Database Develop

Costs involved developing Android App vs iPhone apps

I realise that this is very much a "how-long-is-a-piece-of-string" type question, but I'd really like to get some idea of the costs and time involved in developing an app for the Android market compared to the iPhone.
My understanding is that it doesn't cost developers to submit apps to the Android Marketplace (as opposed to the iPhone Developer’s Program which costs $99 a year). So there's a saving there.
But in terms of development costs, would you suggest that hiring a developer to create an Android app would be cheaper because the market's smaller? Would it make no difference at all? Would it be harder to find a developer to code for Android?
Basically, any thoughts anyone has on this would be really appreciated.
Cheers,

Why don't you try and find out? Ask some (android)developers what app x would cost and ask some (iphone)developers the same

for most applications it should be cheaper to hire an Android programmer because you develop in standard Java and this is the most widely used language in computer science education. Eclipse is also a standard development environment many young programmers are familiar with. Even I was able to code my first Android application in a matter of minutes.
Objective-C on the other side is a nieche language. Of course, every good progammer can learn that language in a couple of hours or at least days but there are definitly more experienced Java programmers out there and they can reuse code (snippets). Java code is so ubiqitous you can find for a lot of problems coded and tested solutions. So two reasons: there are much more Java programmers out there and they can develop faster. Specific Android experience is not needed as long as you don't want to program kernel extensions or things like that.
But I guess the Apple-market is still more profitable because Apple users are trained to spend money. So even as it may cost more to develop it also brings in more revenue. I hope the sheer amount of Android handsets out there will outweigh this advantage soon.

Humm .. i think this is a tricky question.
While it will definitely be cheaper to develop an application for android, the question you might want to ask (depending on what you want to do) is what is the ROI of an Android application versus and IOS application.
And even then, depending on the type of application & the demographic your app will be targeting (not to mention usability, design, general app quality) the response will likely vary quite a bit too.
But globally yeah, it's cheaper and less a hassle to make an android app i'd say. ..then again, i have an allergy to apples, and this is an android forum after all

robert_tlse said:
Humm .. i think this is a tricky question.
While it will definitely be cheaper to develop an application for android, the question you might want to ask (depending on what you want to do) is what is the ROI of an Android application versus and IOS application.
And even then, depending on the type of application & the demographic your app will be targeting (not to mention usability, design, general app quality) the response will likely vary quite a bit too.
But globally yeah, it's cheaper and less a hassle to make an android app i'd say. ..then again, i have an allergy to apples, and this is an android forum after all
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hehe, I agree on that Robert.

ten chars!!!

You can also spend many months developing an iPhone app, only to have it rejected by Apple for no good reason. That's quite expensive.

It is, however, unescapable that there are a lot of iOS users who buy a lot of apps from the App Store, so the potential ROI is higher. There's also only a few platforms to develop for (although this is becoming increasingly less the case).
Would like for Android to have more focus though; it's getting there!
(The diminutive term "app" does irk me slightly - Apple have popularised it in relation to phones when they convinced everyone that the iPhone was the first phone to support third-party software. Guess it's stuck now though.)

then why are Android apps more expensive??

Android apps aren't more expensive. They have by far the largest proportion of free apps on any mobile platform and even those that do cost are comparatively cheap.

Android will probably be easier and cheaper to develop for..the only concern people have with Android is fragmentation...aka when developing you gotta decide which versions and up to develop for and choose the appropriate functions for the documentation. Of course in the end all the old devices will upgrade eventually and be compatible anyways..
My hope is though Apple lets 3rd party development tools back in...cause that way you can use Adobe AIR and make an App for both Android and iPhone at the same time....How I wish for cross platform app development...but Apple will fight it till the and cause if they don't they will loose one of their biggest advantages...

In my opinion Android is just now getting to the average joe especially in the United States. Older people are even trying the droid line of devices since there are so many to choose from now on all carriers (vs 1 iphone on AT&T forever just revised of course) So yeah, even people here in hicksville, MO USA are even trying it out go figure. If everyone hasn't heard of HTC or Android, they're definitely being introduced to it now through the Galaxy S series since it's on almost all carriers and has some snazzy media buzz.
With all these new cells and tablets coming out I give it a mere 2-3years and everyone will know our lil green droid dude globally, and use it on multiple devices around the house. Just my theory. I'm sure the Marketplace will grow 10/fold in that time, peace!

I guess there are a few things to keep in mind:
Politics:
1) Apple tries to regulate what is permitted to be installed on their phones. They don't provide any real guidelines, nor do they tell you in advance if your application will be accepted. You'll only discover after submitting your app that it isn't permitted. So they waste your time, and numerous high end projects have developed their application only to discover Apple blocks them because "they are duplicating functionality" *cough competing*. Yes, lots of money has been lost.
2) Apple is Non-Disclosure Agreement overload. Send an email to apple and it always says "this information is confidential". Basically, Apple's agreement is so bad (unless it's changed recently) that they can cancel the account/sue you any time they wish. That increases your risk further.
3) iPhone's can be jail-broken to install 3rd party apps, but many people wont. Even if the Google store wont accept your app, they can manually install it, or you can use another store... Without jailbreaking.
4) Many developers often complain of long delays getting their apps approved, and when removed from the store by Apple, they have to flood Apple with emails for reason's why. On android, you don't even need to use the App store, in fact, Android has the benefit of allowing paid apps to be sold in countries with export restrictions (because they can sell it via other means).
5) Piracy is possibly more rife on Android, however, Google are apparently implementing an API which allows apps to check if they were purchased for that phone, which should strongly reduce piracy once available (because it means that dodgy stores will need to actually crack the programs). Once this is implemented, hopefully it will stop the jackass spammers from selling pirated stuff.
Development Process:
1) iPhones use objective C, Android uses Dalvik. Dalvik is VERY similar to java, one simply needs to learn the differences. Objective C is also quite easy to learn though, but it probably takes more experience to do well (because c++ doesn't have the idea of selectors). If you try creating apps on the iPhones without using objective C originally though, your app might be removed. On android, frankly, Google doesn't give a damn provided, it works.
2) Big win for Android here, the Android SDK works on Linux,Windows AND OSX. It integrates with eclipse which already has a large user-base. Whereas, you need to buy a mac for code for the iPhone, and the SDK is OSX only.
3) That being said, you can make a cross-platform webapp that can be sold for both, but the user needs to be online.
4) Objective C is compiled code, whilst Java is bytecode. Bytecode can run as fast as compiled (with some initial overhead). Native sounds great, but if Apple ever does a processor change for their phones, it might be a world of hurt. If massively-multicore mobile processors are released, Android is probably better suited. That being said, by then, you'll probably need to fix some things in your app anyway because of API changes.
Actual sales:
1) Apparently in the past, you would have sold more in the Apple market. However, in the past, Android mobiles were actually quite rare because Android stunk. Froyo is probably the first Android OS that can compete against iOS effectively because it now supports JIT. There is also a much greater emphasis on Android these days in advertising, and I see more Android advertising than iPhone. Possibly inaccurate predictions suggest they will overtake the iPhone in 2012 too.
2) Sales figures don't represent profit though (so whilst iOS may generate more still, it's less than Apple claims). A google market account costs $25, whereas an Apple iPhone development account costs $99. Furthermore, you need Apple equipment to code for the Apple market (which can be significantly more expensive than PC's), and there is no estimates done to determine profits lost by being rejected from the Apple app store (there have been major projects which cost thousands to develop which have been rejected). So greater overheads on the Apple store, which means for cheap/quick apps, you are probably safer developing for Android (especially if you don't already own a mac).
My opinion:
For me, developing major apps is too high risk for iPhones. Although, if your app is approved, there are potentially bigger payoffs than Android. For small apps which don't have a predictable further, you may earn more on Android because of lower overheads. If you app is rejected for iPhone though for competing, you wasted weeks/months of your life, and need to use a 3rd party store (since only hacked phones can use them though, you dramatically decrease your sales instantly).
Anyway, my thoughts are that by the end of the year, everyone will know what Android is, and you may start to see manufacturers getting together to launch MAJOR campaigns to promote Android, especially since they now all have a common enemy (Apple basically took a cheapshot at other major manufacturers to justify their design flaw). Apple is only a small guy when it comes to manufacturing phones, and so it's as though they threw a few tiny pebbles at a team of football players to show off. Of course, some of those football players have already started retaliating, and it just depends on how annoyed they got.
Personally, I think iPhone would be great if they didn't do the "anti-competitive" thing they always do, but as it stands, I am now doing my Oracle/Sun SCJP, and hope to get into Android coding soon. If Apple starts acting less evil though, I will take another look in their direction, but they are mistreating the users they need the most, the developers. It's a pity, because Apple really has potential.
Source: I haven't sold any apps on either market yet, but I have mostly decided on developing for Android.

Developing new iPhone app looking for developer
I have a cool iPhone app idea it's a very simple game that I could like to create I am looking for a developer in the Los angeles area I am new here so please if your interested or can redirect me to the right person I would appreciate it thank you...email me with any info

Application advertise

Anyone know of a way to remove ads from applications without purchasing them?

Root phone and use adfree.

Here is a novel idea.
If you use something created by another's labour and find it useful, either PAY for it, or tolerate the alternative way of supporting the developer that doesn't cost you the (most likely) measly dollar.

I still use the host file found in doc's jpc superslim Rom. It will reroute a lot of ad sites to localhost. This will won't remove the screen space needed for the advert but prevent adverts to show.
Changing your host file is as easy as copying over it or changing it with a text editor.

qtJz said:
Anyone know of a way to remove ads from applications without purchasing them?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pay for it or dont use it and it will go away

fokkenwerk1 said:
Here is a novel idea.
If you use something created by another's labour and find it useful, either PAY for it, or tolerate the alternative way of supporting the developer that doesn't cost you the (most likely) measly dollar.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly! Phone apps aren't THAT expensive. If you don't want ads, don't use the applications, or develop your own clones (but don't be surprised if after working working ages on it, that you want to sell it too).

I use adfree. The population of people who root their phones (which is a fair amount of effort, at least it was before unrevoked ) and can use adfree, compared to the overwhelming majority who don't, can't possibly make much difference in terms of revenue and developer support.
Your call.

Seriously guys?
As a developer I'm quite offended. The apps I'm currently developing don't have ads and if people purchase full version applications then I'd like to keep it that way. Whilst I've chosen not to include ads I can totally understand why other developers have.
Ads give you the chance to be provided with free software that you would otherwise have to pay for, or steal. If you like some software then support the developers don't be arses. Developers make software for a living, it's their job, it's how we pay our bills. Especially when we're talking about the kind of small-time developers who tend to target the android market, we're not big corporations, we're not rich (quite the opposite). Please actually support developers of software you use so that they can continue to make great software.

[Q] [CM7] Security Issues (Viruses, Passwords, Network, Privacy)

I'm just getting started with CM7 and the Nook Color, but I have some general security concerns that perhaps you could help me with?
1. Viruses. I understand that these are real in Android. I've temporarily disabled non-Market apps, but I believe viruses and/or spyware have shown up in Market Apps too. Are there decent AntiVirus apps and what do you recommend?
2. Firewall. What services are open by default? Are there good software firewalls available?
3. Adware. Is it always clear which Market apps are ad-supported? Have apps crossed the line into malicious or near-malicious spyware? (Taking over browsers, redirecting home pages or searches, infecting other apps, etc.)
4. Apparently Google does not require password-confirmation for Market purchases, and no real solution exists, since available apps complicate things and don't address the root issue. Do they have any plans to change that?
5. Where are application and web site passwords, WiFi keys, and the like stored, and are they encrypted?
6. Is there a multi-user / multi-profile facility to allow different users to log in to different desktops and/or applications? (Or is that best accomplished with dual booting.)
7. What major applications are known to "phone home" or otherwise divulge more information than might be expected? I was quite surprised that CM7 itself phones home to CyanogenMod by default, and even with that turned off the ROM Manager still reports usage statistics to Google?
8. Is anyone independently reviewing CyanogenMod itself for privacy and security implications? Right now many of us are relying on a hodgepodge of hacker contributions and the good will of those creating them. I'm sure that anything malicious would eventually come to light, but is anyone proactively checking out the release CM7 distribution, the GApps distribution, and the various installers and packagers? Right now the only verifiable "web of trust" that seems to exist is the good intentions of every contributor, and the general availability of the source code (which should make the review possible, if not particularly easy!).
9. Are there any "best practices" as a user? For example, I've set up a new GMail ID for use with the NC, and haven't yet linked any credit card or payment data. Meanwhile, for the B&N side I've had to submit a credit card number to get access to their market (even to get their "Free" offerings).
10. Any implications for configuring e-mail and/or contacts, etc.? Mass remailing trojans certainly exist on the Windows side.
11. Do the application specific permission settings compare favorably to those of the BlackBerry, and are they easily adjustable after you've already granted permissions to an app?
12. Is there any concept of sandboxing a new app to prevent it from possibly adversely affecting other applications or files?
13. Is there a best practice for how to manage files on both the eMMC and SD card storage, particularly when booting between the two? Can one be locked out from the other?
Okay, that's a baker's dozen. I'll stop now.
Thanks much for any input.

Really? Nobody has an opinion to share on this?

rooting /cm7 / and the purpose behind it may just not be for you. I don't think your going to get an answer your looking for. Also not trying to be rude, but you pretty much wrote a book in your first post. Just ask a question dude.

Thanks for the response, but I asked roughly 13 questions -- would you prefer I "just asked a question" by starting 13 different threads? I certainly wouldn't.
And your first sentence makes it sound as if there's no one here who gives a damn about their own data and that everyone views the Nook Color as a toy -- and I seriously doubt that.

xdabr said:
I'm just getting started with CM7 and the Nook Color, but I have some general security concerns that perhaps you could help me with?
1. Viruses. I understand that these are real in Android. I've temporarily disabled non-Market apps, but I believe viruses and/or spyware have shown up in Market Apps too. Are there decent AntiVirus apps and what do you recommend?
2. Firewall. What services are open by default? Are there good software firewalls available?
3. Adware. Is it always clear which Market apps are ad-supported? Have apps crossed the line into malicious or near-malicious spyware? (Taking over browsers, redirecting home pages or searches, infecting other apps, etc.)
4. Apparently Google does not require password-confirmation for Market purchases, and no real solution exists, since available apps complicate things and don't address the root issue. Do they have any plans to change that?
5. Where are application and web site passwords, WiFi keys, and the like stored, and are they encrypted?
6. Is there a multi-user / multi-profile facility to allow different users to log in to different desktops and/or applications? (Or is that best accomplished with dual booting.)
7. What major applications are known to "phone home" or otherwise divulge more information than might be expected? I was quite surprised that CM7 itself phones home to CyanogenMod by default, and even with that turned off the ROM Manager still reports usage statistics to Google?
8. Is anyone independently reviewing CyanogenMod itself for privacy and security implications? Right now many of us are relying on a hodgepodge of hacker contributions and the good will of those creating them. I'm sure that anything malicious would eventually come to light, but is anyone proactively checking out the release CM7 distribution, the GApps distribution, and the various installers and packagers? Right now the only verifiable "web of trust" that seems to exist is the good intentions of every contributor, and the general availability of the source code (which should make the review possible, if not particularly easy!).
9. Are there any "best practices" as a user? For example, I've set up a new GMail ID for use with the NC, and haven't yet linked any credit card or payment data. Meanwhile, for the B&N side I've had to submit a credit card number to get access to their market (even to get their "Free" offerings).
10. Any implications for configuring e-mail and/or contacts, etc.? Mass remailing trojans certainly exist on the Windows side.
11. Do the application specific permission settings compare favorably to those of the BlackBerry, and are they easily adjustable after you've already granted permissions to an app?
12. Is there any concept of sandboxing a new app to prevent it from possibly adversely affecting other applications or files?
13. Is there a best practice for how to manage files on both the eMMC and SD card storage, particularly when booting between the two? Can one be locked out from the other?
Okay, that's a baker's dozen. I'll stop now.
Thanks much for any input.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to admit, you come off as rather paranoid, and i am not sure why you are so.
Yes, there have been a couple of problem apps recently, but Google took care of them, and i would not worry. The best security you can have, is looking at what you are installing. The application cannot hide what permissions it needs, so if you have something asking for way more than you think it should need, take that as your first red flag.
Currently, Virus Scans on Android are a joke, and simply unneeded. Don't even waste you time. Firewalls are just about the same, and again, not worth the effort. One thing to keep in mind, that this is a linux system, and is not as prone to the Windows based attacks that you are used to. Things like email spam bots and such are not a problem.
As for Cyannogen - no code is added to the repository without being peer reviewed; and every code submission is available in public records. Frankly, they did not make it to CM7 by stealing people's data, nor is it simply a hodge podge of devs.
Frankly, I think right now more research is in order for ya. Most of what you ask is already discussed in many places, or is never discussed, because it simply isn't a worry...

Thank you, Divine_Madcat, for the advice and explanation. By hodgepodge I was more referring to the multiple installer methods and packages that newbies like me are relying upon to get everything installed easily. There are a lot of them, from a lot of nice people, from preconfigured SD card images to installation methods with modified boot loaders to interface and performance hacks. Even if Cyanogen itself is well maintained it would be pretty easy for someone to include a little trojan in one of those third-party "distributions".
It's not exactly paranoia, I've just seen this happen so often. Trojan horses are certainly not limited to Windows. Worms and other compromises have affected thousands of Unix and Linux machines in the past. Web sites and PHP and Perl scripts and databases and web frameworks regularly see vulnerabilities discovered and/or exploited. So since this device will be used in part by children with access to my credit card, I wanted to know what we're dealing with.
No, I was not familiar with Cyanogen's review practice (which is one reason I asked), so thanks for that reassurance! I will try to learn more as I go.
I do apologize for the length of the OP though -- I was trying to brainstorm and get everything down in one place that related to possible security concerns. It's not as if I'm worried sick about every little point.

One of the apps I install on all my installs is 'Lookout'. This app scans all my programs I install and update and I have heard very good reviews of it.
I did see that Eric Lundcrest did an article today:
http://web.eweek.com/t?r=2&c=38783&l=64&ctl=11B38843F5D4C728CF30E9F23F9E91BB51617&
You can check them out. I haven't tried them all myself and I noticed that he didn't include the app that I recommended above (and I use it on both my Nook and my HTC EVO)

You Should Also be Aware..
that one of the joys of Android (and of course Unix/Linux) is that everything is "sandboxed" unlike Windoze - there are not many apps that interfere with others - that's why it's so easy to install and uninstall from Android. Compare the uninstalling of even a large Android app with that of uninstalling from Windows.
I would not worry about interfering apps

Thanks, doc. I'm moderately familiar with the Unix security model, but not so much with Android. Is sandboxing really accurate? In Linux processes run with particular user rights, much as in Windows but more flexible -- that is, it's just much more common to have different daemons running as different users. Still, I don't think they're really isolated from one another as they might be with a "chroot jails" kind of function...

I don't think electronics are for you, I suggest books and a cabin in the woods.
No virus really exist yet, a few flaws in the code have been found but they are patched quick.
No real firewall, doesn't work quit that way with android.
Yes, it will say in the permissions of the app in the market.
You sign into the market when you first use it, making sure your devise has a lockscreen PW is how you keep it safe.
/data
no
Some apps phone home, check permissions before you install.
All CM code can be seen in the github, you can compile it yourself if you wish.
Use smart internet credit card practices such as only attaching a low limit card to accounts etc.
If the google email server was hacked maybe but all that stuff is stored encrypted on googles end.
Permissions need to be approved of by you if they change.
Android sandboxes all apps.
Dono, I have CM7 on internal and books etc stored on the SD card.

Nanan00, your actual answers were great, but "I don't think electronics are for you, I suggest books and a cabin in the woods." and the similar dismissive post above are exactly the kind of BS condescension that gives some open source communities a bad name. Stop it. Little by little it devalues the entire community and its projects.
Thanks for the substance of your response.

Truthfully... My parents practice pretty much all of the stuff you have said, they're very careful with credit cards and anything that could be used as personal information.
And yet... Someone got ahold of their credit card numbers and bought something for almost 3k last year...
I have no virus software or even firewall software on this computer, it has not received a virus in over 5 years (I know... it needs an upgrade) and I'm running Windows XP SP2.
If you're prone to viruses then go ahead and install some antivirus software. If you're scared about your kids + your credit card + the nook, then have them make all transactions on the computer.
The reason no one is taking this seriously is because Android is to new for there really to be anything worthwhile on the market. People are just now learning how to develop and code for it. So there aren't a bajillion(give or take one or two) viruses or trojans running around the google market.
On top of that, so long as your legally buying your apps from the google market, you have even less to worry about. As google has shown in the past that they'll go ahead and delete it the second they find it.
As far as permissions go, don't get to hung up on it. Everybody trust Pandora and yet it requires more permissions then some of googles own apps. =\

Thank you, Gin1212. I don't use an AntiVirus on my own Windows machines either -- it's more trouble than it's worth when you know what you're doing. (On Android I don't know what I'm doing, yet.)
And yeah, I already made sure to use a disposable credit card number ("ShopSafe") with a limit when setting up the Nook for the young'un. Google Market, thankfully, doesn't require a credit card unless you buy something, so I'll be checking out the free apps for a while (so that's part of why I asked about adware/spyware).
I was approaching the thing as I would any new (to me) full fledged operating system and computer, fully aware it's not the "safe" and dictatorially controlled little world of iOS or, to some extent, BlackBerry OS.
So thanks for the real world advice!

xdabr said:
Nanan00, your actual answers were great, but "I don't think electronics are for you, I suggest books and a cabin in the woods." and the similar dismissive post above are exactly the kind of BS condescension that gives some open source communities a bad name. Stop it. Little by little it devalues the entire community and its projects.
Thanks for the substance of your response.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Suffice it to say that Android's and Microsoft's, and even Linux's app model is vastly different. Google does not just act as a repository, as in Linux. From my understanding, Google is rather guarded about it's app market and if anything heretofor is found, the app is yanked from the market immediately.
I agree that website security is more an issue that needs to be looked at, but the lion's share of websites that have virii and adware are aimed at infecting windows machines, but your concerns are noted.
As to the intent of the Devs here, I think you need to understand that these roms, mods and apps are their children, and their passion of the moment. No one goes through all the crap they do just to foment adware. This is their meat and drink and trust me, if there were a dev whose morality came into question, they would police themselves and it would be all here for us to read. There are no secrets here. These aren't script kiddies looking to wreak havoc.
I agree that security is a good thing, but the twin natures of Android are openness and isolation. Each app, at least from my understanding is an island unto itself with rare exception. So I think that while your concerns in themselves are noble, they are unwarranted, and at some points even seem absurd. No offense intended here.
We aren't just drinking the kool-aid here, everyone knows the risks of adopting an unknown and untested ROM, everyone takes the responsibility to themselves when they violate their warranty in search of a better tablet experience. The average person who roots their nook is not your average idiot windows user. We are here because we want more and better than our legacy alientation by microsoft and those who can't think outside of their security model.
Well, there is my Android manifesto. Sorry for rambling.
migrax

No, I appreciate the manifesto -- thanks. Again, I tried to brainstorm and throw the kitchen sink into the original post so as to get everything down in one place. I was hoping it could serve as a general security discussion thread. Not everything there is a huge concern of mine, and sorry if it made things seem absurd.
I appreciate your points about the intentions of the developers and the operation of Google's market (although of course a big selling point is we are NOT limited to that market... conversely, I suppose anything I chose off-market would be something I had by definition come to trust independently).

xdabr said:
Nanan00... "I don't think electronics are for you, I suggest books and a cabin in the woods." and the similar dismissive post above are exactly the kind of BS condescension that gives some open source communities a bad name. Stop it. Little by little it devalues the entire community and its projects.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think your overreacting a wee bit too much. I can't speak for Nanan00 but the first sentence of his post feels like a joke. He took the time to write out the answers of OP's question...
Also since you were referring to my post at the top..... I was just being candid with OP.
I read his post, I could see that he was a bit paranoid (IMO) and told him my honest opinion. Which is: Hacking your nook, or any device for that matter, may not be for you. The reasons being that when you hack your device, you inevitably increase its chances of being exposed (even if the increase is small, its there.) I don't feel that I am being arrogant, and I didn't catch that drift from Nanan00. But I wanted to address this since you obviously feel strong that this type of behavior is "devaluing the entire community and its projects."
Anyways to the OP:
Sorry if my post came off rude. I should of taken the time to give you my explanation.

colbur87 said:
I think your overreacting a wee bit too much. I can't speak for Nanan00 but the first sentence of his post feels like a joke. He took the time to write out the answers of OP's question...
Also since you were referring to my post at the top..... I was just being candid with OP.
I read his post, I could see that he was a bit paranoid (IMO) and told him my honest opinion. Which is: Hacking your nook, or any device for that matter, may not be for you. The reasons being that when you hack your device, you inevitably increase its chances of being exposed (even if the increase is small, its there.) I don't feel that I am being arrogant, and I didn't catch that drift from Nanan00. But I wanted to address this since you obviously feel strong that this type of behavior is "devaluing the entire community and its projects."
Anyways to the OP:
Sorry if my post came off rude. I should of taken the time to give you my explanation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, colbur87, "OP" and I are the same person.
Asking questions is one way we learn. As an Android newbie many of my questions would apply to any Android device, hacked/rooted or not. If they're not appropriate for this forum, or if no one here thinks they're valid or worth a response, that would be okay. But to say in effect "your concerns are stupid and you don't belong here" is not only insulting, but factually wrong. Just because some people are content to not consider security implications doesn't mean they're not real.
Blithe unquestioning acceptance and faith is more of an Apple iFanboy trait, I would have thought.
And much as with Linux as a whole, positioning "hacked" Android as something not amenable to ordinary consumers is counterproductive.
(By the way, I'm not an ordinary consumer.)
Anyway, I do appreciate the answers people have given.

Wasn't lookig at the names so my bad on the mix up.
Anyways if you still think im being rude even after my previous post then so be it.
im out
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA Premium App

Divine_Madcat said:
The application cannot hide what permissions it needs, so if you have something asking for way more than you think it should need, take that as your first red flag.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, that isn't true. There are holes in Android Market, so if app makers really wanted to, they can hide certain permissions even if your app calls out that permission through androidmanifest, which is how the permission is given in the first place. It was shown that even big name developers had exploited this one time or another. Of course this has nothing to do with CM7. Even stock Android phones are vulnerable to this. However, in general, if you download a popular app, you should be able to trust the permissions listed. Unless your the first person to download an app, you'll usually hear back from initial users if there's something funky going on.

Android 4.2 Promotes Piracy?

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

Anti-Piracy Service/"Project Guard" [UPDATED W/ LINK TO DISABLE IT VIA XPOSED 8/16]

Anti-Piracy Service/"Project Guard" [UPDATED W/ LINK TO DISABLE IT VIA XPOSED 8/16]
If you use any of the following apps:
(List Updated 8/14)
-- Freedom
-- Lucky Patcher
-- Black Mart
-- All in one Downloader
-- Get APK Market
-- CreeHack
-- Game Hacker
Either do not flash any of the ROMs in the list below which have a trojan "Anti-Piracy" Service implemented or use one_minus_one's Xposed module (link above) to disable it.
(List Updated 8/14)
-- AICP (Confirmed)
-- Exodus (Confirmed)
-- Broken OS 3.0
-- OrionLP V1.3
The devs of AICP and custom ROMs such as exodus (a new ROM based on Cyanogen from the vanir devs, that is available for klte and kltespr) and others are implementing what is effectively an Anti-Piracy trojan in their ROMs that they call "Project Guard".
Project Guard is a service that runs in the background and literally blocks you from installing the APKs associated with these apps. And it doesn't stop there. Apparently Project Guard was having talk of banning both Aptoide and XPOSED in these ROMs. Thankfully, this was voted down but Aptoide was still on the table as far as I heard last. The fact that even the idea of banning Xposed from AOSP ROMs in order to stop it's users from pirating was even discussed, is frankly surreal to me and out of control. It's shameful. Not sure why the developers felt the need to implement this trivial and easily bypassed "feature" but it goes against everything I thought the AOSP stood for. While it is easy enough to bypass this service using third party apps or a hex editor, I do not wish to support any developers that would stoop to this level of greed. If you want money for your code, I totally understand, but this is AOSP not apple and there is a time and place for everything. Please, don't take out your misplaced aggression at software pirates on the AOSP. Because, although this may be just a little bit of code to you, to me it is the beginning of the end of AOSP. If you compromise your integrity now, it's a short trip from here to bloatware with a monthly subscription fee. In a modern internet climate that is becoming increasingly controlled and corporatized, AOSP is a beacon of hope to me. A reminder that technology belongs to the many and not the few. This decision spits in the face of that hope. People will say i'm being dramatic but this is a huge deal to me and if you care about having the freedom to do what you want with your phone, which i'm pretty sure most of you do, then this should be a big deal to you too. I thought I could trust AOSP developers to do the right thing but apparently they feel that it's their place to decide which apps I can and cannot install. If you care about having the freedom to do why you wish with your phone, I urge you not to flash this ROM, or any ROM that would compromise its integrity by adding code that is meant to control its users. This is the kind of thing that made us choose AOSP in the first place. It doesn't even make logical sense to implement things like this in an open source ROM, as inevitably new versions of the ROM will be released with this ridiculous code removed. I am seriously disappointed as AICP was one of my favorite ROMs. The developers of AICP and the other affected ROMs have the right to do whatever they want(within legal boundaries) with their code as creators of intellectual property but as an AOSP user you have the right to flash a ROM with a little more integrity.
*Update 8/14*
This is directly from the Project Guard Official Github Page:
"NOTE: Please report new piracy markets and malware to me or any of the others involved with this project. Pull requests are also welcome. For ROM developers interested in using this it makes more sense to track this project directly and then bridge into an existing package with correct perms (like settings). This way any changes made here to the blacklisted packages and improvements will reach out to everyone."
This "note", written in huge font right on the Project Guard Github main page, begs the question;
So what exactly is the criteria for a "Piracy Market"?
Any market that contains software that will help or allow you to pirate software? That's my best guess at the projects aim, HOWEVER, they have provided, as far as I can tell, ZERO criteria for what constitutes a "Piracy Market". A "Piracy Market" may include Aptoide but it could also include the Google Playstore. You see the problem here? This is much too arbitrary and relative to be efficient in stopping piracy and much more likely to hurt developers, especially seeing as anyone who knows how to pirate, can also learn to bypass this service with a quick Google search. I did. What is going to happen is, legitimate software, or software that gives a user access to legitimate software, will end up being banned in these ROMs. This is a very dangerous mindset they have here. This could turn into a witch hunt or full blown technological McCarthyism.
Make no mistakes about it, as a user named "Bikas" pointed out on the OPO forums here, this is indeed a trojan.
According to wikipedia a computer trojan is defined as "any malicious computer program which misrepresent itself as useful, routine, or interesting in order to persuade a victim to install it". When someone downloads a custom ROM, especially AOSP, they assume they are gaining more freedom but in this case they are having it taken away. People trust AOSP devs and won't expect this to happen. Nobody expects to be controlled like this by a backround service in an AOSP custom ROM, therefore the entire ROM can be considered a trojan.
Wikipedia also states that if the trojan is "installed or run with elevated privileges a Trojan will generally have unlimited access. What it does with this power depends on the motives of the attacker." This also fits these ROMs. The ROMs DO have unlimited access to your phone and blocking you from installing a whole category of APKs is very malicious. In this case the "motives of the attacker" are to stop or curb piracy.
It is very clear that they,
A. Have unlimited access to your phone
B. Have clear motives
C. Are using this access without your permission to prevent you from installing apps that they have deemed "pirate markets", which is consistent with these motives.
Now ask yourself, are you okay with your ROM including a Trojan entirely based on the ROM developer's personal motives and political ideology, at the cost of your technological freedom to install whatever the hell you want? Software, especially AOSP ROMs, should be free of it's creator's bias and motives.
One more thing. It is of my opinion that the underlying reason for the creation of these "Anti-Piracy" ROMs is just money, or simply put, greed. I understand it can be frusterating when you put your blood, sweat and tears into an app or ROM and not only does nobody donate but they remove your advertisement's with an app like lucky patcher or complain that you aren't releasing nightlys often enough. I really do get that. But at the end of the day this thing is about money as virtually all "Anti-Piracy" groups, laws and efforts are. This is about forcing people to pay. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay, BUT THIS IS THE WRONG WAY TO ENFORCE IT.
-- Tipsy
-- SlimLP
-- SlimSaber
-- MinimalOS
-- CyanogenMod 12.1
-- Euphoria
-- Slimremix
-- Cmremix
-- Resurrection Remix
Don't take my word for it,
READ UP!

The apps you mention these ROM developers are trying to block are all to bypass google licensing.
In effect "getting paid apps for free"...
These ROM developers may also develop apps which could require payment/donation to use..
Why should they take out their anti piracy measures? I haven't looked into these roms personally, but i'd be happy to use them if they have info messages before installation to warn of such measures.
Just my two pennies
I support Anti-piracy where time and effort has been put into apps, and these guys are just asking for small donations to use their apps
EDIT: I disagree with banning the use of xposed within their ROMS, but i agree if they just do not want to support this.
Aptoide I partially disagree due to the fact some coutries do not have access to the Google Playstore, it is down to Aptoide ti implement anti piracy measures within their store app.
Regards

f0xy said:
The apps you mention these ROM developers are trying to block are all to bypass google licensing.
In effect "getting paid apps for free"...
These ROM developers may also develop apps which could require payment/donation to use..
Why should they take out their anti piracy measures? I haven't looked into these roms personally, but i'd be happy to use them if they have info messages before installation to warn of such measures.
Just my two pennies
I support Anti-piracy where time and effort has been put into apps, and these guys are just asking for small donations to use their apps
EDIT: I disagree with banning the use of xposed within their ROMS, but i agree if they just do not want to support this.
Aptoide I partially disagree due to the fact some coutries do not have access to the Google Playstore, it is down to Aptoide ti implement anti piracy measures within their store app.
Regards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The biggest problem is they have no designated criteria for what apps are to be banned and what apps aren't. They just ask the general public to go and snitch on apps that they think are "pirate markets".
I also am concerned that if we compromise and allow this to be the norm then we have just set out on a path ruin. If things like this are allowed next time it WILL be closed.
As I stated above, they have the right to do whatever they want with their ROM but I have the right to not flash it and to encourage others not to in order to protect AOSP from becoming something like touchwiz.

jujijoog said:
The biggest problem is they have no designated criteria for what apps are to be banned and what apps aren't. They just ask the general public to go and snitch on apps that they think are "pirate markets".
I also am concerned that if we compromise and allow this to be the norm then we have just set out on a path ruin. If things like this are allowed next time it WILL be closed.
As I stated above, they have the right to do whatever they want with their ROM but I have the right to not flash it and to encourage others not to in order to protect AOSP from becoming something like touchwiz.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without fully reading into this(no time at moment, at work! )
I can agree with your comments. Project Guard should not have the right to disallow users of roms to not run specific apps. I can understand what they are trying to do but they are going around it all the wrong ways.
I am now following the movement Anti - Contentguard

f0xy said:
The apps you mention these ROM developers are trying to block are all to bypass google licensing.
In effect "getting paid apps for free"...
These ROM developers may also develop apps which could require payment/donation to use..
Why should they take out their anti piracy measures? I haven't looked into these roms personally, but i'd be happy to use them if they have info messages before installation to warn of such measures.
Just my two pennies
I support Anti-piracy where time and effort has been put into apps, and these guys are just asking for small donations to use their apps
EDIT: I disagree with banning the use of xposed within their ROMS, but i agree if they just do not want to support this.
Aptoide I partially disagree due to the fact some coutries do not have access to the Google Playstore, it is down to Aptoide ti implement anti piracy measures within their store app.
Regards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
f0xy said:
Without fully reading into this(no time at moment, at work! )
I can agree with your comments. Project Guard should not have the right to disallow users of roms to not run specific apps. I can understand what they are trying to do but they are going around it all the wrong ways.
I am now following the movement Anti - Contentguard
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. I am not speaking out against Anti-Piracy, to do so would be to speak out against a persons right to intellectual property and capitalism as a whole really. I am speaking out against the intrusive method and implementation of Project Guard.

The main thing that concerns me on this matter is the fact that I like to try apps before I buy them. If the app is crap then I just uninstall it and don't worry with it after that. Some apps in the app store, and I have had problems with this, do not allow refunds once purchased. It is frustrating some times to just have nothing but screen shots that look awesome and a video that looks great, but you are the first one that sees the app and you buy it to only find out that it is nothing like described. I do personal ROM development from time to time and I would never allow anything like this in anything I do. It takes away from everything that is Linux. And yes android is Linux/UNIX based, so therefore should not be restricted as such. That is why Google implemented software that checks for pirated apps and won't allow you to use them if it sees certain checks that not even lucky patcher can bypass. My personal opinion on this matter is that there might be other reasons behind this code. If you analyze the code to be implemented, you will notice it connects to a server for verification of new apps added that are considered to be piracy apps and also to confirm the currently installed database. I know that some hackers use this type of ploy to gain access to your personal information because any time that you connect to a server with an app with full access to your device it can essentially get all the information saved on your device regardless of how secure you think it is. So keep that on mind. Take a look at their code on github and see for yourself.
Sent from my klte using Tapatalk

How will this effect folks in countries that crack down on the free flow of information like here in the US? Think it's more about control than it is money...ooopps, my bad, no such thing as money just notes. Imagine being paid in debt instruments for your labor, oh wait we already do and we love it; suckers!!
Prison Planet peace out!

This is epic!

The time you have spent to make this post was more than enough to learn how to compile rom from source and build it without this so called Trojan that helps the app devs.
And if we added a Trojan, you wouldn't even know it

@jujijoog
You are totaly right. How can the devs only dare, trying to protect us against breaking the laws rules.
What those piracy apps does is simply stealing.
You are taking someones right for money.
This is simply an anti-thief prevention.
Now ask yourself. Is it okay to steal things. Is it okay to steal money?
You say, they have clear motives.
So you have.
When your "freedom" is about stealing, i hope you end up in jail.
Sincerely,
mono

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=62363666
no more and no less
HGT - S5 G900F - ONEPLUS ONE - TESLA TTL7 - Windows 10
---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:00 ----------
A page for thieves, nice.
HGT - S5 G900F - ONEPLUS ONE - TESLA TTL7 - Windows 10

Again in plain text
Tell me an app which does not have full access to my phone,
1, SuperSU and all Google Apps, then Facebook, Whatsapp, Viber and so on.
Each shi... app has access if they want to. Your argument is not an argument.
I'm more afraid of Google + + + and stolen apps as of the Anti Piracy code.
many Problems come from Google
http://blog.exodusintel.com/2015/08/13/stagefright-mission-accomplished/

LorD ClockaN said:
The time you have spent to make this post was more than enough to learn how to compile rom from source and build it without this so called Trojan that helps the app devs.
And if we added a Trojan, you wouldn't even know it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well if you read my post you would understand that I'm not concerned about bypassing content guard. In fact i made it painfully obvious when I stated how easy it is to do just that, in the first paragraph....
What I am concerned about is compromising the integrity of AOSP.
One thing you cannot argue is that this is a precedent and I fear that this precedent has "awakened a sleeping giant" and could be the catalyst for something much worse. I'm not going to re-explain myself because you were either too lazy to read my whole post or too ignorant to comprehend it.
monochro100 said:
@jujijoog
You are totaly right. How can the devs only dare, trying to protect us against breaking the laws rules.
What those piracy apps does is simply stealing.
You are taking someones right for money.
This is simply an anti-thief prevention.
Now ask yourself. Is it okay to steal things. Is it okay to steal money?
You say, they have clear motives.
So you have.
When your "freedom" is about stealing, i hope you end up in jail.
Sincerely,
mono
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You hope I end up in jail because I have a philosophical disagreement about what open source ROM content should be? Calm down bro.
And you are god damn right I have clear motives.
Talk about stating the obvious, LOL.
It's not like I pretended this was an unbiased research post.
My freedom is not about stealing, its about not having code in my ROM that does nothing for me but control me.
Content guard has the potential to stop much more than pirating.
It is already blocking access to legitimate apps and apps that provide access to legitimate apps.
I HAVE STATED BEFORE THAT I AM NOT OPPOSING ANTI-PIRACY MEASURES AS A WHOLE I AM PROTESTING THIS PARTICULAR METHOD OF ANTI-PIRACY IMPLEMENTATION AS I THINK IT IS DANGEROUS.
HorstiG said:
Again in plain text
Tell me an app which does not have full access to my phone,
1, SuperSU and all Google Apps, then Facebook, Whatsapp, Viber and so on.
Each shi... app has access if they want to. Your argument is not an argument.
I'm more afraid of Google + + + and stolen apps as of the Anti Piracy code.
many Problems come from Google
http://blog.exodusintel.com/2015/08/13/stagefright-mission-accomplished/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a ridiculous argument because although those apps have full access to your phone, NONE OF THEM DO ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO AS MALICIOUS AS CONTENT GUARD! Super SU simply gives the user privileges while Content Guard takes them away. To compare them in this way is frankly hilarious as they are actually great examples of a polar opposites.
Wow this is the best you Pro Content-Guard types got?
Can someone who has actually graduated from high school please come at me?

@jujijoog
You're a pompous ass and an instigator to theft, no more and no less.
I hope the post is closed here

HorstiG said:
@jujijoog
You're a pompous ass and an instigator to theft, no more and no less.
I hope the post is closed here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How am I an instigator to theft because I oppose the implementation of some code that I believe could cause AOSP to lose integrity and worsen? How many times do I have to say that I am not defending pirating software nor am I helping to do so. I may be helping to throw up road blocks to measures against it but even that I doubt as there was an exposed module made completely independent of my influence as well as several methods developed for bypassing content guard before I even knew it existed. What im getting at is that regardless of what I say or do content guard would have been made useless. Its the unintended side effects I'm worried about. The people behind this project were discussing banning xposed as a way of stopping a bypass. If they are willing to do something that damaging to the xda community then they are a problem. Do you not agree?
Do you think xposed should be banned? Really? Did you even read my post? What are you even reacting to, what you are saying makes no sense in the context of my post. I think by "you are a pompous ass", what you really meant was "I don't understand your post because I'm ignorant and that makes me insecure, scared and upset". Why would my post be b&? What possible reason would a mod find to b& my post. As far as I know XDA isn't in the business of censorship. I'm sure you would love to be though. You're the one that's more likely to get banned for name calling. Grow up.
What's up with all the name calling? If you don't agree with me then explain why as any intelligent, respectable adult would, this isn't a YouTube comment section.

LorD ClockaN said:
The time you have spent to make this post was more than enough to learn how to compile rom from source and build it without this so called Trojan that helps the app devs.
And if we added a Trojan, you wouldn't even know it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By the way, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth? When did I say this was helping app devs? Although its irresponsible of the app devs to agree to implement this I am not under the illusion that content guard was created by them. Its clear who is ultimately behind this and its not the app devs. However any app dev that allows this becomes, in their passivity, an agent of negative change to the whole Android dev scene. And I didn't know you added this until it blocked my install. All Trojans become apparent after they execute their malicious intent, with the exception of like a data mining trojan so I'm not sure what you mean?
P.S Funny you should mention I actually am working on a ROM right now. When I drop it I'll shoot you a link.

People just aren't wanting to listen. They aren't realizing the full affect this is going to have on the community. The devs working on getting xposed to work well with 5.1 are busting their butts to make it work and then someone comes along and tries to restrict the use of our ROMs. No where has anyone said that they are supporting piracy. You don't need apps like blackmart alpha, aptoid or anything of such to get free apps. If someone were to support piracy, then it is up to that individual. Like we say in the military, to each his own. Like I have said before, since this connects to a server for checks, we don't know what all it is capable of. And none of this " well facebook and other apps do the same thing and could do more damage! ". Yes we all know this, but there is a catch to that argument ..... We choose to install that software and understand the risk. They are not forced upon us or hidden like a piece of Turkey jerky mixed with beef. And from my understanding this code is going to be hidden in settings as well.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk

What difference is this privacy guard going to make. People will just Google apks instead. I can't see where this is going. And this xposed module is made.
This is exactly the like of the story of the BPI. Greedy people trying to monopolise the market. What happened to AOSP's freedom. Well people have gone round the privacy measures.
Let's say Google Play doesn't allow an app for instance Adaway. Where am I going to get it officially? From their site or a market he uploads it to. There are genuine apps on there which are because of Google's terms. Most of them are pirated (which I don't condom at all).
With these new rules go ahead and block Google Play. There are unmonitored apps on there which can allow you to download music. Why can't you? Oh yeah, the greed.
I'm pretty sure this is a evasion of the users privacy. Even Windows 10 allowed you to change default settings and stop feedback; this change would be illegal which is why Windows 7 came with a browser choice update to allow other browser vendors.
Yup roms with this content guard BREAKS THE GPL. You cannot upload roms on XDA which break GPL [emoji12]

XDA_h3n said:
What difference is this privacy guard going to make. People will just Google apks instead. I can't see where this is going. And this xposed module is made.
This is exactly the like of the story of the BPI. Greedy people trying to monopolise the market. What happened to AOSP's freedom. Well people have gone round the privacy measures.
Let's say Google Play doesn't allow an app for instance Adaway. Where am I going to get it officially? From their site or a market he uploads it to. There are genuine apps on there which are because of Google's terms. Most of them are pirated (which I don't condom at all).
With these new rules go ahead and block Google Play. There are unmonitored apps on there which can allow you to download music. Why can't you? Oh yeah, the greed.
I'm pretty sure this is a evasion of the users privacy. Even Windows 10 allowed you to change default settings and stop feedback; this change would be illegal which is why Windows 7 came with a browser choice update to allow other browser vendors.
Yup roms with this content guard BREAKS THE GPL. You cannot upload roms on XDA which break GPL [emoji12]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said my friend. People don't really think about that kind of stuff usually though. That's how privacy guard came about. Lol
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk

XDA_h3n said:
What difference is this privacy guard going to make. People will just Google apks instead. I can't see where this is going. And this xposed module is made.
This is exactly the like of the story of the BPI. Greedy people trying to monopolise the market. What happened to AOSP's freedom. Well people have gone round the privacy measures.
Let's say Google Play doesn't allow an app for instance Adaway. Where am I going to get it officially? From their site or a market he uploads it to. There are genuine apps on there which are because of Google's terms. Most of them are pirated (which I don't condom at all).
With these new rules go ahead and block Google Play. There are unmonitored apps on there which can allow you to download music. Why can't you? Oh yeah, the greed.
I'm pretty sure this is a evasion of the users privacy. Even Windows 10 allowed you to change default settings and stop feedback; this change would be illegal which is why Windows 7 came with a browser choice update to allow other browser vendors.
Yup roms with this content guard BREAKS THE GPL. You cannot upload roms on XDA which break GPL [emoji12]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well its definitely an invasion of privacy as far as im concerned but what constitutes an invasion of privacy is a matter of perspective. Do you think it is possible that content guard technically breaks any of googles TOS or possibly even privacy laws? Im not too familiar with legislation like this if it does exist. Much of the post 9/11 legislation has been aimed at making things like content guard more legal unfortunately. Several people I mentioned this to on another forum I frequent pointed out the windows 10 connection. Everyone agreed that content guard is a much more malicious implementation of Anti-Piracy code. You are right, people will just google or torrent apks, that is until Content Guard 2.0 blocks the installation of sideloaded apps, xposed and Installation of all apks via ADB (Just Kidding).
Edit: I just notice the last line about GPL. I had missed that. Is that true or are you just being facetious?
lunerceli said:
Well said my friend. People don't really think about that kind of stuff usually though. That's how privacy guard came about. Lol
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im honestly kind of shocked that more people dont see, or at least care about the possible negative implications of something like this. I figured on a forum like XDA, support for an anti content guard movement would be mostly unanimous but it seems to be pretty well devided which actually makes things a little more interesting.