Related
/!\ BE AWARE OF YOUR APP, DavinciDevelopers try to steal them and sell them on the market !!
Hello guys,
Be careful, if you post an apk of your free app here, somebody will try to take the apk, remove the signature, and upload it as a paid version on the market !
The proofs : (edited to add new stolen softwares)
Llamadroid
- http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=10113570#post10113570
- http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-kebab-llamadroid-zzjjD.aspx
(removed today, on 5th january)
Typo clock
- http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=814054
- http://www.appbrain.com/app/beautiful-clock-widget-3d/com.semicuda.typoclock
Iron soldiers
- http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=862875
- http://www.appbrain.com/app/iron-soldiers/vuxia.ironSoldiers
(removed from market today, on 5th january, but still referenced)
Championship racing 2010
- http://www.vividgames.com/sub_game.php?id=42
- http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-vividgames-championship_racing_2010-zzxwq.aspx
(removed today, on 5th january)
Liquid wallpaper
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=878252
http://www.appbrain.com/app/liquid-physics/livewallpaper.liquid
Bluetooth Scanner
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=900923
http://www.androidzoom.com/android_games/casual/bluetooth-scanner_pvqg.html
(New !! Now, we have proof that ALL his apps are stolen)
And even Gameloft best sellers (paid games) :
http://www.androlib.com/android.app...ndroid-gand-gloftspaw-heroofsparta-zjCDi.aspx
(removed from market today, on 5th january, but still referenced)
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-gameloft-android-gand-gloftavar-avatar-zjCEx.aspx
(removed from market today, on 5th january, but still referenced)
Minigore
http://minigore.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-minigore-is.html
http://www.appbrain.com/app/minigore-hd/com.ambushgames.minigore
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-ambushgames-minigore-zzjqD.aspx
Zuma's revenge
Original
http://www.zumasrevengegame.com/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/3620/
Scammers
http://www.appbrain.com/app/zumas-revenge-hd/com.popcap.zumas_revenge
http://www.appbrain.com/app/zumas-revenge/com.fox.game.zumasrevenge
How is it possible ?
Google does not check your apk signature when you upload a software.
Even if you signed yous apk with you key, somebody else can put this on his google account.
The signature can be deleted easily if needed.
He can change the title of your app, so nobody see it, but he can't change the apk name nor the icon.
Why do we post our apk here ?
To have testers, to correct bugs, to have a perfect look and feel before put it on the market.
Because on the market people are rude, we have only one chance, so we need to avoid bugs.
And when we put our app online, we want to choose if it's paid or free (with ads or not).
What is the problem ?
If DavinciDevelopers steal and upload your app, he will lock your pak name.
2 apps can't have the same name on the market.
You may have a name like com.myname.myapp.apk
Where "myname" is the same in every app you do.
If he take that, this is a major issue for you because you will be associated to him on every search (google.com, market...).
So, you will have to change your app name and maybe your company name....
Within 1 or 2 days, the market is parsed from androlib, androidzoom, appbrain... and it's done. Google.com will see those websites, and you are trapped.
You will have your buggy app on the market, some people will pay for that, the thief will have some money, and every users will have a bad opinion of your app.
Why DavinciDevelopers does this ?
To make benefit from your work.
Because he doesn't care you are working from a long time on your app.
Because he doesn't care if your work is ruined, he will find somebody else.
How can we be protected ?
Because 2 apps can't have the same name, you should put your app on the market first.
If your app is in development stage, you can upload it as "draft", so it will not be visible on the market, but the name will be locked.
Who is DavinciDevelopers ?
Somebody that have 83 apps on the market !
Almost all of them are themes.
If you look the package name you can see for example :
com.nd.android.pandatheme.p__3d_android_theme
at :
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-nd-android-pandatheme-p__3d_android_theme-qAmiz.aspx
google search : "pandatheme", first link :
http://home.pandaapp.com:888/
So he is not a developer. He makes themes with a free online tool and sell them... nice.
And for the real apps he uploaded (about 5), they all are stolen, coming from poland, germany, and other places.
Almost every of them comes from XDA dev forums.
ps : this message should be marked as sticky in every development section.
Wow, I can't believe this
It gets even better! Check this out:
http://www.androlib.com/android.app...ndroid-gand-gloftspaw-heroofsparta-zjCDi.aspx
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-gameloft-android-gand-gloftavar-avatar-zjCEx.aspx
He released the liquid physics live wallpaper I posted on here as well.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=878252
http://www.appbrain.com/app/liquid-physics/livewallpaper.liquid
Attacking GameLoft was a bad move for this/these guy(s).
They hit somewhere they shouldn't have I think.
Khoral said:
Attacking GameLoft was a bad move for this/these guy(s).
They hit somewhere they shouldn't have I think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He has ripped off Popcap as well
http://www.appbrain.com/app/zumas-revenge-hd/com.popcap.zumas_revenge
And MiniGore
http://www.appbrain.com/app/minigore-hd/com.ambushgames.minigore
So STICKY!!!
It's really funny the website slogan:
http://davincidevelopers.weebly.com/
Innovation is everything. WTF
What do you thing, does it matter to left a comment like: app is stolen,... Seller steals apps from real developers or something else in market for "his" apks?
I wrote an email to appbrain and told them about this: maybe they can at least exclude this person from appbrain???
Has anyone emailed him to let him know that we all know?
Dirtbags
Sent from your mom's phone
kiltedthrower said:
Has anyone emailed him to let him know that we all know?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like they would care... they just want to make some quick money from other's work.
The only way we can solve this if somehow we contact google to do something about it.
Since yesterday, he deleted some apps from his market.
I'm the developer of iron soldiers, I had been notified yesterday by another xda forum user that he stole my app.
I emailed him and within 3 or 4 hours he removed the app.
He answered me that he is so sorry, that he shares his key with other people and he didn't know... blabla.
Anyway, he has many stolen apps so he is hard to believe.
Now I see that thanaos2042 created a new thread (thanks ) and that google already referenced it :
If you google "davincideveloppers", this post is already in the first page !
Internet has a memory, and his name will not be forgotten.
they sell a lot of apps which is 80++ but they still using free website ....what a cheapskate...
Holy ****. Mods, please sticky this!!
I sincerely hope Google kicks their ass for this. I'm not familiar with the ToS but I hope they get hit with a lawsuit and instant refunds to say the least.
Stealing from Indie Developers is simply ****ed up. Wouldn't it be funny if a massive attack was launched against this asshole's website? (wink wink)
Chalup said:
Stealing from Indie Developers is simply ****ed up. Wouldn't it be funny if a massive attack was launched against this asshole's website? (wink wink)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it wouldn't. He/they are using a free web host so that would effectively be an attack on a whole lot of innocent sites.
Terrible to steal!
stolen apps are all over the market, ive even seen the r2d2 live wallpaper from the droid, on the market for 99p,
Good to know about these flagrant ripoffs
Looks like someone took their website down. The link now shows a page that isn't published.
Edit: Looks like Google could do something about this since it appears to be a violation of the terms of service (see 11.4, 13.3 and 16)
11. Content licence from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this licence shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
13.3 Google may at any time, terminate its legal agreement with you if:
(A) you have breached any provision of the Terms (or have acted in manner which clearly shows that you do not intend to, or are unable to comply with the provisions of the Terms)
16. Copyright and trade mark policies
16.1 It is Google’s policy to respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable international intellectual property law (including, in the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and to terminating the accounts of repeat infringers. Details of Google’s policy can be found at http://www.google.com/dmca.html.
16.2 Google operates a trade mark complaints procedure in respect of Google’s advertising business, details of which can be found at http://www.google.com/tm_complaint.html.
would it be possible to create an emulator for windows phone 7 that runs windows mobile apps, like Classic for the palm pre? If web os can do it why cant windows phone 7?
WP7 "sandboxes" applications so no single application can take down the entire phone. So app developers are designing applications with their hands tied behind their backs, figuratively. As more APIs are released, we'll see better things in the future.
isaiah12345 said:
would it be possible to create an emulator for windows phone 7 that runs windows mobile apps, like Classic for the palm pre? If web os can do it why cant windows phone 7?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
-Yes it is possible.
-If it were done, it probably wouldn't pass marketplace rules. MS banned some game emulators already, a shocking decision which shows you need directly installable apps.
-If it were done, it might not run at an acceptable speed for 10 years, assuming phones progress at Moore's law.
-The programming required would be an immense task.
-Almost no value would be created as there aren't enough important, unique WM applications.
the argument about game emulators banned is not due to the fact they dislike emulators, they would happily support it IF the intellectual property of the games themselves could be done without a legal storm occurring. So for example, if someone makes a gameboy emulator for windows phone (which i've seen an image of on some of the other sites), MS would be happy to put the emulator up if the games themselves could be transferred legally. This would mean that Nintendo would need to approve of what is happening and get their cut... they wouldn't ever allow it as it takes away from their devices and profits. So that is why MS doesn't allow the emulators. It's no shocking decision...
The Gate Keeper said:
IF the intellectual property of the games themselves could be done without a legal storm occurring. So for example, if someone makes a gameboy emulator for windows phone (which i've seen an image of on some of the other sites), MS would be happy to put the emulator up if the games themselves could be transferred legally. This would mean that Nintendo would need to approve of what is happening and get their cut... they wouldn't ever allow it as it takes away from their devices and profits. So that is why MS doesn't allow the emulators. It's no shocking decision...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Emulators are completely legal.
Games can also be transferred legally, although that is not MS's responsibility.
No 3rd parties need to approve.
The decision is shocking from two points of view. Firstly, legitimate software is being banned. Secondly, it is a strategic mistake as Microsoft does not have an interest in Nintendo's profits. Microsoft has an interest in creating secure platforms, but why should it hurt its own users in order to secure other companies' platforms?
i never said emulators were illegal. i made the argument that games couldn't be transferred legally. this is backed by there being no actual means except via some online process. how would you propose it can be done legally? without it being abused by pirates? if you can answer this using current technologies available to windows phone, then you can trumpt my argument as well as MS's stance on it.
I'm not sure if MS have an interest or not in Nintendo's profits, but what does xbox on a windows phone speak of then... it's a handheld gaming device, like a nintendo DS is. So maybe they are? i'm not sure.
Furthermore, you just validated my point... "creating secure platforms", this also means stopping a legal storm for themselves and any developers that put their stuff on the platform.
I know it's very Apple like of an argument, and MS is quite liberal with it (e.g. torrent controllers are allowed in WP marketplace, but not iTunes marketplace), but there is a point where they have to say no.
Basically, until you can provide a means to actually legally do it, without piracy being able to subvert this (which is pretty much impossible because you can download the ROMs anyways... and then make a claim that you legally own the game, when you just downloaded the ROM), my argument which is MS's stance, is valid.
The Gate Keeper said:
i never said emulators were illegal. i made the argument that games couldn't be transferred legally. this is backed by there being no actual means except via some online process. how would you propose it can be done legally? without it being abused by pirates? if you can answer this using current technologies available to windows phone, then you can trumpt my argument as well as MS's stance on it.
I'm not sure if MS have an interest or not in Nintendo's profits, but what does xbox on a windows phone speak of then... it's a handheld gaming device, like a nintendo DS is. So maybe they are? i'm not sure.
Furthermore, you just validated my point... "creating secure platforms", this also means stopping a legal storm for themselves and any developers that put their stuff on the platform.
I know it's very Apple like of an argument, and MS is quite liberal with it (e.g. torrent controllers are allowed in WP marketplace, but not iTunes marketplace), but there is a point where they have to say no.
Basically, until you can provide a means to actually legally do it, without piracy being able to subvert this (which is pretty much impossible because you can download the ROMs anyways... and then make a claim that you legally own the game, when you just downloaded the ROM), my argument which is MS's stance, is valid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is legal to download the ROM if you own the game, so that is a legal way of doing it.
For instance, I own like 50 NES games, I actually have the games in my closet, so it would be perfectly legal for me to download a SMB rom onto my WP7 phone and run it via an emulator.
orangekid said:
It is legal to download the ROM if you own the game, so that is a legal way of doing it.
For instance, I own like 50 NES games, I actually have the games in my closet, so it would be perfectly legal for me to download a SMB rom onto my WP7 phone and run it via an emulator.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whilst you own the games and therefore are legally about to, that still doesn't respond to my point...
Also, that still doesn't provide a method for how to do it legally for those that do not have the games? you can make the claim and aye i believe you do own those games, but there are plenty who a) want to play those games and are happy to pay for it, OR b) want to play those games and don't want to play for it because they could download it illegally (piracy). as i said... provide an theoretical way using today's technologies available to Windows Phone to transfer the ROMs legally without piracy overrunning it, and you can null and void my argument and MS stance, if not, then it's still stands.
The Gate Keeper said:
i never said emulators were illegal.
...
Furthermore, you just validated my point... "creating secure platforms", this also means stopping a legal storm for themselves and any developers that put their stuff on the platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Emulators are legal, hosting emulators is legal.
Doing legal things doesn't create "legal storms".
i made the argument that games couldn't be transferred legally. this is backed by there being no actual means except via some online process. how would you propose it can be done legally?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Take a game, extract the ROM ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROM_image ), then you have it on your computer. Since WP7 is still short on basic features, the emulator software needs to sync the ROM on the computer with its internal storage.
I'm not sure if MS have an interest or not in Nintendo's profits, but what does xbox on a windows phone speak of then... it's a handheld gaming device, like a nintendo DS is. So maybe they are? i'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I buy a Nintendo product, the revenue does not magically go to microsoft via xbox on windows phone. Xbox on windows phone is not a mechanism for microsoft to hack into Nintendo's profits. You have some conspiracy theory?
Furthermore, you just validated my point... "creating secure platforms", this also means stopping a legal storm for themselves and any developers that put their stuff on the platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What?
Basically, until you can provide a means to actually legally do it, without piracy being able to subvert this (which is pretty much impossible because you can download the ROMs anyways... and then make a claim that you legally own the game, when you just downloaded the ROM), my argument which is MS's stance, is valid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft is prohibiting legal software on its marketplace.
It has no reason for doing so because it is not harming its ecosystem. Emulators would not make its current platforms less secure, unless they emulate those platforms which is not feasible. Maybe it would hurt competitors a bit. If the market is uncollusive, it shouldn't care.
you seem to miss my point... it isn't the emulator themselves, it's the games. and yes i know you can get the ROMs off a proper game fine, but i'm talking about the many that abuse it and just download the ROM in general without actually paying for the game. that is what causes a legal storm, not the emulator themselves... merely googling a game with the word ROM after it will lead you to many places that upload the ROMs. That is the part which is pretty much impossible for MS to stop. do you see my point now?
A proposed solution would be for the emulator developer to house the roms on a site, and people would sign into the site using an account (windows live in this case), and they could purchase the right to download/use the rom. but then, what if you own the game? you don't want to have to purchase it again, so how about uploading your own rom? which opens up propsed solution to piracy as well... but even in terms of purchasing the use of the rom, the manufacturers/publishers of the game would need to be involved as i'm sure they'll just sue the developer for doing it illegally.
EMULATOR = LEGAL
TRANSFER OF ROM IN A LEGAL WAY = VERY DIFFICULT...
anyways, back on point...
ycavan and CSMR have it right, it's doable but very difficult. In pretty much all cases it would be better for the originally developer to redo their program for windows phone 7, especially if they made it in C#.NET or VB.NET as these languages are supported in Windows Phone 7.
The Gate Keeper said:
you seem to miss my point... it isn't the emulator themselves, it's the games. and yes i know you can get the ROMs off a proper game fine, but i'm talking about the many that abuse it and just download the ROM in general without actually paying for the game. that is what causes a legal storm, not the emulator themselves... merely googling a game with the word ROM after it will lead you to many places that upload the ROMs. That is the part which is pretty much impossible for MS to stop. do you see my point now?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft isn't legally responsible for this. It also has no interest in stopping people from downloading old ROMs illegally.
EMULATOR = LEGAL
TRANSFER OF ROM IN A LEGAL WAY = VERY DIFFICULT...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hosting an emulator is legal. Not taking deliberate action to block an emulator is legal. That's Microsoft's part in this.
Doesn't seem to be a problem in other markets.
vetvito said:
Doesn't seem to be a problem in other markets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very true, I have a hard time believing that MS is any more ethical than Google
Game emulators are banned because their sole purpose is to execute illegal ROMs. There's no valid use case and therefore not allowed. (And yes, I verified this.)
WithinRafael said:
Game emulators are banned because their sole purpose is to execute illegal ROMs. There's no valid use case and therefore not allowed. (And yes, I verified this.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the thing is though is that that's not true, in fact it's false.
It IS legal to play ROMs that you own on an emulator, therefore it is not the "sole purpose" to play illegal games. I actually own like 50 NES games and play Dr, Mario, contra, and super techmo bowl on my HD2 regularly when I want to kill some time.
so whomever you verified this was full of ****.
orangekid said:
the thing is though is that that's not true, in fact it's false.
It IS legal to play ROMs that you own on an emulator, therefore it is not the "sole purpose" to play illegal games. I actually own like 50 NES games and play Dr, Mario, contra, and super techmo bowl on my HD2 regularly when I want to kill some time.
so whomever you verified this was full of ****.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#download_rom
There is a good deal of misinformation on the Internet regarding the backup/archival copy exception. It is not a "second copy" rule and is often mistakenly cited for the proposition that if you have one lawful copy of a copyrighted work, you are entitled to have a second copy of the copyrighted work even if that second copy is an infringing copy. The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic. Therefore, whether you have an authentic game or not, or whether you have possession of a Nintendo ROM for a limited amount of time, i.e. 24 hours, it is illegal to download and play a Nintendo ROM from the Internet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
brummiesteven said:
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp#download_rom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a biased source. Even that only refers to downloading from the internet, not extracting it yourself.
Point to a single person who has been convicted or penalized in any way for having a rom (or any other intellectual property of any sort) he owns "physically" also on his pc.
well in australia customs have stopped several large shipments of the R4. i know it's not directly related to roms on a person's PC, but it does show that the use of ROMs in general are not liked.
i could say that i have the game, extracted the rom and want to put it on an R4, but it appears that the R4 units are illegal, and nintendo have taken R4 distributors to court and won. so this clearly shows that nintendo's stance isn't just a biased one but one backed by the australian court system... source: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/167490,nintendo-wins-lawsuit-over-r4-mod-chip-piracy.aspx
edit: wouldn't this put MS in the exact same position as the R4 distributors?
CSMR said:
This is a biased source. Even that only refers to downloading from the internet, not extracting it yourself.
Point to a single person who has been convicted or penalized in any way for having a rom (or any other intellectual property of any sort) he owns "physically" also on his pc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't matter weather anyone had been penalised for it or not. It's still illegal.
Nobody got caught using blank VHS tapes to record off the TV but they still wouldn't be permitted on eBay.
I want emulators as much as the next guy but at least I can understand both sides.
orangekid said:
the thing is though is that that's not true, in fact it's false.
It IS legal to play ROMs that you own on an emulator, therefore it is not the "sole purpose" to play illegal games. I actually own like 50 NES games and play Dr, Mario, contra, and super techmo bowl on my HD2 regularly when I want to kill some time.
so whomever you verified this was full of ****.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not legal. I understand you were fooled by the common myth, like a lot of us were, but it's not legal. You are not entitled to a free digital copy of the game you purchase. And you're not entitled to a "backup" because the original medium (i.e. the hardware cartridge) can't be overwritten or destroyed (over time or by accident) -- see Atari, Inc. v. JS&A Group, Inc.
There are people fighting this, e.g. arguing about fair use, but that's how it stands right now. You don't have to like Microsoft's decision, but you should at least understand it.
This very topic came up in our ChevronWP7 & Microsoft meeting. We all agreed there's no legitimate use case for allowing console emulators on Windows Phone 7.
I just received an update notification for 'Google Play'. Being the cynical type, these type of changes make me suspicious. Oddly enough, a quick search throughout XDA and the internet seems to show that people's only objections to this change revolve mainly (perhaps only ) around the name change. Most don't like the way it sounds, the icons, theme integration, etc.
I find it odd that I can find no mention of Google's probable intent in this matter beyond marketing and 'unification' of Google services. I find it beyond coincidence that Google, just a week or two ago, started sending out notification of changes to their privacy policy.
More than that, I find it odd that no one suspects that there is more behind this than a simple rebranding. After all, Google is a corporate monster whose CEO has clearly and unequivocally stated that privacy of the individual is not only of no concern, but that violation of such privacy should be a given!
A quick look at some of Eric Scmidt's public statements leaves no doubt:
http://www.stateofsearch.com/top-15-of-eric-schmidts-remarkable-quotes/
http://www.seobook.com/eric-schmidt-quotes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-privacy_n_776924.html#s170420
No doubt at all in my mind. After all, to the contrary of what many may think, Google is not free. Google makes money (and lots of it) by collecting and selling our personal data.
I'm not sure, however, what can be done about it, other than to either root and lock down one's phone as much as is possible, whilst still retaining as much as possible of the functionality desired. One sure way is to give up my smartphone. The former is an ongoing practice here. The latter? I'm not ready for that (yet).
But does no one really see a day when smartphone tech will be used to track and control everything we do? Are we not anticipating that Government will see the value of this data collection technology and use it to their own ends, good or bad?
Another example:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/android-photos/
Our personal data is already being mined and profited from by untrustworthy entities, but at least they only seek profit. How long can we expect profit to be the only driving force?
Paranoid? Maybe. But remember the old saying: "It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you...". To my way of thinking, if they aren't now, they soon will be.
The solution is to crate a separate system. Like diaspora. An separate market, mabe an XDA-Market. I was searching the xda app on the market, yesterday it was there, today not but only the premium. This "update" is not normal, updates are here only for fix and repair from my point of view.
Yep is odd.
Let's create an indipendent system for freedom and liberty, open sorce to improve and sharing ideas.
No country restriction. One world, one nation, one free net global wide.
Peace
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA
As you have indirectly pointed out, one can no longer get into the Android apps market unless you agree to accept whatever Google's legal terms are for their 'Play' and 'Books' services. But I don't intend ever to use these.
I wonder how applications developers feel about this.
Google really is getting beyond the pale, presumably introducing this change on a day when they hope that attention will be focussed on whatever Apple are up to. I shall now be looking for alternate market places. A real nuisance for me as I have a new phone and had intended installing my standard set of add ons.
I think it's a nice idea to keep similir Google's apps under the same brand so it's easier to identify and ,for them , easier to put in market.
If you ever needed evidence that this makes sense then you only need to know the conversation I had with a work colleague today.
..stuff that lead up to this conversation...
Me: Yeah, the Android Market is now called Google Play Shop
Them: Really? Why have they called it that?
Me: Because Android is made by Google.
Them: Oh, I didn't know that!
Seems that Android is known as a brand of its own. I just assumed everyone (or most people) knew that.
I also think that "market" gives a bad connotation comparing to play store
Yes
Re-branding to compete, yes...
I hate it.
Sent from my Nexus S using xda premium
privacy ...
What do you think about this statement ? (in Google Play Terms of Service)
2.4 From time to time, Google may discover a Product on Google Play that violates the Developer Distribution Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. You agree that in such an instance Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your Device at its sole discretion.
So, if i understand right, Google have the right to delete things in my phone ??? C`mon ... isn`t this weird ??? Google Play mean that Google can play with our phone`s content ???
joyradu said:
What do you think about this statement ? (in Google Play Terms of Service)
2.4 From time to time, Google may discover a Product on Google Play that violates the Developer Distribution Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. You agree that in such an instance Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your Device at its sole discretion.
So, if i understand right, Google have the right to delete things in my phone ??? C`mon ... isn`t this weird ??? Google Play mean that Google can play with our phone`s content ???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didn't google retain this right with the market way before this change?
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
Google Play
CharliesTheMan said:
Didn't google retain this right with the market way before this change?
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did it ? I admit i don`t remember, it was a stock-app and if there was a question about my agreement first time when I used market - well i didn`t read it because i was sure the stock-apps can`t be sooo ... malicious ?
Maybe is not the best word but how would one describe an app wich is able to delete his phone content without his permission ?
joyradu said:
Did it ? I admit i don`t remember, it was a stock-app and if there was a question about my agreement first time when I used market - well i didn`t read it because i was sure the stock-apps can`t be sooo ... malicious ?
Maybe is not the best word but how would one describe an app wich is able to delete his phone content without his permission ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's in Google's best interests to be able to do this. They're most likely only getting you to agree to it so that when you download that malware app that starts sending text messages to premium rate numbers, they can remote uninstall it when they find out. It's of benefit to both parties.
Wow - I'm normally really cynical!
It would still be nice to have the choice to decide if you want that done.
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1533775
Guys,
I always wondered how harmful could be - in theory - a homebrew app installed on an Interop-unlocked wp7.5 device.
What is considered as a virus, spam or scam app?
The worst it could do is copy my contact list and upload it on its own server? (privacy issue).
Could an app take the whole OS down?
How much do we trust casual developer?
I always install homebrew apps found on the xda with no second thought. But a few days ago I installed an app to browse some *dirty* websites and dunno why, I started thinking about this issue?
Thanks to you all!
K.
Usually, you can trust the guys here on XDA.
However, even a normal app could steal your contacts. And a homebrew app on a b fully unlocked rom can do even more (of course! that's the point ).
But as said, XDA is usually quite OK, and if a big name like cotulla, ultrashot, Heathcliff74 (and all other amazing devs here on xda) is behind it, you're definately safe.
Oh, and what's a virus? That's nood easily defined. Just think of a file manager. It allows you to delete files. Deleting a file is nothing special. So what? Well, what if the app is going to delete random files? You got a virus... (That's why it's so hard to make behaviour analysis....)
LOL, there is no way WP can get a virus with it's locked down UI and isolated storage. WP isn not Windows OS. So don't worry.
Unlocked phones and risks
sinister1 said:
LOL, there is no way WP can get a virus with it's locked down UI and isolated storage. WP isn not Windows OS. So don't worry.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please note that the OP is talking about an Interop-unlocked phone which is quite open compared to a WP7 phone in its normal state (which really does give little reason for worry).
If you ask me, the age of pranks and viruses that delete your files just because they can is over already quite some time. Today people most often try things with malware if there is money to be made.
So you may ask yourself: How could there be monetary profit from the very small base of users with fully-unlocked WP7 phones? Especially factoring in the fact that many of those users being anything than noobs which will get suspicious easily.
If I was a malware author I really would look out for greener pastures
if you don't trust the developer you can easily check the code by decompiling it. ok... this requires some knowledge in c# development and doesn't work for native code.
Well, decompiling native code is entirely possible. It's just more difficult to read the resulting source.
There risk is absolutely there. The way malware would work on WP7 is different from how it would work on a PC, but it's certainly possible (and actually, on a full-unlock ROM you could write malware very similar to how you'd write it for PC). Consider the various kinds of Android malware; WP7 malware (with sufficient permissions) could do things like send SMS to "premium" numbers, track you using the GPS, and other unpleasantries.
This is the reason that, for example, Heathcliff74 made Root Tools require that the user manually mark an app as Trusted before the app receives full permissions. Of course, that requires that you trust Root Tools itself (and it's quite heavily obfuscated, so decompiling it won't do you much good) but as @chabun said, he's one of the "big names" in WP7 homebrew and is considered trustworthy.
For myself, this question is one of the reasons I release the source code to my apps. If you've got the source, you can check it for any malicious or even undesirable behavior, and if you want to you can modify it to suit yourself better.
kevyn82 said:
Guys,
I always wondered how harmful could be - in theory - a homebrew app installed on an Interop-unlocked wp7.5 device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, there are quite a few harmful things a malicious homebrew app could do:
spy on you all the time using the built-in cam and mic;
record all your phone and video calls;
copy all your text messages;
track and report all your movements (GPS);
upload all your personal pictures to a third party;
call international or "premium" phone numbers without your knowledge, generating large phone bills;
send "premium" text messages or registering you to premium subscriptions;
sent text messages in your name to influence a TV show vote;
reroute all your phone calls through a "premium carrier", again generating large costs;
transform your phone into an email relay or VoIP for spamming;
record all your usernames, passwords, account numbers or credit cards for financial profit;
make your phone become a BitTorrent relay, eating through your mobile data allowance in a few days;
I am sure that we can find a few more by brainstorming a little bit, or by googling "iOS malware" or "Android malware"...
So the key questions is not what is possible in theory, but how much do you trust the developer of an app, homebrew or not.
Cheers,
Stephen
GoodDayToDie said:
This is the reason that, for example, Heathcliff74 made Root Tools require that the user manually mark an app as Trusted before the app receives full permissions. Of course, that requires that you trust Root Tools itself (and it's quite heavily obfuscated, so decompiling it won't do you much good) but as @chabun said, he's one of the "big names" in WP7 homebrew and is considered trustworthy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your answer!
Yes I think some premium dev like yourself, Heathcliff74 etc are deeply trusted on here.
But still I am pretty sure the average user doesn't care about names or source. He or she won't be able to read though the source code or understanding what does require an app access to.
Also, if the app would require "elevated privileges" trough Heathcliff's Root Tool, he wouldn't think twice about granting to it.
Then if something bad would happen, then it would blame the OS, not him- or herself.
Things like requiring user confirmation to call or send a text within an app, from my prospective, never should be avoided.
On iOS for instance a lot of user complained to the carrier (here in Italy), some international sms sent billed in their accounts. It was iMessage first set up to send a txt to the UK (which costs on avg 0.30 Eur, compared to 0.10-0.15 a single sms).
But I am wondering now why jail-broken iPhone aren't subject to malewares like the open Android platform. I'm sure unlocked iOS would be a pretty green garden for them.
rbrunner7 said:
Please note that the OP is talking about an
If you ask me, the age of pranks and viruses that delete your files just because they can is over already quite some time. Today people most often try things with malware if there is money to be made.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, just wanted to show that it's not really easy to say what's bad and what's good...
There's been malware for jailbroken iPhones. There was even a worm that spread by infecting people who had enabled an SSH server on their phone but left the default password.
The reason it's less of an issue there than on Android is that malware is typically a business - that is, it's done to make money - and so you target the largest number of people you can. There are fewer iPhones than Android phones, and far fewer jailbroken iPhones than Android phones that can access the market or even install apps from outside the official market (pretty much all of them).
As an Android user, I've been complaining for a long time about one of the biggest faults, the administration of passes and tickets for events.
The funniest thing is that it does have the possibility of doing it through Google Pay, but the way they have implemented it, forces the companies that generate the passes to perform a lot of steps that most are not willing to do.
That's why I've decided to create this app that uses all the Google tools to solve this problem, allowing to import almost any type of pass to our Google Pay account so we can use them very easily.
Pass2Pay.
The specific application is called Pass2Pay, and unlike many others that just store them so you can open them in your application. Pass2Pay, allows you to import them directly into Google Pay.
Thanks to this step, you will be able to automatically consult all your passes and use them in all your devices, since Google will save them in its cloud so you never lose them.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
How are passes imported?
As you can see in the image above, importing passes can be done in several ways. From the possibility of directly adding an Apple pkpass file, a PDF by reading the barcode or QR or directly from an image that can be captured on the spot.
Once imported, depending on the method used, we will have more or less data from the pass, so the next step will be the revision of the form, from where we can change the type of pass (Offers, airline tickets, gift cards, loyalty cards, etc.) and even modify some missing data.
Google Pay.
The next step is only to add the generated pass to Google Pay, for which we only have to press the button below and we can save it.
Once inside the Google application, we can use it whenever we want to benefit from all the possibilities of Google Pay, such as notification of events, integration with the calendar or the ability to enter the sites without the need to be looking for the typical PDF they send us by mail.
Example.
To check it out, we tried an old movie ticket to go see a Star Wars movie.
In the photos above you can see the steps to follow:
1. We have sent ourselves the pass by telegram to simulate a real situation.
2. We have opened it and the application has recognized it and has detected all the data
3. We gave him to keep on the phone
4. We cared about Google Pay and we were able to use it
As you can see it has been very simple to import a pass that was sent to us, after doing it we could go to the cinema and present it so that they let us in without having to carry the pdf or anything.
Advertising and contributions.
Due to the fact that the application is free, and it has cost me a lot to create it, I have decided that in order to finance it and be able to continue developing interesting things, advertisements will be used, which are limited so that no more than a long ad appears every 3 minutes. I think it's a good ratio to use it comfortably, but I listen to your opinions.
Anyway, if you like the app you can support it with a donation that removes the ads.
Coming soon.
• Possibility of uploading personalized photos to the passes (we need to create and maintain a server so it will cost money / donations)
• Improvements in overall stability
• More ways to import documents
• OCR reading of the PDFs
Download Link :- https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=color.dev.com.tangerine
I don’t understand the personalized photos option in the coming soon section. Who is limiting that? Your app or Google?
cristianndc said:
I don’t understand the personalized photos option in the coming soon section. Who is limiting that? Your app or Google?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To send the pass to Google Pay, we have to create it and then send it to their servers. But they do not accept pictures, we have to upload the photos to a server and give the URL to Google.
Where are the images stored? The comments on Reddit make it seem like there's a potential security issue here. Can you clear that up?
MishaalRahman said:
Where are the images stored? The comments on Reddit make it seem like there's a potential security issue here. Can you clear that up?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now we are not uploading the photos anywhere, it's in the coming soon section. Maybe I don't explain it very well as English is not my first language (A lot of people asked already what's the problem with the images in the app... :silly
The problem, it's that Google it's telling us that we have to take care of the images hosting but we don't have the resources to create a server and upload everybody images in there. So right now, we are just taking care of the pases information, the image it's just a static one (our logo). But if the people like our app we plan to make a server to upload the photos.
PS. The comments on Reddit it's because a failure, with the ads outside Europe with Adblock, but we think that it's solved now in v2.7.2 or v2.7.3
xurxooo said:
Right now we are not uploading the photos anywhere, it's in the coming soon section. Maybe I don't explain it very well as English is not my first language (A lot of people asked already what's the problem with the images in the app... :silly
The problem, it's that Google it's telling us that we have to take care of the images hosting but we don't have the resources to create a server and upload everybody images in there. So right now, we are just taking care of the pases information, the image it's just a static one (our logo). But if the people like our app we plan to make a server to upload the photos.
PS. The comments on Reddit it's because a failure, with the ads outside Europe with Adblock, but we think that it's solved now in v2.7.2 or v2.7.3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
v2.7.3 is out and it's going well so far.
Thnx
Thank you everyone for your help and comments.
We are receiving so much love and a lot of comments and issues, about some little problems that we are starting to solve. Probably tomorrow we will push an update with a lot of improvements
Also, we are starting to plan the option to upload custom images that everybody is asking us, but it’s difficult because we have to create a server to host your images.
We will keep you updated here
xurxooo said:
Thank you everyone for your help and comments.
We are receiving so much love and a lot of comments and issues, about some little problems that we are starting to solve. Probably tomorrow we will push an update with a lot of improvements
Also, we are starting to plan the option to upload custom images that everybody is asking us, but it’s difficult because we have to create a server to host your images.
We will keep you updated here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see great potential in your app. The idea is brilliant and I believe everyone who uses Google Pay needs it. Google should have introduced something like this a long time ago but it looks that it wouldn't plan it anytime soon.
But let me ask you something: while there is a lot of things to do to make the application really operative, do you believe that it is a good idea to bother with your own server? Think not only about needed technical engagement but also about decent security, fast communication, etc. There are so many cloud solutions to rent (even from Microsoft or Google) with top performance, backup and security that it is at least questionable if it is worth to burn your own staff, technical capacity, and money. Perhaps you're more needed for further development.
piskr said:
I see great potential in your app. The idea is brilliant and I believe everyone who uses Google Pay needs it. Google should have introduced something like this a long time ago but it looks that it wouldn't plan it anytime soon.
But let me ask you something: while there is a lot of things to do to make the application really operative, do you believe that it is a good idea to bother with your own server? Think not only about needed technical engagement but also about decent security, fast communication, etc. There are so many cloud solutions to rent (even from Microsoft or Google) with top performance, backup and security that it is at least questionable if it is worth to burn your own staff, technical capacity, and money. Perhaps you're more needed for further development.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much for your comment I really appreciate it.
Sure, we are not planning to create the server on our machines. When I said "create a server" I refer to design the architecture, technologies, APIs and everything.
But thanks for the advise :highfive:
One thing I would like to recommend is a feature for dealing with websites that don't expose Apple Wallet pass download links unless you are on an iPhone. An easy way to implement this feature is to allow users to "Share..." a webpage to Pass2Pay and then have Pass2Pay display an in-app browser window of that page, but with the user agent faked to appear as an iPhone, tricking the site into displaying the Apple Wallet pass download link.
MehStrongBadMeh said:
One thing I would like to recommend is a feature for dealing with websites that don't expose Apple Wallet pass download links unless you are on an iPhone. An easy way to implement this feature is to allow users to "Share..." a webpage to Pass2Pay and then have Pass2Pay display an in-app browser window of that page, but with the user agent faked to appear as an iPhone, tricking the site into displaying the Apple Wallet pass download link.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi MehStrongBadMeh, thank you very much for your comment. Can you give me an example so I can take a look?
xurxooo said:
Hi MehStrongBadMeh, thank you very much for your comment. Can you give me an example so I can take a look?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An example of this functionality can be seen in the app Pass2U, which has the functionality I mentioned (though the resulting passes are saved in the app itself). As for example websites where this feature is needed, that is a bit tough, as you would have to buy a ticket to see it in action. I know for a fact that American Airlines does this as well as my local movie theater, but that probably isn't much help.
MehStrongBadMeh said:
An example of this functionality can be seen in the app Pass2U, which has the functionality I mentioned (though the resulting passes are saved in the app itself). As for example websites where this feature is needed, that is a bit tough, as you would have to buy a ticket to see it in action. I know for a fact that American Airlines does this as well as my local movie theater, but that probably isn't much help.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't worry I take a look. Thanks for your help anyway
Hey man! Nice app you made here! I'm trying it and I'm running into a problem though: When I try to add my boarding pass (via PDF, completing all the missing fields), the app says the flight number is wrong when I try to upload it to Google Pay (flight number VY1572, I've even tried with other shared codes like IB5050). Do you have an idea as to what could I be doing wrong?
Thank you so much, keep up the good work!!
Robdyx said:
Hey man! Nice app you made here! I'm trying it and I'm running into a problem though: When I try to add my boarding pass (via PDF, completing all the missing fields), the app says the flight number is wrong when I try to upload it to Google Pay (flight number VY1572, I've even tried with other shared codes like IB5050). Do you have an idea as to what could I be doing wrong?
Thank you so much, keep up the good work!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Robdyx thank you very much for your nice work and support.
The problem is that the real flight number is 1572 or 5050, the letters correspond to the IATA parameter. But yes it's a problem, it's a little bit messy, we need to make it a little more user friendly.
Greetings from Spain!
Thank you! That didn't come to my mind for some reason. Maybe putting the IATA code grated out (not modificable un that field) in front of the number would make it more intuitive that only the numbers are required. Or making it character sensitive. Anyway, thank you for this great tool!
Un abrazo!
Robdyx said:
Thank you! That didn't come to my mind for some reason. Maybe putting the IATA code grated out (not modificable un that field) in front of the number would make it more intuitive that only the numbers are required. Or making it character sensitive. Anyway, thank you for this great tool!
Un abrazo!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 for this, or maybe put the IATA code and flight number on the same row but with the flight number to the right? So it directly follows the airline letters? I guess the drop-down arrow could also be to the left then
Love the idea, wish I had it a month ago but I'm keeping it installed for the next time
supleed2 said:
+1 for this, or maybe put the IATA code and flight number on the same row but with the flight number to the right? So it directly follows the airline letters? I guess the drop-down arrow could also be to the left then
Love the idea, wish I had it a month ago but I'm keeping it installed for the next time
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even after upgrade with OCR I can't upload any data (no element could be detected) from the ticket and no ticket could be detected from files (either pdf or picture). There is indeed a limited possibility to capture the ticket with the camera but still, no field is filled automatically. Is it just me doing something wrong or this functionality is yet to be available?
piskr said:
Even after upgrade with OCR I can't upload any data (no element could be detected) from the ticket and no ticket could be detected from files (either pdf or picture). There is indeed a limited possibility to capture the ticket with the camera but still, no field is filled automatically. Is it just me doing something wrong or this functionality is yet to be available?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Piskr what version are you using right now? (You can see it on the settings window)
xurxooo said:
Hi Piskr what version are you using right now? (You can see it on the settings window)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's 2.8.4