Develop Bugs

Question on XDA Policies regarding Warez/Cracked Apps

I understand that they don't allow them in ROM's and to be discussed on XDA. My question is in regards to moderators deleting threads but seem to have no issue with people asking about free Wifi tethering.
Technically you're supposed to pay Sprint for that feature but a lot of ROM's include the Wifi Tether app for free. I just don't understand how some things are swept under a rug and other things are accepted.

Who knows what the answer to this is brother. But it for Damn sure seems like you are still stuck on The Ultimate Droid thread being deleted. I read that whole thread and you were basically flaming on XDA for making people adhere to the rules. Take the Ultimate Droid rants elsewhere because we all know when you talk about closing a thread in this post its in regard to that Rom thread being closed. And I would say if people were trying to profit off of posting tethering stuff like the dev of the ultimate Droid was then that would be morally and legally wrong. Stop crying.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

I'm just looking for an answer to a question. You didn't even remotely touch on the topic at hand. I just want to know what people think about being able to tether for free and how many ROM's on this website have it included. If you visited this website as much as I do you'd understand why I'm bringing this up.

Actually, I do on a daily basis hence the xda app on my phone . And I did touch on it, no one is trying to profit off of tether, its kind of the same as downloading music.. the people who get sued and stuff by the riaa are those who try to profit from the music they didn't buy. Either way its not morally one hundred percent okay but its not like were killing anyone.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

The wifi tether app is free, so it can be included. Swype ask xda to remove it, even though it was free, so it had to be removed. Fancy widget was removed because it was a direct ripoff of a HTC program. Someones pay wallpaper was removed because it is warez. If sprint decided to go after the author of wifi tether, I'm sure XDA would force its removal.

bwcorvus said:
The wifi tether app is free, so it can be included. Swype ask xda to remove it, even though it was free, so it had to be removed. Fancy widget was removed because it was a direct ripoff of a HTC program. Someones pay wallpaper was removed because it is warez. If sprint decided to go after the author of wifi tether, I'm sure XDA would force its removal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, you know Sprint has employees who check xda for legal stuff. I'm sure if they had a problem with this they would have done something by now. Especially as many updates as we have had by now Sprint could block tether apps besides their own if they really cared. Just as they patch root exploits.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App

gqstatus0685 said:
I understand that they don't allow them in ROM's and to be discussed on XDA. My question is in regards to moderators deleting threads but seem to have no issue with people asking about free Wifi tethering.
Technically you're supposed to pay Sprint for that feature but a lot of ROM's include the Wifi Tether app for free. I just don't understand how some things are swept under a rug and other things are accepted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First of all, I think the main aim of the moderators/site owners is to maintain the popularity and relevance of this site. I am sure Sprint is aware of the Wifi Tether App in all the ROMS given the numerous sprint employees that post here regularly. If it bothered Sprint the site would hear about it and probably make a decision at that point. I doubt Sprint cares given the free publicity their devices get here.
Now if the WiFi tether app itself was being sold for profit and was included for free(warez) then I am sure the developers would mind which several of them probably have when their apps were included in ROMS.
You seem to expect the moderators to spend their time analyzing every single thread and deliver some kind of justice. That is not going to happen, their aim is to keep the site trouble-free, popular and relevant. Even if it means to err on the side of caution and sideline one/two developers who have been known to create issues.
If I felt as strongly as you do about the issue I would put my money where my mouth is and delete my account on this site and join somewhere I felt more comfortable. Would save me a lot of aggravation.
Cheers !

plus wireless tether has been around a little long than sprints evo hotspot has it may not have been for this device but it was around

Yellowcard8992 said:
Who knows what the answer to this is brother. But it for Damn sure seems like you are still stuck on The Ultimate Droid thread being deleted. I read that whole thread and you were basically flaming on XDA for making people adhere to the rules. Take the Ultimate Droid rants elsewhere because we all know when you talk about closing a thread in this post its in regard to that Rom thread being closed. And I would say if people were trying to profit off of posting tethering stuff like the dev of the ultimate Droid was then that would be morally and legally wrong. Stop crying.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, Yellowcard this is the same guy on the other thread. I also was following that thread and I don't think it was cool that he was flaming on xda.

Why can't we all, just get along!?

Arm0 said:
Why can't we all, just get along!?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your signature...is absolutely epic.

Is this a joke.. You guys are actually trying to explain the differences ?? OMG!!!
THERE IS NONE!!
ONE LIES AND THE OTHER SWEARS TO IT!!!
The OP is right... It makes NO sense what so ever and there is no possible way you could argue that.

Lets see if I can make it easier to understand. If I kill someone, I go to jail...this is warez, its illegal no matter how you slice it. Now if I beat my wife (i do not, and do not support it, just an example) and she refuses to press charges, I do not go to jail...this is wifi tether, its only illegal if someone cares. Hope this had made it easier to understand.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

gqstatus0685 said:
I understand that they don't allow them in ROM's and to be discussed on XDA. My question is in regards to moderators deleting threads but seem to have no issue with people asking about free Wifi tethering.
Technically you're supposed to pay Sprint for that feature but a lot of ROM's include the Wifi Tether app for free. I just don't understand how some things are swept under a rug and other things are accepted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
The sprint hotspot free ove a 30 a month charge from sprint?
How big is that compared to a one dollar or two app???
Clueless...

Pretty much that's what it is. The only difference is that one person "steals" and people don't get their props/recognition. I guess it's OK to steal and get out of paying for a feature while racking up bandwidth. People say I'm complaining about this and that but when it comes down to it they look stupid because they are also doing shady **** too.

My 2 cents for what its worth.
WiFi tethering is a functionality built into froyo. In order to get it working, the feature is either hacked to remove Sprint authentication, or you can download another app that allows the same functionality. You'll also note that "sprint WiFi tethering" is not available as a standalone app from the market - again, its already built into the software of the phone. This is no different than the hack that allowed wireless n for WiFi, before it was available, or to set your phone to pick up Verizon towers for better coverage. The phone already supported that functionality, it just took some hacks to get it working.
The other items mentioned as warez are not inherently built into the phones. Devs (most of them ordinary guys like us), have an idea for a great app, work on them for days/weeks/months and may decide to release them for a fee when complete. Xda is a developers forum, with stress on developers. It only stands to reason that they would take a hard line when people give away those paid apps for free.
And to the op, if you were really interested in getting answers to your questions, you could have easily sent a pm to a mod. By starting this thread, you obviously just wanted to stir the pot some more. It's been said before, there are other sites that don't care about the all the work devs put into their apps, where you can get all the free apps you want without paying for them. Xda is simply not that kind of forum.
Sent from my blah blah blah blah

Personally I realize that I am a guest. So not to be imposing I limit my pov.
You are not alone in your POV.
Google > Dear XDA: please do not allow
http://tinyurl.com/237lx5d

gqstatus0685 said:
I understand that they don't allow them in ROM's and to be discussed on XDA. My question is in regards to moderators deleting threads but seem to have no issue with people asking about free Wifi tethering.
Technically you're supposed to pay Sprint for that feature but a lot of ROM's include the Wifi Tether app for free. I just don't understand how some things are swept under a rug and other things are accepted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
technically the wifi tether is built into android naturally, carriers lock that down to add on a cost to unlimited data that your already paying for
This is an issue, do to if Im already paying for unlimited data, what clarifies it to what kind of data it has to be. Is the internet not the internet, these kind of add-on fees are what telco's your trying to push on to wire lines ( unsuccessful so far, i for get the name of the bill). Bt the mobile is a very grey area right now, this is also why ATT for one has a tiered system now

gqstatus0685 said:
I'm just looking for an answer to a question. You didn't even remotely touch on the topic at hand. I just want to know what people think about being able to tether for free and how many ROM's on this website have it included. If you visited this website as much as I do you'd understand why I'm bringing this up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can tether for free???

Someone needs to define software and hardware to the OP, because if we use his definitions, roms and rooting methods are also warez.

[Q] Getting the .apk for an app from the web..

If a website has an apk file for an app that normally costs money, do I still get charged if I download it from the web through Astro?
So, if I find Root Explorer ($3.87 in market) can I download the app from the web to my phone and not be charged?

SethAC said:
If a website has an apk file for an app that normally costs money, do I still get charged if I download it from the web through Astro?
So, if I find Root Explorer ($3.87 in market) can I download the app from the web to my phone and not be charged?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What would the point of piracy be if you still got charged? Yeah, you can do that, or you can just purchase the app for a mere $3. Show some support to the guy who created it. The more you pirate, the less people want to produce paid content, and all of us suffer for it.

Aside from being frowned upon, there are also other risks involved....
http://blog.mylookout.com/2010/12/geinimi_trojan/

deezy111 said:
Aside from being frowned upon, there are also other risks involved....
http://blog.mylookout.com/2010/12/geinimi_trojan/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The beautiful thing is that Geinimi only targets those that truly deserve to have their phone infected.
Seriously, if you're so cheap that you have to steal a $3 app, then you probably don't need to be shelling out the dough every month for a smartphone with data.
As already mentioned, pirating apps alienates devs and hurts the community as a whole. Additionally, the pirated apk can either be packaged with malware or request unnecessary permissions. And, of course, there is the fact that pirated apps aren't updatable- if an updated version is released that contains security enhancements or new features, the thief is stuck with the older version.
In summary... don't be a douche. Just pay the measly three bucks for the app if you want it, or use a free alternative from the market such as Astro or ES File Explorer.

najaboy said:
The beautiful thing is that Geinimi only targets those that truly deserve to have their phone infected.
Seriously, if you're so cheap that you have to steal a $3 app, then you probably don't need to be shelling out the dough every month for a smartphone with data.
As already mentioned, pirating apps alienates devs and hurts the community as a whole. Additionally, the pirated apk can either be packaged with malware or request unnecessary permissions. And, of course, there is the fact that pirated apps aren't updatable- if an updated version is released that contains security enhancements or new features, the thief is stuck with the older version.
In summary... don't be a douche. Just pay the measly three bucks for the app if you want it, or use a free alternative from the market such as Astro or ES File Explorer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
use the free versions if you have a problem paying a couple bucks for an app. Most of these guys do work for us on their own time with no monetary benefit. Support the guys that put out great products

najaboy said:
Seriously, if you're so cheap that you have to steal a $3 app, then you probably don't need to be shelling out the dough every month for a smartphone with data.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
End of story, and if you do pirate $3 apps, I hope you do get that virus. Then you can come back on here asking how to "pirate" a new phone...

I just wanted to know how that worked (whether or not it shows up in the market or if you can update it), like I want to know how a lot of things work, so you shouldn't assume automatically that I, myself, want to use the pirated apps.
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App

If you pirate it doesn't show up. Pirating isn't the worst thing ever but buying helps support the app and the community. Also a virus has popped up and others will follow suit so its becoming unsafe. If your gonna download online apps at least use an anti virus. I suggest look out. If you like apps please pay for them.
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App

It is completely understandable to want to try an app, especially with the 15 minute return window. If you decide the app is worth it, purchase it from the market.

this is stealing so i would not talk about this here

+99999999 on this. Also it's fine to tell people the risks of things no one told him how to do it only that's its probably a bad idea.
deezy111 said:
It is completely understandable to want to try an app, especially with the 15 minute return window. If you decide the app is worth it, purchase it from the market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App

Suport the ones who support you. Put yourself in there shoes would you want someone to find a way to get your app for free if it is a paid app?

List of some cool things to do on your Galaxy Nexus

Many people often ask what are some cool things you can do on (blank) phone.
And after reading several different articles, I found they all sucked, so I wrote my own.
have a read and let me know what you think. So here's the
List of some cool things to do on the Galaxy Nexus.
If you have any suggestions, I may add it to the list.

paOol said:
Many people often ask what are some cool things you can do on (blank) phone.
And after reading several different articles, I found they all sucked, so I wrote my own.
have a read and let me know what you think. So here's the
List of some cool things to do on the Galaxy Nexus.
If you have any suggestions, I may add it to the list.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Facebook hijack: not cool
Kicking people off wireless: not cool
Blocking ads: not cool, help the sites you like to visit by giving them revenue so they can put food on the table and continue to create content you apparently like.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[hfm] said:
Facebook hijack: not cool
Kicking people off wireless: not cool
Blocking ads: not cool, help the sites you like to visit by giving them revenue so they can put food on the table and continue to create content you apparently like.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
do other people feel this way also?

paOol said:
do other people feel this way also?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes.
Why would it be cool to hijack someone's Facebook account, which belongs to them and contains all their personal information, conversations, and more? What right does anyone have to dig into a person's private things? It's also illegal in at least some places.
Why would kicking people off wifi be cool? There might be a few legitimate reasons, but for the most part it's only if you want to play tricks on your friends or be a juvenile douchebag to strangers.
Why would denying someone their revenue for their hard work be cool? Decent sites show ads that are relevant to the site and things you are probably interested in. I don't mind that. Apps might show ads I'm not interested in, but I can usually pay for an ad-free version if I want. Either way, each party gets something out of it. It's a trade. Life isn't free (for you nor the creator of whatever you're using).
Still confused?

facebook... not cool
kick off of wifi i dont get. unless its your wifi? then just protect it.
block adds I'm in for. i don't wanna see them, so i don't have to.

+1 for blocking ads
Sent from my R800x using XDA App

phazerorg said:
Yes.
Why would it be cool to hijack someone's Facebook account, which belongs to them and contains all their personal information, conversations, and more? What right does anyone have to dig into a person's private things? It's also illegal in at least some places.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ah, I understand where you are coming from, but my intent was not to have people stealing private information. I'd like it if everyone became more conscious of their privacy and actually used the HTTPS setting. And what better way than to expose them to the truth that they're not as safe as they think.

To hell with ads I say

[hfm] said:
Facebook hijack: not cool
Kicking people off wireless: not cool
Blocking ads: not cool, help the sites you like to visit by giving them revenue so they can put food on the table and continue to create content you apparently like.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The ability to do those things is pretty cool.

paOol said:
ah, I understand where you are coming from, but my intent was not to have people stealing private information. I'd like it if everyone became more conscious of their privacy and actually used the HTTPS setting. And what better way than to expose them to the truth that they're not as safe as they think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the idea was that it's not cool to hack someone's account. Being more security concious is definitely cool.
Also, I should clarify that I'm not necessarily against ad blocking (I do it for general web browsing), but when it's something you actually use that has value to you (such as XDA for me), which the creator provides to you for free in exchange for seeing some reasonable ads, I don't think it's cool to deny them the small bit of support they have asked for in return.

Most of these are actually pretty cool. As far as a Facebook hijack I'm not a fan but props to the OP for letting me know how unsecured my and my girlfriends Facebook accounts are. I just showed her how I was easily able to log into Facebook as her. We both just secured our Facebook!

phazerorg said:
I think the idea was that it's not cool to hack someone's account. Being more security concious is definitely cool.
Also, I should clarify that I'm not necessarily against ad blocking (I do it for general web browsing), but when it's something you actually use that has value to you (such as XDA for me), which the creator provides to you for free in exchange for seeing some reasonable ads, I don't think it's cool to deny them the small bit of support they have asked for in return.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed.
10 char.

Sounds like there should be a AdFree (Ad Blocker) with a feature that lets you unblock certain websites or apps. Whereas, AdFree does it universally.

paOol said:
ah, I understand where you are coming from, but my intent was not to have people stealing private information. I'd like it if everyone became more conscious of their privacy and actually used the HTTPS setting. And what better way than to expose them to the truth that they're not as safe as they think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a noble reason.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Those are some neat things. May not be for everyone, but cool nontheless.

Facebook hijacking and kicking someone off WiFi is not cool. However, I don't see a problem with ad blocking. It's no different than fast-forwarding through commericials on a TV show that you recorded on a DVR. I never click on ads anyway. If that makes me an immoral person, so be it.

Forget all the cry babies... it's all good. Thanks!

kbubp said:
The ability to do those things is pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
What you do with it is up to you. The fact that you can do these things is pretty impressive. Can you do most of this with any other android device? Sure. But lots of them require root, something that's dead simple to do with the GN.

vapotrini said:
Forget all the cry babies... it's all good. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thank you, too.

Great write up. Thanks for taking the time! Answered a lot of questions I had and exposed me to some new capabilities of this phone. Knowledge is power; it's up to us to decide how to use it.
Thanks for the heads up about Facebook and public Wifi networks. I had no idea.

Block all the ads! P.S It's what's killing your battery.

I dislike all forms of advertising, but this gives me more reason to do whatever I can to block them from my phone!
http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/...t-up-your-phone-battery-just-sending-ads.html
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

I've been using adfree ever since I own an android phone.

I use Adaway. Works perfectly.

The main purpose of ad-blocker is to remove ads from sight. That doesn't necessarily mean the blockers are actually doing anything other than stopping us from seeing the ads. I don't know. Perhaps they do stop processing from running in the background which consume power. Most of these apps such as adaway and adfree work by blocking requests based on names in the host file. It has never been explained or demonstrated to my satisfaction that this actually has any benefit beyond not seeing the ads.

As the guy above said, it just blocks the hosts. Therefore battery life will still be used up sending requests etc.
Why don't you just pay the developers like 70p for their apps if you're that bothered about ads? Jeez.

case0 said:
As the guy above said, it just blocks the hosts. Therefore battery life will still be used up sending requests etc.
Why don't you just pay the developers like 70p for their apps if you're that bothered about ads? Jeez.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're missing the point. If free apps with ads are negatively affecting our phone experience, extorting us to upgrade isn't the answer! Clearly, ads have no place on our devices. I'm totally happy if developers want to issue demo or limited versions of their app and a full version with more features.
Charging users to remove ads is a dirty way of doing business.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

EP2008 said:
I think you're missing the point. If free apps with ads are negatively affecting our phone experience, extorting us to upgrade isn't the answer! Clearly, ads have no place on our devices. I'm totally happy if developers want to issue demo or limited versions of their app and a full version with more features.
Charging users to remove ads is a dirty way of doing business.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? That's not extortion... I don't think you understand. Seriously, the dev has to make money. They offer you the option of having ads or paying to remove them. There's nothing to be complaining about. Complaining that app devs want to make money is the most ridiculous thing ever.

martonikaj said:
Really? That's not extortion... I don't think you understand. Seriously, the dev has to make money. They offer you the option of having ads or paying to remove them. There's nothing to be complaining about. Complaining that app devs want to make money is the most ridiculous thing ever.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You didn't read my post did you?
I offered an alternative to ads polluting a developers app - offer a demo or limited version of your app, and a paid version with all the features.
Ads in an app do more harm than good. Many negative app reviews I read involves apps that don't work because of ads blocking the UI or being too obtrusive. Those potential customers LEAVE and never come back.
I've spent over $300 in apps and never once have I purchased an app solely to get rid of ads.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Here is my solution....don't leave open apps with ads running in the foreground.
And as said before, ad blockers don't stop the requests, so they are not saving your battery.

adrynalyne said:
Here is my solution....don't leave open apps with ads running in the foreground.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe the study suggested that the ads in these apps were creating wakelocks when not in the foreground and using location services too frequently.
Really, they sound like a virus to me...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Not to mention the crashing and freezing from bad ads!
Sent from my Inspire 4G using XDA

EP2008 said:
You didn't read my post did you?
I offered an alternative to ads polluting a developers app - offer a demo or limited version of your app, and a paid version with all the features.
Ads in an app do more harm than good. Many negative app reviews I read involves apps that don't work because of ads blocking the UI or being too obtrusive. Those potential customers LEAVE and never come back.
I've spent over $300 in apps and never once have I purchased an app solely to get rid of ads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What I'm saying is its not extortion for them to offer a free and paid version to remove ads. They can choose to monetize however they want to. If you don't want to use their apps then that's your choice. But they reserve the right to do whatever they want to monetize -- whether its through ads, trials, or in-game purchases, etc..
If they get enough feedback that ads in their apps don't work properly and its negatively effecting installs/purchases, then they will change it. But that's their choice.
The use of the word "extortion" is still wayyyy overboard.

martonikaj said:
What I'm saying is its not extortion for them to offer a free and paid version to remove ads. They can choose to monetize however they want to. If you don't want to use their apps then that's your choice. But they reserve the right to do whatever they want to monetize -- whether its through ads, trials, or in-game purchases, etc..
If they get enough feedback that ads in their apps don't work properly and its negatively effecting installs/purchases, then they will change it. But that's their choice.
The use of the word "extortion" is still wayyyy overboard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps "extortion" is a bit extreme, but choose to call it what you like.
I hold the belief that's apps should be purchased because they are useful, not annoying. And I'm not afraid to support developers who don't annoy.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk

EP2008 said:
Perhaps "extortion" is a bit extreme, but choose to call it what you like.
I hold the belief that's apps should be purchased because they are useful, not annoying. And I'm not afraid to support developers who don't annoy.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't really see your point. For you it's ok to release a limited demo with no ads. If you want full functionality, you pay for the full. However, it's bad form to release a FULL version of the same app that is ad-supported and asking to pay for an ad-free version is bad form.
So, a gimped version is better than a fully functional, ad-supported version? What's the difference between paying to get a full version and paying to remove the ads? If you are willing to pay, then you have already decided that the app is useful to you. If you aren't willing to pay for an ad-free version, then maybe the app isn't what you're looking for. Just because the dev decided to release a free ad-supported version, it doesn't entitle you to a free ad-free version.

j.go said:
What's the difference between paying to get a full version and paying to remove the ads?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't feel as if I'm rewarding the developer when I'm paying to get rid of ads. I want to pay them for the great work they put out.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

EP2008 said:
I don't feel as if I'm rewarding the developer when I'm paying to get rid of ads. I want to pay them for the great work they put out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Either way you're paying for an app you want to use... Its rewarding them by paying them.
If it wasn't a great app you wouldn't be paying them, regardless of what their scheme was for payment.

EP2008 said:
I don't feel as if I'm rewarding the developer when I'm paying to get rid of ads. I want to pay them for the great work they put out.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes you are. The developer is taking a risk by releasing the full version free. A lot of people can look past the ads and go on using the free version since it does exactly what the paid version does (but with ads). Besides removing the ads, there is no compelling reason to buy the ad-free version. More so with some developers who put the ads in unobtrusive places like the preferences menu, so that unless you plan on changing some settings, you wouldn't even notice it had ads.
Buying the ad-free version IS rewarding the developer(s).

j.go said:
I don't really see your point. For you it's ok to release a limited demo with no ads. If you want full functionality, you pay for the full. However, it's bad form to release a FULL version of the same app that is ad-supported and asking to pay for an ad-free version is bad form.
So, a gimped version is better than a fully functional, ad-supported version? What's the difference between paying to get a full version and paying to remove the ads? If you are willing to pay, then you have already decided that the app is useful to you. If you aren't willing to pay for an ad-free version, then maybe the app isn't what you're looking for. Just because the dev decided to release a free ad-supported version, it doesn't entitle you to a free ad-free version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The apps being ads supported ain't the problem. The fact these ads are poorly integrated into the apps is the problem! So much so that the ads use more battery than the apps do. By all means integrate ads into apps, but do it properly. I think that is all that is being said here!
Sent from my AOKP Galaxy Nexus using XDA

Slightly off topic but definitely related, I read an article today that referenced a study that showed that some of the ads that developers have been using in their free apps have security vulnerabilities. I need to find the article though otherwise I'm just talking out of my ass.
edit: found it! http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/jiang/pubs/WISEC12_ADRISK.pdf

STANNY08 said:
The apps being ads supported ain't the problem. The fact these ads are poorly integrated into the apps is the problem! So much so that the ads use more battery than the apps do. By all means integrate ads into apps, but do it properly. I think that is all that is being said here!
Sent from my AOKP Galaxy Nexus using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My post has nothing to do with the issue of poorly implemented advertising in apps. It was about him complaining about full version ad-supported apps asking you to pay for an ad-free version. Which is, in my opinion, no different from a lite/demo app asking you to buy the full version to use all the features.

[Question] What Is and Is Not Warez?

A thread was recently opened where a dropbox apk was pulled from a new phone and made available to android users on other phones, in this particular case, the SGS2. The apk allowed a user to have 48 GB of extra space on the Dropbox service. The thread was subsequently closed due to the apk being labeled as warez. A few arguments were made that because the apk in that form was not available in the Play Store it was therefore warez. That seems wrong to me. Many apks are made available by hackers and devs that are from other phones and are not available on the Google Play Store.
On Dropbox you are only able to get 2GB of storage for free if you sign up for the service. This apk got around that limitation and gave a free level user much more. I understand, I think, why some consider this warez but how is it fundamentally different from other apks that are snatched from phones and made available to people who chose not to purchase the phone the apk was developed to sell? All exclusive apps in a new phone are a form of business investment. If someone takes an awesome camera app that cannot be otherwise obtained unless one buys the new phone, then how is porting that apk to say a legacy phone where now a user can access that investment for no money?
Are there licensing issues at play here that make a ported camera apk or other similar type apk ethical to port? I find this to be an interesting ethical and perhaps technical issue. I'd like to learn more about the underpinning thought process for declaring some things warez while other software is just another ported apk.
If you know how this works, please chime in. I'm very interested. Maybe others are as well. Thanks in advance for anything you can offer.

Yea that was my trend they got shut down. Guess I will keep my secrets to my self from now on! Don't want to piss anyone off or get banned from xda! Everyone is so scared of Warez and being labeled as a pirate! Only going to get worse as time goes by!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Xparent SkyBlue Tapatalk 2
---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------
Might want to remove all the Adobe flash apk trends floating around since they are not being supported by Jelly Bean devices or Roms. According to Adobe. That can also be called Warez right? Or I'm I wrong?
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Xparent SkyBlue Tapatalk 2

darkside79 said:
Yea that was my trend they got shut down. Guess I will keep my secrets to my self from now on! Don't want to piss anyone off or get banned from xda! Everyone is so scared of Warez and being labeled as a pirate! Only going to get worse as time goes by!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Xparent SkyBlue Tapatalk 2
---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------
Might want to remove all the Adobe flash apk trends floating around since they are not being supported by Jelly Bean devices or Roms. According to Adobe. That can also be called Warez right? Or I'm I wrong?
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Xparent SkyBlue Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong. Pirated apps are modified applications that are different than their original intent. This could be an application that was compiled to be free, to "steal" media, to expand on services such as this drop box "hack".
There are plenty of android websites that are devoted to promoting this type of content. Even though the FBI shut down 3 this week, there are hundreds more.
With that said, I have a few apps in my library that I probably shouldn't. Shhhh.......
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda premium

I think they should use the imei numbers instead of the build numbers.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using XDA Premium HD app

I'm a Pirate by trade! So lock me up and throw away the key! 3 get shut down and 100s more just pop up. They will never be able to stop it! It's just the start!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Xparent SkyBlue Tapatalk 2

i like the part where the guy who reported it, kept on crying this is warez, this is warez! like what this OP was saying. If you're using any of the ROMs that uses the s3 launcher... WAREZ~!
like dude just report it if you don't like it and move on.

darkside79 said:
I'm a Pirate by trade! So lock me up and throw away the key! 3 get shut down and 100s more just pop up. They will never be able to stop it! It's just the start!
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Xparent SkyBlue Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In America they are trying to pass laws which allow the government full control of the internet.. it's honestly scary.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

elesbb said:
In America they are trying to pass laws which allow the government full control of the internet.. it's honestly scary.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea just another way the feds/government are trying to control us! So.much for land of the free! Nothing is free here. What a joke! Lol
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Xparent SkyBlue Tapatalk 2

Good question. I wondered the same thing.
There is a thread on a modified version of skype that actually gives audible ring tones, among other things that skype developers neglected. It's quite ingenious work.
Is it warez too??
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app

Everyone at some point or another has used warez. I do however agree the Dropbox .apk wasn't warez but however was an exploit. I myself used it because morally I see nothing wrong with it and I thank the guy. I support Drop box and have been using it for as long as I can remember. When people steal from developers like Applanet did before it got closed down, well that's just unacceptable.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Did not realize there was such shakey ground when figuring out what warez is. Quite simple it has always been any modified app(usually paid) that has been made to use without purchase of a license. Lets be honest warez have been around for ever and ever and a day. Some of the people that cry about stuff really need to go sit down somewhere.
Its ok to cry about eg. dropbox but then use a rom with the wifi hack in it? Download mp3's with a special app or use one of the many other questionable apk's according to his/her definition of warez.
Definition for warez:
Web definitions:
Warez refers primarily to copyrighted works distributed without fees or royalties, and may be traded, in general violation of copyright...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez

With regards to the specific dropbox.apk, it is stealing since that space on dropbox was not allocated to users of older phone models. I wouldn't call it "warez" as such, but it was allowing people to have access to space that they did not pay for or that the manufacturer of their phone did not pay for through their deal with dropbox. Dropbox allows people to have a certain amount of space for free. People using this apk were taking more than they were allowed to access. That is wrong and XDA should not allow it.
The difference between that apk and other apks being ported over is that this apk was not designed to run as a self contained application like a game or something, but as a link to off-device storage. These are very different situations so not really analogous. An inexact but somewhat better analogy would be a paid application for a specific device that someone else ports to another device but they are charging for it and not giving money or credit to the original developer. This is not right and would also not be allowed on XDA.
Also, Dropbox DID reclaim that space. I know a number of people in the Sensation forum were sent notices and lost that extra space and the stuff on it.
_atlien_ said:
A thread was recently opened where a dropbox apk was pulled from a new phone and made available to android users on other phones, in this particular case, the SGS2. The apk allowed a user to have 48 GB of extra space on the Dropbox service. The thread was subsequently closed due to the apk being labeled as warez. A few arguments were made that because the apk in that form was not available in the Play Store it was therefore warez. That seems wrong to me. Many apks are made available by hackers and devs that are from other phones and are not available on the Google Play Store.
On Dropbox you are only able to get 2GB of storage for free if you sign up for the service. This apk got around that limitation and gave a free level user much more. I understand, I think, why some consider this warez but how is it fundamentally different from other apks that are snatched from phones and made available to people who chose not to purchase the phone the apk was developed to sell? All exclusive apps in a new phone are a form of business investment. If someone takes an awesome camera app that cannot be otherwise obtained unless one buys the new phone, then how is porting that apk to say a legacy phone where now a user can access that investment for no money?
Are there licensing issues at play here that make a ported camera apk or other similar type apk ethical to port? I find this to be an interesting ethical and perhaps technical issue. I'd like to learn more about the underpinning thought process for declaring some things warez while other software is just another ported apk.
If you know how this works, please chime in. I'm very interested. Maybe others are as well. Thanks in advance for anything you can offer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

mf2112 said:
With regards to the specific dropbox.apk, it is stealing since that space on dropbox was not allocated to users of older phone models. I wouldn't call it "warez" as such, but it was allowing people to have access to space that they did not pay for or that the manufacturer of their phone did not pay for through their deal with dropbox. Dropbox allows people to have a certain amount of space for free. People using this apk were taking more than they were allowed to access. That is wrong and XDA should not allow it.
The difference between that apk and other apks being ported over is that this apk was not designed to run as a self contained application like a game or something, but as a link to off-device storage. These are very different situations so not really analogous. An inexact but somewhat better analogy would be a paid application for a specific device that someone else ports to another device but they are charging for it and not giving money or credit to the original developer. This is not right and would also not be allowed on XDA.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If we extend your argument to a ROM, which is a collection of Apps and system,
if someone ports the sgs3 launcher to sgs2, is that warez?
If someone ports the HTC sense to sgs, is that warez?
Should the whole mod community be shut down?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app

tsuda said:
If we extend your argument to a ROM, which is a collection of Apps and system,
if someone ports the sgs3 launcher to sgs2, is that warez?
If someone ports the HTC sense to sgs, is that warez?
Should the whole mod community be shut down?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung and HTC might say yes to those questions. I don't know myself, this is a gray area and the XDA team seems to take the general approach that if a reasonable person could think it is warez, then it is removed to avoid potential liability issues for the site as a whole.
For the launcher and sense specifically, I am not positive but I believe that the source code has been released and is available to all to download and compile, putting them on a completely different level than compiled apks which have been modified.

We have had this talk many times. The deal is that the devices OEM has paid said service for the ability to offer it on the phone. If it is used on any other phone that it was not paid to be on is what makes makes it warez. Like swype. It is allowed to be in a rom if the device came with it preinstalled but if it wasn't then it is considered warez. If a company asks us to pull it then we will.
As for the launchers. If Sense was ever fully ported to a non HTC device be sure that HTC would issue a C&D order that we would follow and then pull all links for it.
Sent from the Bat Cave

zelendel said:
We have had this talk many times. The deal is that the devices OEM has paid said service for the ability to offer it on the phone. If it is used on any other phone that it was not paid to be on is what makes makes it warez. Like swype. It is allowed to be in a rom if the device came with it preinstalled but if it wasn't then it is considered warez. If a company asks us to pull it then we will.
As for the launchers. If Sense was ever fully ported to a non HTC device be sure that HTC would issue a C&D order that we would follow and then pull all links for it.
Sent from the Bat Cave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The twiz launcher has been ported to non Samsung devices.
Also wouldn't things like the old NFL app that was ported to non Verizon phones be the same situation? Those forums weren't closed the entire season until Verizon fixed it permanently then it didn't matter. Or porting the Sony launcher to a Samsung device, or porting the COD game from the xperia play... these are all examples of the exact same situation as the drop box situation. I don't use drop box that much so it doesn't matter to me, I just don't understand the line between porting for a benefit of developing and warez. Understanding how to get an app to work across different devices is considered developing isn't it? Cyanogen got a C&D letter for developing a version of android to be released on a device that got the exact same version months later. So in theory, isn't every JB port considered to be warez? Every leak? Every ported leak?
Situations like this are what cause a lower likelihood of people contributing back. If someone found an exploit, let the app creators fix the hole. That's the way it was for the NFL app. That was eventually turned into a hack. Then Verizon found a way to block it so only their customers could use it.
Just my $0.02
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989

PulldOvr said:
The twiz launcher has been ported to non Samsung devices.
Also wouldn't things like the old NFL app that was ported to non Verizon phones be the same situation? Those forums weren't closed the entire season until Verizon fixed it permanently then it didn't matter. Or porting the Sony launcher to a Samsung device, or porting the COD game from the xperia play... these are all examples of the exact same situation as the drop box situation. I don't use drop box that much so it doesn't matter to me, I just don't understand the line between porting for a benefit of developing and warez. Understanding how to get an app to work across different devices is considered developing isn't it? Cyanogen got a C&D letter for developing a version of android to be released on a device that got the exact same version months later. So in theory, isn't every JB port considered to be warez? Every leak? Every ported leak?
Situations like this are what cause a lower likelihood of people contributing back. If someone found an exploit, let the app creators fix the hole. That's the way it was for the NFL app. That was eventually turned into a hack. Then Verizon found a way to block it so only their customers could use it.
Just my $0.02
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As for the CM team they got a C&D order to remove the gapps from their rom, which they did and is the reason AOSP roms dont have them included.
No that is not considered Developing. That is just porting. Big diff.
Understand that XDA works in the grey on alot of things, but if we get asked to pull something from the apps developers then we will pull it.

An example of what zelendel said about being asked to remove something, can be found here - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=1891055&postcount=287
Velcro. What a rip off!

zelendel said:
As for the CM team they got a C&D order to remove the gapps from their rom, which they did and is the reason AOSP roms dont have them included.
No that is not considered Developing. That is just porting. Big diff.
Understand that XDA works in the grey on alot of things, but if we get asked to pull something from the apps developers then we will pull it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I understood, the C&D was for releasing their newest market without permission. The agreement was made to remove gapps and make a recovery of them available to people who use them. This is also where the development for CM started taking off. This leaves then issue of gapps for all ROMs then. Since they are still ports are to be removed and added using the flash able zip (aosp style)?
I'm not trying to cause a rift. Just trying to help define a line. Does this mean drop box contacted a mod and asked the file to be removed?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989

PulldOvr said:
I'm not trying to cause a rift. Just trying to help define a line. Does this mean drop box contacted a mod and asked the file to be removed?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The dropbox offer was only good for two years. It's just a marketing promo to get new users hooked and then charge them the normal rate. Maybe they are happy to have more people hooked. Otherwise why wouldn't they block it or reverse it at the server side?
Regarding software intended for a certain phone us considered warez If used on another phone, is there an official statement about this from the phone manufacturers??
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using xda app-developers app