Database Develop

Spotify

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/spotifys-android-app-should-frighten-apple/
Anyone know if this app is out yet? Its only available to UK and some other countries. But I would like to get it working over in the US. I've never used the service before but it looks damn cool.

No, it's not been released anywhere yet to my knowledge...

There was an app released to Market yesterday and removed today Called Droidify, did anybody dl it and would be willing to share it?
http://getsatisfaction.com/spotify/...t?utm_medium=widget&utm_source=widget_spotify

I've downloaded Droidify and removed it right away because it asked for a premium account.

Yeah I was trying to locate it as well and to no avail.

Droidify
Here's Droidify I have from backup.
You DO have to have a premium account for full access.
It's a zip files, so I think you will need to unzip it, put it on your sdcard, then install from there.
(MODS: If this is inappropriate, please feel free to delete this message. I don't think it is because it was a free application).

so, how are we gonna get this to work in the states? proxy?

innerspace said:
so, how are we gonna get this to work in the states? proxy?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's why I removed it.
I just happened to have a copy because I had backed up before doing a flash.

I was able to get spotify working on my computer but I get a force close with droidify while trying to log in and I'm in the us by the way.

to clarify...
The RIAA is slowly killing anything decent as far as web-based apps like pandora and is currently bogging down spotify's entry into the US market in an attempt to basically blackmail them into unreasonable and exorbitant royalty scales which (IMO) are entirely designed to "prop-up" and perpetuate a bloated, ineffective and out of touch industry. So my question is, for those of us that have the spotify apk, or have the droidify apk, will they stream to US based IPs? Or will the transmission be blocked (as it implies on spotify's homepage) and if it is, is there a nifty way to route the traffic through a proxy based overseas so the US users can actually enjoy this innovative app instead of being locked out by the corporate, capitalist will of the RIAA?

innerspace said:
The RIAA is slowly killing anything decent as far as web-based apps like pandora and is currently bogging down spotify's entry into the US market in an attempt to basically blackmail them into unreasonable and exorbitant royalty scales which (IMO) are entirely designed to "prop-up" and perpetuate a bloated, ineffective and out of touch industry. So my question is, for those of us that have the spotify apk, or have the droidify apk, will they stream to US based IPs? Or will the transmission be blocked (as it implies on spotify's homepage) and if it is, is there a nifty way to route the traffic through a proxy based overseas so the US users can actually enjoy this innovative app instead of being locked out by the corporate, capitalist will of the RIAA?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here's a link that let me set up spotify on my computer in the us
http://tinyurl.com/q9khoo

thx for the link
Think I'll play with it a bit and see what all the fuss is about. If I like it enough I suppose the monthly fee would be worth it. A lot more functionality here with custom playlists, caching of playlists on my mobile and whatnot. I'm currently a Pandora subscriber, spotify is offering everything I wish they could, though their pricing is much more attractive. I wonder if spotify would balk at the use of a US credit card?

The site allows you to download the official app manually if you're having problems with the market, so here it is. Still need a premium account, though. The download was free and since you need to pay to use the service, I don't think I'm doing anything bad by posting it here...

Rather pissed off I have to have a pay account, because they wont take american credit cards

Should apps be only PAID in WP?

Was reminiscing my HD7 days again...
When I had my HD7, most of the apps were, I will be honest, paid. Now before you pull the trigger on me, let me explain something.
A. I am not against paying for an app.
B. But is it necessary that a good app SHOULD b paid? (WhatsApp, Flipboard)
C. Many people do consider this as a deal-breaker before buying a phone. (My boss is one of them, to an extent I'm too.)
D. By good app, I don't mean mind-blowing 3D games. But basic apps like the ones mentioned above.
Shouldn't MS, being MS make deals with other brands and give the buyer some relief?
Opinions, view points, perspectives now welcome. :Z
Sent from my RaZr Nexus.

Apps are created to make money - or at least most of them are.
That being said there are different ways an App can make money:
1.) It connects to a service and by it's existence promotes that service or makes it easier to use that service. In those cases the service behind the App pays for the App. (Twitter, Facebook, etc. are prime examples)
2.) Advertisments - this is the route most free Apps to my knowledge take on the Play Store. Pretty obvious how this works but I actually would rather pay 99 Cent instead of having an advertisment in my face all the time.
3.) In App Purchases - those will come with WP8 but in my experience are most often used in a way that you get a basic App with severly limited functionality which is then made functional through those expensive purchases. I personally prefer to have a price upfront so I can decide if the App is worth it.
All in all and working in software development myself I believe that good apps should be payed and I do believe that they actually should cost more than they do today. People whining over a price tag of 99 Cents for something they are going to use every day. Buy a coke at McDonalds and you pay pretty much the same for it without much whining that it should be free. Most developers don't make much money on Apps (WP or otherwise) with prices being what they are. This is by the way one of the reasons why many developers go iOS first - iPhone users are far more likely to pay for an App than Android users (looking at the statistics).
Prices being what they are Microsoft and Nokia in certain regions added a gift card to phone purchases worth 20$/€. This might be an interesting strategy for the future as well.

No, the phone itself was probably expensive enough.
The monthly bill is probably more than you are getting out of it.
Where does it stop ?
Television was once free in many places, now I believe everybody pays for it.
If you want "premiuim" channels you pay more again.
We pay for internet connections.
If the developer of an application wants to charge for it so be it, if he wants it to be free so be it.
Freedom of choice.
LL13-

When TV is free it is paid for by the country that operates it. Somewhere someone has to pay for it. If it is payed through taxes you also pay for it although you might not notice. Pay-TV-channels are new - which means: they would not exist were they not payed. It is the same for many of those Apps. If Microsoft were to intervene to get certain Apps for free on the platform they would have to regain that cost somewhere which perhaps would drive up the per-unit-pricing of the phones.
I'm not trying to force people to make their App payed, of course it's the developers choice. But all this whining about 99 Cents for a good App you use frequently just has to stop. Effort goes into making those Apps, people spend time implementing and polishing them. They should receive something for that.

Soo, here i am thinking about the newest (and first) WP8 phone ever announced, the Samsung (insert weird name here).
Now on android i am having 90~ apps that i use daily.. now i am pretty sure i'll find them once the OS get's released but if everything will be paid that's a dealbreaker for me.. i don't want to pay too much for a phone and (0.99$ per app) 90~ $ more.
So nope, for me they should be free, actually app developers should decide.

Most of the apps on my last 3 wp7s were paid and most of them were awful. I do not mind paying for apps at all.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

lamplighter13 said:
Television was once free in many places, now I believe everybody pays for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If your in the US, TV is free if you can live with the programming you will get. FCC mandates that all HDTV channels (non premium channels)are broadcasted over the air.
Depending on where you live you can get some but, you might only get a few (I get 4 and not the major networks but, it is free)
Not everyone pays for it...but, most people pay because they want more than 5-7 channels.
As for the topic on hand. I think there should be free apps, some apps I will never use if I can't try them.

It amazes me how cheap some people are! Devs work there nuts off to bring you apps and you don't think they should get paid for that hard work?
MS will NEVER demand that all apps be paid apps that's crazy1 They limit the daily submissions to stop crapware like soundboards that plague the play store. Its a choice the dev makes and most offer you the choice with free versions supported by adds or paid versions (supertube for instance). The WP market place even has a section for free apps and games etc and some rock (archery for one).
All in all i think MS has done a great job keeping app standards high. They could of gone the Android route and let anything pass just to get the numbers up but they didnt! Also not MS offer trials when android and ios normally have lite versions though i see more slipping into the market.

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

VidCast - Bookmarklet for Casting MP4/WebM videos

Seen this on Reddit, works pretty good for MP4 and WebM videos for sites like Vimeo.
https://dabble.me/cast
*I should mention this only works with Chrome at the moment.

I wish there was some way to use this for Amazon Prime video....casting the full tab isn't a great option for me. Of course a mobile app would be the real answer but Amazon just won't do it!

primetime34 said:
I wish there was some way to use this for Amazon Prime video....casting the full tab isn't a great option for me. Of course a mobile app would be the real answer but Amazon just won't do it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree. Amazon Instant Video is pretty much the only thing my TiVos and TV have over Chromecast for my intended use.

r00t4rd3d said:
Seen this on Reddit, works pretty good for MP4 and WebM videos for sites like Vimeo.
https://dabble.me/cast
*I should mention this only works with Chrome at the moment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
List of working sites:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Chromecast/comments/1x5ik0/send_vimeo_ted_facebook_etc_from_the_desktop_to/
Creators Twitter:
https://twitter.com/@parterburn

Amazing, youporn works. Thanks!

I wish it would work for watchespn

uncrx2003 said:
I wish it would work for watchespn
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMEN!! WatchESPN, along with WatchDisney Junior, are the two channels that I have been wanting more than ANY other channel out there! I'm a huge college football fan and although I've got a pretty nice channel lineup and sports package via Charter, there are still games out there that just simply aren't offered around here on Charter. In addition to WatchESPN, I have a 4 yr old son and like how I used to be when I was younger and how most other kids his age are, he LOVES to watch cartoons, especially the likes of Disney Junior, Cartoon Network, Sprout, etc. The WatchDisney Junior channel coming to the Chromecast would just make my (and my son's) day. I think the only thing holding it back is probably having to do something with licensing issues because if you've ever tried to view WatchESPN or WatchDisney on your computer, you must log-in to their service by typing in your cable tv service provider login info before being able to view those channels.
:good:

jsdecker10 said:
I think the only thing holding it back is probably having to do something with licensing issues because if you've ever tried to view WatchESPN or WatchDisney on your computer, you must log-in to their service by typing in your cable tv service provider login info before being able to view those channels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Likely there would be an app like HBO GO, which requires you to do the provider login on your phone/tablet during setup.
As always, be sure to contact the content provider to request support. Unlikely you'll get a response, but hopefully your vote will be counted.

It works very well for me at this www.mistreci.al with movreel and uptobox thats what i needed
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

bhiga said:
Likely there would be an app like HBO GO, which requires you to do the provider login on your phone/tablet during setup.
As always, be sure to contact the content provider to request support. Unlikely you'll get a response, but hopefully your vote will be counted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that many of the content providers who rely on Cable Company Sub payments are very hesitant to release content for use on Big Screens (which CCast support basically is) which could hurt their Subscription fees later on due to the Chord Cutters taking the cheaper route to their content.
One of the Major hold ups with Time Warner and CBS in that last contract battle was over rights to Internet streaming.
Time Warner wanted the rights to them but CBS wanted to hold on to it for further sales to companies like NetFlix and Hulu or even for their own sites (which the three major nets do now) To a OTA broadcaster it's easier to keep their content free because the content has already been paid for via the Advertising and the goal is to hook more viewers to the shows on their Network.
But someone like ESPN, HBO and SHOWTIME, they are highly dependent on Cable Subs and therefore can't just put the content out there so will likely require a Cable Subscription/Login to view because if they did it on their own without such a subscription or tried to do subscriptions on their own it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face plus add the cost of a Subscription support department they have to pay to maintain their own sub service. So those companies are likely to remain a Cable Sub only service.
This is the one thing Chord Cutters will have to deal with, Sure you can get the OTA stuff and some stuff from low rated networks trying to lure people to their content but the stuff you REALLY want will almost always require a Cable Sub to get.
I have been in quite a few meetings where this is discussed and while the greed makes them think about offering their own ala carte subscription model they quickly realize that no one is going to pay as much for HBO on HBO's website as they currently get from the Cable companies themselves.
And if the Cable companies decide they are not worth having on their system anymore these companies like HBO stand to lose their shirts!
So they back down quickly.
Just a quick comment on the Amazon Prime thing....
I think this may be a sign that things between Google and Amazon are not as rosy as they probably should be.
You would think Amazon Prime was all over this from day one but apparently not.
Now that the SDK is public I expect to see something from them in the future.

Good points. It's not easy to understand the policies and actions of all the parties involved unless you know something about the business model from their point of view.
BTW, it's "cord cutters", not "chord cutters", as in cable = cord. Chord usually refers to music or geometry, but in any case nothing to do with this topic.

Re: Amazon - I wonder if they are coming up with a media box solution too. Could explain their reluctance.
WhisperCast?
Of course Canadians ignore them because they offer no media content here. Which is strange as they're selling these walled-garden Amazon tablets with beautiful screens in Canadian stores, and nothing but Netflix & YouTube to watch on them.

De-Google-ing my Note 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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