Related
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.
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
For as long as most android users, most have been with android since the beginning. We now have gaming, interactive apps and all sorts of cooky apps. Some to most of which are priced.
Here's an article I found trying to find Indie PC games for android "I failed".
http://www.webpronews.com/android-users-dont-want-to-pay-for-anything-2012-07 it talks about android users don't pay for apps, mostly because of root/no trial-free version.
This struck me as interesting because honestly I'd figure devs to be happy to share there work with the world for free. I honestly myself believe devs who charge just want money.
I do unfortunately buy some of these terrible products, but do give props and respect to those who do manage to make a fantastic app.
If its priced at least make it a good app, give a trial or free version.
This is where gaming comes in, obviously we know if not most games are marked with prices with no free trials and are half assed.
So I can see where piracy comes in, no one wants to pay 5.99$ for a half assed game. I've bought some games I regret and I proudly say if they release another I will pirate it. Sometimes its better to stay free, if its a great app or a dev who has done previous great work I would support them.
Yes I do pirate and I don't. Its where I stand with the devs and apps.
I'm shocked we don't pay for ROMs honestly.. these devs are fantastic at what they do and yes its for free, so props to them "unless it would be illegal which I don't believe it is" :sly:
Anyway.. I'm curious what you guys think?
Feel the same, do you support every dev in the play store?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
This is not meant to be offensive, but I might rant a bit.
Devs sharing their work for free? Have you ever programmed, taken a programming course, or had to pay 80k for a bachelors in Computer Science? It is time consuming to think of a good idea, implement it well, and then squash bugs. It takes HOURS, days, if not months.
Yes, there are devs who charge for crappy apps and I agree, some devs are greedy. However, isn't paying for an app the same logic as paying for a pizza? Yes, you can make one yourself, but its not like you can make a quality pizza without spending a lot in ingredients or machines (ovens, etc)--you're paying for the convenience of it being done already for you.
This applies to apps as well. You may be able to program something similar given enough time, but you are paying for the convenience and their time for making the app for you to use. Just because it is digital and not tangible doesn't make it any less work.
Now I agree that there should be some sort of trial for an app to see whether or not its good or that you like it. Unfortunately, the world doesnt run on this type of honesty and nobody would pay if it were offered for free. Thats why devs have to charge and thats why some people pirate. However, if you do pirate, please throw the developer some money if you really enjoy their app or use it frequently, otherwise if they go broke, how will they keep developing your favorite app?
/rant
You are right.
No argument* I want it to be a clean talk amongst android users.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I don't see this thread going anywhere but down hill and fast
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Same goes for PC games. PC gamers can't rent games so they pirate. If you buy a PC game , guess what, you're stuck with it.
But, as for android apps at least we can get a refund which eleviates the need for a trial in some circumstances
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
Piracy is a huge issue on Android, but like any thing you just have to put a little effort into making it more difficult to crack. Although a lot of people say that leaving it free with ads actually makes them more money then charging for it.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/26/how-free-apps-can-make-more-money-than-paid-apps/
edit: if you like indie games you should check out the humble bundle
OP, your logic is horrible. I do applaud your honesty, no matter how awful I believe it to be. Devs create content have a free will choice to make, and those who charge are well within their rights to do so. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO STEAL, EVER. Now, having said that, some devs create content as their job. How can they buy food and pay rent if people steal their stuff. This thread is a failure, other than highlighting the challenge Google has in locking down Android to prevent piracy but still allow side loading and customizing.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Didn't jellybean announce new device specific encryption for apps. Though I'm doubting it won't be cracked...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
msavic6 said:
Didn't jellybean announce new device specific encryption for apps. Though I'm doubting it won't be cracked...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup says that in the article.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
You're basically asking for a carpenter to build a house and give it away for free. Development costs time and money, and they have every right to ask back so that they can continue.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I think everyone likes free stuff，this is normal
When i was new to android, i swore i would never pay for an app or game, and was happy that way. Then i got titanium backup and loved it, but hated that i couldn't batch restore, so i broke down and bought premium. Then i started frequenting these forums, seeing how much effort some of these devs out into their apps, games, etc. Now i pay for them, gladly, an i look for paid apps by respected devs first. Mostly i do it for functionality, but also to support. Titanium Backup, Franco kernel, CWM touch recovery, root explorer and many more I've bought and will gladly continue to do so. I get better apps and i support further development. Win/win in my book.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Right, because 5.99 is such an exorbitant price... so many other things that I could do with that money that would have lasting value... wait. No, not really.
If you don't want to spend the money on the app then you don't really want it. Don't steal.
Because of this thinking and abuse Android is full of crap adware/push adware games, and you don't see most quality games released for Android. That is so sad.
I just have one question: do you work for free? Or do your poor employer have to shell out some bucks to have you working there? Yes, I wonder why those bastard devs charge for they hard work, or use those ad craps to try to get some money out of their hard work...
And also, you say, there is a lot of sh1tware, yes, there are, as there are a lot of sh1temployees.... You hire them, they do not do their work, they get fired... You buy sh1tware, you realize it is sh1t, then you won't ever buy anything from those bastards again... I really loved when you had an entire day to get a refund in Android Market, but them, a lot of smartass3s had to abuse it, and just use the game/app for the entire day and ask for a refund, doing that for several games/apps....
So, if Android market for games is like it is today, is just because most people think like you, either don't buy anything at all, they prefer to stick to a free ad game than paying 5-7-10 bucks for a quality game like Infinity Blade, or, worse, they just pirate it, and yes, installous and jailbreak exist for iOS, but this is not as easy as just ticking a box in settings menu and then downloading APK's from anywhere...
Don't get me wrong, I love the way Android is open, but, unfortunately, most people suck and doesn't know how to use freedom, instead, they abuse and try to get advantages out of it...
Unfortunately Google will probably end up walling their garden because of these issues, or at least surrounding it with thorn bushes
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
I hate how articles act like piracy isn't an issue on other platforms....
A jailbroken iphone has tons of pirate app stores
crixley said:
I hate how articles act like piracy isn't an issue on other platforms....
A jailbroken iphone has tons of pirate app stores
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. Jail broke my brother's iPhone and the first thing he ask is, "OK load it up with apps for free."
I stared at him and made him learn it himself. He did, but still, $1 doesnt kill.
I just bought COD: BOZ, a $7 app. The closest I am to pirating is "Game Sharing".
Me and my friends put each other's Gmail account(requires a lot of trust Cuz we can tamper with each other's mail & stuff) on each other's phone and share our purchased apps. Done.
I do admit I pirate once in a while(Nova 3 being one, so laggy that it wasn't worth the price.)
But there is one punishment I love about Jailbreakers, if you pirate your apps, u can't put em back in when you unjailbreak to upgrade to the next iOS.
--------------------------------------------------
If I have helped you.... hit that sexy thanks button. ^_^
Pretty much all the people I know who own an iPhone or iPod touch and have it jail broken mainly did it for installous...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
msavic6 said:
Pretty much all the people I know who own an iPhone or iPod touch and have it jail broken mainly did it for installous...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
first thing that all Jailbreakers learn how to do.
--------------------------------------------------
If I have helped you.... hit that sexy thanks button. ^_^
i never thoght i would pay money for apps or anything. but later on as i used android, and looked at forums, i realized that devs really do alot of work. put urself in their shoes, and first thing i thought was "why the fk should i bother making this crap if all its gonna do is go to some ungrateful persons phone and im not even gonna get a thanks". so i regularly buy apps. not only does that make the android market that much closer to being as good and as diverse as the ios market, but u also get the LEGIT app without any risks of having some weird ass **** go wrong with ur phone in a very subtle way.....
A couple of keyboard mods I've downloaded from XDA have had a stupid amount of unnecessary permissions, they were deleted with haste.
There will be bad people on here, that's life, so who too trust?
Is a 'Recognized Contributor' XDAs seal of approval?
ROM Devs could be putting anything in their work, I can't read code so don't know, but others do, so I tend to stick with devs that openly publish their work (wasn't that the idea) & appear to have the respect of others in the community.
I hope this will keep me safe-ish.
If anyone has any advice about safety on XDA I'd like to hear what you think.
Sent from my Xperia S using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Usually you can trust almost anyone on XDA. Most malicious people will have been banned or had their posts deleted. Any titled member (RCs, RTs, RDs, mods, admins etc.) can certainly be trusted and so can the vast majority of people who share any sort of work on here.
Sent from my Nexus 4
This is what I do to be safe on xda, I look at the OP of the mod/rom/etc's other threads first to see what he/she had done in the past and if all is good, then I use away. If the OP doesn't have any history on here I usually wait a bit for others to give feedback and if all is good, then I use away.
Nigeldg said:
Usually you can trust almost anyone on XDA. Most malicious people will have been banned or had their posts deleted. Any titled member (RCs, RTs, RDs, mods, admins etc.) can certainly be trusted and so can the vast majority of people who share any sort of work on here.
Sent from my Nexus 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its reassuring to know *Recognized* is a valid stamp of approval.
Ty
'Murica said:
This is what I do to be safe on xda, I look at the OP of the mod/rom/etc's other threads first to see what he/she had done in the past and if all is good, then I use away. If the OP doesn't have any history on here I usually wait a bit for others to give feedback and if all is good, then I use away.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good advice, I've checked duration of membership & number of thx, but never other thread history.
Ty
Sent from my Xperia S using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Memethecat said:
A couple of keyboard mods I've downloaded from XDA have had a stupid amount of unnecessary permissions, they were deleted with haste.
There will be bad people on here, that's life, so who too trust?
Is a 'Recognized Contributor' XDAs seal of approval?
ROM Devs could be putting anything in their work, I can't read code so don't know, but others do, so I tend to stick with devs that openly publish their work (wasn't that the idea) & appear to have the respect of others in the community.
I hope this will keep me safe-ish.
If anyone has any advice about safety on XDA I'd like to hear what you think.
Sent from my Xperia S using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Trust is a difficult question - generally, people around here are reasonably honest. For someone to get a Recognised title, they have been around for a while, are helpful, consistent, and post generally good work which meets criteria in terms of how it is posted etc.
There's no guarantees though - someone could have "hacked" a user's account, if they used a poor password, or used that password elsewhere. While you are unlikely to hit difficulties, always be vigilant - just use your nose and steer clear if something doesn't seem right.
For example, user with 3 posts, who registered last week, posting an APK for "their" keyboard that's available on the Play Store for free... That's one to be cautious of - it may well be legitimate, and most likely is, but it just isn't worth the risk when you could get the "proper" version with feedback etc from the store, or this untested, unknown, APK from the website.
pulser_g2 said:
Trust is a difficult question - generally, people around here are reasonably honest. For someone to get a Recognised title, they have been around for a while, are helpful, consistent, and post generally good work which meets criteria in terms of how it is posted etc.
There's no guarantees though - someone could have "hacked" a user's account, if they used a poor password, or used that password elsewhere. While you are unlikely to hit difficulties, always be vigilant - just use your nose and steer clear if something doesn't seem right.
For example, user with 3 posts, who registered last week, posting an APK for "their" keyboard that's available on the Play Store for free... That's one to be cautious of - it may well be legitimate, and most likely is, but it just isn't worth the risk when you could get the "proper" version with feedback etc from the store, or this untested, unknown, APK from the website.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Master Signature you got there
You Must Be a Elite Programmer
pulser_g2 said:
Trust is a difficult question - generally, people around here are reasonably honest. For someone to get a Recognised title, they have been around for a while, are helpful, consistent, and post generally good work which meets criteria in terms of how it is posted etc.
There's no guarantees though - someone could have "hacked" a user's account, if they used a poor password, or used that password elsewhere. While you are unlikely to hit difficulties, always be vigilant - just use your nose and steer clear if something doesn't seem right.
For example, user with 3 posts, who registered last week, posting an APK for "their" keyboard that's available on the Play Store for free... That's one to be cautious of - it may well be legitimate, and most likely is, but it just isn't worth the risk when you could get the "proper" version with feedback etc from the store, or this untested, unknown, APK from the website.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's fair enough, common sense takes gold again )
Sent from my Xperia S using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Today, Samsung announced a new Kindle for Samsung app through their Samsung Apps Store. Rather than trying to rewrite their blog post (http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/?p=35871), i'll just copy from their summary:
- Samsung and Amazon agreed to launch ‘Kindle for Samsung’, a custom-built eBook service offering millions of best-selling books, newspapers and magazines on readers’ mobile devices including over 500,000 exclusive titles.
- Samsung and Amazon will also launch Samsung Book Deals, a service providing 12 free eBooks a year to all Kindle for Samsung Galaxy smartphone and tablet users. (Basically, they let you choose one of four books to get for free every month).
I already installed the app. It looks better than the official Kindle app in my opinion. And the first 4 free books to choose from are already up.
The fort
http://goo.gl/MrL8QI
Elizabeth Street
http://goo.gl/yQobiM
Apocalypse Z: The Beginning of the End
http://goo.gl/1DitEI
Bone River
http://goo.gl/3Axwjz
I think i'm gonna go with Apocalypse Z.
Download a free open-source e-book reader and you get a million more of these than Amazon is giving you, and without the con. I didn't check your complete list but the one you chose is definately free:
*Mod Edit: No Piracy On XDA*
Frank
With android, almost everything is free and I love freebies! I'll go first with Apocalypse Z too.
Frank Westlake said:
Download a free open-source e-book reader and you get a million more of these than Amazon is giving you, and without the con. I didn't check your complete list but the one you chose is definately free:
Frank
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What con are you talking about? Samsung is offering books for free. Books that you would otherwise need to pay for.
And contrary to what you posted, the Apocalypse Z book is not free. I went to the link you suggested. Doesn't look legit or legal. I searched for some other books that I know are not free (The Goldfinch, Hunger Games, LOTR). Guess what? They all came up as 'free' with a 'download now' button next to them. But not before the download link took me to two (yes, two) other sites (usearchmedia(.)com and mediasuns(.)com). And of course, there was the obligatory disclaimer at the bottom of the ebook-share site:
"DISCLAIMER: None of the files shown here are actually hosted or transmitted by this server. The links are provided solely by this sites users. The administrator of this site cannot be held responsible for what its users post, or any other actions of its users. You may not use this site to distribute or download any material when you do not have the legal rights to do so. It is your own responsibility to adhere to these terms."
Why would you criticize Samsung for providing free LEGAL books, call it a con, and then point users to some crap illegal file-sharing site?
Lorettaa said:
With android, almost everything is free and I love freebies! I'll go first with Apocalypse Z too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, there's a lot of free stuff for Android. Still, I like where Samsung is going. They are really pushing hard to separate themselves from Google, Amazon, and all the other manufacturers. If that means giving me free stuff, like Milk and Kindle for Amazon, then i'm all for it.
deleted. I failed reading comprehension. ?
At least we get what we pay for. They should give more to their loyal customers.
Great step
Great step taken by 2 Giant. I love it. Thanks for this great step.
toastido said:
deleted. I failed reading comprehension.
LOL! Same here. Im sure you're a busy person.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Frank Westlake said:
Download a free open-source e-book reader and you get a million more of these than Amazon is giving you, and without the con. I didn't check your complete list but the one you chose is definately free:
*Mod Edit: No Piracy On XDA*
Frank
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In this case I was conned, but more often than not it is the reverse. Many times I see these online book publishers selling public domain work which I have downloaded freely from Project Gutenberg. So in general I am right, I just chose a bad example. I download books only from Project Gutenberg but in an attempt to demonstrate my point here I just made a quick Internet search on the one title.
My recommendation is still to download a free e-book reader and to freely down free public domain books.
Frank
You have your point man, and we respect it. Actually I never spent $ on e-books, reading should be free.
Lorettaa said:
You have your point man, and we respect it. Actually I never spent $ on e-books, reading should be free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reading is free. It's the books that sometimes cost money.
Not all of the books I want to read are public domain. I don't mind paying for decent books. I'm not going to spend $20 on an ebook, but I don't mind spending a few dollars. I bought Hugh Howey's 'Silo' series for like $3 and it was worth every penny. On the other hand, I went out and bought 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' for $12 because all my friends swore by it, but I couldn't get past the first 50 pages. Just not my writing/reading style. Wish I could return it. lol
80% of my ebooks and audiobooks I get from the library anyway. I just finished the Dune audiobook last week, and now am reading the Dune Messiah ebook. I got both from the library via Overdrive.
I must say reading books should be free. Thanks for correcting it. I can see you're a bookworm and this freebies are for readers like you. Enjoy the freebies
Lorettaa said:
I must say reading books should be free. Thanks for correcting it. I can see you're a bookworm and this freebies are for readers like you. Enjoy the freebies
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Shame on people charging money for spending their time writing books. Taking is free so phones should be free too?!? Dumb.
Sent from my SM-N900T using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
You have your point, and I was wrong, but that was not I'm trying to say. Sorry about that.
Bataga said:
Shame on people charging money for spending their time writing books. Taking is free so phones should be free too?!? Dumb.
Sent from my SM-N900T using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see you're from Lilburn. I was in Atlanta for a conference and decided to drive to Lilburn to visit some family. Nice drive, nice town (or city). I didn't get lost once, which made me very proud considering I am from NYC and don't drive that often.
Anywho...
Lorettaa said:
You have your point, and I was wrong, but that was not I'm trying to say. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know what you were trying to say. I seek out freebies every chance I can get too. I hardly ever turn down a free book, even if it's something I don't think i'll read. I got two free Audible audiobook credits that I am trying to decide what to use on (I was originally going to go with LOTR, but I only have two credits and don't want to have to pay for the third book.) I recently got 'Heart of Darkness' and 'A Princess of Mars' cause they were free on Amazon (along with the Audible audiobook free as well).
I live by two rules. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. And never turn down a free book.