Google Straightens Out Its Stance On Paid Apps 55
Julie188 writes "When the Android Market began offering paid apps last month, developers with the unlocked version of Google's Android phone quickly learned that they couldn't access them. The policy, which threatened to alienate the small developer base that Google needs to nurture at all costs, didn't make much sense. And now, with the release of Version 1.1 of Android for the developer phone, developers can access paid apps — as long as they aren't copy-protected. But in a weird way, that's good news. Very few developers currently copy-protect their Android apps simply because Android's copy-protection scheme is notoriously weak."
Re:People like to be locked in? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:People like to be locked in? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, yes it does.
Have you been following the android dev work for it though?
One of the more recent images even had GPRS working...
Re:People like to be locked in? (Score:1, Informative)
iphone/Android vs open general purpose device that doesn't need a sim card to work.
Android is not a device it is a software platform that can be installed on different devices. The number of devices is not yet large, but there already are some open devices on which you can run it. And Android does not need a sim card to work. You can connect an Android phone to a WiFi access point.
Re:application for running applications (Score:2, Informative)
Wouldn't work. Under the Android security model, apps run as different UNIX users. They don't have access to each other's secret bits. "Secret bits" includes the APK itself if the app is copyrighted.
Re:"Paid Apps" (Score:4, Informative)
Apps have two "flags" that can be set:
* Paid -- a payment is required.
* Copy Protected -- The user isn't allowed to copy the app.
With ADP1.1, you can see and download applications as long as they don't have the copy protection flag turned on.
This means you can purchase apps or download the free ones; unless the app is copy protected.
This is because the copy protection is simply filesystem based: the apps are placed in a directory only root can access.
If you have an ADP1.1, the you can access this copy protected directory.
Google claimed that they deliberately didn't do "forward-locking" because it was error prone and ruined the experience for users.
Ciao!
Re:Bullshit spin, keeps many producers out of mark (Score:3, Informative)
From a technical perspective this comes about from the app DRM just being about protected folders which developers can access, Google needs a more solid solution.
There is no more solid solution. ADP phones got root, and the OS is fully open source (no HDMI-like "protected path").
End of story.