Comments on: Google Introduces Licensing Service for Paid Android Applications

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 12:35:21 +0000

Not great for a paid up user. One of my paid apps (which I’ve been using 4 months) invoked Google License Check today and failed repeatedly (with Internet access). App wouldn’t start, I couldn’t get at my data. Un-installed app, will never buy from this dev again and will be much more cautious about entrusting any important data to any other Google Android apps in case they retrospectively decide not to work. YMMV.

By: bartholemew

bartholemew — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:24:48 +0000

@43. concerned:

“I tell you now. The first time I get a hiccup, with any app due to this, I delete it and never use it again. will also go to every site that has it listed and give it a bad review.”

Childish.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:33:47 +0000

@G11:
Nope, “they all use remote servers” is not correct, for example:

Copilot offers full offline navigation (you just won’t get the “Live services”), the maps are downloaded once (is done manually from the Copilot interface) and then stay on the SD, when you are connected you can choose to update them.

Same goes for NDrive and for NavDroyd although I still did not test those two.

I do not see a technical reason why full offline nav should not be available on a smartphone, Tomtom was offering a full fledged nav app for the early Symbian phones S60 ~5 years ago, so the HW requirements are fully met. Of course online integrated services add a convenient layer of niceness but I want navigation to work even when I have no connection at all.

Outside the Android world offline navigation exists, among others is offered by Nokia with the Ovi Maps app and it works nicely.

Regarding the paid apps support I suppose indeed the different legal systems make it a nightmare, yet I believe that the Apple appstore and the Ovi one support more country than currently Android does.

By: G11

G11 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:45:08 +0000

You guys seem to be forgetting you simply can’t start selling apps in every country in the world. There tons of national/international, import laws, etc. It’s simply not that simple as flipping a switch and saying “here you go world, download away”. Apple has the same issue with apps being nationally exclusive.

@Frank:
While I get your point, a navigation app is a poor example as they all use remote servers to download maps and even do the route calculations. They are completely useless without a data connection. If that’s a concern you need a more traditional GPS device (garmin/tomtom) that uses local storage for maps.

By: concerned

concerned — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:41:03 +0000

Any DRM is bad in my opinion. I feel like I own an iphone now. Leaves so many questions.

How does this effect SD card apps?

What about people who can’t purchase in some countries? As I have friends in countries who can’t get Root Explorer the legal way. So now if the rom they can’t change anything?

What keeps someone from just flat out stealing the code for your app and making their own without the DRM feature and making their own app not found in the market?

What happens when I have no service?

What about my data charges?

Can I still modify apps? Like change the icon and repack it?

The list goes on, etc…

I feel for developers but the net has shown that piracy it not something that can be stopped and I feel it never will.

I tell you now. The first time I get a hiccup, with any app due to this, I delete it and never use it again. will also go to every site that has it listed and give it a bad review.

I WILL not sacrifice freedom for security!

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 09:42:56 +0000

Reduced piracy might help devs to make a buck from their apps motivating them to invest more time in app development and maintenance and we could see a proliferation of quality, maintained, apps, so I welcome the service.
However much more than from this service I would see a positive impact on increasing app sales coming from making payed apps available in more countries.

What I’d like to be sure is that with this service we are not introducing another point of failure for apps, ***I do not like the assumption that my phone will be almost always connected***, I’m very often abroad and data roaming is not a viable option in Europe. The license cache needs to be very tolerant on offline period and I hope that devs will realize this when setting their caching time limits.

For example if I pay for a navigation app I want to be sure that it won’t happen that some license cache expires at the end of my holiday when I’m supposed to drive back 1200 KM across 6 countries.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:48:05 +0000

The app should be digitally signed to the gmail account you use on the phone that way it would work whether or not you have network access…

In other words – this isn’t a grate idea.

By: ari-free

ari-free — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:07:58 +0000

It may be silly for simple apps but if we want more game developers like gameloft and EA to come to Android, Google has to be there for them.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 03:19:30 +0000

Verifying at every single launch of the application is pointless, ridiculous, and a waste of bandwidth. The only time there should ever need to be any kind of verification is at the point at which the application is initially installed, or upgraded, or simply the first run of the application after those events. The bandwidth cap opponents will have a field day with apps that generate data traffic at every single launch, just for license verification.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:09:55 +0000

I googled a pirated version of my app a few days after I released it, with the forum moderator giving a “good job” approval to the uploader. At first, I was pissed off, but a few seconds later I let it go. If a few people wanna steal my app, then fine. They don’t get automatic updates, and they weren’t gonna pay for it anyway. I don’t think I’ll be using this protection scheme, at least not for simple apps.

By: Terrell

Terrell — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:11:23 +0000

I encourage this. I’m not a dev but this will make the more skilled devs more confident in developing quality apps for Android.

By: eazail70x7

eazail70x7 — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:58:50 +0000

Only problem is sometimes I get stuck at “authorizing purchase” on purchased apps and am forced to find the apk to get it. They should at least fix this problem first I hope. PSX4Droid for example was the last one that I tryed to buy and this happened. Had to get it else where. I was willing to pay for it though.

By: AbruptDemise

AbruptDemise — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:17:46 +0000

I support this change, if it’s done right and the default cache time is something decent.

This will stop the casual pirate, and that’s it’s goal. No DRM measure will truly stomp out piracy, just lower it if properly designed.

This places some app control (who runs the paid version) back where it belongs, in the hands of the developer.

By: TheMobileWorx

TheMobileWorx — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:53:10 +0000

@Matt, @Nikesh – Do you guys want to try to take a stab at breaking our antipiracy protection scheme running in some of our apps? Here are a few hints before you take it on. It is 256bit encrypted, does NOT return just a yea or nea, and the byte code translation between the Java and PHP interop is enough to add a fair amount of security through obscurity icing on the cake goodness. ;) Someone good enough to even do this has to ask themself, is it really worth all of the time just to enable the theft of a 99 cent app? What kind of glory are they really getting? hahaha

By: Sal

Sal — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:25:05 +0000

I like it. They are basically providing an easy way for developers to protect their products against pirating but it’s up to each individual developer to freely choose if and how they use it.