Let's think a common situation with the N10:
I have a lot of paid apps attached to my gmail account. The first thing I will do with the N10 is create 3 different profiles. Mine, my wife and my daughter. Every one with their own gmail account.
I have read that when one user gets an app from google play that is already installed by other it won't be downloaded again, and that's fine. But what happens with paid apps?
I'm pretty sure another user with other gmail account won't have access to bought apps by a different person in Google Play....
The situation I will face will be very common. I have bought several apps for my daughter (I have an Asus TF101) and I'd like to see them in her profile in the N10.
The only solution I can guess is to add my gmail account as a secondary one in her profile, but to keep things separated won't be a reality.
What do you think?
If it's the same as the n7 I think any users can use the same paid apps on that device, whether they bought it too or not. Much like a pc.
Unless they've changed this it worked with the hack to enable multiple accounts that was embedded in jb before.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
skibadee said:
If it's the same as the n7 I think any users can use the same paid apps on that device, whether they bought it too or not. Much like a pc.
Unless they've changed this it worked with the hack to enable multiple accounts that was embedded in jb before.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's good news. Let's hope the final version works that way.
That's why I have been purchasing my apps with a seperate family account for a while now. It only has the app licenses and some shared calendar items, which are thus available on my wifes phone and mine. And of course will be on the Nexus 10 on any family profile.
you are talking about several separate things here.
it was stated, that apps that are already installed on the device, but under a different user account, will be available instantly, and do not require to be downloaded again.
that is true, in the android developers office hours emea edition yesterday and last week, this was confirmed. however, it was not clearly stated, what the space requirements are in such a case. obviously, the apk itself must be stored on the device at least once. since all user settings are individual, the shared preferences files will be present twice and all apps that require external data, such as game data on the sd card, must be updated, to not store this data twice. the last point goes especially for apps with expansion apks on the play store, whether apps with data downloads from 3rd party servers (like rockstar games etc.) will work with this model, time will tell.
the way this entire system works, is through encryption and file system permissions.
even the same folder on the sd card, say /sdcard/Music/ can look differently to different users.
Also, up to now, this has not been tested with devices with external sd cards (for obvious reasons) and only works on ext4 file systems.
The licensing question is entirely different from that. the play store, while being able to check a lot of things about you and your device, primarily looks at your google account when you are looking for an app, and the app licenses you buy always are registered to your account (i.e. you as a person), as opposed to your device, which is great, if you are one person with several devices. mixing this system with per device licenses would create a massive issue, as people could just willy nilly create legit play store licenses for apps by adding friends' user accounts on their device with paid apps and the apps would be licensed for the friends as well (again, including all their devices).
of course the same goes for any other play store purchases as well (movies, music, books, in-app purchases etc.)
this has not officially been stated by the android developers office hours, but it only makes sense this way, again, as mixing per-user licensing with per-device licensing would open a hell-hole of piracy.
so, considering, what google officially stated about these things, i would not count on the feature being anywhere similar to the existing multi-user feature of 4.1. if it had been ready and perfected at the time, it would have been published in that state, but after another half a year of work, i expect it to have changed, much like the rest of the os.
if you want all of this information directly from google and in even lengthier explanations, check out the office hours:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IeU_sQzl3U&feature=plcp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z92fwFQntG8&feature=plcp
I am willing to bet that the shared APK system is based on the Play Store and might even only work when installed from there. In that case, in order to have an app available on another profile, you would need to "download" it from the store, only that it just registers it as visible somehow. That would require the corresponding google account on every profile using the app.
When it comes to additional files, I guess the "official way" introduced a while back with the two additional archives will be handled just fine, as it is done by the system itself. When the app downloads those themself, we will have to wait and see like you said. The same goes for other files - will I be aple to see e.g. the photos from other profiles? If not by default, can you manage the access rights? Devices with SD cards might prove quite interesting here, but they may as well be handled the simple way: if you use that storage, it is open for all.
However that turns out to work, multi-user will broaden the versatility of tablets, even if some scenarios don't work out as they might be wished or expected.
What I didn't get from your post - are you accusing me of abusing the multi-device functionality? If so, I don't feel ashamed of sharing paid apps with my wife (for now) and children (later on when they get smartphones). We also do not buy separate DVDs for each viewer or multiple instances of books.
Sharing a google account with paid apps with a multitude of friends as you described however could prove quite problematic. Who gets to register his credit card? Who decides which apps are bought? I guess it would be much easier to find a cracked version if unwilling to pay.
no no, i was not accusing you.
i was just presenting the official google standpoint of licensing and that with a per-device licensing in combination with a device with multiple users, it would be possible to create free licenses illegally.
let me elaborate on that, because i meant it entirely different from your last paragraph:
let's say, i have a nexus 10 and have bought a paid app with my account. if that meant, every user on my tablet would inherit an own license from this one purchase, i could theoretically have friends coming over all day, logging into my tablet with their account, and immediately have the right to this paid app (and all my paid apps) as well, so it would be licensed to their account and they could install it on their phones as well. that way, you could create an infinite account of pseudo-legit licenses for apps or generally all play store content. this is the reason, why i think it is impossible that google would use the per-device licensing all of a sudden.
actually, i forgot to mention, your model with a combined family account is actually a good way around such issues.
i am sure, many couples or entire families use this method and it is perfectly fine. at least, the app purchase is legit. sharing one account with two people, especially in this case on one device is something completely different from the fraudulent model i was talking about before.
my entire earlier post was about the question in the op, whether one paid app can be used from multiple accounts and again, technically, legally and morally, no.
i agree with your dvd example, translating that to apps, one account on multiple devices allows multiple app installations and whether both devices are operated by the same person or a couple does not matter.
long story short:
the only difference in the play store experience is that apps that are already installed don't have to be downloaded again (to save time), but the play store will still feel exactly the same, i.e. requiring a purchase for an app, that has not been bought with that account yet.
Chef_Tony said:
no no, i was not accusing you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was just asking to prevent misunderstanding.
i could theoretically have friends coming over all day, logging into my tablet with their account, and immediately have the right to this paid app (and all my paid apps) as well, so it would be licensed to their account and they could install it on their phones as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even if you could just use any app installed by any profile (which as I described above is not the way I assume it will happen), at what point does that enable them to download the app to their devices? That would require them to have your profile (with your account details) on their devices.
PlanetJumble said:
Even if you could just use any app installed by any profile (which as I described above is not the way I assume it will happen), at what point does that enable them to download the app to their devices? That would require them to have your profile (with your account details) on their devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no it wouldn't require them to have your profile in this hypothetical story, here is the thing, as i understood the first couple of posts in this thread, this would be a possible scenario (but isn't):
User A has a phone, let's say a Gnex and a google account [email protected]
User B has a phone, let's say an S3 and a google account [email protected]
User A buys a Nexus 10.
User A logs in and has access to all the same paid apps as on the Gnex.
User B logs in and has access to all the same paid apps as on the S3.
User A installs a free app on the Nexus 10.
User B installs the same free app on the Nexus 10. it does not require another download, it is just there.
(so far, so good, all true, could happen)
User A buys an app from the play store on the Nexus 10.
User B looks at the same app on the play store on the Nexus 10.
(here comes the initial question: will he get this app for free, since it is already installed on the device?)
Situation 1:
User B gets the app for free on the Nexus10, since it is already present on the device, it does not even need to be installed again, it is just there.
User B looks in the play store, the app should now be listed in "My Apps", since it was installed on the device with the account [email protected]
User B gets his S3 and has the same app displayed as purchased on the play store, since he once was able to legitimately install it from his account (on the Nexus 10), which makes it his app on all his devices.
User B installs the paid app on his S3 for free, since it is present on his account.
User B's account gets removed from the Nexus 10.
Rinse and repeat through User Z. 25 free licenses, that can be replicated to all of the users' devices since they get the app transferred to their accounts if they once inherited it on the Nexus 10.
Situation 2:
User A looks at the app on the play store, it costs .99$. He buys it and installs it.
User B looks at the app on the play store, sees it costs him .99$
User B buys the app.
The app gets installed instantly, as it is already present on the device.
All I wanted to say with my two previous 2 posts is:
Situation 1 is never going to happen. Situation 2 is how it's going to be. If User A and User B are 2 separate Google Accounts on the same tablet, they need to buy apps twice.
People tend to confuse the instant install feature with an ability to share apps or transfer apps between accounts, but all it does is save you time and internet traffic. it does not influence paid apps at all. also, apparently, the half implemented multi-user feature in 4.1 gave wrong impressions as well.
P.S. i actually think, we were on the same page all along, just had different approaches to give examples of the situations.
Chef_Tony said:
P.S. i actually think, we were on the same page all along, just had different approaches to give examples of the situations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think so too, and I fully expect to skip the second payment with each profile having the personal and the shared family account.
Exactly. For 2 persons you make 3 accounts. One shared account for paid apps that both use, so you'd just need to purchase them once and 2 individual accounts for the two persons to have their personal email and other individual settings and files.
That seems to be the ideal solution. A week from now, we'll know exactly, how the separation works.
Can't wait to have the device here.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Chef_Tony said:
Situation 1:
User B gets the app for free on the Nexus10, since it is already present on the device, it does not even need to be installed again, it is just there.
User B looks in the play store, the app should now be listed in "My Apps", since it was installed on the device with the account [email protected]
User B gets his S3 and has the same app displayed as purchased on the play store, since he once was able to legitimately install it from his account (on the Nexus 10), which makes it his app on all his devices.
User B installs the paid app on his S3 for free, since it is present on his account.
User B's account gets removed from the Nexus 10.
Rinse and repeat through User Z. 25 free licenses, that can be replicated to all of the users' devices since they get the app transferred to their accounts if they once inherited it on the Nexus 10.
Situation 2:
User A looks at the app on the play store, it costs .99$. He buys it and installs it.
User B looks at the app on the play store, sees it costs him .99$
User B buys the app.
The app gets installed instantly, as it is already present on the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see why it has to be only one of those two options. Why not this:
Situation 3:
User A buys and installs a $0.99 app on the play store.
User B Looks at the same app and Play store is smart enough to check that the app is already installed on the device and allows him access to it on this device but does NOT update his account information to say that he has purchased the app.
User B Looks at the same app on his phone, and it still shows up as costing $0.99.
Not saying that's definitely the way it will work, but that's the way I'd prefer it. That would allow a parent to buy and install apps for his children that they have access to on their profiles, without having to associate his own account and credit card information with his children's profiles, opening up the possibility for them to make purchases without his approval.
Another question I have about multi-profile access to apps is this: I keep hearing that the second user to install an app will not have to download it again. That's certainly nice for ease/speed of access to the new app, but it doesn't answer the question of how the app is stored on the device. Is there just one copy of the apk that all users can access? Or does the system make a copy of the apk for each profile that installs it, thus using up more storage space?
Profiles are just profiles under one GMail account I'd imagine, and not a completely separate and independent accounts.
BoneXDA said:
Profiles are just profiles under one GMail account I'd imagine, and not a completely separate and independent accounts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nah, that doesn't make sense, you don't want to be sharing an email account or whatever, it will be a separate (optional) account per profile.
As for the app purchase crappy, who cares, get titanium backup, use its profile switch option which works on all android versions to swap out apply and game data so multiple people can use them on the same device.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
You don't seriously say using titanium is easier than native integration?
@je55ter only a few more days and we will know for sure.
BoneXDA said:
Profiles are just profiles under one GMail account I'd imagine, and not a completely separate and independent accounts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that is definetely not the case as one can see in all available hands on videos so far, the profiles are different google accounts, which will then automatically give you access to all your google content. have a look at the videos, like the first video from the verge, the demo device clearly has hugo barra's account on it, as indicated by his google+ avatar on the lockscreen. it was also confirmed that these profiles will fetch all kinds of information from the corresponding google account, so it must be multiple accounts.
PlanetJumble said:
You don't seriously say using titanium is easier than native integration?
@je55ter only a few more days and we will know for sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying it's easier, but if it turns out each user is supposed to purchase it, TB profiles is one solution.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
A very similar example would be the Xbox 360 or PS3. These are devices that use multiple users accounts. On both consoles paid content is available to all profiles on the console.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Yes, X360 and PS3 are excellent examples... of how it will not work on Android!
Actually it really makes sense that different profiles got different apps, unlike on consoles. If you can cross-license over profiles on the same device some way will be revealed next week.
PlanetJumble said:
Yes, X360 and PS3 are excellent examples... of how it will not work on Android!
Actually it really makes sense that different profiles got different apps, unlike on consoles. If you can cross-license over profiles on the same device some way will be revealed next week.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What evidence do you have for how it will be implemented? You can make a pretty strong argument for both systems.
If there is no cross-licensing it would seriously reduce the appeal of this feature. Would most people purchase 2 copies of GTA3 for instance just so they can have their own saved game on their profile? I don't think so.
Hello Good People of XDA
I have been a i9506 owner for quite long, had a 9100 before,
I am used to root and mess with apps to customize things to my wim,
at the best of my knowledge (I lack android programming skills, but I can do things with terminal and filesystems).
All that before to say I am not totally a noob, but my lack of technical knowledge might bite me there.
System wise, I am under 4.2.2, rooted, unknow sources are not allowed, system check for apps is allowed,
I have an antivirus (more than one, but only one works each day, just to be sure I don't miss things)...
My problem is that I recently found out that some apps, actually system apps, blocked
with Titanium backup, or with gemini app manager, or app quarantine,
were actually running anyway.
They are marked as blocked in my app manager, but can still be force closed,
and they appear in battery displays (most of these under the android system block, in the list of services/apps used),
and in process running when using Ccleaner apps.
Also, my battery display show GPS is activated, while when I go into options, all boxes are off or unticked.
I thus wonder what's happening?
How is it possible to have these schrödinger apps tamed and blocked like I want them.
I want these to shut down and only work when I DO ALLOW these, for them not to suck my battery or do unauthorized chores like tracking me when I don't want.
How is it possible that they even behave like that? In i9100, I never observed that in Android 4.0.
I wonder if Google didn't change the workings for making us unable to disactivate what we don't want to work, which was pissing them off.
They already change the permissions displays in the market so permissions as intrusive as "contacts/sms message/USB stockage" are considered "not relevant/important",
while they are depending on the announced display of the app.
But I don't want to go on the "conspiracy route" (I am not like that, I am a pragmatist and I just observe facts, like these apps, with sensitive access, not being able to be deactivated), so let's focus on the technical part:
such apps were Maps, Samsung sync adapters, NFC service , Google Agenda/Contact synchronisation, sysscope, context provider, etc.
That's a lots of things that are supposed to communicate to cloud or other devices, with feels lot like a gaping flaw in the armor...
I want a phone and a tool, not something that track me or put me at risk of being stolen by somebody with technical knowledge.
Am I alone?
Thanks for any insights.
Blocked apps still working
I don't know if my title was too unclear, so I would like to change the title but am unable to do so?
Is it please possible for a moderator to do it (with the title of this post)?
Thanks by advance.
I feel like it is a true problem not being able to block some apps,
or even more, to believe they are blocked while they perfectly perform in the background,
and display activity only in secondary reports, not under their respective "buttons"/information tabs.
I wonder abourt the technical reason to such behavior.
Then delete those apps or block some of the permissions with an app (eg Privacyguard).
It's my opinion that an antivirus app (at the moment) is a waste of resources. Just think before you install something. Also if you are worried about security, you should always run the latest version of Android. 4.2.2 is an old version.
Lennyz1988 said:
Then delete those apps or block some of the permissions with an app (eg Privacyguard).
It's my opinion that an antivirus app (at the moment) is a waste of resources. Just think before you install something. Also if you are worried about security, you should always run the latest version of Android. 4.2.2 is an old version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your answer.
Well I don't want to delete system app when they might be useful at time.
I just want them to behave correctly, that is, not work when they are blocked.
That is not a solution to say "uninstall this", while the true problem is Android general behavior here.
I didn't installed system apps, they came with the thing, and all of them are not bloatware.
"NFC service" is something I want to keep for when I am ready to use it,
but I don't want to let it free and unleashed because of the opening it leaves on my phone.
Same goes for bluetooth, synced backups and so on.
I don't want backups on the cloud, so I deactivated the options, and blocked the apps.
Why are they running? It is not normal!
And my old version is maybe not secure, but actually trying 4.3 hasn't changed anything,
and I only suspect this to be some "new feature".
The antivirus is a waste for scans, I agree, still it has useful firewall features that justifies in itself its uses.
Hey all,
So, I was issued an S5 for work (on Big Red), and I had a couple of questions and needed some...expert...advice...
My company nerfed the phone pretty bad. They disabled almost all of the pre-installed apps (Amazon, Gmail, Flipboard). They also use a whitelist to only allow certain apps to be installed. Everything else installs, then is immediately uninstalled "by IT policy". For a while, I figured out how to delete the admin policies and install whatever I wanted (we use Knox for enterprise stuff, and I don't mess with that; just the "personal" side, which isn't so personal anymore). Some of the apps they let you install are silly (Candy Crush? Really?) but I can't install Timley or something useful.
Is there a way to Trojan horse an app? It seems that the policy checks the app against the white list and lets it install if it's cool, removes it if it isn't. Can I somehow rename and sideload an app to one on the list? I don't want to hack the phone, per se, just use it (Flipboard can't be installed, but CNN, NBC News, USA Today, etc all can). Or is the admin policy too advanced on Android now?
Thanks in advance...
ret4425 said:
Hey all,
So, I was issued an S5 for work (on Big Red), and I had a couple of questions and needed some...expert...advice...
My company nerfed the phone pretty bad. They disabled almost all of the pre-installed apps (Amazon, Gmail, Flipboard). They also use a whitelist to only allow certain apps to be installed. Everything else installs, then is immediately uninstalled "by IT policy". For a while, I figured out how to delete the admin policies and install whatever I wanted (we use Knox for enterprise stuff, and I don't mess with that; just the "personal" side, which isn't so personal anymore). Some of the apps they let you install are silly (Candy Crush? Really?) but I can't install Timley or something useful.
Is there a way to Trojan horse an app? It seems that the policy checks the app against the white list and lets it install if it's cool, removes it if it isn't. Can I somehow rename and sideload an app to one on the list? I don't want to hack the phone, per se, just use it (Flipboard can't be installed, but CNN, NBC News, USA Today, etc all can). Or is the admin policy too advanced on Android now?
Thanks in advance...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If Timley (did you mean Timely?) is a useful app and helps with your job to boot then I would suggest that you try talking to someone in the IT department about having it added to the whitelist. I would expect that any company which goes to this lengths to keep your phone secure will have the phone verify the md5 checksums of certain files. The Apps won't be added instantly to the whitelist, but after the IT department has had time to verify that the app is secure then they will probably add it.
Kaliaila said:
If Timley (did you mean Timely?) is a useful app and helps with your job to boot then I would suggest that you try talking to someone in the IT department about having it added to the whitelist. I would expect that any company which goes to this lengths to keep your phone secure will have the phone verify the md5 checksums of certain files. The Apps won't be added instantly to the whitelist, but after the IT department has had time to verify that the app is secure then they will probably add it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn the md5. Damn them to Hell...
If only my IT department were so benevolent.
I did a factory reset before submitting my device to Samsung repair. But before doing it, to not have any trace of my online/offline data after reset I had to take care of ‘Factory Reset Protection’ (FRP) so that it won't ask to enter my email after reset. I removed the device security locks including fingerprints and also any Google account associated as said by 99% articles over internet (at least in my 30 mins of read thru of Google searches specifically for Samsung & also generally for android). Also had checked necessary options for all of my datas to be synced to Google. But in order to reinforce my knowledge about FRP and how it’s getting triggered I went thru some YouTube videos and articles specifically for Samsung & also generally for android prior to reset. And finally everything was good to go and ready for repair
Got my device after repair and did a reset again for Google to ask to restore my apps from previous backup of the same device. But it didn’t as you can see from the pic attached.
So what could be the reason you ask. When I removed the Google account (primary) for reset process, all the ‘App datas’ (thankfully not my contacts and other stuffs) were cleared from Google servers. Simply to say, the ‘Remove account’ option will tell Google that this device is no longer associated with this account and to delete all Android related datas associated and there is no way you can get this back.
So I don’t know whom to blame. The hundred’s of article over Internet about FRP (example: http://www.androidcentral.com/factory-reset-protection-what-you-need-know )
OR Samsung for not giving any information anywhere in internet or even in the Software (as warnings) [Their only website related to FRP is still down here in my country at least]. OR Google? For not giving any clear information regarding this action.
Anyway there is no use in crying over spilt milk. All I have to do now is manually install all my 83 apps one by one that were previously installed and who knows whether their respective datas can still be synced. There were even circumstances which most of us should have gone thru when the Google not showing yesterday app restore list but 1 week ago in the setup process.
Things like this can very well frustrate anyone if they are heaving depending on cloud. This is just one of the many little things(software, H/W dependent) in Android that may frustrate a user very much. NO WONDER WHY PEOPLE MOVE TO iOS. Because over customizability and all there are some stuffs that matters the most and iOS still excels in that. We geeks know that but it’s the freedom and exploration that makes us forget all those important stuffs.
For those of you gonna say “YOU SHOULD HAVE USED SMART SWITCH, ADB BACKUP, TITANIUM BACKUP OR SOMETHING ELSE” -- when something is meant to work it should work. I even had bad experiences with Titanium backup, could be device specific but whatever it is.
Welcoming all POSITIVE and NEGATIVE comments. LOL.
Running stock TouchWiz with the April patch. Tried a reset without removing Google account and it didn't ask for the mail ID to be entered for verification during setup process. So basically something have changed recently on how FRP works and whatever I've wriiten is what you have to take care of. regarding backup and all. Please share this thread with you friends. .
Will appreciate a thanks.
Thanks for sharing. Seems like a good warning for all of us.
Sent from my SM-G930V using XDA Premium HD app
Sorry to hear of your difficulties. My own frustrations have been building with Android as well. It is ridiculous how much we have to eff around with hidden settings and tweaks to get decent battery life. I am keeping an eye on the iPhone 7 to be honest.
Though apple ecosystem has its own share of frustrations.
Thanks for the info. I too had experience of some backup apps not working as they intended to be. Even Titanium Backup had given me tension when new android version comes or sometimes for no reason. But my go to solution(even without root I believe) is always have been Tasker+AutoInput combo. When nothing works out I just program them both to install apps from PlayStore based on the app list I manually backed up with another app. That's it. Don't know whether that will cause any bad effect on device hardware. Does it?
xxaarraa said:
Sorry to hear of your difficulties. My own frustrations have been building with Android as well. It is ridiculous how much we have to eff around with hidden settings and tweaks to get decent battery life. I am keeping an eye on the iPhone 7 to be honest.
Though apple ecosystem has its own share of frustrations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree as i mentioned in OP. Sad to see Snapdragon 820 users struggle with battery life by removing un-wanted system packages. This even exists to an extent in my unlocked DUOS version. Google gotta have more control over Android. Hope with Android N this is not just gonna be with updates but also else where. Come on Google it's 2016.
OH gosh. This is an important piece of information. Somebody should link to this info by posting an article in xda-developer.com . Is there any way to reuquest?
Thanks BTW for a warning
Sheryl John said:
.Simply to say, the ‘Remove account’ option will tell Google that this device is no longer associated with this account and to delete all Android related datas associated and there is no way you can get this back
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1) Disable Internet connectivity (wifi, data)
2) Remove accounts, then
3) Factory reset
Google doesn't know that about the removal so app data is still in your account, yet the device no longer has any link to the Google account so it's safe against FRP.
That said, with multi devices (and household members sharing 1 common account as the base account), I don't back app data to Google at all. TiBu has its quirks but I've yet to lose anything with it. On the contrary, I probably have too much back up (who needs Gingerbread apps back ups??? yeah, I still have them LOL).
lost_ said:
1) Disable Internet connectivity (wifi, data)
2) Remove accounts, then
3) Factory reset
Google doesn't know that about the removal so app data is still in your account, yet the device no longer has any link to the Google account so it's safe against FRP.
That said, with multi devices (and household members sharing 1 common account as the base account), I don't back app data to Google at all. TiBu has its quirks but I've yet to lose anything with it. On the contrary, I probably have too much back up (who needs Gingerbread apps back ups??? yeah, I still have them LOL).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the only way it seems for hard reset. But as I mentioned in my OP there is no need of removing the Google account for soft reset. FRP won't be triggered.