Why are the ad blocking patches permitted here?
I remember the scandal with the "Impaled Angry Birds" version.
So why are developers developing in the disadvantage of others that rely on ads to receive revenue for apps that aren't lite versions and have no paid apps released?
More importantly, why are these distributed, discussed and allowed on this developer forum?
nemuro said:
Why are the ad blocking patches permitted here?
I remember the scandal with the "Impaled Angry Birds" version.
So why are developers developing in the disadvantage of others that rely on ads to receive revenue for apps that aren't lite versions and have no paid apps released?
More importantly, why are these distributed, discussed and allowed on this developer forum?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess because they're not technically breaking any rules.
There are rules against pirating apps but none against blocking the ads (which is sort of the same thing if you think about it, both are stopping the developers from getting the money they deserve).
But yes, i think 'adblockers' should be banned from these forums. I can't believe Google even allows them to be posted to the market tbh
You should start a poll and see if we can get the rules changed
It's not illegal to block ads on webpages? Which the apps also block.
/Feras - Galaxy Tab
I've felt adblockers necessary in a few games because they were almost unplayable. The problem also is alot of people only wanna block web ads but the ad blockers get apps too.
Sent from my Incredible using XDA App
I don't have a problem with watching ads in apps and I think it's a better way then selling apps that have no ads. I wouldn't buy most of the apps I have installed and with ads I can help the developers.
BUT: some ads are linking to a wap page which uses WAP billing. So when you touch the ad you have a contract over 10$ a week or something which is automatically billed with yor normal moblile contract. that makes it impossible to get your money back without risking high fees from your mobile provider for not paying your bills. Beacause it's not possible to block WAP billing (at least with O2) the only possible way to avoid this is to block the ads.
I'm very sorry for that, but if nothing changes (possibility to block wap billing, ads without wap links ...) I keep on blocking the ads.
I'd probably shouldn't be allowed, but I am glad that it is.
Some developers just throws ads in at the last minute and it often ruins the playability of a game and you end clicking ads by accident just trying to use the app which is not acceptable. I'll click an ad when I choose to.
My feeling is a lot of apps don't use ads respectably or creatively enough and so I rarely want to click an ad anyway. It's generally some lame text link to a larger corp. with little relation to the small-name game I'm playing. If someone's is going to make an awesome game, make an awesome ad too for something the majority of the people who downloaded your game are going to want. Have seen an endless stream of banner ads for the last 10 years of my life. Yawn.
Meltus said:
I guess because they're not technically breaking any rules.
There are rules against pirating apps but none against blocking the ads (which is sort of the same thing if you think about it, both are stopping the developers from getting the money they deserve).
But yes, i think 'adblockers' should be banned from these forums. I can't believe Google even allows them to be posted to the market tbh
You should start a poll and see if we can get the rules changed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Be careful with the "stopping developers from getting the money they deserve." comment. It is what the mpaa and riaa goons say too. It's hard to say who would use or stop using an app based on ads/too many ads if they couldn't be blocked. Developers can also sell limited free versions and full paid.
I won't deny or argue it, as there are problems with both sides, but a blanket ban seems a bit one sided in favor of the powers that be.
Adblockers themselves aren't breaking any of our rules, and are thus allowed - though it's certainly debatable what kind of person would use them.
That being said, I know there are apps out there that simply work around the adblocking and show you the ads anyways.
Note that copyrighted apps re-posted here but with the ads disabled (in most cases even without the ads disabled) is definitely against the rules. If you spot one, report the post and it will be removed, as happened with Impaled Angry Birds - though it was unfortunate it took so long to be removed (you can blame me for that if you want, I do).
I get annoyed at ROM revs that apply this. Let the user decide. I had a guy ask me to make one of my apps free because he said all the other apps like it were. I would but so many people block ads now. I'd like payment for my work and I can't find a good spot to place ads in the app. Maybe a load screen, but people would tire of that fast IMO. Maybe it is possible to write code to check if ads are blocked and have the app not function or very limited.
Sent from my iPhone with the bigger Gee Bees.
the adblockers simply make it "one click" easy to block the ads. there are numerous ways to get around the ads if you truly want too.
on a side note: how much of do the developers really lose? I'm not saying I'm one side or another but yes developers like getting paid and consumers don't like seeing ads.
my point being that most adblockers need access to your hosts file (phone must be rooted). xda is very big across the net but still a sort of 'niche' area where only a certain percentage of those us that like doing things to our phones meet. the vast majority of the market is totally unaware of what even rooting is.
as a very unscientific test, i asks all the people i know that use their phones for social networking and playing games (angry birds) questions pertaining to rooted phones and such. only about 2% of them even had a minor clue as to what i was talking about.
so to close this rant: adblocks might be bad/good in various ways but the majority of those ads are getting clicked and the developers are seeing something from that (of course i mean, if the ads really are paying)
i guess this has nothing to do with the OP question. simple answer. Ad Blockers aren't breaking any rules.
pxldtz said:
the adblockers simply make it "one click" easy to block the ads. there are numerous ways to get around the ads if you truly want too.
on a side note: how much of do the developers really lose? I'm not saying I'm one side or another but yes developers like getting paid and consumers don't like seeing ads.
my point being that most adblockers need access to your hosts file (phone must be rooted). xda is very big across the net but still a sort of 'niche' area where only a certain percentage of those us that like doing things to our phones meet. the vast majority of the market is totally unaware of what even rooting is.
as a very unscientific test, i asks all the people i know that use their phones for social networking and playing games (angry birds) questions pertaining to rooted phones and such. only about 2% of them even had a minor clue as to what i was talking about.
so to close this rant: adblocks might be bad/good in various ways but the majority of those ads are getting clicked and the developers are seeing something from that (of course i mean, if the ads really are paying)
i guess this has nothing to do with the OP question. simple answer. Ad Blockers aren't breaking any rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most of the time developers make very little from Ads, but in some rare cases (Angry Birds being a brilliant example) the company turns over about 1 million dollars a month, purely from ads.
The point of ad-supported apps, the way i see it anyway, is that you offer a free version that's ad supported and a 'paid' one that isn't (i know this isn't always the case, but that's the fault of the developer). Blocking the ads in the free one will undoubtably stop the users from buying the paid one, meaning the developer will lose out.
And whilst it's true that a very small percentage of all android users actually have rooted their phone and can use Ad Blockers, does that justify using one?
The OP has a point that the patches do take away revenue but the ad blockers are very different than other pirated methods since they do not change the programs themselves merely make additions to the phone's hosts file.
Ad Blockers of ANY kind (even on desktops) do the same thing. By blocking ads on Websites you are in essence STEALING money from the person who runs that site too!
but every major browser and Security suite has one!
And I would personally urge developers that if they want to use the AD subsidized business model they should at least offer a way to remove the ads via a one time donation. (Some do!)
I personally will not use or run any apps that use Ads simply because I know that 99% of all malware comes from scripts of hijacked servers these ads eminate from.
And it really sucks for those with limited data plans who will quickly run out of bandwidth quota from all the ads.
I really understand the OP (and other developers) point and I support their right to be compensated.
But please pick a better way to get compensated. A Lite version may entail slightly more work but it will ensure you will get something for it as opposed to hoping you get something for it because someone hacked the hosts file and stopped your revenue stream dead in it's tracks.
Meltus said:
And whilst it's true that a very small percentage of all android users actually have rooted their phone and can use Ad Blockers, does that justify using one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not at all, i'm simply stating both sides. it's going always going to be a pro/con dilemma. same with the mpaa/riaa except adblocking does not constitute piracy where you are literally stealing and not paying as opposed to modifynig your operating system to behave as you wish.
Asphyx said:
I personally will not use or run any apps that use Ads simply because I know that 99% of all malware comes from scripts of hijacked servers these ads eminate from.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
frankly speaking i do the same. I use ABP for firefox and i have a modifed hosts file as well that keeps these ads from ever appearing on my machine.
so atleast for justification on that part, consider the performance hits from multiple flash/banners/whatever popping up everytime you want to just browse the net.
Meltus said:
I guess because they're not technically breaking any rules.
There are rules against pirating apps but none against blocking the ads (which is sort of the same thing if you think about it, both are stopping the developers from getting the money they deserve).
But yes, i think 'adblockers' should be banned from these forums. I can't believe Google even allows them to be posted to the market tbh
You should start a poll and see if we can get the rules changed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can download ad free from the market for a while. Apparently Google does not have a problem with it. Why should XDA ban something that you can download from the market?
The other thing is that you can not stop people from editing their host file (because this is the only thing the application is doing)
So banning it from these forums doesn't make any sense at all IMO.
What ppl don't under stand is that if these programs didn't have ads they would cost money. Ppl do not write these programs for free, ads are they get paid. If u remove the ads u will see more programs being paid and less ad supported.
This stuff imo should not be allowed. But this will up end up costing everyone bc a few ppl are greedy. Whether it helps the performance of the game or w/e its besides the point. That was the developers decision. I am surprised its not against the terms of use.
My 2 cents lol
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
i don't understand why it would be against the terms of use? free vs paid vs ad supported all have valid points and you will never completely make everyone happy, whether it be the developer or the end user.
consider all the websites you visit on any given day and your antivirus software that you have installed that blocks a certain number of popups/ads that generate revenue for these websites.
how is this any different from having an ad blocker on your phone? it's still very much the same thing and i'm sure those that don't like the mentality of ad blocking on their phone use some sort of ad blocker on their pc.
Blocking ads is not a good thing for developers if that's how they get their money but it also takes away from the end-user experience. Ads usually get in the way (see Angry Birds) or they take away some of people's bandwidth if they don't have unlimited data. So no matter how you look at it somebody "pays" for it either way.
I'm not arguing for or against if this development should be on xda, just a different angle that i was thinking about for a long time.
the same, i'm not arguing for either side. just a debate towards both ends.
it's almost a rock/paper/scissors argument. each on trumps another.
developer distributes free app with ads. consumer likes app but dislikes ads. developer needs to keep consumer happy to get any downloads but still needs to get their revenue stream flowing, ie. ads stay in.
rinse, repeat.
If a consumer likes the app but dislikes the ads, said consumer should buy the full / pro / ad-free version.
Ads themselves bring very little in profits unless the app is used a LOT (like the Angry Birds example, which is extremely rare), and it's the correct type of app. A game is always in the foreground, you actually see the ads. A utility which runs a background service and is built well so you hardly ever need to interact with it, you'll see the ads pretty much never, and click on them even less. It is even arguable that a less well-built app brings in more ad-profits because you need to interact with it more.
I would argue (and in my experience this is correct) ads have more effect profit-wise in the number of people who are annoyed by ads and thus buy the full version than the ads themselves bring in. This is an important effect of ads that should not be overlooked, and this is IMHO a more important revenue stream adblockers negate than the ads themselves.
As for how big the percentage of adblocker users is, also depend on the target. For example, an application with ads targeted at root users, is much more likely to get adblocked than a non-root app. I would guesstimate (based on my own experience) the factor may be as high as a 20x difference.
At the end, it all comes down to that the user wants things to be free (and somehow they still want to be payed at their own jobs) while developers want to somehow get payed for their work, just like everybody else does. Somehow most users these days seem to think that because they technically can rip people off, it is not morally and ethically irresponsible to do so.
Reasonings like "I wouldn't pay for it anyway" or "I can't pay for it" or "I won't click the ads" or "the interface with ads annoy me" or "the ads take my limited bandwidth" are all both nonsensical and invalid in most cases. If you don't like it, be a real man and just don't use it, or pay for a version that doesn't have these limitations (and if it doesn't exist, again, simply don't use it). Don't have a credit card? Get one. Don't want to click ads? Then don't. (Or did you think they were placed in that annoying spot by accident ?). Want it different? Pay up. It not being the way you want it is never a valid reason to rip others. Ads taking your bandwidth? Pay up.
I'd like a car like yours, maybe I should just take yours and leave you empty-handed ?
Now of course with the latter statement, you would get people arguing that the unlicensed copying of software (in this case, yes, I am equating adblocking on ad-supported apps to piracy) is technically not theft while stealing your car is. While that would arguably be true from a dictionarial definition standpoint, it certainly isn't true from an economic standpoint.
As anyone with some knowledge of economics will assert to, a product's price calculation (excluding gaining market dominance or entry factors, simplified) goes something like this:
sale price = ( (research and development / expected units of sale) + (manufacturing cost + distribution cost) ) * (1 + profit margin)
Because "copying software is essentially free" (though distribution can still be a big amount, it is for more popular projects usually a negliable factor), the argument is usually that the manufacturer (developer) doesn't lose anything. In reality, all it does is remove (manufacturing cost + distribution cost) from the equation, and still leaves you with the costs of research and development and profit margin. Therefore, there is still a very real correlation between the economic effect of this and the economic effect of "actual" theft. It is not an unreal possibility that the developer of a semi-popular ad-based application could buy a new car if there were no adblockers, while now he is flat broke.
Adblocking in this case reduces the total units sold because there is no way or incentive to pay up. It is the same as piracy in the way that you are using something for nothing. Then again, it shouldn't be outlawed in the same way that BitTorrent shouldn't be outlawed. It's not the tool that is the problem, it's (the bulk of) the people using it.
Wow, I've really gone off on a tangent today. And that's not even including developer rights vs user rights, or when no ad-free version is available, or the guns vs piracy difference, or how developers on Android don't make any money anyways, or etc etc.
hmmm interesting thread personally i think it is wrong to edit a program to remove the ads in it that should be a no no, because your altering someone elses work, and essentially losing them revenue which would cause free apps to become just paid and non ad supported (possibly)
adblocking via hosts files however i think is perfectly fine as your not altering someone elses work. adfree i also have no problem with as essentially its just a downloader for hosts files i guess for people who don't know how to push a hosts file themselves. personally i just push the sames hosts file from my desktop seems to work quite well infact its the one reason i rooted and s-off'd my Desire HD
as for adfree being in the market yeah it is surprising because google makes alot of revenue from ads so its surprising they allow apps to block these revenue sources i guess however its just goes to show how hands off google is with user apps compared to say ....apple
and lets face it the average user wouldnt be pushing files and gaining root access ect to do it (none of my friends have) i think its a select few who will actually go to the trouble to actually remove the ads probably not enough to impact revenue from ads however if someone is redistributing a apk with ads removed then its probably going to do more harm.
one things for sure my DHD is staying ad free (its not so much ads in apps but ads in webpages that bother me)
Related
I am not a developer, but I was reading up on experiences that developers have with the Android Market.
Then I also came across a website that showed some statistics about paid apps and they were shocking. I can't remember the source right now, but it said that the Apple AppStore is a $200 million business per month, where the Android Market is only $5 millions per month. This is very discouraging for developers who are in it for money (usually companies who have the resources to create Games and more Complex Apps and have the ability to Partner with Services).
One developers said that he only got 23 downloads, in the first month. He mentioned then that over half of them used the 24 hour refund (could that be that those were leachers who downloaded the app and threw it on a P2P channel?), eventually he ended up with 11 sales. One guy sent him an email and said that $4.99 is too much to ask for, which I think is not unreasonable considering that there are many apps in the Apple AppStore that cost much more than that. Whether or not his app is useful or not to most users is sadly unknown by me. But looking at his perspective I think I would start developing apps for the iOS, who wouldn't that wants to make money?
The problem with these figures is that developers will eventually stop developing paid apps and the quality of the Android Market (from now on referred to Market) apps vs Apple AppStore (from now on referred to AppStore) apps will extremely decline. And there will be either many low rating apps in the Market or there will be an increase in the amount of Apps submitted the the Market.
We all want good Apps, Apple found out Apps are the number 1 reason a Plattform has success. Android has Google behind it which makes up for a good amount of Great apps and there are very good developers here that are not in it for the money, but eventually it all comes down to making money when it comes to professional businesses offering a product. Look at the games that are offered on the iOS platform vs Android, you can't tell me that an iPhone 3G or a 2nd Gen iPod has better graphics performance than some of the higher-end Android devices.
Also, are there too many free alternatives in the Android Market that the AppStore doesn't have? There are also many free apps in the AppStore.
What can be done about this? - Please post your ideas, since I am not a developer I am not the pro here when it comes to this issue I am asking for your opinion.
However, I am a business student so I have some insights of how companies will react to this as mentioned above.
The few ideas I have would be:
1. Google could increase the quality of design of the API and give different APIs to paid vs free Apps.
2. Sadly I have to mention it because of all the Leachers and then P2P distributors, remove the 24 hour refund policy.
3. Google to hire more developers in house who are paid and create free apps that can compete with the AppStore (which would cost Google a fortune). Maybe then charge a small amount for Google Voice to do some financial damage report.
4. Change the Markets way how people pay for apps? I noticed that in the past on my iPhone the decision to actually PAY for an app was much easier and faster for me, I didn't even bother to look for a free alternative.
5. Try to Market Android more towards people who are less geeks (who know where and how to find a free solution to the app they need), as in change the look of Android and make it much more simple for the average Joe day to day user (which I would hate because that means remove or hide many of the great features that make Android what I like so much about it and go back to a more primitive system like the iOS4). And tell hardware manufacturers to create more shiny phones.
--> Since most people who don't know how to get free alternatives, or who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to find free alternatives are people that are buying a product for the lifestyle and to show off (iPhone).
What are YOUR ideas to fix this issue? - Thank you for everyone posting solutions.
I don't think this is something we should worry about.
First, Android is open-source and many enthusiasts give their applications free of charge, which is not the case with Apple's closed OS. That is why about 65% of all apps in Market are free, and only 35% paid. In Appstore, about 70% are paid, only 30% free. Statistics: http://androidheadlines.com/2010/09/app-store-vs-android-market-how-much-is-paid-for.html.
Secondly, you'll find that Market currently supports purchases in only 13 markets while the App Store does so in 90. These numbers will change as time passes by and more markets will be included, but I'm sure that Android will always be a platform with much more free apps than iOS, and that's the beauty of Android.
As far as I'm aware the developers have a say regarding that 24 hour refund policy. An application can be made to be non-refundable if they choose to.
In comparing developers for iOS and Android, you have to also look at who they are individually. Sure, there are many apps developed across the board for all mobile devices, but I think the core of the Android Market are individuals who develop apps just for the sake of developing apps. They enjoy what they do and they would do it regardless of profit.
Of course you have a few that try to make money, but I believe they are the exception rather than the rule.
I mean no offense when I say this, but I believe that the iPhone attracts a very different type of user than Android does. Most people I personally know that use the iPhone do so more out of status and pretentiousness than its own usefulness. Many do not even know the majority of things they could do with the iPhone. Those I know who use Android use it because they root it and do their own modifications, overclocking, etc.
With this in mind, I believe that Android apps are generally created by a different kind of developer for a different kind of user.
shinji257 said:
As far as I'm aware the developers have a say regarding that 24 hour refund policy. An application can be made to be non-refundable if they choose to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have absolutely no say in whether or not out apps are refunded. If I showed you the numbers of instant refunds you'd puke. And the OP states $200 million to $5 million which is ridiculously off. I believe Google just reported that they passed $1 billion in sales (profit) from the Android Market. Either way, it's way more than $5 million a month.
All that said I personally am happy with what I have been able to do with the Market. I expected a little better on my most recent app but it takes time for people to get word of a new app. That's pretty much the problem I've found. It's hard to get noticed. But I still think it's pretty good. There is a lot I absolutely hate about the Market and a bunch of things I like about it. I'd still rather develop for Android and ironically, none of the apps I have created would even work on iPhone. Two are root apps and one requires a modification of the browser which is not allowed on iPhone (for no apparent good reason, I might add).
I am glad to hear that this isn't as big of an issue as I read online, it would be sad to see a great plattform to be hurten, as you can see with the WebOS.
As for not getting recognized, a few tips I have about that is not to rely too much on people finding your app in the market, but rather advertise it yourself, use your facebook and twitter and even this forum (if the forum policy allow that, I am not sure on that again since I am not a developer). I love the QR codes, I actually see many of them in bathroom stalls and other places, and I always check on them since it's in my curiosity to find out where they get me.
I'm making an extra living off paid apps on the Marketplace.
Oh, and an extra living off free apps with Admob.
So now I'm making 3 livings worth. It's wonderful. I have no complaints.
I mean no offense when I say this, but I believe that the iPhone attracts a very different type of user than Android does. Most people I personally know that use the iPhone do so more out of status and pretentiousness than its own usefulness. Many do not even know the majority of things they could do with the iPhone. Those I know who use Android use it because they root it and do their own modifications, overclocking, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're forgetting about Droid users. You'd be surprised how many people own an Android just for status and pretentiousness. It goes both ways. I even know a few people with Androids that don't even know that they have an Android.
1. Google could increase the quality of design of the API and give different APIs to paid vs free Apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't that mean closing the source? Or you think people will use opensource platform that only runs free apps over opensource platform that runs both?
I don't think I want closed source OS on my phone, if I did I'd probably use iPhone.
2. Sadly I have to mention it because of all the Leachers and then P2P distributors, remove the 24 hour refund policy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pirates do buy software sometimes, how do you think it gets to P2P networks in the first place? One of them buys it, his friend cracks it and everyone else gets it 4free.
So it wouldn't solve anything, removing the refund would only make legit customers angry if the app doesn't work.
3. Google to hire more developers in house who are paid and create free apps that can compete with the AppStore (which would cost Google a fortune). Maybe then charge a small amount for Google Voice to do some financial damage report.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought google did hire developers and they do create free apps. I don't think competing with appstore is their ultimate goal though, since appstore and iphoneos are completely closed.
Charging for services is something I agree with completely.
They should indeed make certain (not all) services cost money. But they should also keep the software free and open to ensure the quality.
4. Change the Markets way how people pay for apps? I noticed that in the past on my iPhone the decision to actually PAY for an app was much easier and faster for me, I didn't even bother to look for a free alternative.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was much easier and faster because apple paid someone to make it easier and faster.
I'm not so sure google is willing to invest money into closed source software, especially when you consider these 3 facts.
1. Closed source software has a limited amount of developers who are working to make it better, faster and more efficient.
2. More developers on a single project means more features, more bugfixes and faster development.
3. Opensource software in general is more secure because everyone can see the source code.
5. Try to Market Android more towards people who are less geeks (who know where and how to find a free solution to the app they need), as in change the look of Android and make it much more simple for the average Joe day to day user (which I would hate because that means remove or hide many of the great features that make Android what I like so much about it and go back to a more primitive system like the iOS4). And tell hardware manufacturers to create more shiny phones.
--> Since most people who don't know how to get free alternatives, or who don't know and don't have the time to learn how to find free alternatives are people that are buying a product for the lifestyle and to show off (iPhone).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I don't like being labeled, I think marketing should be focused on pushing Android for everyone, not just specific groups of people.
User knows what works best for him so let him decide what to buy. Wide selection of devices that share the base operating system is great, but user should decide what type of software he wants to use, not google nor apple.
User should also decide what type of service he wants to use and whether that service is free or paid.
Changing the look of Android to make it more simple is something I'd personally hate, but we should always have options.
It would be great to flash an extremely simple android OS for my grandmother's phone for example, while keeping my VNC and SSH on my own device.
Also, don't think there's much difference between android users and iphone users, they're just people anyway. And there's an equal amount of pirated iphone apps and android apps.
Only real difference is about the OS, where one offers you a choice and another forces you to pay and develops restrictions instead of new features.
What are YOUR ideas to fix this issue? - Thank you for everyone posting solutions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think there is an issue, devs get paid from pushing ads, users are happy with a wide selection of apps. Some services are free some services cost money. Just my 2c
I've gotten the impression (maybe incorrectly) that a lot of the developers here are against ads in apps. I don't understand that, as I believe it to be the only way to generate revenue for free apps. Possibly, it's an issue of youth and it's naivete (the idea that everything is not about about money...ha ha ha). I don't mean that to sound offensive. I was once young too, but as you age and become responsible for more than a couch, a tv and pizza, you realize that money is what makes the world go round.
Anyway...Evernote...this a pretty major app (over 9 million users) with what I'm guessing are some actual employees that support it. That means they're not doing it "for fun," and probably require those pesky little paycheck thingies. It's free and it has no ads. How does it generate revenue?
How does it generate revenue?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Donations of course!
But seriously, free apps generate revenue in several ways. Probably the biggest way is companion products or services. Evernote has a premium type subscription that is probably where the revenue comes from.
Even if the app and service is completely free, maybe they sell other products and the app is "Free Advertising" in that if that app is useful, other products by that company are useful and thus I'm going to buy them.
Finally, one of the newest ways that free apps are generating revenue is through in-app purchases. Look at Facebook apps for examples.
Either way, if your company is big enough, there is less of a need for ads in apps to generate funds. This forum is a group of hackers/enthusiasts/developers that for the most part do development in exchange for other people's hard work. Since we do a lot of free apps, we have the "right" to complain about ads in apps We put in the hard work and give our products away for free, and we survive, why can't everyone else!?
I kid of course.
Cheers
Any rooted user is going to be running adfree and droidwall, so looking beyond ads is probably a good idea.
joe_coolish said:
Donations of course!
But seriously, free apps generate revenue in several ways. Probably the biggest way is companion products or services. Evernote has a premium type subscription that is probably where the revenue comes from.
Even if the app and service is completely free, maybe they sell other products and the app is "Free Advertising" in that if that app is useful, other products by that company are useful and thus I'm going to buy them.
Finally, one of the newest ways that free apps are generating revenue is through in-app purchases. Look at Facebook apps for examples.
Either way, if your company is big enough, there is less of a need for ads in apps to generate funds. This forum is a group of hackers/enthusiasts/developers that for the most part do development in exchange for other people's hard work. Since we do a lot of free apps, we have the "right" to complain about ads in apps We put in the hard work and give our products away for free, and we survive, why can't everyone else!?
I kid of course.
Cheers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
obviously the right answer so donations or simply making it a paid app will cut the ads as people downloading from the server is costly.
Sent from my Arc using XDA premium App
DONATION! Haha. I always donate to those who created apps and make my life easier.
And also not to forgot those who created ROM and KERNAL.
It is a good point to say that some of the most successful and widespread programs and sites are not profitable nor nearing it. Skype loses money, but it's been bought at high sums already twice. Twitter hasn't ever broken even, but it keeps getting lots of funds.
Therefore, if you think you have a successful app in the oven, make it, make it real good, and funding will come later.
greydarrah said:
.. Possibly, it's an issue of youth and it's naivete (the idea that everything is not about about money...ha ha ha). I don't mean that to sound offensive. I was once young too, but as you age and become responsible for more than a couch, a tv and pizza, you realize that money is what makes the world go round....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't need to be young or naive to write free software. It can be a hobby that you do in your spare time (rather than golfing or watching TV).
It can be more economical than other popular hobbies because it does not require major investment or expenditure.
I hope the free apps don't steal my credentials phone contacts or something serious and sell them to make revenue.
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA Premium App
4silvertooth said:
I hope the free apps don't steal my credentials phone contacts or something serious and sell them to make revenue.
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LBE Privacy Guard makes sure that they don't. A prime example of a succesful free app without ads! AdFree is another fine example of an ad-free app that doesn't cost you a penny.
greydarrah said:
Possibly, it's an issue of youth and it's naivete (the idea that everything is not about about money...ha ha ha). I don't mean that to sound offensive. I was once young too, but as you age and become responsible for more than a couch, a tv and pizza, you realize that money is what makes the world go round.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How much money did you get for starting this thread or for writing your other 60 posts (as of today) on this forum? See, not everything is about money. Some people write apps for the same reason that you write forum posts.
rogier666 said:
LBE Privacy Guard makes sure that they don't. A prime example of a succesful free app without ads! AdFree is another fine example of an ad-free app that doesn't cost you a penny.
How much money did you get for starting this thread or for writing your other 60 posts (as of today) on this forum? See, not everything is about money. Some people write apps for the same reason that you write forum posts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanx for the lbe app.
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA Premium App
BenKranged said:
Any rooted user is going to be running adfree and droidwall, so looking beyond ads is probably a good idea.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not any rooted user. Some of us understand that ads generate revenue for the developer so we don't block them.
As to the OP: some less reputable developers will also collect and sell user data for revenue.
The dominant ad business model is pay-per-click. Making money from pay-per-view ads is limited to a handfull of large companies.
With hundreds of thousands of apps the audience is so diluted that most ads mainly serve to annoy the users into paying to get rid of 'em.
Blocking banner ads is not really a problem. If a small percentage of users blocks them the revenue loss is close to zero. If a large percentage blocks them then developers will have to think of something else, just like web site builders had to think of something else when every browser came with a built-in popup blocker.
Popup blockers didn't kill the internet, and AdFree won't empty the app stores.
BenKranged said:
Any rooted user is going to be running adfree and droidwall, so looking beyond ads is probably a good idea.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless you program the app to close if the user is using "ad-blocking" software, which is what i do.
And then the next generation of ad blockers will make your app believe that there's no ad blocker running.
And then the next generation of adware will try to fix this.
And then the next generation of ad blockers...
rogier666 said:
And then the next generation of ad blockers will make your app believe that there's no ad blocker running.
And then the next generation of adware will try to fix this.
And then the next generation of ad blockers...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true, but I like competing those ad blockers.
Anyone here actually believe that just because you pay money for an app it will not steal your data or open a back door to your device?
Think again!
Even in the PC world, the biggest companies like Microsoft constantly spy on their users, with the official excuse of "fighting piracy".
So pleas don't assume that application price is any guarantee of security, or for that matter, quality.
Also, there are other types of very real and very useful gain to be maid from Free Software (I am reffuring to what people often call "open source", not apps that simply cost 0$).
One example is reputation. When software companies hire developers, they often ask for years of experience, so it is hard for someone fresh to get a job in the field, and even when they do, as all starting positions the pay is relatively low.
Open source projects however, can be worth much more on programmers resume, then simply claiming X years of work for a given company.
The reason is that such projects allow potential employers to evaluate the actual skill of the applicant by looking at his work.
^^^ That is very true.
I just got hired to work for a new startup company based solely on a couple of free Android apps that I made in my spare time.
I do have years of experience in non-android programming though, but still, without those two private projects I couldn't have found a paid-job in Android...
I read the courts reviewed the ruling of phones being legal to root, but then judged that Tablets were a different story. I heard that with tablets to legally be able to root, you have to contact the manufacturer and get permission per ruling. I know this is bogus to many people, and most of you here I assume wouldnt care either way what the courts rule. So this thread is about the legality of the issue, not really meant for debate. I just want to know if it is considered legal to root the Nexus 7, is it allowed?
Righteous Joe said:
I read the courts reviewed the ruling of phones being legal to root, but then judged that Tablets were a different story. I heard that with tablets to legally be able to root, you have to contact the manufacturer and get permission per ruling. I know this is bogus to many people, and most of you here I assume wouldnt care either way what the courts rule. So this thread is about the legality of the issue, not really meant for debate. I just want to know if it is considered legal to root the Nexus 7, is it allowed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you read this? Doesn't sound right to be honest, not sure how rooting a tablet would differ in a legal sense from rooting a phone, they are near enough the same device after all. Ultimately it is your device that you own so you are free to do with it as you wish, its not as if you're rooting will have a major impact on anyone else. Unless you are caught installing pirate apps which would be considered as illegal.
Writing "I read [...]" and then not following up with a source means you completely lack credibility
Maybe you are referring to the decision cited in these sources
http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/25/3556740/copyright-dmca-jailbreak-unlock-mod-ruling
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...pyright-protection-systems-for-access-control
Take your time and read these sources
Also take your time to read up on material by senior xda members on the difference between rooting your device and unlocking your bootloader. It basically renders your "illegal to root" statement completely invalid.
Moving back to the Nexus 7, although the ruling is vague as #@!$ when it comes to tablets, your not forcibly breaking open the bootloader; its practically an on/off switch on the N7--Google is not coming after you.
The common belief that jailbreaking is legal is wrong. US Digital Millennium Copyright Act was challenged, and it was accepted that it's legal to "jailbreak" a device for the purpose of carrier unlock, but not for other purpose.
As most tablets don't have 3G and thus no carrier......
Jailbreaking is illegal for iPad.
But unlocking and rooting a Nexus 7 is a whole different story. You don't need a exploit, thus you are not breaking any protection, that is why it is legal.
At least in the EU.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
There is a further distinction that can be drawn. In the case of an Android tablet it is using an OS that is in effect free of any restrictions - so you can "copy the book, change it and publish it, provided you acknowledge the source", contrast this with Microsoft and Apple ......sue,damages etc.
CrazyPeter said:
The common belief that jailbreaking is legal is wrong. US Digital Millennium Copyright Act was challenged, and it was accepted that it's legal to "jailbreak" a device for the purpose of carrier unlock, but not for other purpose.
As most tablets don't have 3G and thus no carrier......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are incorrect good sir. The jaillbreaking exemption, which is no longer valid, didn't come about from a legal challenge. It was granted by the Librarian of Congress under the normal review process that takes place every three years. Furthermore, rooting phones for purposes of installing and operating legally obtained software is also exempted.
To address the OP, there's a lot of FUD going around about rooting tablets. The factual reality is that absolutely nothing at all has changed. Rest assured that, contrary to the sensationalism from some, the sky is in no danger of falling.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
If rooting a tablet (tablet computer) is illegal, then why don't we get only user account on windows (Administrator account locked) and when we install Ubuntu, why are we not only provided with our user folder and don't have access to anything else? It's exactly the same. I don't know why Android, as basically another one of oh-so-many Linux distros would be the only one, where you are not aloud to access root folders? Linux is open source, and it is your right to be provided with root access.
And since the purpose of root on Android is not installing cracked apps (you can sideload them with enabling 'outer sources'), I see absolutely no reason, why wouldn't it be legal.
Is editing your BIOS settings on PC legal? Again, I don't see why different rules would apply to desktop then to smaller version of PC (which smartphones pretty much are).
You bought the device, it's yours. Even if you decide to take it to another carrier, you paid them, you accepted the contract, you pay penalty in case you cancel the contract sooner. Just because I bought a car in Germany, doesn't mean it's suddenly illegal to drive it in Slovenia.
iOS is different issue. It's not open source, but again I don't see why jailbreaking would be illegal. Of course, installing cracked apps is different, but that's illegal anywhere.
This kind of garbage bugs be to no end... If I buy product A, then I should be able to do what ever I want to product A how ever I want, in regards to electronics. I bought the device, and no judge is going to tell me I can not unlock/root/etc it.
Just ignore...how many movies/apps have you pirated...?
Most Android OEMs LET us root. No judge can change that, nor the open-source nature of Android as an operating system.
(Most) GNU/Linux distributions do allow us to login as the root user. Rooting an Android device is the same concept as logging on as root on GNU/Linux. It's there, you're welcome to use it, but don't blame us if something goes wrong.
---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------
CrazyPeter said:
The common belief that jailbreaking is legal is wrong. US Digital Millennium Copyright Act was challenged, and it was accepted that it's legal to "jailbreak" a device for the purpose of carrier unlock, but not for other purpose.
As most tablets don't have 3G and thus no carrier......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How many people that jailbroke their iOS devices have not installed pirated apps? Does anyone _actually_ care about the DMCA?
In other words, you can't stop a hacker.
gnustomp said:
Just ignore...how many movies/apps have you pirated...?
Most Android OEMs LET us root. No judge can change that, nor the open-source nature of Android as an operating system.
(Most) GNU/Linux distributions do allow us to login as the root user. Rooting an Android device is the same concept as logging on as root on GNU/Linux. It's there, you're welcome to use it, but don't blame us if something goes wrong.
---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 PM ----------
How many people that jailbroke their iOS devices have not installed pirated apps? Does anyone _actually_ care about the DMCA?
In other words, you can't stop a hacker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know what, comments like you piss me off. I have downloaded my fair share of music, but when it comes to apps I will not pirate them. These developers work their asses off to make a decent app and then put a .99 price tag on them, and you claim that that is too damn expecive? You aren't a hacker, your just a jerk. I have bought over 150 apps on the play store, and I will continue to support the developers that work oh so hard for so little.
Good day sir.
AFAinHD said:
You know what, comments like you piss me off. I have downloaded my fair share of music, but when it comes to apps I will not pirate them. These developers work their asses off to make a decent app and then put a .99 price tag on them, and you claim that that is too damn expecive? You aren't a hacker, your just a jerk. I have bought over 150 apps on the play store, and I will continue to support the developers that work oh so hard for so little.
Good day sir.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offense, but the overly white knight attitude is just as bad as the pirate attitude.
when google comes after me for supporting their os with a law suit for changing my devices gui via root would be the end of days. So, yeah won't happen. sony and microsoft just ban people and their mac ip on their console i'd assume if they ever did do anything, they could ban you from market?
I Am Marino said:
No offense, but the overly white knight attitude is just as bad as the pirate attitude.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im not trying to be a white knight, I don't care about pirating music and movies, because they are overpriced as hell, but app developers work very hard for something that they put a .99 cent price tag on. There is no reason why you should not support them.
AFAinHD said:
There is no reason why you should not support them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I see at least one reason, (which of course is valid only to some apps, not all of them), and that is usualy true to big games only:
- how long have you today to request reffunds for apps you do not like / want / can not use? 15 minutes? or is it even shorter time now? (I do not know how it is now, sorry, I only use free/ad-supported apps now)
- how long does it takes for you to download 2GB of app data? For me it is definitly a LOT longer time that 15 minutes...
- which one of these (above mentioned) apps offer some kind of trial or limited demo or something? How can you try such apps to find out whether you like it or not ?
Can you see the reason for why not to support such apps? Or at least in the first place? Of coure that it is better (for many reasons) to buy the app in the end if you like it. But you can not tell that if you can not evaluate it.
And you are wrong that these apps cost lest than $1 and thus are cheap (or at least I understand that this was something you were triing to say), most of such apps cost $5-$15, and that can be realy a lot of money if you are not from US, just because you earn $15 per hour does not mean everyone does, there are countries where people works whole day or even week for $15.
Oh, and just to be clear: I do not thing that pirating software is good thing, but sometimes it is the only way how to evaluate something. And you should be allowed do do that, right? Or would you buy a car without (at least) triing to sit in it?
All right, all right, we can just preted that the apps (or game or music or anything) which looks like we want (or need) it does not exists, but to be honest: Can you realy do that? Especially when there is no similar replacement? Or would you just happily pay any price the DEV asks, hoping that it will be usefull to you?
And one more thing:
Lot of people here is stating that court or local law or anyone forbids/encourages something - well this kind of information is totally useless if you forget to tell us in which country/region is that true.
And just to prove my point: there is a country that legaly allows downloading of audio files. Also there is a coutry that allows legaly to use pirated Operating system (namely that was true for Windows XP, not sure if they extended that somehow). Is that information usefull to you? I do not think so, unless you live there and in that case, you should already now...
..
I don't mean to derail the thread but since it's been brought up I wanted to address this quickly.
AFAinHD said:
Im not trying to be a white knight, I don't care about pirating music and movies, because they are overpriced as hell, but app developers work very hard for something that they put a .99 cent price tag on. There is no reason why you should not support them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to try to do this without any self promotion.
It's funny that you say that. As a musician and songwriter who sells tracks at $.99 a piece (and have spent more money on recording equipment and music distribution to never break even), I beg to differ, and I don't have a band helping me out. I put out my albums for the cost of total tracks or maybe a dollar less for that "added value" feeling. Or I let people pay whatever they want thanks to my official online store giving me the ability to set that.
I'm not trying to start an argument or fight, but I just want to enlighten you on this point. Whether it's music or app development, creativity and hard thinking and writing\coding is involved. In both processes there is a lot of trial and error, time and money spent. The pricing of an app or a music track seems to be dependent on the value to the people as seen by the authors. Music seems more standardized whereas different apps will have different prices depending on what they do. But that does not mean there was any less effort or creativity put into music or films than an app. To offset the pirating a lot of musicians at least ask to recommend to friends in hopes that someone buys our tracks to help offset the cost of what we had to pay to put the music out there in the first place.
In the days of filesharing about 8 or so years ago I had downloaded some music. Those programs got old and died, and since then I have only bought CDs or used legal streaming services, typically from those artists I used to download music from. Now that my music is for sale in places I understand the arguments both in favor of free sharing and against it. There's a solution to both.
In either case, in the end we all just want to make even a little money for our creations. I don't think it's logical to suggest that music is overpriced because doesn't take as much effort as app development.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....
This i totally agree with .This can stand for anything rather its music apps or even a drawing of a home done in Cad or even a book.. Think if you spend 2 years writing a Book. Then two days after its released you see it on a pirated site when its being retailed for 13.00 .While you have 2 years worth of bills piled up unpaid.Hoping the book sales. App developers often go thru this same thing. I like most everyone else did download some music in the past.NO longer would I do so . Never software and never reading material. Now if its not legal its not coming in our home or on my devices..If its to expensive the author or developer did not want to sell it.
Bottom line is support the people who Create the things that make your life enjoyable and easier to live. They wanna make ends meet to.. But its not really about the money its about what is right and wrong..
sgtpepper64 said:
I don't mean to derail the thread but since it's been brought up I wanted to address this quickly.
I'm going to try to do this without any self promotion.
It's funny that you say that, as a musician and songwriter who sells tracks at $.99 a piece (and have spent more money on recording equipment and music distribution to never break even), I beg to differ, and I don't have a band helping me out. I put out my albums for the cost of total tracks or maybe a dollar less for that "added value" feeling. Or I let people pay whatever they want thanks to my official online store giving me the ability to set that.
I'm not trying to start an argument or fight, but I just want to enlighten you on this point. Whether it's music or app development, creativity and hard thinking and writing\coding is involved. In both processes there is a lot of trial and error, time and money spent. The pricing of an app or a music track seems to be dependent on the value to the people as seen by the authors. Music seems more standardized whereas different apps will have different prices depending on what they do. But that does not mean there was any less effort or creativity put into music or films than an app. To offset the pirating a lot of musicians at least ask to recommend to friends in hopes that someone buys our tracks to help offset the cost of what we had to pay to put the music out there in the first place.
In the days of filesharing about 8 or so years ago I had downloaded some music. Those programs got old and died, and since then I have only bought CDs or used legal streaming services, typically from those artists I used to download music from. Now that my music is for sale in places I understand the arguments both in favor of free sharing and against it. There's a solution to both.
In either case, in the end we all just want to make even a little money for our creations. I don't think it's logical to suggest that music is overpriced because doesn't take as much effort as app development.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello guys,
are you one of the android developers pissed off by piracy?
I have about 4000 active illegal users (70%), but my app is without any security checks.
Have you found a solution? I gave up on google security checks, it was too easy to hack. There is something more secure?
I've done a lot of research, but I am searching also for some real experience by xda users.
Thank you!
Well, if you chose to implement in-app purchasing, then I suppose that might solve your problem.
taomorpheus said:
Hello guys,
are you one of the android developers pissed off by piracy?
I have about 4000 active illegal users (70%), but my app is without any security checks.
Have you found a solution? I gave up on google security checks, it was too easy to hack. There is something more secure?
I've done a lot of research, but I am searching also for some real experience by xda users.
Thank you!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have your own server you could crosscheck the user's google account with your purchase list.
Do it hidden, in multiple places and act delayed if you find out about a pirated version, then it's really hard to crack.
If you talk about your facebook app you could be kinda bad mannered and post that they are using an illegal app on their wall
Of course you'd have to be absolutely sure then
octobclrnts said:
Well, if you chose to implement in-app purchasing, then I suppose that might solve your problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't because a lot of people have already purchased the app in the classic way!
superkoal said:
If you have your own server you could crosscheck the user's google account with your purchase list.
Do it hidden, in multiple places and act delayed if you find out about a pirated version, then it's really hard to crack.
If you talk about your facebook app you could be kinda bad mannered and post that they are using an illegal app on their wall
Of course you'd have to be absolutely sure then
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually this is a really cool idea, can I access to my google account using google api?
superkoal said:
If you have your own server you could crosscheck the user's google account with your purchase list.
Do it hidden, in multiple places and act delayed if you find out about a pirated version, then it's really hard to crack.
If you talk about your facebook app you could be kinda bad mannered and post that they are using an illegal app on their wall
Of course you'd have to be absolutely sure then
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like this.
taomorpheus said:
Actually this is a really cool idea, can I access to my google account using google api?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have a look at this:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2245545/accessing-google-account-id-username-via-android
superkoal said:
Have a look at this:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2245545/accessing-google-account-id-username-via-android
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My Kaspersky Anti-Virus programm says that it is a fishing site.
However, it is STACKOVERFLOW!!!
nikwen said:
My Kaspersky Anti-Virus programm says that it is a fishing site.
However, it is STACKOVERFLOW!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kaspersky :silly:
taomorpheus said:
I can't because a lot of people have already purchased the app in the classic way!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent
In my opinion, create some sort of pop up that says "Attention pirated user, I'm glad you love my app as much as I loved making it, but I need to make money off of it. Please officially purchase this app "
Then have an In app purchase option in the pop up. This would make me want to purchase the app if I pirated it. I don't really believe that fighting piracy with DRM does anything but cause harm. You should just try and make the pirated users feel bad and encourage them to buy the app.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using xda app-developers app
v3nturetheworld said:
Sent
In my opinion, create some sort of pop up that says "Attention pirated user, I'm glad you love my app as much as I loved making it, but I need to make money off of it. Please officially purchase this app "
Then have an In app purchase option in the pop up. This would make me want to purchase the app if I pirated it. I don't really believe that fighting piracy with DRM does anything but cause harm. You should just try and make the pirated users feel bad and encourage them to buy the app.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahah yeah that's a good solution!
I've noticed that most of the pirated users come from Burma, where google play doesn't work. So I think that I will leave the app in this way and create another pro version for the nations that have google play issues!
But... how about implementing a solution like ROM Manager does? I mean, with a separate app and a pirate popup as suggested above? I'm clueless on what technology use to create a licensing APK, but it would be easier even for those people that haven't got Play Store, maybe
Tiwiz
I guess the main app checks if the Lisence app is installed and if installed it checks the key from a database of the license app and checks for the validity of Lisence on the cloud
Sent from my GT-S5302 using Tapatalk 2
Hit Thanx Button if i helped you!
taomorpheus said:
Have you found a solution? I gave up on google security checks, it was too easy to hack. There is something more secure?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Piracy is a "fact of life" for software. And most anti-piracy measures tend to hurt legitimate paid customers (and the dev) more than the pirates.
If you have a good, useful app, those guys in China can hack almost anything. (No offense to China; no Play there, lower income and an anti-IP culture.)
There are a FEW successful devs who have gone to extra-ordinary lengths at the JNI level. I tested, but never turned any JNI anti-hacking code on, because with thousands of paid users on many weird phones and ROMs, I felt it would break for enough people to not be worth it.
If you have an app that needs a server connection, or data updates, and you have some kind of independent registration system, you have a chance too. But that can be a lot of work.
I'd rather spend my time making my app better and supporting customers. My app price is higher than many would like (but I have virtually no paid competition). And because my app is support intensive, I've taken the view that I'm selling support and convenient updates, not an app, so much.
I mostly verify people are customers before supporting them, do as good a job as I can, get good reviews, and people see there is value there for their money. And yes, I get tons of support requests from pirates. Some of them I've converted to customers.
And... regular updates to an app provides value. If pirates want the latest, they keep having to go look for it. (Or do I recall some pirate update service ?) Updates via Play are easy and that ease has value.
All the above said, I do get angry from time to time, mostly at people stealing my time IE support. And the idea of finding a highly effective anti-piracy measure is fascinating.
But almost none of us is without some sin in our life regarding music, movies or software downloading... So I think it's good to consider the pirates' perspectives. Effective antipiracy definitely drastically reduces the user base and the Internet knowledge base and familiarity, and its' questionable as to how much revenue might increase, if at all.
IE, piracy can be seen as free advertising, and an opportunity to show some pirates there are valid reasons why going legitimate might benefit them, or even reduce their guilt level. I've had a few people buy my app and apologize...
mikereidis said:
Piracy is a "fact of life" for software. And most anti-piracy measures tend to hurt legitimate paid customers (and the dev) more than the pirates.
If you have a good, useful app, those guys in China can hack almost anything. (No offense to China; no Play there, lower income and an anti-IP culture.)
There are a FEW successful devs who have gone to extra-ordinary lengths at the JNI level. I tested, but never turned any JNI anti-hacking code on, because with thousands of paid users on many weird phones and ROMs, I felt it would break for enough people to not be worth it.
If you have an app that needs a server connection, or data updates, and you have some kind of independent registration system, you have a chance too. But that can be a lot of work.
I'd rather spend my time making my app better and supporting customers. My app price is higher than many would like (but I have virtually no paid competition). And because my app is support intensive, I've taken the view that I'm selling support and convenient updates, not an app, so much.
I mostly verify people are customers before supporting them, do as good a job as I can, get good reviews, and people see there is value there for their money. And yes, I get tons of support requests from pirates. Some of them I've converted to customers.
And... regular updates to an app provides value. If pirates want the latest, they keep having to go look for it. (Or do I recall some pirate update service ?) Updates via Play are easy and that ease has value.
All the above said, I do get angry from time to time, mostly at people stealing my time IE support. And the idea of finding a highly effective anti-piracy measure is fascinating.
But almost none of us is without some sin in our life regarding music, movies or software downloading... So I think it's good to consider the pirates' perspectives. Effective antipiracy definitely drastically reduces the user base and the Internet knowledge base and familiarity, and its' questionable as to how much revenue might increase, if at all.
IE, piracy can be seen as free advertising, and an opportunity to show some pirates there are valid reasons why going legitimate might benefit them, or even reduce their guilt level. I've had a few people buy my app and apologize...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, this is my philosophy. I usually reply to all emails, build the app around the feedback from the community and try to fix all the issues. This permits to create a loyal group of users, and it's the reason why apps like Facebook Home are hated so much: they talk about building apps around people, but for them people is the product, so it's a fail from the beginning
After some considerations I have abandoned the idea to build an antipiracy system, the reason is in part related to your thoughts but also because the 60-70% of pirated versions come from nations like Burma, indonesia, etc etc. So I don't feel that someone is stealing, google play can't provide a service, so people react. The good thing is that despite the lack of a service, they try to use my apps, so that's good, right?
So, at the conclusion, the best antipiracy system is to not use an antipiracy system. Clearly it will be hard to be supported only by paying customers, but the majority accepts some ads if the product is good ( the important thing is to not include spammy and intrusive services, one banner or a full screen on time a day is sufficient).
Thank you for this reply, it's really important to know that there are good developers around! :highfive:
Have you tried google licensing?
taomorpheus said:
Hello guys,
are you one of the android developers pissed off by piracy?
I have about 4000 active illegal users (70%), but my app is without any security checks.
Have you found a solution? I gave up on google security checks, it was too easy to hack. There is something more secure?
I've done a lot of research, but I am searching also for some real experience by xda users.
Thank you!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I am new to android development but I've read about google licensing services which checks for user account whether the app is actually purchased from that particular account associated with the user. If authentication fails then user gets a blocking dialog to either exit the app or purchase it from play store.
dbroid said:
Hi,
I am new to android development but I've read about google licensing services which checks for user account whether the app is actually purchased from that particular account associated with the user. If authentication fails then user gets a blocking dialog to either exit the app or purchase it from play store.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cracker can easily remove IF and your won't ask to buy it.
There should be VMProtect or Themida like tool for android
GR0S said:
Cracker can easily remove IF and your won't ask to buy it.
There should be VMProtect or Themida like tool for android
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was hacked not long after its launch.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2010/0...on-easily-circumvented-will-not-stop-pirates/
taomorpheus said:
After some considerations I have abandoned the idea to build an antipiracy system, the reason is in part related to your thoughts but also because the 60-70% of pirated versions come from nations like Burma, indonesia, etc etc. So I don't feel that someone is stealing, google play can't provide a service, so people react. The good thing is that despite the lack of a service, they try to use my apps, so that's good, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. Most pirates can't afford the app or wouldn't buy it anyway. I also think that many pirates and those who felt "forced" to buy a protected app are bad customers. They will spread their bad feelings about the app and the "greedy dev".
And many have a sense of entitlement, so they make demands, expect lots of support, complain and write bad reviews. They project their own faults on others, and always assume others are trying to rip THEM off. Some have told me they were "testing" my app, because they were worried about getting ripped off if it didn't work (despite my free version and anytime cancel policy).
Better not to have such customers. These are the same people who think they are more important than everybody else and cheat in traffic and lineups etc.
taomorpheus said:
So, at the conclusion, the best antipiracy system is to not use an antipiracy system. Clearly it will be hard to be supported only by paying customers, but the majority accepts some ads if the product is good ( the important thing is to not include spammy and intrusive services, one banner or a full screen on time a day is sufficient).
Thank you for this reply, it's really important to know that there are good developers around! :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For most of us small devs, yes. Things may be different for certain apps, such as those that need a backend server, and for multi-person companies.
You can also promote that your app is "DRM free". That's definitely a plus, especially to custom ROM users who may avoid using Google Play.
I tried ads for a few months in 2011. The "CPM" rates started good, but quickly dropped to almost nothing. I think it's very hard to make money from ads, unless your app has a million users, and they are more "average" people who might click on the ads, accidentally or not.
I think it's usually better to raise app price as high as you can. I experimented a lot for many months between $1 and $10, usually keeping price constant for at least 2-3 weeks. I, and some others, have found that total income remains somewhat constant no matter what the price, LOL.
Now I've left price at the high end, so I can provide the best support possible, by limiting sales quantity. Some people think we should "make it up in volume", but that's a self-serving wish of the person who wants it cheaper. High volume might be viable if you provide zero technical support though.
What I'd say in terms of pirate stuff is to not try too hard on the software level (though I might write a guide on a few useful methods and pieces of code to prevent the usual circumvention methods) but on the upload level. When you release a new version, wait a couple of days and then search for a pirate version of your app. If you find one, report it, they're usually down in about 5 minutes. The more often you do this, the more likely people are to search, find all the links are "dead" and then just think "stuff it, I'll just buy it". However, this will only work on people who can buy it and are using pirate versions because they wish to, not because they have to
Quinny899 said:
What I'd say in terms of pirate stuff is to not try too hard on the software level (though I might write a guide on a few useful methods and pieces of code to prevent the usual circumvention methods) but on the upload level. When you release a new version, wait a couple of days and then search for a pirate version of your app. If you find one, report it, they're usually down in about 5 minutes. The more often you do this, the more likely people are to search, find all the links are "dead" and then just think "stuff it, I'll just buy it". However, this will only work on people who can buy it and are using pirate versions because they wish to, not because they have to
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because they'd PREFER not to spend money, if possible. In most areas of life, that's what most of us do.
Last I looked, this was the best Android cracking site: http://androidcracking.blogspot.ca/ . I read everything there twice before I started experimenting with protection code. If nothing else, it gives a glimpse of how hard it is to protect a popular app well.
I sent DMCA takedown requests to a few sites some time ago, but it's an endless task, and IMO not worth it, unless your app is VERY niche/has relatively few users. I've been "honored" to have my app included in several Torrents full of Android apps. Some of those Torrents are updated regularly.
I will still notify XDA admins if there's a link or offending ROM on XDA. XDA mods take it seriously.
Some companies will put out their own "pirate" fake or crippled versions of movies, and app devs could do the same. Perhaps have endless popups offering to buy the app legitimately. I personally wouldn't bother (at this time) but it could work. I agree that making piracy a hassle may improve sales a bit.
LOL, I just re-looked and see 3 on isohunt that are my app alone, but they are older. If I have time for "fun" later this year I should (1) start my own torrents, (2) collect IP addresses, and... I dunno; don't seriously want to be a copyright troll; rather design & develop.
Backstory: I've always used iPhones, was tired of the bull****, and wished for Android especially the S8. Was shocked, and I'm rarely shocked, but the agressive violation of privacy, the crazy amount of bloatware, and the unoptimised UX and system services overall.
Now, I'm in charge of a wide ecosystem of people using smartphones in our company as well as other companies I consult for. While people always blab about personal privacy (which is a concern of course), what I don't understand is how people dealing with either sensitive, contractual or strategic informations could use Android devices given that it *excuse but there's no better terms* rapes your privacy in every, but also I'm pretty sure, illegal, ways.
For exemple the Sound Detector app, even when disabled, is constantly listening to your environment without your priori knowledge or permissions. In fact it's mainly the permissions scheme that baffles me: on iOS or any PC or Mac, you can install any app without being constrained to accept giving out information or accessing functions that have nothing to do with the app, THEN you can choose what precise permissions, when and why. And of course there's the whole wider problem of usage and data tracking (which I apparently have to install...a firewall??) or even malware (I have to install a separate antivirus for...on a smartphone). Worst exemple being that of course: www.theverge.com/2018/1/2/16842294/android-apps-microphone-access-listening-tv-habits
Now I like Android for all their efforts, development and implementation, as well as Samsung efforts...but I'm on the verge of having to present a report to ban all Android phones (for a "leave at door" Policy or either iPhone, BBMs and any other "more" secure smartphones) like I just realise they did in the US government and other official institutions as well as some corporations...or...understand very well how it works, and devise a clearly guide on how to completely optimise and secure Android smartphones like I would for PCs/Macs.
So here's my mission if you accept to help me:
1. I want to deconstruct how Android works in a very simple scheme for noob.
2. From that I want to list all the system packages and services, to determine those that are critical, optional or bloatware, and actually describe exactly what they're for so people have a clear idea.
3. I want to list all the base applications, stores or packages apps, to determine those that are critical, optional or bloatware, then what they're for and most importantly the best alternative apps to these.
4. I want to list and make a simple schemes of how the device components (sensors, cam, mic...), the different data canals, and the the different permissions are circulating or violating privacy while screwing cpu time, battery and data.
5. Finally I want to learn, understand and create a simple noob introduction to the different tools like Xposed (and XprivacyLua which seems to be the best options), package disablers (I personally went for BK), Firewall, Adblockers and Antivirus (honestly didn't even think I would need those on Android).
So I guess first, I'll list all the apps, packages (and sub-services) that my Galaxy S8 came shipped with that overwhelmed me, so as to know for a basic Galaxy S8/+/Note what is a consensus of what to disable, why, how and by what to replace if there's alternative, while listing basic how-to's of the tools to that. Note that I only know about BK Disabler as of now.
Reserved
Upd: I haven't had time, but I'm starting to do a table with all the packages, what they're for and wether to disable them.
You do know that Silverpush do affect both iPhone and Android, right? And "leave at the door" policy or either iPhone or BBM? There's two errors in this sentence. Are you really what you claim to be? Or just someone with an agenda who just created an XDA account?
why would you need an antivirus for a phone if you stick to play store apps?
rashat999 said:
why would you need an antivirus for a phone if you stick to play store apps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are plenty of play store garbage apps with spy ware and crap in them
vladimir_carlan said:
You do know that Silverpush do affect both iPhone and Android, right? And "leave at the door" policy or either iPhone or BBM? There's two errors in this sentence. Are you really what you claim to be? Or just someone with an agenda who just created an XDA account?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
iPhone (pretends to) be safe and secure and doesn't straight-up violate your privacy by forcing unneeded permission even before installing the app and running tons of spyware as per unbox while giving all your infos out to apps that demand it and more. It's also a question of procedure: iPhone are really easy to fix/secure with a jailbreak, I didn't even root this Android I got and realised how terribly aggressive their violation of privacy is.
But again, I just want to give people the choice as long as their device is secure, that's why I'm learning all the quirks of Android and how to secure them. All our IT guys confirmed that unless you know exactly how to secure Android devices like we did for our computer park, employees better go for an iPhone.
There's a difference between Apple that might have backdoors to the NSA, and Android that is a crazy open buffet for -permitted- informations stealing without even talking about spyware or silverpush. My Galaxy S8 came with apps and packages that were constantly listening through the mic without my prior knowledge, installation or authorisation, this is intolerable. But I switched for a reason, I'll see if using Android is easily manageable or if it's better to ban them from inside use.
OgreTactic said:
iPhone (pretends to) be safe and secure and doesn't straight-up violate your privacy by forcing unneeded permission even before installing the app and running tons of spyware as per unbox while giving all your infos out to apps that demand it and more. It's also a question of procedure: iPhone are really easy to fix/secure with a jailbreak, I didn't even root this Android I got and realised how terribly aggressive their violation of privacy is.
But again, I just want to give people the choice as long as their device is secure, that's why I'm learning all the quirks of Android and how to secure them. All our IT guys confirmed that unless you know exactly how to secure Android devices like we did for our computer park, employees better go for an iPhone.
There's a difference between Apple that might have backdoors to the NSA, and Android that is a crazy open buffet for -permitted- informations stealing without even talking about spyware or silverpush. My Galaxy S8 came with apps and packages that were constantly listening through the mic without my prior knowledge, installation or authorisation, this is intolerable. But I switched for a reason, I'll see if using Android is easily manageable or if it's better to ban them from inside use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mate my question still stand: are you really what are you claiming to be or you just have an agenda? Some badass company appointed you to decide what is secure and what not. Really? You? In Op you are talking about thinking to allow only iOS and BBM (it's Bbos BTW) only. BBOSS? Really? BBOS was discontinued one year ago...no more updates no more security patches, no more nothing.
vladimir_carlan said:
Mate my question still stand: are you really what are you claiming to be or you just have an agenda? Some badass company appointed you to decide what is secure and what not. Really? You? In Op you are talking about thinking to allow only iOS and BBM (it's Bbos BTW) only. BBOSS? Really? BBOS was discontinued one year ago...no more updates no more security patches, no more nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not my job, but that's part of mine to decide or push in front of committees what tool we should use, purely from a utilitarian, managerial and system POV. None of us beside IT guys ever realised how Android were intolerably insecure, I've had my head in Apple buttock for years thinking "yeah, that's too limited and I heard Android is now as stable and well made".
But I don't want to go back to iPhone either, so here I am sitting with a Galaxy S8 I'm still not using because I don't where to start to secure it, whether I should try to fix everything on the factory rom or just root it.
OgreTactic said:
That's not my job, but that's part of mine to decide or push in front of committees what tool we should use, purely from a utilitarian, managerial and system POV. None of us beside IT guys ever realised how Android were intolerably insecure, I've had my head in Apple buttock for years thinking "yeah, that's too limited and I heard Android is now as stable and well made".
But I don't want to go back to iPhone either, so here I am sitting with a Galaxy S8 I'm still not using because I don't where to start to secure it, whether I should try to fix everything on the factory rom or just root it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay...what exactly makes you to feel insecure? I understand you're bothered that some apps are accessing your microphone. That's easy... Settings-Apps. Tap on those three dots and chose app permission. You'll see what apps have access to microphone and deny permission for them. Job done. What else makes you to feel insecure?
vladimir_carlan said:
Okay...what exactly makes you to feel insecure? I understand you're bothered that some apps are accessing your microphone. That's easy... Settings-Apps. Tap on those three dots and chose app permission. You'll see what apps have access to microphone and deny permission for them. Job done. What else makes you to feel insecure?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I put my S8 away for now I went back to an iPhone. I'm using it off-grid to still try and figure out how it works.
Basically my problems are clear:
1. There's no transparency in background processes/services, the component they use and the data they send.
2. The way permissions are managed is intolerable: forcing you to accept non-necessary and arbitrary access to connected components or private information BEFORE installing the app is a form of extortion. The same goes when running the app: forcing permissions that are not critical to the app code actually running is a form of extortion. Baffles me how Google even allows that today.
3. The fact that there's even a need for a firewall and antivirus, and that the official stores is filled with illegal (copyright infringing app so blatant) and therefor myriads of potential malicious apps like Silverpush-enabled one, without any store control or curation on Google's part.
All this means there is no way I will use an Android rather than an iPhone and allow anyone dealing with private or "sensitive" commercial informations using one inside the company. I'm still trying to figure out if going straight to root is the solution, if I'll have to use cryptography for documents and coms, or if I'll have to spend days figuring out Xposed+Xprivacy, Packages Disablers, MicroG alternative libraries, Firewall and Antivirus and god knows what to make it decently secure like an iPhone (which doesn't aggressively violates your privacy and is really easy to secure with a jailbreak...unless there are hidden backdoors which is still far from the probably illegal open-buffet of private and sensitive informations Google provides to any potential malicious websites, scripts or apps).