Related
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/28/new-licensing-service-replacing-existing-copy-protection-metho/
Looks like pretty soon the days of people copy and pasting apk's all over the place are coming to an end.
I hope this doesn't make theming harder.. We'll see.
From reading that article,
Seems like airplane mode or a firewall would crush all the hopes and dreams of google and app devs.
It seems that every time we open an app it needs to verify that it's been paid for by contacting a "licensing" server and retrieving a response.
I feel like that could slow down launch times, and being unable to use an app when offline would be like UBISOFT hell all over again.
I really hope google puts a lot of thought into this..
I wonder if this if already being done? Every time I try to play that golf game on my EVO on an airplane while the radios are off I get a FC when it starts. As soon as I an on the ground and turn the radios on the game works fine.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
what if you are in an area with no signal or on a plane or something? you cant open any apps???
This is already in place in a number of apps, one is IP Cam Viewer.
I paid the money for it. I transferred all my files to my wife's Evo 4G, and thought "hell I'll see if it works..." Well it didn't. When I try to open the app, it tells me that I have to purchase it from the marketplace.
I'm all for buying apps when they're good, and I understand single user licensing. Guess I was just hoping I wouldn't have to spend double the money for all the apps I use.
simplyphp said:
This is already in place in a number of apps, one is IP Cam Viewer.
I paid the money for it. I transferred all my files to my wife's Evo 4G, and thought "hell I'll see if it works..." Well it didn't. When I try to open the app, it tells me that I have to purchase it from the marketplace.
I'm all for buying apps when they're good, and I understand single user licensing. Guess I was just hoping I wouldn't have to spend double the money for all the apps I use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've heard of couples sharing the same email as apps get replicated on the two phone
I can confirm that they don't get replicated..
I have two evo's right now under the same email and they're definitely not replicating crap.
cahiatt said:
I wonder if this if already being done? Every time I try to play that golf game on my EVO on an airplane while the radios are off I get a FC when it starts. As soon as I an on the ground and turn the radios on the game works fine.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that's a problem I understand about paying for apps but not working when I'm in a place with no signal. I see a law suit brewing up. I paid for the app I should be able to use the app whenever I want to. Class action law suit coming real soon.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Crap....
"A limitation of copy protection is that applications using it can be installed only on compatible devices that provide a secure internal storage environment. For example, a copy-protected application cannot be downloaded from Market to a device that provides root access"
...Seriously???
EDIT - the above quote was misrepresented in the place I copied from...research shows it to be misleading. the actual bit of Google's text is posted over on page to of this thread. disregard my indignation in this post...
This is discouraging, because a lot of people like to try the full before they buy it expecting more than what full has to offer, only to be disappointed later.
willwgp said:
This is discouraging, because a lot of people like to try the full before they buy it expecting more than what full has to offer, only to be disappointed later.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do get a 24 hour refund option when you buy from the market so I'm not worried about trying before you buy. I do worry about not being able to play something when I'm in the bathroom at work because I don't get a signal there.
well how many ppl do actually piracy apps??? oh my bad forgot that this is Android, for a second i though it was apple!!
Just to clarify a couple of things:
There are 2 ways to use the Licensing - one is Strict - you CAN NOT USE THE APP WITHOUT ACCESS TO MARKETPLACE. Personally, screw that.
Option 2, however, is a non-strict policy. Server managed, where the license is 'cached' to storage. You also can programmatically set how long your app can be used without any license check.
That'd be the way i go
josue85 said:
You do get a 24 hour refund option when you buy from the market so I'm not worried about trying before you buy. I do worry about not being able to play something when I'm in the bathroom at work because I don't get a signal there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That'll be up to the developer. I like this approach, as I'd be happy to do say... a 5-7 day turn around on the license check. After 7 days with no data signal, seriously, where the hell are you? LOL
Besides, if you've used a paid app for 7 days, and by that time can't decide if you need it or not - wow.
And of course, as soon as you got signal again, the license check would go through and you can use the app again, no problem.
I'm sure there will be UbiSoft and EA style implementations though - way too damn draconian for my tastes. I don't care to know every single second that someone's using my app. I would just like to know that they haven't 'copied that floppy' as it were LOL
I have no doubts this will be defeated in time, though. All it would really take is mimicking the server license response, which can be extracted from the locally cached license of an actual paid product.
People that pirate software are going to do it, regardless. Don't make the honest people pay the price of draconian DRM.
The best approach I can make as a developer, is give my customers the features they want, in a stable, good performing package, and discourage 'casual' piracy. Beyond that, it's out of the developer's control, and honestly, any more than that usually just pisses off the customer and annoys the pirates for about a day and a half.
Ok...had to read the SDK paperwork as I really wanted to know this...my previous post was incorrect and here is the update...
From Google:
Android Market Licensing is a flexible, secure mechanism for controlling access to your applications. It effectively replaces the copy-protection mechanism offered on Android Market and gives you wider distribution potential for your applications.
A limitation of the legacy copy-protection mechanism on Android Market is that applications using it can be installed only on compatible devices that provide a secure internal storage environment. For example, an application using the copy-protection mechanism cannot be downloaded from Market to a device that provides root access, and the application cannot be installed to a device's SD card.
With Android Market licensing, you can move to a license-based model in which access is not bound to the characteristics of the host device, but to your publisher account on Android Market and the licensing policy that you define. Your application can be installed and controlled on any compatible device on any storage, including SD card.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also...there are options for the Devs to allow for apps to be used a chosen number of times before they need to check in for licenses. Strict has to check in every time....other option allows dev to choose based on times used or time since last check in.
SO...all in all I am much less worried about this now.
topdnbass said:
I can confirm that they don't get replicated..
I have two evo's right now under the same email and they're definitely not replicating crap.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With licensing the dev can choose whether an app can be accessed from different phones. It is an option...
(greeked...multiple times)
Question: Does that mean we won't be able to open, modify, and resign apks? Like...to change the appearance (make a widget clear, etc).
More like bad news for paying consumers. That's who always pays for everything. Those of us who actually buy the products.
I plan on speaking with my wallet. I wont buy any app that requires I have an internet connection.
A limitation of the legacy copy-protection mechanism on Android Market is that applications using it can be installed only on compatible devices that provide a secure internal storage environment. For example, an application using the copy-protection mechanism cannot be downloaded from Market to a device that provides root access, and the application cannot be installed to a device's SD card.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait so according to google us rooted folk couldn't download copy-protected apps before now?
Urrr, i think im missing something
This is actually a nice implementation for both the software developer and the user. Most will implement this where it only has to check-in every week or two. So the odds of getting caught in a spot where there is no connection is low.
At the end of the day, it is a pretty straightforward way to handle copy protection that really shouldn't inconvenience anyone.
Also it will bring more developers to the platform if they know they don't have to worry as much about piracy.
Piracy will still run rampant. People will find ways to circumvent this, that's just how it is. At least it will curb some piracy since copying and pasting an apk file wasn't much of a deterrent.
Worrying article on how apps are using personal information.
www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/30/suspicious_android_apps/
I'm sick that they had to go too such lengths to find out. We need a better net architecture to enable a proper firewall to work.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
Also, app naming FAIL!
Well, since they only tested 30 apps and won't release the names of the ones they tested, only saying that they are "the most popular", personally I don't buy it.
And the information these apps are sending out is primarily geolocation. Well, no ****. If an app wants your location and you don't think it should have it, it's either using it for ads or you should decline to install the app and just send an email to the dev asking him why he needs that information.
tjhart85 said:
Well, since they only tested 30 apps and won't release the names of the ones they tested, only saying that they are "the most popular", personally I don't buy it.
And the information these apps are sending out is primarily geolocation. Well, no ****. If an app wants your location and you don't think it should have it, it's either using it for ads or you should decline to install the app and just send an email to the dev asking him why he needs that information.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed... geolocation is pretty obviously straight forward. I don't know about the 'transmissing every 30 seconds' thing though.
Any thoughts ont he transmitting sim card and IMEI info?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnLujX1Dw4Y
Also discussed here:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=795702
With explanation where to get it from http://www.appanalysis.org/
A very well-written reply by "Steven Knox" on The Register, demonstrating how this 'research' is simply a pile of intentionally-misleading statistical rubbish:
By selecting only from applications that access both personal data and the internet, they're overstating the significance of their study by about 3x. Furthermore, their summaries blur this distinction unnecessarily.
Specifically, their FAQ says "We studied just over 8% of the top 50 popular free applications in each category that had access to privacy sensitive information in order to get a sense of the behaviors of these applications." Since there were 22 categories at the time they did the study, that would imply (22*50=1,100 * 8% =) 88 applications. However, they actually only tested 30, because of the 1,100 top 50 applications only (from the PDF) "roughly a third of the applications (358 of the 1,100 applications) require Internet permissions along with permissions to access
either location, camera, or audio data." -- meaning that the other 742 apps don't have the necessary permissions to play badly. The clause "..that had access to privacy sensitive information in order to get a sense of the behaviors of these applications." from the FAQ is grammatically ambiguous in this case (it may refer to "applications" or "category"), and not specific enough to indicate that over 2/3 of the applications are (relatively) safe by dint of not having the necessary permissions.
They also didn't include in their study apps from 10 of the 22 categories, but they don't explain whether that was due to a) there not being any or enough applications in those categories that required internet and personal data permissions, b) a conscious choice to focus on the other 12 categories, or c) the results of random selection (with an explanation of why they did not use a stratified sample).
Once you factor back in the applications they ignored, the numbers don't look quite so bad. Assuming their sample was representative, 2/3 of the 358, or about 239 applications of the top 1,100 of the time use personal data suspiciously. That's about 21.7% or just over 1 in 5 -- still significant, but a far cry from 2 out of 3. In fact, the worst case maximum is actually 358 of 1,100 or just under 1 in 3 (32.45%) because they are as mentioned above the only ones that actually acquire the permissions necessary to do anything "suspicious".
I understand why both the researchers and the reporter used the 2/3 figure -- you all believe you have to sell the point as hard as possible*. But the real story is that it's likely that at least 1 in 5 Android Apps use private data "suspiciously" -- and that number is still high enough to cause concern and to justify the further use of tools like TaintDroid. It's a pity you didn't trust the facts enough to avoid the unnecessary sensationalism.
*I am assuming, here, that Mr. Goodin did actually read and digest the paper as I did, rather than simply picking out the figures from the study, the FAQ, or a press release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good spot. But one in ten woolf be too many. The point is we should have more fine grained control and transparency off what apps do over the net, and we can't, by design.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
We need to develop a shim that reports modified IMEI/SIM data for different apps. IMO, very few apps need that information. We may not be able to keep all those apps from sending our private information, but we can make that information useless if it appears that we all are using the same IMEI/SIM...
patp said:
...The point is we should have more fine grained control and transparency off what apps do over the net...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agreed....
if you are rooted. With Root Explorer go to /data/system/ and open accounts.db you might be surprised what you find in it... Some people it will be fine for but mine it shows my exchange email and password in plain text and a few others show up as plain text has well...Its not geo they are worried about (for the most part) and...this file has been known about for awhile
Don't worry though unless your downloaded android specific virus holding apps you wont have any problem. And if your getting all your apps legally through the market then its no big deal =) and if your pirating them...well I don't feel bad for you...
echoside said:
if you are rooted. With Root Explorer go to /data/system/ and open accounts.db you might be surprised what you find in it... Some people it will be fine for but mine it shows my exchange email and password in plain text and a few others show up as plain text has well...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Opened it, my accounts are there, but no passwords....
rori~ said:
Opened it, my accounts are there, but no passwords....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my gmail is somesort of encrypted but doesnt look that great.
Exchange shows up
facebook doesnt show anything at all aha
Thats why I said some might not have anything. Awhile back when I first heard about it one of my friends had two or three right there in plain English I didn't have a phone at the time to check...
Its been reported before but kind of just brushed over no biggy. To go real conspiracy theorist....I think apple is submitting all these articles...
ButtonBoy said:
We need to develop a shim that reports modified IMEI/SIM data for different apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great idea
The source code/instructions for TaintDroid are now out:
http://appanalysis.org/download.html
Anybody found a (recent) kernel with built-in TaintDroid-support?
As a new Asus Transformer owner and first time Android Market customer I have to say that I am utterly disappointed with the current state of the Android Market. The android market ap is a joke. The website is a little better, but desperately needs a better way to filer aps by tablet/non-tablet or hd/sd aps.
There is no legitimate reason that the market couldn't have a specific section dedicated solely to tablets. Or at least better filter/sort functions that allow you to filter in a more effective way. I was going to post a list of what is bad about the marketplace, but there is just too much. I'm sure that everyone who owns a honeycomb tablet is well familiar with the problem(s) by now. Anyway, just wanted to vent. /rant
Use appbrain (google it), it's much nicer and lets you filter your search.
see here for compatible tablet apps: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1032381
el_brio said:
As a new Asus Transformer owner and first time Android Market customer I have to say that I am utterly disappointed with the current state of the Android Market. The android market ap is a joke. The website is a little better, but desperately needs a better way to filer aps by tablet/non-tablet or hd/sd aps.
There is no legitimate reason that the market couldn't have a specific section dedicated solely to tablets. Or at least better filter/sort functions that allow you to filter in a more effective way. I was going to post a list of what is bad about the marketplace, but there is just too much. I'm sure that everyone who owns a honeycomb tablet is well familiar with the problem(s) by now. Anyway, just wanted to vent. /rant
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There actually sholdnt be a tabletsection at all. If a dev programs oroperly their app will work fine on any size screen. Thats the benefit of the way the xml layout in the sdk work. Locations all become relative. You say x is next to y andbelow z. Then let the device sort it out.
crater said:
There actually sholdnt be a tabletsection at all. If a dev programs oroperly their app will work fine on any size screen. Thats the benefit of the way the xml layout in the sdk work. Locations all become relative. You say x is next to y andbelow z. Then let the device sort it out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not necessarily true, especially as Honeycomb introduces new layout elements that many app developers want to and should take advantage of to make their apps more tablet friendly. It might still all end up in the same APK in the end, but the developer still should do some tablet specific work to make it more user friendly. It would still be nice to know which APKs have been "tablet-optimized".
They do have a "Featured Tablet Apps" section, which as far as I can tell is just a list of all/most of the APKs that have been optimized for tablets.
I thought some of these issues were fixed with 3.1 according to xoom owners.
I think it's because they don't want people to see how few apps there are optimised for tablets.
case0 said:
I think it's because they don't want people to see how few apps there are optimised for tablets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 internets
I agree
There should be a tablet filter. Even amazon apps suck at it. I download some apps and it FC on me.
You say all apps should work on tablet? Well that's not the case for many apps so there should be some kind of distinction. But, I hear some problems will be fixed in 3.1.
The pop down add won't be popping down anymore, it will just be there when you open it up, more catagories, and when you view an app and go back, it suppose to remember your location.
Be nice to be able to add reviews, but I didn't hear anything about that.
as a poor uesr from china pr
i need an app like market access lol
No no no... there is nothing about an Android app that says "I'm a tablet app" unless it just happens to be written for _only_ the Gingerbread API level (and that will be false the second the next version of Android comes out) which is pretty bad practice.
Using 3.0 classes is possible via reflection while remaining compatible back to 1.6, given that you can have a specific layout for x-large screens you can use 3.0 layout elements there even if your app targets a lower API level. Fragments are available all the way back to 1.6 now.
There is no "Tablet version" switch to detect, nor should there be.
It is up to the devs themselves to support the use cases they want to target, not specific devices, with freedom comes responsibility.
there should't be a tablet filter..android is different from iOS in terms of the layout design and ideally all apps should just run just fine on hc.
I remember reading that Google were going to put extra layers/levels into the current market to provide better touch browse/navigation - which might be nice.
But I don't really have any problems with the current one and the other sites do a good job at simplifying searches anyway.
It will never please everybody, but will continue to get better I am sure.
magicpork said:
there should't be a tablet filter..android is different from iOS in terms of the layout design and ideally all apps should just run just fine on hc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not whether or not they run fine, it's whether or not they are optimized for a tablet, like the CNN app. So I agree, a filter for apps that are tablet-optimized is a must. Until then, I just rely on the Featured Tablet Apps to see if anything new has been added.
magicpork said:
there should't be a tablet filter..android is different from iOS in terms of the layout design and ideally all apps should just run just fine on hc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes ideally they should, but theyre phone apps. When they do work correctly, they just stretch. Everybody makes of the ipad saying its a giant ipod touch, but the apps that are optimized for it look amazing. So yes there should be a tablet filter.
Ok, I'm a Noob on here. I just got a Android phone & I am interested in various apps from the Android Market but when I read the permissions that most of the apps have listed as to what they can do to the phone and to your privacy I am quite concerned. Is this really an issue as people seem to download apps without worrying about what the app is or could do without your knowledge. I have searched on here & elsewhere & no one seems to be address the issue. Am I just being paranoid?
I have seen that a lot of these apps will prevent the phone or tablet from going into sleep mode, is this true?
Thanks hope I haven't stepped on any toes by asking this, but I can't seem to find anything on the subject. So far I have decided not to download much a select few apps.
Rebel60 said:
Ok, I'm a Noob on here. I just got a Android phone & I am interested in various apps from the Android Market but when I read the permissions that most of the apps have listed as to what they can do to the phone and to your privacy I am quite concerned. Is this really an issue as people seem to download apps without worrying about what the app is or could do without your knowledge. I have searched on here & elsewhere & no one seems to be address the issue. Am I just being paranoid?
I have seen that a lot of these apps will prevent the phone or tablet from going into sleep mode, is this true?
Thanks hope I haven't stepped on any toes by asking this, but I can't seem to find anything on the subject. So far I have decided not to download much a select few apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No worries, no toes are being stepped on.
I agree that the permissions required by apps can sometimes look worrying.
But the description is often misleading. Some times it just looks very intrusive but that permission is needed for something alot more simple. It's a broad topic.
Also alot of users are just not concerned by this or just go with the crowd.
Write the developer and ask him what the permissions are needed for, if his apps description is unclear on that or the permissions seem unrelated to the apps purpose.
When it says, prevents your device from sleeping, it is most likely used to prevent the screen from turning off or dimming while something is progressing on screen. It is also needed to ensure that the cpu finishes the current operation if you press the devices sleep button, so it doesn't stop at some random point which might lead to problems for the app.
If there is a specific app and its permissions you are worried you could just SEARCH and then make a thread and ask about it.
If rooted, search for "PDroid" on XDA to control permissions, or search for "Betterbatterystats" to find programs producing wakelocks and preventing deep sleep.
Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
Aerocaptain said:
If rooted, search for "PDroid" on XDA to control permissions, or search for "Betterbatterystats" to find programs producing wakelocks and preventing deep sleep.
Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But then don't complain if the apps malfunction as a result of interferring with permissions or wakelocks.
Also this is kinda missing the question of the thread.
Dark3n said:
But then don't complain if the apps malfunction as a result of interferring with permissions or wakelocks.
Also this is kinda missing the question of the thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Trying to figure out how either of the options I listed does not address the concerns in the OP......
I think you should re-read the OP. Perhaps slower.
Betterbatterystats- used to indicate apps that are using wakelocks that prevent or interrupt deep sleep. Does nothing else. Does not stop them or even hinder them in any way. Its simply a tool to identify problem apps. How does that interfere with the apps themselves?
Pdroid-gives the ability to block (or regulate) unwanted actions from the apps specified by the user. Basically solves the permissions concern in the OP. And does not require root access to operate. The whole point of this software is to interfere with the users apps. If a program is looking into my contacts, I'd like to be able to stop it. If a downloaded app stops functioning because it wants access to my contacts for no discernable reason, delete the app. This app is only needed because of the plethora of greedy sometimes malicious developers releasing software that invades user privacy.
Rebel60, feel free to peruse these threads and see if either is the right fit for you.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1357056
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1179809
Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
Aerocaptain said:
Trying to figure out how either of the options I listed does not address the concerns in the OP......
I think you should re-read the OP. Perhaps slower.
Betterbatterystats- used to indicate apps that are using wakelocks that prevent or interrupt deep sleep. Does nothing else. Does not stop them or even hinder them in any way. Its simply a tool to identify problem apps. How does that interfere with the apps themselves?
Pdroid-gives the ability to block (or regulate) unwanted actions from the apps specified by the user. Basically solves the permissions concern in the OP. And does not require root access to operate. The whole point of this software is to interfere with the users apps. If a program is looking into my contacts, I'd like to be able to stop it. If a downloaded app stops functioning because it wants access to my contacts for no discernable reason, delete the app. This app is only needed because of the plethora of greedy sometimes malicious developers releasing software that invades user privacy.
Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is viewing aquired wakelocks helping the OP understand what aquiring a wakelock does, and why the app did it? It's not about who, but what and why. Any type of wakelock an app aquires prevents deep sleep and a wakelock can not be used to interrupt a device that is in deep sleep.
Again the question was not about blocking permissions, but why some apps want all those permissions and why no one seems concerned with the obvious privacy issue.
While PDroid does not require root to operate, it does require it to be installed, so in the end it still needs a rooted device.
Why did you install an app that needs a worrying permission for no discernable reason anyways?
Thanks for the general developer insult. Developers really are the greediest folks *sarcasm* of them all.
Where did you take that from? How many developers of greedy apps did you ask about the permissions they request?
You can't really make that assumption as just a requested permission doesn't do anything at all by itself and what the app is actually doing with it, is unknown without sourcecode.
...and now i jumped aboard the off topic train, damn
In most cases, it does not matter why an app uses wakelocks. The fact that it does alone is important. It allows the user to identify the trouble app and either tinker with its settings to reduce the wakelock or delete it altogether if the app is not important to the user. Generally speaking, if I would like to maximize my battery endurance, the need to minimize wakelocks is a necessity. After several months of use, a user may not remember every setting he/she setup in their apps. Utilizing betterbatterystats, one could identify the apps that use short sync intervals such as email syncing every 15 minutes or weather syncing every 30 minutes and change them to longer sync periods which would dramatically decrease those pesky wakelocks and save some battery life. Both of those simple examples illustrate in general terms, how important knowledge of wakelocks could be to the battery hungry user. This of course is only one of many applications this program can be used for.
My Pdroid example, once again was a generic sample of the many ways app privacy is a concern. There are a ton of apps on the market that uses the internet even though the internet isn't needed to run the program. Yes more than not, the app is either varifying license files or uploading "anonymous user stats," however that is not all cases and users should be able to control that app and the information it transmits.
Finally, yes I looked up your information and noticed the developer notation and knew you would be offended by my developer comment. But I did not mean to insinuate that you were in that minority. I am unfamiliar with your work. Android is an open source platform and users should have full control over their devices. That is why I through those options out there. Anyone that disagrees with my full control statement should move to the iPhone and enjoy its closed platform.
Rebel60, I hope you find a way to fully utilize your device without fear of privacy infringement or apps that excessively deplete your battery. There are many people on XDA with a passion for these devices. And many different opinions. Take the time to evaluate your options and pick the right solution for you.
Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
Aerocaptain said:
In most cases, it does not matter why an app uses wakelocks. The fact that it does alone is the issue. Generally speaking, if I would like to maximize my battery endurance, the need to minimize wakelocks is a necessity. After several months of use, a user may not remember every setting he/she setup in their apps. Utilizing betterbatterystats, one could identify the apps that use short sync intervals such as email syncing every 15 minutes or weather syncing every 30 minutes. Both of those simple examples illustrate in general terms, how important knowledge of wakelocks could be to the battery hungry user. With that knowledge one could change their sync intervals and save precious battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, it would definitely help a user identifying battery drainers and in those cases it does not matter why the wakelock was aquired if it is what causes the drain. But the question was not about batteries, but about what/why wakelocks are and the description of the wakelock permission itself.
While BetterBatteryStats being a great tool, it does not answer that question. (Hence my offtopic remark)
Aerocaptain said:
My Pdroid example, once again was a generic sample of the many ways app privacy is a concern. There are a ton of apps on the market that uses the internet even though the internet isn't needed to run the program. Yes more than not, the app is either varifying license files or uploading "anonymous user stats," however that is not all cases and users should be able to control that app and the information it transmits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While bug reports or anonymous statistics are one part of it, i think most of the internet permission needs come from ads that are displayed. I don't use ads, so i'm a bit unfamiliar on that topic.
If solely googles licensing service is used, the internet permission is not needed, just the 'CHECK_LICENSE' permission (which is an extra permission just for that purpose).
It is also often used to update the welcome dialogs with news, if a dev does not want to release a new version everytime he wants to tell his users something.
Aerocaptain said:
Finally, yes I looked up your information and noticed the developer notation and knew you would be offended by my developer comment. But I did not mean to insinuate that you were in that minority. I am unfamiliar with your work. Android is an open source platform and users should have full control over their devices. That is why I through those options out there. Anyone that disagrees with my full control statement should move to the iPhone and enjoy its closed platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not denying that there are greedy and or malicous devs out there. It was the 'plethora of greedy sometimes malicious developers' that threw me a bit off. I see you meant it differently, as you wrote 'in that minority'. As english is not my main language, i might have understood it a bit too harsh too .
Most of my work falls into the 'Tools' category, if you have question about them (or the permissions ), write me a PM.
I fully agree that everyone should have full control over their devices and i also think that users should have the possibility of choice (i.e. apple selecting apps that are published vs androids more or less freedom of apps, though one might have to sort through a 'plethora' of useless apps, i wouldn't trade it for apples store).
[I needed all those big quotes to reflect what i'm responding to as you seem to edit your posts alot after you made the. Makes it a bit difficult to answer ]
Thanks
Dark3n said:
No worries, no toes are being stepped on.
I agree that the permissions required by apps can sometimes look worrying.
But the description is often misleading. Some times it just looks very intrusive but that permission is needed for something alot more simple. It's a broad topic.
Also alot of users are just not concerned by this or just go with the crowd.
Write the developer and ask him what the permissions are needed for, if his apps description is unclear on that or the permissions seem unrelated to the apps purpose.
When it says, prevents your device from sleeping, it is most likely used to prevent the screen from turning off or dimming while something is progressing on screen. It is also needed to ensure that the cpu finishes the current operation if you press the devices sleep button, so it doesn't stop at some random point which might lead to problems for the app.
If there is a specific app and its permissions you are worried you could just SEARCH and then make a thread and ask about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the answer. I think this best answers what I was concerned about. A lot of apps say that they can dial numbers in your contacts, alter settings, and a lot of other things that make me hesitant to download the app.
My phone is not rooted, although I would like for it to be, but am afraid I will brick it if I don't do something right. I don't know anything about wavelocks etc.
Rebel60 said:
Thanks for the answer. I think this best answers what I was concerned about. A lot of apps say that they can dial numbers in your contacts, alter settings, and a lot of other things that make me hesitant to download the app.
My phone is not rooted, although I would like for it to be, but am afraid I will brick it if I don't do something right. I don't know anything about wavelocks etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whether your new to android or a veteran, XDA has all of the information you'll need to educate yourself. Rooting is not for everyone and should only be attempted by someone comfortable with the process. It does however open huge doors to more control and customization with your device. My advice to you is first get to know the Android platform for a few months. In the meantime do some research and see for yourself the pros and cons of rooting. There are dozens of threads with people that are in the same situation as you. Learn from them and talk with them. If you have a direct question about android, feel free to PM me. I'd be more than happy to help in any way I can. Good luck & enjoy your device.
Sent from CDMA V6 SC GNexus w/Liquid & Franco.kernel
Rooting is pretty simple if you invest some reading time. Just make sure to search alot before asking .
Also be aware that giving an app root access is equivalent to granting every possible permission there is and more.
I'm sure most users are not fully aware of that.
So allowing an app root access is a huge trust investment in the dev, don't do it for fishy looking apps .
Read the description
Try reading through the apps full description. A lot of developers will explain why their app needs those scary sounding permissions.
If they don't explain, you could always contact the developer (seems almost like google requires app listings to include a 'contact the developer' link somewhere).
If you have recently tried to update your Google Now, you may have seen the new requested permissions. These include, but are not limited to, access to your phone's microphone at any time without your permission, and access to your phone's camera (assuming front-facing and rear) at any time without your permission.
Questions: Why is Google attempting to completely dissolve any sort of privacy in order to use Google Now? It is a handy tool, but is a slap in the face in the "all-or-nothing" permission request it puts forth. This is incendiary and needs to be stopped. Google does not need the ability to see and hear me in the privacy of my home.
Followup - Is this something that can be circumvented by an application, or baked into the ROM's our dev's make? Is there any way that the tech geniuses here at XDA can fight the good fight in this struggle for end-user privacy?
Is anyone else creeped out by this???
Pdroid?
Pffffffffffffffffffftt.
R3CKL355 said:
Pdroid?
Pffffffffffffffffffftt.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 - I won't run any ROM without pdroid - it requires a lot of effort up front, but is entirely worth it and it's an excellent way to learn how to secure your device. You'll be amazed at the unnecessary access some apps can get by default.
The Feds (Google counts as part since they operate under them) could always do that since the 90s even with the phone off. It was always denied but now it's just out in the open kinda how your blood was stored in data banks at birth since the 60s and it was denied by the government until Mr. George w. Bush said they can do it legally. Nothing to be creeped out by, just have a few weapons and lots of ammo ready.
Sent from the Matrix
---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/12/can_you_hear_me/
http://www.childrenscolorado.org/wellness/info/parents/23018.aspx
Sent from the Matrix
I imagine the microphone at all times might be for a future release so you can say 'google' at any time and the search box will come up, which would be pretty sweet. Not sure about the camera though. I ended up disabling now because the maps process took too much battery for how little I used the service.
That's creepy, but I guess that's the price we pay for Google's "free" services because nothing is really free. The only way to stop is not using it.
I always get paranoid with these types of services. Havent even tried Google Now since getting it in the OTA JB update. The whole idea about it tracking you, learning your preferences to suggest you search results, etc. Just seems a little spooky.
Please read forum rules before posting
Questions go in Q&A
Thread moved
Thank you for your cooperation
Friendly Neighborhood Moderator
Best advice: Get a dumb phone, don't use Google or any search engine on your home computer...the list is endless....
So, I got a PDroid compatible ROM. The interface isn't that intuitive to me. Can someone tell me what the different icons mean?
Clearly the green check mark means that this particular permission has been granted, and the circle/slash means blocked. What about the "?" and "AB"?
When would one use "Notify on access" or "Log access"?
What's the difference between Save, X, and Trash?
Are we suppose to be suprised that an app that has the capability to run our entire phone by voice and predict our movement and actions has permission to access all our movements and actions?
If privacy is an issue, you either shouldn't use it or at the least use PDroid. But that's Google MO, they give you convenience at the price of your privacy.
I believe "?' means there are no settings for that app in place yet. I forget what AB is. There should be a legend somewhere in there? *currently on a ROM without PDroid so I cant look it up*
corbn89 said:
Are we suppose to be suprised that an app that has the capability to run our entire phone by voice and predict our movement and actions has permission to access all our movements and actions?
If privacy is an issue, you either shouldn't use it or at the least use PDroid. But that's Google MO, they give you convenience at the price of your privacy.
I believe "?' means there are no settings for that app in place yet. I forget what AB is. There should be a legend somewhere in there? *currently on a ROM without PDroid so I cant look it up*
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol... Internet tough guy. Are we to assume Google Now needs video and or audio feed to tell me what time I leave for work? I'm no oracle, but that answer, corbn89, is a resounding NO. Thanks for your relevant post. Pfft...
Replying to my useless post (considering my info was wrong) with another useless post. Real classy.
Anyways, did you find out what AB was?
The options in PDroid 2.0 are allow, deny, prompt when asking for permission. Prompting would be used with an app where you wouldn't want to allow it all the time but spoofing your info may result unwanted results (e.g. locations)
AB appears to be a spoofing mechanism as it allows for a new value to be inputted by the user. For instance, when I go into the FB app and click on the AB next to Phone Number, it allows another string to enter (I entered a viable fake number). However, it appears that ANY change to permissions renders the application (FB in this case) unusable as it will FC before it even opens. Any change to permissions automatically defaults the app to be labeled as "Untrusted". I have not been able to get PDroid functional at all. Any ideas???
If you don't like it, don't use it. Obviously, they aren't going to "spy" on you with your camera and mic. What a joke.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using XDA Premium HD app