No more Android pirates: Google launches licensing service

Android has been a platform that allows its users to pirate applications relatively easily up until now, with users able to install licensed, pay applications if they can get a copy of the "apk" installer files for the program, and know how to install the applications themselves -- there is little to no copyright protection in many of the applications available today.

Today, Google announced an initiative to combat this, simply called the "Licensing Service for Android Applications" which is free for Android Developers to use. The platform supports anywhere from Android 1.5 up, and "provides a secure mechanism to manage access to all Android Market paid applications."

The system works by allowing the application to query the Android market's licensing server, and return information based on whether or not the application is licensed for use for the current user based on sales records. According to the blog post, the service operates in real time over the network -- Wifi, EDGE, 3G or GPRS and "provides more flexibility in choosing license-enforcement strategies, and a more secure approach in protecting your applications from unauthorized use, than copy protection."

It seems like the change is a bad move for users who do not have an "always on" unlimited data plan on their phone, or are not frequently using Wifi. There are no details on if the applications will be crippled when offline, similar to the DRM behaviour found in popular games such as Assasins Creed II, but the move is in favour of those developers and customers who are legitimately purchasing Android applications.

The service is available now for application developers to build into their applications, and is intended to replace the current Android copy-protection in the future. More information about licensing your applications is available on the Android Developers website.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New Intel technology to make it possible to download an HD movie in a second

Next Story

TechSpot: Run Firefox 3.6 and Firefox 4 Beta Simultaneously

105 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

DATmafia, the problem is that it's an illusion. It will punish legit users more than it will penalize dishonest ones.

Probably it will get proxied, like mentioned above, and then honest users will have slower access to their apps, and mention waste a little more bandwidth. great idea.

Most Android fans are the type that have most of their needs met with free apps. I don't find many compelling reasons to buy and app when there's almost always a free app that does the same thing. Perhaps there's some apps people cannot live without but you can almost always find a beta on Google Code that will get you what you want. But, I do things it's wise to try and provide a mechanism to keep app purchasing honest. Yes, it's a kind of DRM. It would be unwise for Google to sit back and done nothing. Google doesn't wall in their users by dictating what content you can and cannot view on your Android device, the least you can do is support dev's and give them the 1.99 for the app or be content with the free offerings which are plentiful.

Sounds good, too bad it will only work for a few weeks at maximum then people will have figured out how to crack it... Sadly that's just how it works...

People are still pulling the "OMG DRM" card like this was windows vista? Invasion of privacy? Nagging the end user? Geez people. They're applying anti-piracy measures to 1-dollar apps, of which you will probably purchase 2 or 3 a year.

This has already been defeated in other store systems by having an authentication application on the phone and setting your traffic to a local (handset local) proxy server that the application spawns. Then when it receives the packets from the applications looking for authentication it sends back dummy data saying it was legitimately purchased.

It'll always be a cat and mouse game.

Vice said,
This has already been defeated in other store systems by having an authentication application on the phone and setting your traffic to a local (handset local) proxy server that the application spawns. Then when it receives the packets from the applications looking for authentication it sends back dummy data saying it was legitimately purchased.

It'll always be a cat and mouse game.

In this case, the responses are signed with a private key, only known to the Market server. That will make it very difficult to pass dummy data back as a legit response...but then again, when the brains of XDA get together, amazing things can happen....

al1uk said,

In this case, the responses are signed with a private key, only known to the Market server. That will make it very difficult to pass dummy data back as a legit response...but then again, when the brains of XDA get together, amazing things can happen....

In this case, you just need to replace the pub key in the app (that's used to verify) with your own.

al1uk said,

but then again, when the brains of XDA get together, amazing things can happen....

last time i checked the people over at XDA where against piracy...

amon91 said,
Someone's just gonna flash the firmware somehow and totally get around this. Still, glad they're trying.

The ability to verify purchases is built into the Market app, not Android OS. Flashing another ROM isn't gonna help here.

I don't mind paying for good apps and am all for devs getting paid however I am not for something that I legitimately paid for being crippled if I don't have a data connection.
What happens if I'm on a flight and want to play a game or something? By the sounds of it, you can't with this system.

Hackersoft MS MVP said,
I don't mind paying for good apps and am all for devs getting paid however I am not for something that I legitimately paid for being crippled if I don't have a data connection.
What happens if I'm on a flight and want to play a game or something? By the sounds of it, you can't with this system.

You can as long as you've run said game at least once while having a data connection. Every dev knows that most people will be on limited data plans AND not always able to access data.

Here is what Google says that relates to your problem:


To complete a license check, the licensing server must be accessible over the network. You can implement license caching behaviors to manage access when there is no network connectivity.

I don't like piracy, and as a developer, I'm a bit torn. I don't like this for additional burden it could put on legitimate customers. The Assasins Creed II DRM servers have gone down in the past, preventing everyone (exept pirates) from playing the game. I assume this has the same potential.

Also, when I'm out of range, I assume I will be locked out. That is very problematic (think Airplane mode).

Finally, how futureproof is it? I know this probably isn't that big of a deal because if the servers are ever taken offline permanently, I probably will have long since moved on to another phone. But, it still bothers me a bit thinking someone could eventually turn off something I've purchased. I shudder to think of what would happen to my Steam account if Valve ever went out of business.

Yes, this is great because anti-piracy measures on the iphone certainly stopped people from pirating iphone apps. Pirates will still get along just fine within days if not hours of the implementation. All this will do is eat up data when wifi isn't around, harming legitimate customers.

It's amazing how many people here are brainwashed into thinking that this is a good thing.

Arctirus said,
Yes, this is great because anti-piracy measures on the iphone certainly stopped people from pirating iphone apps. Pirates will still get along just fine within days if not hours of the implementation. All this will do is eat up data when wifi isn't around, harming legitimate customers.

It's amazing how many people here are brainwashed into thinking that this is a good thing.

Depends on how it's done. If it checks on first run and then activates the app so it doesn't need to check again, I don't see how that is such a big problem. And from the looks of it, that is exactly how Google has done it.

Thoe I have no issues with anti-pirating schemes. To much my dismay... I don't feel there should be a forced online DRM scheme of sorts. It hurts the legit user in the end. Stick to local protection, and if its bypassed its up to the developer to protect there application. Perhaps a 1 time check on install would be better.

I own a palm pre, and pirating is preety much easy. But there level of security goes as far as (technically) unable to retrieve the original IPK (installer). And you cannot at least upgrade a application (from the app catalog) that you did not download, even if its already installed. But anywho.

So, koodos to Google in the end for helping out there developers the best they can either way.

Klownicle said,
Thoe I have no issues with anti-pirating schemes. To much my dismay... I don't feel there should be a forced online DRM scheme of sorts. It hurts the legit user in the end. Stick to local protection, and if its bypassed its up to the developer to protect there application. Perhaps a 1 time check on install would be better.

I own a palm pre, and pirating is preety much easy. But there level of security goes as far as (technically) unable to retrieve the original IPK (installer). And you cannot at least upgrade a application (from the app catalog) that you did not download, even if its already installed. But anywho.

So, koodos to Google in the end for helping out there developers the best they can either way.

The protection scheme is STILL up to the developer. They can perform JUST one check if they so choose to.

schizo_ said,
Software should be free to the end user

Should, eh? On what grounds? Can you make a compelling argument for that perspective, or are you just cheap?

schizo_ said,
Software should be free to the end user. Good software should be rewarded by advertizers who are already making millions of you asses.

Holy crap, how many jaded open-source Utopia children ARE there on this site? Why should a dev desecrate his app with ads when he can just ask for a buck or two and never have to deal with them at all?

If you develop something then develop it for yourself.
If you don't want to update it, then don't and ignore the flack.

I support this, but I am more in support of my WiFi being turned off when I need it to be.

Good for devs.

And I dont get the drama with the whole "omg you're gonna need data". The google documentation says the app CAN query the google servers. I'm sure devs can find a way to do "disable" the app in case it detects it's not properly licensed. So that would require only one query!

The security of your application's licensing controls ultimately relies on the design of your implementation itself. The service provides the building blocks that let you securely check licensing, but the actual enforcement and handling of the license are factors in your control. By following the best practices in this document, you can help ensure that your implementation will be secure.

So
1) A good developer won't have the thing checking the license every 20 minutes
2) They can cache the license data in case there is no connection.


READ THE SOURCE !!

Its good and all but Google should make the market available in Malaysia. I mean we do get free apps but we cannot see any paid apps unless we use market enabler...

Now, if only they'd allow me to *use* Android Marketplace, as we here in Denmark (and lot's of other places) have never even been able to buy apps

I hope they don't expect me to go online every time I start the application (at least until Google pays for my online data usage).

tom5 said,
I hope they don't expect me to go online every time I start the application (at least until Google pays for my online data usage).

It caches a license for when the network isn't available. Admittedly, Neowin really should've read through the source link just a tiny bit and thrown that into the article. Would've made it a tiny, itty bit less sensational.

You still can hack the system in order to prevent any unapproved requests to their server.

Actually this is illegal. It's called hidden service. Whatever they have in their EULA it's illegal to charge on additional services, which are useless and not necessary to customer, when they are already paid for primary services - the phone and application. At least how it goes in Russia. And calls are cheap here, but mobile internet is very expensive with every session rounded to 50 kb or 100 kb depending on operator. So any checks at least should be approved by users, and if it won't be approved it doesn't mean that application couldn't be installed.
I was thinking to switch from Symbian to Android by the end of the year, but now Android's future doesn't look that bright.

It took me all but 3 seconds to figure out a logical way around this lame attempt that is only going to drive the legitimate consumers data usage through the roof. I'm sure if I can think it through that 99% of rom bakers already have the code wrote...

With that said, android offers most apps for free. Only good games and specialty apps need to be paid for. $30 of apps on an iPhone can have their equivalent for free on android market... makes you wonder..

And while you were being so productive, I read the source link and saw that this allows for license caching and doesn't require checking in with the market at every run.

License queries won't send data usage through the roof. It could also possibly be argued that such data should be an exception to charges in a data plan (similar to how Windows Update on old WinMo phones didn't incur charges).

Beaux said,
But, according to the recent ruling, it's legal to make a hack to access a program...

..only if you are securing the hack. EG: informing the creator of the hole, how it was accessed, and steps that may be useful to repair. They didn't say it was OK to hack programs and keep them that way.

Ruciz said,

..only if you are securing the hack. EG: informing the creator of the hole, how it was accessed, and steps that may be useful to repair. They didn't say it was OK to hack programs and keep them that way.
That wasn't the ruling that I was talking about.
The ruling that used dongles as an example said you can use a hack to access a program as long as it's not to make illegal copies.

Beaux said,
That wasn't the ruling that I was talking about.
The ruling that used dongles as an example said you can use a hack to access a program as long as it's not to make illegal copies.

Warning: Over-simplification alert. Context research recommended.

Joshie said,

Warning: Over-simplification alert. Context research recommended.

I'll bet I read more on it than you did.

Beaux said,
I'll bet I read more on it than you did.

Or it means you just read what your eyes wanted to see. Bypassing DRM is still illegal if you're doing it to illegally obtained software, NOT simply if you're doing it with the intent to distribute. In other words, it could arguably be legal to break the DRM on apps you legally purchased from the market for yourself. But if you pirate an app and break the DRM to run it, you've still broken the law.

Joshie said,
But if you pirate an app and break the DRM to run it, you've still broken the law.
I never said that wasn't breaking the law.
I said it was legal to make the hack. Using it on pirated software is a different story. But why does that even matter? The software would have to be pirated first, which is illegal anyway. If someone is going to do one thing that's illegal, why would they stop at doing something else (that's even easier) illegal?

Beaux said,
I never said that wasn't breaking the law.
I said it was legal to make the hack. Using it on pirated software is a different story. But why does that even matter? The software would have to be pirated first, which is illegal anyway. If someone is going to do one thing that's illegal, why would they stop at doing something else (that's even easier) illegal?

Should I quote your original comment? You did say it was legal to hack a program so that you can access it. No, it is not. It is legal to hack a program's (that you legally own) protection if you were to inform the developer about what you did, how you did it and then remove the hack and continue using the software as intended. Now look at your own original comment:

But, according to the recent ruling, it's legal to make a hack to access a program...

P.S. Pirating a software is much easier than hacking the protection.

Metodi Mitov said,

Should I quote your original comment? You did say it was legal to hack a program so that you can access it. No, it is not. It is legal to hack a program's (that you legally own) protection if you were to inform the developer about what you did, how you did it and then remove the hack and continue using the software as intended.

That's not how the ruling went. Go read. It is legal to make a hack that enables access to the software, without telling anyone or doing anything else.


P.S. Pirating a software is much easier than hacking the protection.
Using a hack that's already made is easier than pirating software.

Beaux said,
That's not how the ruling went. Go read. It is legal to make a hack that enables access to the software, without telling anyone or doing anything else.

So you believe it is legal to rent a game from somewhere, break the protection, copy the cd/dvd and keep playing it? That is not illegal? Very entertaining notion. Go and ask a lawyer about that, see what he says. Show him your carefully done research on the new law too.

I'm sure your lawyer will be very happy with this particular bit:


Allow people to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws.

Are you investigating or correcting security flaws when you break the protection of a game just so you can play it? You can claim it all you want, but you're not.

Metodi Mitov said,

So you believe it is legal to rent a game from somewhere, break the protection, copy the cd/dvd and keep playing it? That is not illegal? Very entertaining notion. Go and ask a lawyer about that, see what he says. Show him your carefully done research on the new law too.

I'm sure your lawyer will be very happy with this particular bit:


Are you investigating or correcting security flaws when you break the protection of a game just so you can play it? You can claim it all you want, but you're not.

Learn to read. I already said that that isn't the ruling I was talking about.

Beaux said,
Learn to read. I already said that that isn't the ruling I was talking about.

For someone who keeps demanding everyone else to read, you do very little of it yourself. Then again, from the pathetic reply you made to me which consisted of nothing but a YouTube video and a very unoriginal quote of my own comment, it seems you're just another jaded starry-eyed open source man who thinks that everything should be free and we're entitled to it.

Your arguments are such bullcr@p. You're just trolling everyone here by saying "it's totally ok to make a hack and not release it" and then you wait for people to assume that you approve of using said hack.

Get a life.

LiquidSolstice said,

For someone who keeps demanding everyone else to read, you do very little of it yourself. Then again, from the pathetic reply you made to me which consisted of nothing but a YouTube video and a very unoriginal quote of my own comment, it seems you're just another jaded starry-eyed open source man who thinks that everything should be free and we're entitled to it.

Your arguments are such bullcr@p. You're just trolling everyone here by saying "it's totally ok to make a hack and not release it" and then you wait for people to assume that you approve of using said hack.

Get a life.

Wow... You don't think what you're doing is trolling? You haven't touched any information at all relative to this thread.

Beaux said,
Wow... You don't think what you're doing is trolling? You haven't touched any information at all relative to this thread.

And you haven't done jack crap by sitting here saying "oh, its ok you can still make cracks if you dont' tell anyone". A, you know very well everyone who wants to use pirated apps will find and share the method, and B, you're not adding anything to the article at all because all you're talking about is some ruling that allows you to bypass copy protection IN SPECIFIC cases.

Jesus. It should be illegal to be this moronic. Seriously, keep it coming. Your hilarious pseudo-intelligence is incredibly funny.

LiquidSolstice said,

And you haven't done jack crap by sitting here saying "oh, its ok you can still make cracks if you dont' tell anyone". A, you know very well everyone who wants to use pirated apps will find and share the method, and B, you're not adding anything to the article at all because all you're talking about is some ruling that allows you to bypass copy protection IN SPECIFIC cases.

If you knew how to read, you would know that I haven't talked at all about any ruling that has anything to do with copy protection.

Beaux said,
If you knew how to read, you would know that I haven't talked at all about any ruling that has anything to do with copy protection.

Are you really this f***ing stupid, or are you honestly just having a laugh? Because you're the one who very much said:

But, according to the recent ruling, it's legal to make a hack to access a program...

I see "ruling" in there, and I see "hack to access a program" which very much implies circumventing copy protection in order to use an application without any DRM.

Seriously. You're starting to **** me off. You jumped in here all high-minded and elitist. You've got no cause, no substance, and all you're doing is annoying other people who are inadvertently falling to what's either trolling (less likely) or just downright stubborn stupidity (more likely).

LiquidSolstice said,

Are you really this f***ing stupid, or are you honestly just having a laugh? Because you're the one who very much said:

I see "ruling" in there, and I see "hack to access a program" which very much implies circumventing copy protection in order to use an application without any DRM.

Seriously. You're starting to **** me off. You jumped in here all high-minded and elitist. You've got no cause, no substance, and all you're doing is annoying other people who are inadvertently falling to what's either trolling (less likely) or just downright stubborn stupidity (more likely).

"to access a program" very much implies that it's not to circumvent copy protection. It's only to access the legal copy that you already have.

Besides, you shouldn't need me to tell you that it's not about copy protection. You can do your own research on the ruling and find out what it's about.

This is good. Most apps I use are free and the paid ones are like $1-$3 per app so it's not like u can't skip a coffee for 1 day and buy an app.

It only be a matter of time before we see an "installous" type app for the android. I think this is good for the devs to insure their hardwork is compensated. But you known somewhere some kids are crying over this and piracy will still be on the rise. Only a matter of time

This lack of a managed 'licensing' or DRM system for Android Apps has been borderline crazy.

I think it is funny that these needed 'fixes' to the licensing are not called DRM and all the anti-DRM people aren't screaming in the streets. I guess it is how the press covers it, uh? (Funny how this article only says 'similar to DRM', when it is truly is DRM, plain and simple.)

When Microsoft uses this type of technology, people scream, "It is filled with DRM!" I guess DRM is ok if it is on a OSS platform? (People still scream Vista or Win7 is filled with DRM, and they just check for HDCP or will check for a license for a WMA/WMV file. -Which is why you can rent movies online, and why BluRay is common on Windows PCs, cause it is legally supported.)

Business sales models need a 'arbiter' to keep people and the process honest, that is all DRM is, maybe now that people have seen the necessity on Android, they won't go crazy about it when it is legitimately needed. And if you still hate DRM, just don't buy or use DRM applications or 'content' if Google expands the service to handle media.

(*Not a fan of anyone, but do like my Android based phone and look forward to trying the Win7Phone; iPhones are getting to be fun too, but with the limited 3G areas of ATT, it makes it impossible for myself since I travel a lot.)

I'm screaming. I think DRM is a borderline invasion of my privacy, and I think it's hilarious, in a very sad way that we have the following 4 things going on:
1) networks are getting better and faster
2) phones are getting better
3) carriers are starting to limit how much bandwidth we can use
4) others are trying to force our bandwidth use up

If my carrier is gonna limit me, I don't want a solitary byte of that bandwidth to go to waste on crap like this. The best anti-piracy scheme is a good product. What will end up happening is what always happens. Crackers will crack it, and it will end up only affecting honest users.

The proponents in this thread really ought to consider this thought, because that tends to be what happens. The anti-piracy scheme gets cracked, and the legitimate users are saddled with the costs of supporting it.

Google this is not going to stop it - don't get the android to look like the iPhone. Screw programs that you have to pay for, focus on Open Source.

Tpiom said,
Google this is not going to stop it - don't get the android to look like the iPhone. Screw programs that you have to pay for, focus on Open Source.

Do us a favor and shut up. You're not entitled to anything. In your perfect Linux-based Utopian world, all software is free and developers just happen to develop apps and put hard work into them because they've got no life whatsoever.

You take the time and effort to develop freeware and don't ask for donations. You'll see how unfair it feels when people demand fixes and expect new features or they start criticizing the dev and downrating the app for this reason.

In the real world, you know, outside of your starry-eyed open source world, money gets things done, and potential money is what motivates.

LiquidSolstice said,

Do us a favor and shut up. You're not entitled to anything. In your perfect Linux-based Utopian world, all software is free and developers just happen to develop apps and put hard work into them because they've got no life whatsoever.

You take the time and effort to develop freeware and don't ask for donations. You'll see how unfair it feels when people demand fixes and expect new features or they start criticizing the dev and downrating the app for this reason.

In the real world, you know, outside of your starry-eyed open source world, money gets things done, and potential money is what motivates.

+1 Somewhere along the line, Developers have to eat..

Excellent work there, posting a YouTube video that honestly doesn't mean much to me. Money is money is money. Money gets things done and equates to a sizable compensation for effort put in. That's the way of life. I don't need some shmuck on YouTube telling me otherwise, that's just material for a frontpage news story of Oprah Magazine.

So you too, do me a favor and shut up, or grow a pair and put your own though into a reply, because copy/pasting proves that nothing more than you having a higher intelligence level than a baked potato. Congrats.

LiquidSolstice said,

Excellent work there, posting a YouTube video that honestly doesn't mean much to me.

I should have known nothing would mean much to you. You just keep sticking to your opinions and ignore everyone.

Beaux said,
I should have known nothing would mean much to you. You just keep sticking to your opinions and ignore everyone.

Right, you post an incredibly irrelevant video that should belong in a lifestyle magazine and not a tech site and expect me to take it seriously? Are you stupid? Do you really think the motivation for mobile app development is remotely intrinsic?

Get real. I'm sure it must puff up your pride to be "that guy" that argues with little to no relevant substance, but I'm not really going to take that lying down.

LiquidSolstice said,
Right, you post an incredibly irrelevant video that should belong in a lifestyle magazine and not a tech site and expect me to take it seriously? Are you stupid?
Your comment, which came first, about money motivating things is just as incredibly irrelevant and more about lifestyles than tech. Do you expect people to take it seriously?

Beaux said,
Your comment, which came first, about money motivating things is just as incredibly irrelevant and more about lifestyles than tech. Do you expect people to take it seriously?

Money being the motivation is KEY here to this comment. Because unlike your useless retarded videeo that would seem to be in its place at a boring generic corporate motivation seminar, the concept here has to do with paid apps vs free open source. It seems to me you are actually quite stupid and blind. The original comment wanted Google to stop altogether with paid apps and only focusing on free open-source ones.

Maybe you don't realize that human beings code these apps? That they want something in return for their hard work? Maybe you believe in that "joy and happiness of the world" bullcrap but the rest of us are a bit more connected to reality.

Get your head out of your ass and stop trying to look smart, because it's really not working for you.

LiquidSolstice said,

Money being the motivation is KEY here to this comment. Because unlike your useless retarded videeo that would seem to be in its place at a boring generic corporate motivation seminar, the concept here has to do with paid apps vs free open source.

The video had nothing "to do with paid apps vs free open source"?

I think you didn't pay attention to the video...

Keep talking. Let's see some more of your ignorance and lack of comprehension.

Beaux said,
The video had nothing "to do with paid apps vs free open source"?

I think you didn't pay attention to the video...

Keep talking. Let's see some more of your ignorance and lack of comprehension.

It should be obvious that I'm not going to bother watching your retarded video when I have firsthand experience of what it means to have to put so much work and effort into an app that my close coworker tried to provide for free. I'm not talking out of my ass when I say that this is how the real world works. It was a small-time app he messed with involving package tracking, but people just felt entitled to and expected so much, and the moment he suggested keeping the money flowing (because all those cheap@$$es using the app wouldn't dare donate) was to add advertising or create a plus version, its use dropped completely.

This happens so often with even standard software its almost sad. People of this open-source obsession feel entitled to free applications and don't donate, forcing a "PLus" or "Pro" version with a basic version that has ads.

You're just another kid who wants to seem oh-so-smart but all you've got is a YouTube link and an inability to think logically. Go home.

Like I said, it's pathetic that your knowledge of

LiquidSolstice said,

It should be obvious that I'm not going to bother watching your retarded video when I have firsthand experience of what it means to have to put so much work and effort into an app that my close coworker tried to provide for free. I'm not talking out of my ass when I say that this is how the real world works. It was a small-time app he messed with involving package tracking, but people just felt entitled to and expected so much, and the moment he suggested keeping the money flowing (because all those cheap@$es using the app wouldn't dare donate) was to add advertising or create a plus version, its use dropped completely.

This happens so often with even standard software its almost sad. People of this open-source obsession feel entitled to free applications and don't donate, forcing a "PLus" or "Pro" version with a basic version that has ads.

You're just another kid who wants to seem oh-so-smart but all you've got is a YouTube link and an inability to think logically. Go home.

Like I said, it's pathetic that your knowledge of

I underestimated you. I didn't think you would admit your ignorance. But I'm trying to understand (It's difficult with the given grammar.) how any of this leads to you knowing what motivates people.

I agree that it's sad and wrong that people should think they're entitled to free software, but that has nothing to do with what's motivating people to be creative.

Good programs aren't made by people that are trying to get rich. People that are in it for the money end up making bad programs that people don't want to use. Good programs are made by people that aren't thinking about the money. Your own story illustrates this. When your coworker started thinking more about the money, usage of the program went down. People used the program more when he wasn't thinking about the money.

I'm glad in theory, but I hope this doesn't check every time you run the app. it should do it far less often than that, and then disable the app when it can.

I agree with the right to enforce copyright. but if I've paid for an app, one reason being to not get ads sting bandwidth, I don't want it wasting my paid for bandwidth still!

yakumo said,
I'm glad in theory, but I hope this doesn't check every time you run the app. it should do it far less often than that, and then disable the app when it can.

I agree with the right to enforce copyright. but if I've paid for an app, one reason being to not get ads sting bandwidth, I don't want it wasting my paid for bandwidth still!

I'm pretty sure it will be hard coded into the APK itself.

Good! I understand there's difficulties paying for apps in some areas, but for everyone else there's no excuse with instant refunds of uninstalled apps in the trial period.

thornz0 said,
Good! I understand there's difficulties paying for apps in some areas, but for everyone else there's no excuse with instant refunds of uninstalled apps in the trial period.

you bought the phone, apps are extras, you pay for extras...

im sick of this "developing areas - ends justify the means" attitude...
you can either afford the apps or you cant

Midgetman said,

you bought the phone, apps are extras, you pay for extras...

im sick of this "developing areas - ends justify the means" attitude...
you can either afford the apps or you cant

No no no you don't get it : there are areas wherer you CAN'T buy the apps even if you have the money and WANT to, google checkout just won't let you.
Where I live you can, but only with some credit cards, and of course it won't accept mine. In other country there's just no way you can pay for an app.

I hope this protection will coincide with the ability to pay directly through your carrier (or through paypal)

Good. Insures the devs get paid. Nothing wrong with this except for the issue with constantly having to check in with a licensing server. Would be better to use some kind of key that yo enter during install that validates online. But whatever...shall see how it works out.

techbeck said,
Nothing wrong with this except for the issue with constantly having to check in with a licensing server.

To complete a license check, the licensing server must be accessible over the network. You can implement license caching behaviors to manage access when there is no network connectivity.
so the onus is on developers to cache licenses. It might be a feature of the service later on...

d4v1d05 said,

so the onus is on developers to cache licenses. It might be a feature of the service later on...

It already is a feature. LVL will take care of securely caching the response via encryption if the dev chooses to use that 'policy'.

techbeck said,
Good. Insures the devs get paid. Nothing wrong with this except for the issue with constantly having to check in with a licensing server. Would be better to use some kind of key that yo enter during install that validates online. But whatever...shall see how it works out.

It should use your phones MSID. Liek many games on iphone are tied to the serail or however they do it.

WolfDV said,
uh oh...time to ditch my awesome droid, and get an iphone where pirating apps is still easy as pie.

Good riddance. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

WolfDV said,
uh oh...time to ditch my awesome droid, and get an iphone where pirating apps is still easy as pie.
Please don't get an iPhone...we don't want you

WolfDV said,
uh oh...time to ditch my awesome droid, and get an iphone where pirating apps is still easy as pie.

LOL you got burned twice you dirty pirate!

WolfDV said,
uh oh...time to ditch my awesome droid, and get an iphone where pirating apps is still easy as pie.

I know you are being sarcastic, but the posts above are wrong. Come get an iPhone and jailbreak.