Wareseeker[dot]com leaching apps from the Market

by Incognito » Fri, 02 Apr 2010 06:29:33 GMT


Sponsored Links
 Att seems to have a practical aproach, just do not allow installs from outside 
the android market. Seems like a necessary evil.




What really sucks is when your paid apps start showing up there too.
Over 35% (and climbing) of my installs of my paid app are from pirated
sources.

I would give my new seeded N1 back in a heartbeat in exchange for an
Android market that solved piracy in a meaningful way.  I'm sure
Google is working on something, but good lord things over there feel
like they take forever sometimes!



On Mar 31, 4:58 pm, Tobias Eisentraeger <teisentrae...@googlemail.com>


Hello List,

Two of my free apps from the market got listed today at the website
wareseeker[dot]com.

I did not consent to publish there, nobody ever asked for my permission. I
have contacted them through their contact form and via direct email, but no
answer since about 8 hours. Does anyone have a phonenumber of them? The
download count goes up.

I believe that no website has the right to distribute another developers
software without the consent, even if its free in the official android
market.

You might wanna check if your apps are on there too.

http://pda[dot]wareseeker[dot]com

Any thoughts?

--



Wareseeker[dot]com leaching apps from the Market

by Incognito » Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:38:01 GMT


 I know. The idea is evilish. It may be necessary though. Maybe a small price to 
pay to combat piracy. You do know that in the USA AT&T is already doing this 
right? Surprised I haven't heard the cries for war. 




Doing that would mean you couldn't list your app on alternative markets and get 
access to all the users on devices which Google hasn't approved and therefore 
don't have Market installed.

Al.
--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try  http://andappstore.com/  *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number  
6741909. 

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily 
those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.




Att seems to have a practical aproach, just do not allow installs from outside 
the android market. Seems like a necessary evil.




What really sucks is when your paid apps start showing up there too.
Over 35% (and climbing) of my installs of my paid app are from pirated
sources.

I would give my new seeded N1 back in a heartbeat in exchange for an
Android market that solved piracy in a meaningful way.  I'm sure
Google is working on something, but good lord things over there feel
like they take forever sometimes!



On Mar 31, 4:58 pm, Tobias Eisentraeger <teisentrae...@googlemail.com>


Hello List,

Two of my free apps from the market got listed today at the website
wareseeker[dot]com.

I did not consent to publish there, nobody ever asked for my permission. I
have contacted them through their contact form and via direct email, but no
answer since about 8 hours. Does anyone have a phonenumber of them? The
download count goes up.

I believe that no website has the right to distribute another developers
software without the consent, even if its free in the official android
market.

You might wanna check if your apps are on there too.

http://pda[dot]wareseeker[dot]com

Any thoughts?

--


Sponsored Links


Wareseeker[dot]com leaching apps from the Market

by Incognito » Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:40:49 GMT


  don't think you are loosing customers.    They are not really the type who 
will benefit from alternative markets because they already have access to the
main market. Pretty simple solution to limit most piracy. Remember that most
piracy is done by regular folks who find it easier to pirate something then to
buy it. I.e. Download a song from lime wire. Is really easy, you do not even
have to sign in or open an account. Now, people will still be able to pirate
apps if they root their phone. However, most people wont want to go to all that
trouble just to save a couple of bucks. Is easier to just pay for the app.

Wow, the more i talk about this the better it sounds. I suspect that other
companies will follow AT&T's example. Is a win, win situation, even for the
customer.



On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:44 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:

We just explain it's AT&Ts' decision so they should talk to them and request a
method for removing the restriction :).

Al.
--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number
6741909.

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily
those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.

On 2 Apr 2010, at 07:37, Incognito wrote:

I know. The idea is evilish. It may be necessary though. Maybe a small price to
pay to combat piracy. You do know that in the USA AT&T is already doing this
right? Surprised I haven't heard the cries for war.

On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:30 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:

Doing that would mean you couldn't list your app on alternative markets and get
access to all the users on devices which Google hasn't approved and therefore
don't have Market installed.

Al.
--

* Looking for Android Apps? - Try http://andappstore.com/ *

======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number
6741909.

The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily
those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.

On 1 Apr 2010, at 23:29, Incognito wrote:

Att seems to have a practical aproach, just do not allow installs from outside
the android market. Seems like a necessary evil.

On Apr 1, 2010, at 5:59 PM, dadical <keyes...@gmail.com> wrote:

What really sucks is when your paid apps start showing up there too.
Over 35% (and climbing) of my installs of my paid app are from pirated
sources.

I would give my new seeded N1 back in a heartbeat in exchange for an
Android market that solved piracy in a meaningful way. I'm sure
Google is working on something, but good lord things over there feel
like they take forever sometimes!



On Mar 31, 4:58 pm, Tobias Eisentraeger <teisentrae...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
Hello List,

Two of my free apps from the market got listed today at the website
wareseeker[dot]com.

I did not consent to publish there, nobody ever asked for my permission. I
have contacted them through their contact form and via direct email, but no
answer since about 8 hours. Does anyone have a phonenumber of them? The
download count goes up.

I believe that no website has the right to distribute another developers
software without the consent, even if its free in the official android
market.

You might wanna c



Other Threads

1. Fedora 10 & Emulator

When closing the emulator it completely kills the sound system.  The 
only thing that fixes this is a complete re-boot.  Anyone else see this 
behaviour?


Pd.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

2. [Android framework protected API] Permission protection level definitio

Hi,

 

Looking at the following developer web link that describes the core
android permissions,

 

http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html
<http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html

 

The list encompasses the permissions associated to the android protected
API available from the Android frameworks.

 

However, I could not find any information related to the associated
protection level.

I guess this would be very useful to know for the application developers
and get the web link updated.

 

So, digging in the file "Frameworks\base\core\res\AndroidManifest.xml",
one could find such data.

 

Most of the permissions are defined as dangerous and few others as
normal.

The remaining others, related mostly to the system, are based on
signature protection.

 

Questions:

 

1)

 

Because the signature protection levels for the framework are defined in
a unique manifest XML file, 

 

- does it mean that there is no means to have different permissions
protected by different signature keys (but splitting the file and
framework API in groups)?

 

2)

The android framework is stored under the file directory
\system\framework\

 

- Is this directory considered as one Android package signed by the
current android system unique key?

- For permissions protected by signature or signatureOrSystem, what key
is used for such protection verification? OEM/system key ?

 

3)

 

- if the OEMs are modifying few framework permission signature rules (
dangerous => signature... ), how the applications compatibility will be
ensured on the Android platform accross various OEM smartphones ?

 

 

Guillaume

3. Repo Client init problem ubuntu 8.10

4. Does one really need to have a data plan with G1 if you use Wifi + voice?

5. Using JUnit

6. Clarification about system images

7. Ifconfig command in Adb shell