with the NSA).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the type of answer i was looking for, thank you for this :good:
i can recognize myself in most of the things you wrote, basically that's how i feel about it too. i hope we won't get to the part where we'll have to "reconsider our position", but all the closing down and limitations are an indication that we're heading that way (i hope i'm wrong).
I started this thread to hear what others think about this subject, and to see if maybe i'm being excessively paranoid
Cirkustanz said:
Don't be silly.
You can pay cash for an Android phone. You can even pay cash for a Nexus 5.
You have the option of paying for mobile purchases with your carrier account, and have you never heard of a pre-paid visa card? There are all kinds of ways to get one without providing any personally identifiable information of any kind. The point of google store purchases being an invasion of your personal information is also entirely moot as you can very easily use an Android phone without making a single purchase on the play store.
You don't even have to use wallet, in fact most Android users CANNOT even use wallet to its fullest since they don't have NFC in their phones.
For real now, if you think your personal data is so valuable and sacred, have fun not having a checking account, loan, a real job, or a real place to live.
You don't even have to have google services running on your phone. This is XDA...install a custom rom and just don't load gapps. Or be even more lazy about it and just disable those apps in settings and they don't run.
That's me being silly. See how that works?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well none of that was my point, but don't worry about it. your willing to give my and my children's freedom away.. no argument will ever be good enough for you to stop you doing that.
Personally i don't care what Google knows about me (i'm not that interesting and i got nothing to hide - heck let the NSA spy on me too. don't care). I love their services and don't see anything wrong with them using my info to make $$. They are providing me with a service that makes my life a lot easier/better. I also really like the consolidation of Google aps and services and the synergy it creates. Google may force you to use one service to access part of another, but they do not force you to use anything you choose not to. If you don't like G+ integration, don't use Google's suite. I'm not trying to flame the OP, but i just don't get the point of this post. If you don't like something the best way is the speak with your wallet. If enough people do that maybe Google will pay attention.
---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------
rayiskon said:
That's the type of answer i was looking for, thank you for this :good:
i can recognize myself in most of the things you wrote, basically that's how i feel about it too. i hope we won't get to the part where we'll have to "reconsider our position", but all the closing down and limitations are an indication that we're heading that way (i hope i'm wrong).
I started this thread to hear what others think about this subject, and to see if maybe i'm being excessively paranoid
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is why you started the thread? to hear opinions that validate your own? i thought it was to spark discussion?
Pretty simply, after seeing the requirements and the limitations for normal html5 development on the Chromecast, and paying my $5 admission fee.... it's ridiculous.
So if anyone wants to jumpstart their development of an app for Android or Chrome and they already have a Receiver app hosted on an https site (apparently even Google Docs will do), I'll publish your app myself.
Here's a list of things I'd need to know for publishing a Receiver and Sender app. Message me there, or here, if you're interested. I try to keep my Hangouts invites visible.
Things to note:
In Chrome, both a Sender URL and a Receiver URL are required. The sender can be site specific (e.g. if your application is hosted at mysubdomain.site.com/folder/page.html, the sender URL will get shortened to mysubdomain.site.com.)
For the above reason, you can't send Web requests from locally hosted sites. Google needs direct access to them, so they forbid it.
The Receiver URL must be a single page, however. This is what gets displayed on the screen. Because of the restrictions of the Chromecast, even Google considers it safe to assume your content should be hosted in a single 1280x720 rectangle.
All Receiver URLs must go to an https site. There's a way to use Google Drive/Docs to house a Receiver via https. You'll probably have to search around the Chrome store for a reliable Google Drive html editor if you need to go this route, so I would recommend Drive only as a last resort.
OT but to add up. You think that's ridiculous. Play Store admission fee is $20. And for iOS devices only access to SDK is $100.
I am looking to make CC app of my own. Will keep you in mind.
ppero196 said:
OT but to add up. You think that's ridiculous. Play Store admission fee is $20. And for iOS devices only access to SDK is $100.
I am looking to make CC app of my own. Will keep you in mind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It cost me $25 usd when I signed up last week, is there seriously another fee to pay on top of that to publish cc apps?
ppero196 said:
OT but to add up. You think that's ridiculous. Play Store admission fee is $20. And for iOS devices only access to SDK is $100.
I am looking to make CC app of my own. Will keep you in mind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it's ridiculous that all apps, regardless of target audience, must pass through Google's censors, yes. Previously the only way to have an app available was to publicly list it on their website. No developer account, no app testing... Period. Unlike the Google Play Store, this account is mandatory to do anything.
idone said:
It cost me $25 usd when I signed up last week, is there seriously another fee to pay on top of that to publish cc apps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep.
Not just to publish but to start developing, debugging, or testing.
Google Corporation has recently sent me a threat over email, added a strike to my Google+ account for daring to post this message online.
So I guess I'll amend my words. I'll "partner" with anyone who wants to publish or develop or test a Chromecast app. In said partnership I'll assume no ownership of your stuff. You make it, I'll do everything in my power to make sure you can run it on any Chromecast you want.
If Google hates me, I must be doing some good.
Final update:
Google recently realized their loophole here and closed it, adding a clause to their developer agreement that states that helping anyone with unfortunate circumstances can get you removed from their whitelist.
I guess my developing days are over, and remember: buy a Kindle Fire Stick instead!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using Tapatalk
Yet another reason I regret buying a CC
Hi!
I've been for many years linux software, especially server side developer. Now I'd like to start making public apps(some of them paid apps) for google market. As far as I found, it's needed to register as a developer and deposit single-time price of 25$. That part is more or less clear.
Can someone who used to publish apps in Google Play market explain me in more or less detailed way what will be next steps, once I register as developer? Do I need to register also a company, or can it be as a physical person developer? And more important(unfortunally I failed to find any information on that) what are the supported methods to get money from apps(I guess I'll use "in-app purchase"), what are the real ways to get money from play market to my real bank account?(mean from the moment user pays in app till the moment of getting real money, how does all this process look like and what are the options?).
Thanks a lot!
Question 1: You can register as an Individual or change your name to reflect that of your company.
Question 2: You can earn money by placing ADS inside your app ie. Admob, or In-App purchases, as you mentioned; When you place ADS in your app, Admob will pay you via PayPal, I think they do bank transfer as well. In-app Purchases, Will be processed through google, they will get a percentage and you get the rest. Let me know if I missed anything.
I preffer to be individual at start. Already registered. Google told I can change that at any time.
I'd like to use in-app purchase. I know google will get comission for that. But what are the options Google delivers money to my bank account?
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using XDA Labs