Related
Do you think anyone can develope a program to prevent google from capturing this information about their users? Maybe at least on a android based platform even. This really chaps my a$$
Code:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE_b
Whats the big deal? Google cuts down on paperwork and the policies haven't changed, they are just merged/ It eliminated redundancies and wasted effort.
what difference does it make if you are giving your personal information to Gmail or to youtube? If google has it, Google has it, period. It is still a Google based service, combining the private policies of all of the services into one makes perfect sense.
Google has stated they still have no plans to change how they handle the data.
The big deal is I NEVER CLICK YES for gooble to collect anything on me, which means I "opt-out" now I have a contract on a phone I dont want to touch. great, a 700$ paperweight , not including the service. screw you google.
I will not tap "yes" for google
Are you sure that they are 700 $?
Rage! An ad/marketing company makes my OS and wants to show me ads relevant to me rather than random ads. A company wants to make money off of a product they've created and are heavily vested in? Who'd have thunk it?
Don't like it? There's other choices out there. WP7 is pretty hot ;-)
z33dev33l said:
Rage! An ad/marketing company makes my OS and wants to show me ads relevant to me rather than random ads. A company wants to make money off of a product they've created and are heavily vested in? Who'd have thunk it?
Don't like it? There's other choices out there. WP7 is pretty hot ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait til wp7 phones get ads lol
Have to say though to op its not like google are pushing ads to your device. If you browse net you get same problem. I think they have messed up somewhere cos on my laptop I always get ads for things I already have. But I don't get ads on my phone unless on a webpage or using an ad funded app so no different to a pc or any internet device.
Dave
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk
mistermentality said:
Wait til wp7 phones get ads lol
Have to say though to op its not like google are pushing ads to your device. If you browse net you get same problem. I think they have messed up somewhere cos on my laptop I always get ads for things I already have. But I don't get ads on my phone unless on a webpage or using an ad funded app so no different to a pc or any internet device.
Dave
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft is a software company, Google is a marketing company.
z33dev33l said:
Microsoft is a software company, Google is a marketing company.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hence the lol
But the point is google aren't sending ads any different than on a pc. Whatever phone pc or tablet people use makes no difference, google and others can and do still collect data when you browse.
And some collect other data even when you opt out such as wp7 collecting user data that caused them to get sued last year. Its impossible to have a smartphone and not have someone collect data of some sort.
Dave
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk
mistermentality said:
Hence the lol
But the point is google aren't sending ads any different than on a pc. Whatever phone pc or tablet people use makes no difference, google and others can and do still collect data when you browse.
Dave
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not fond of google. I use Bing and have visited YouTube maybe 3 times this year. That said, Bing does the same thing to me.
Well **** that.. i am going back to Symbian s60v3... At least i wont have the damn adds
~§~
Xxul said:
Well **** that.. i am going back to Symbian s60v3... At least i wont have the damn adds
~§~
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lmao.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium
z33dev33l said:
I use Bing...Bing does the same thing to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bing probably does other things that would scare the hell out of you if you were aware of them. Google is nosy. M$ is evil.
Sent from HTC G2
Crashdamage said:
Bing probably does other things that would scare the hell out of you if you were aware of them. Google is nosy. M$ is evil.
Sent from HTC G2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Color me intrigued, what makes Microsoft more evil than google?
What would be the best way to avoid this?
a problem I could see is if like, I have my son over on a weekend and he jumps on...idk, nickelodeon. com or something, will it show ads for all the porn sites I visit?
I sure as hell wouldn't want him reporting that to his mother and even possibly the appropriate authorities...
just curious but in what way is this different, if not dramatically worse, than everything CarrierIQ was accused of a few months back.
I wonder if this will affect things like StartPage which bills itself as being completely private but is "enhanced by Google"
This is why I have dead email addresses. I've got one for Gmail just for my phone. Never use it for anything else. Just the phone.
Don't Be Evil, just make lots and lots of money.
The real problem is the internet. There are always the spammers that get a kick out of just breaking someone else's things, and that's why almost all websites log things. It also creates privacy concerns for those trying to follow the rules. So if it bothers you so much that Google knows you search for a laptop, and it suggests that there is a better, cheaper one, next time you use gmail, then you have problems. I personally love this, now when I go between Google services, I don't have to log in again. Google provides you with great services for free, why not give them the ability to advertise to you? The world is dangerous, get over it.
Or you could do the most practical thing, ad block. Its on Firefox and chrome, so that should cover almost everybody. If your stuck with ie, well, god help you.
Sent from my Bad-Ass Acer Iconia Tab a100
dead78 said:
just curious but in what way is this different, if not dramatically worse, than everything CarrierIQ was accused of a few months back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Carrier IQ records keystrokes, text messages and other private stuff Google does not. And without even telling anyone it was there.
Sent from HTC G2
nazsa said:
The big deal is I NEVER CLICK YES
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You agreed to their terms of service. As has been pointed out, the information is used so they can show ads that pertain to you specifically. I view this as a good thing.
If you don't want a company to know your browsing and purchasing habits, you should buy a cabin in the woods and live off the grid, no electronics, no grocery stores, completely self sufficient.
Good luck!
A very Powerful Anti-Theft App
The app is always free to download and comes with a 1 week free trial, but a lifetime license is normally $4. I say normally because, as you have likely deduced from the title, the developer is offering free lifetime licenses in celebration of hitting 100,000 users.
To get the license, just download the app and register an account (it requires a username, password, and email address - nothing tricky), then fill out the form and hit Submit. The developers will take care of the rest. The promotion ends with the month (by GMT standards), so better move fast - you only have a few days left!
App: http://goo.gl/12Oye
Website: http://goo.gl/I58Ke
Source: Android Police
I've just reinstalled this. I tried it out back in the early days but was never too impressed. It has come a long way since then though.
The only issue I have with apps like this, including Lookout, is how much information is available to it. Not only does it require permissions to just about everything but if you wanted to (and have root), you can also grant it root access.
You place a lot of trust in the developers of apps like this that your information wont get misused in anyway.
Only 2 more days until its over! Fill out the form now!
hey I filled out the form but didn't get anything in my email do I have to wait more or what?
Do you need to wait for a license to be activated? Filled out the form and haven't received an e-mail and the license status hasn't changed.
Really glad I saw this thread. Was looking for a good security app and I am really impressed by how well cerberus can control your phone.
Edit: sorry I need to slow down a bit. From the website:
All licenses will be activated on March 1.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It says licenses will be activated March 1st. Read it before you post.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
qccoles said:
It says licenses will be activated March 1st. Read it before you post.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol!
Posted with SwiftKeyX on my CM9 Motorola Photon!
I hopped on this. Was looking for a good standalone app that provided web based methods of access. Thanks. I shared this post on my facebook profile as well to get the word out. I know a couple of co-workers that could of used this including one who did actually lose their phone.
The browser interface is pretty awesome. Couldn't believe how accurate this app is. I'm glad that I finally decided to get on this at the right time!
Just curious if there were any other apps that offered the SMS control that this app does. It's probably the defining feature, since no data = no way to reach your phone. The SMS idea is honestly amazing.
However, I'm curious to see the battery hit (since I would assume it's constantly active). Battery's the main reason why I leave something like webkey off by default...
2hvy4grvty said:
Just curious if there were any other apps that offered the SMS control that this app does. It's probably the defining feature, since no data = no way to reach your phone. The SMS idea is honestly amazing.
However, I'm curious to see the battery hit (since I would assume it's constantly active). Battery's the main reason why I leave something like webkey off by default...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the developer claims there is no battery drain until you activate the app via web commands or sms commands, it's no different than any dormant app on your device. since Cerberus isn't broadcasting anything or doing anything until you tell it to, it's logical that there is no impact on CPU or battery.
i've been using it for a few days now and i can't say my battery drains any faster than usual.
as for another "find my device" app that takes sms commands, avast! mobile security does. i use it regularly for the lost device protection and firewall capabilities. if you don't have google voice, avast will also take care of blocking calls and sms for you too. i have only recently switched to Cerberus because of the free life time service and web interface, avast does not offer a web interface for finding your lost device yet. also, avast will run constantly, due to it's more robust nature. you can install the theft aware portion of avast! and discard the main app though, putting it on par with Cerberus' offering.
really really thanks, I was just looking for something like this!
My free trial ended about 2 months ago and since I am 14 and parents don't trust a 14 year old with a credit card. I couldn't get the life time license but this might be my chance.
Thanks for this awesome offer. Really powerful app. Hope I don't have to use it...
Love this app! I had been using Mobile Defense beta for quite some time as it had a great web UI with options. But this has a lot more options. Personally, it didn't pinpoint my location as great, but that could just be my device (rooted Thunderbolt). Still, it was close and I'm sure with some extra work I'd be able to find my device if it were ever lost.
I like the extra options for rooted users. Mobile Defense had this. The ability to embed it in the ROM is very helpful.
This is feature rich and even without free license offer, I still purchased this because I appreciate all the work that the dev put into this! For that 14yo kid on here, you need to tell your parents to purchase this for you. Any smartphone nowadays is worth $$. My kids have lost phones before and for $4, it's better insurance than having to buy a new phone! So tell your parents this..."buy me the $4 app and keep my phone, that you bought, safe...or pay full/partial price if it gets lost or stolen." To me, as a parent who buys his kids' phones, this is a no-brainer. Not to mention the fact that as a worried parent, I can login and creep my kids' phones to see where they are. Yeah, I do that. Don't judge. When you have teenagers some day, you'll understand.
As far as gripes, the only one I have is that a better How-to/Help section could be way better. I like the Q/A type, but it's short on useful information such as exactly how to use the wipe features. Yes, these are no-brainers, but do I get a chance to cancel if I accidentally hit it? What's the process? Is it like the government nuke big red button? Once you hit, you can't undo? Maybe a better tutorial would be better. Also, exactly how do you use the SMS feature? I found a number embedded in the menu within the app, but the Help section on the website just mentions SMS commands. If I never looked at that number, how would I know how to use this function?
When you write how-to sections, you have to write it from the perspective that you're explaining to someone who has NO IDEA how to use this. If you know the app inside and out, and then create a how-to section, most likely you're going to leave a lot of information out.
Keep up the great work!!
I just need to vent. I'm a fairly active developer for the android platform. I've created a number of kernel patches and applications that I have released at no charge to the community for about 10 or so devices.
All this I do in my "spare time", which I have very little of because I am a full time professional student who takes on 32 credit hour semesters.
Recently, since my 1994 geo prizm is literally falling apart and I was hoping to scrounge together a little bit of money to get a new car so I don't end up stranded on my way to class, I decided to release a paid application. Fastcharge / Force AC toggle which allows you to toggle on and off the force AC feature. A feature which I have personally implemented and released source patches for on a number of devices.
Not only in every thread where I released the patch on a device did I write up how to toggle the feature through the command line, but I also stated that I also implemented a toggle into my completely free application that you can also download from the market, IncrediControl.
In good faith and knowing how annoying licensing is, I elected to not include licensing in my application. This is a huge regret.
Within a couple days of releasing the application to the market I googled it to see if anyone was talking about it. One of the first links was to a piracy site where a user was requesting the widget, to which another user obliged and posted the apk to a filesharing site. Doing something I never though I would have to do, I filed a DMCA takedown request, which was answered quickly and the app was taken down. Monitoring the thread, every single time a link gets taken down, another user requests the app and the original user reuploads it, most recently to 11 different sites.
So now, after filing dozens of takedown requests. This user has decided to unzip my apk, change out the artwork, and now is going around releasing it as his own work.
Really, all this to avoid paying $1.50 (only ~$1 of it actually going to me) to an individual whose yearly income is low enough that he doesn't have to file taxes?
This disgusts me.
This is even worse than the 50% "order cancellation rate" that the widget has. I'm not stupid, I know exactly what users are doing, but yet initially I was willing to ignore it. But this has gone too far.
What is even the point of pissing off a developer so much that he is considering saying screw the platform all together? It doesn't even make sense. We, the developers improve your devices, generally at little or no cost, and this is how we're repaid. With ~50% of current users of the application having pirated it. To avoid paying just over $1.
Now before someone even counters with the "my area doesn't support paid applications" argument I've actually gladly GIVEN the widget away to a number of users who casually mentioned in the release threads that they couldn't download it for this reason. Not to mention, everyone knows there are apps that unlock the market in these areas to be able to purchase apps.
How much more generous can a developer be than to provide source code patches for a feature, provide information on how to toggle the feature, provide a COMPLETELY FREE way to toggle the feature, and then charge a measly $1.50 for a secondary, slightly more convenient way to toggle.
Yet he's repaid like this .
Of course, this must suck for a developer like you. Unfortunately, it seems to happen more and more often, and all I can really say is:
I would gladly pay a few bucks for an application like IC or BootManager. That BootManager seemed really interesting, but we can't buy apps from the Play Store without CC (and as a 16-year old, I don't have one). I asked the developer if he accepted Paypal, but he didn't.
Don't get me wrong, and this is not an attack to you personally: developers, if you made something really nice, and people will like it, 70% of the people will gladly pay for it, just make sure you allow them to.
Chaosz-X said:
70% of the people will gladly pay for it, just make sure you allow them to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly thought this was the case. It's really not. The problem is much worse than that. If 70% of users in the root community paid for apps it would be astonishing. Its made pretty clear by the number of users who download the app, back it up and then cancel the order.
If a 16 year old kid had made me that offer, the e-mail reply I sent would have the apk attached.
Well, that is a real flaw of Android: tweakability is really impressing, but these things make it really difficult to earn some money as a developer.
We have been thinking about anti-piracy measures as well, with stuff such as authentication with a server, and locking down the code and verifying integrity of APKs and stuff to make sure it's really hard to mess with the code, but it's just sad that there's a need for these measures..
The trouble is everything has piracy right from movies to game consoles through to mobiles and music.
I mean the iPhones appstore would be a hell of a lot bigger if there was no jailbreaking and installous.
Every platform has been cracked so you'll get it regardless of what you develop for.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA
I think you know you just needed to vent but can I change your picture.
There are some people in this world who just don't buy the idea of an idea as property. That's not compatible with this business model. That's the first problem.
The next problem is that
there's a million and one apps out there and which one are we going to choose? Where does it start, where does it end? We all have our limits. What's yours?
For me, the app has to be something very unique and possible generate me cash. For example something I use every day at work. If it's something that the phone should do anyway I tend to skip it and save the $1 for the next phone that does it out of the box. Your app is a great thing, but there's many utility apps out there. It just doesn't fall into the kind of thing I'd cave my strict budgeting for. There are people here with a 1000 apps installed and you expect them to pay $1000 in this sense.
Another way would be having utility in the cloud and then the app is free. Another one of course, advertising.
The difference with both of these is we don't need to risk a credit card with the market. That's the main reason I personally haven't bought many apps and I'd imagine it's a problem for minors too.
The very community that allowed us to create the app fails to pay for it's products is like life itself.
I'd say make something for the iphone instead because there's more profit there but that would never have been possible, see what I'm saying? That's the 3rd problem.
So you've got 3 problems there all converging into one big push towards piracy. But remember, can your app assure security that the pirated version cannot for example? This is how one has to think.
In short,
you can't do something and hope to make a bit from it on the side. You got to go out from the start and get the money aspect central from the start. I mean, that's business and of course that's exactly what the android community works hard to free us from.
Still, summarising those 3 points for suggestion:
- offer something free things can't (i.e. security, brand etc) For example, I never run pirated stuff for fear of insecurity on my data whereas I'll try out software that way on an old PC
- can always put a service in the cloud aka the javascript trap
- iphone is there if you want...
- needs to "the one app" a certain person would pay for, not something everyone likes
Also just to make that point again, if one does not believe in property then inconveniently there is no moral crime here. I suggest learn to live with this and go with the flow
I hope google sells PlayStore cards (like itunes cards) that allows user to buy apps, music, movies, books without a credit card. I really want to buy some amazing apps but i dont have a credit card so i just use free apps. I think that if u cant buy an app that cant be a reason to piracy or sidedownload that app.
jago25_98 said:
For me, the app has to be something very unique and possible generate me cash. For example something I use every day at work. If it's something that the phone should do anyway I tend to skip it and save the $1 for the next phone that does it out of the box. Your app is a great thing, but there's many utility apps out there. It just doesn't fall into the kind of thing I'd cave my strict budgeting for. There are people here with a 1000 apps installed and you expect them to pay $1000 in this sense.
Another way would be having utility in the cloud and then the app is free. Another one of course, advertising.
The difference with both of these is we don't need to risk a credit card with the market. That's the main reason I personally haven't bought many apps and I'd imagine it's a problem for minors too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The feature is 100% unique and so is the widget. Not to mention, if you didn't want to pay the $1, I provided a free way to toggle the feature in the utility app. The point is, that there is nothing forcing people to pay for the widget to use the feature. But instead of using the free option provided, they not only pirate the paid app, but edit the artwork and release it for free as their own. It defies logic.
Also, ad based apps don't work with the rooted community. I learned that early on. Myfree utility app is ad supported. With over 40,000 installs you would think it would make even a dollar a day. Nope, makes nearly nothing. That's when I realized that the same niche I was marketing to are the same people who block ads. Even if someone didn't want to block ads, they can't install a single ROM that doesn't include an ad blocking hosts file out of the box.
chad0989 said:
[...] How much more generous can a developer be than to provide source code patches for a feature, provide information on how to toggle the feature, provide a COMPLETELY FREE way to toggle the feature, and then charge a measly $1.50 for a secondary, slightly more convenient way to toggle.
Yet he's repaid like this .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Be sure you're looking at all sides. Yes, you're in a losing war with guys intent on pirating your app. You can't stop them, and well, you goofed on the licensing, so someone will no doubt release the clone.
First of all, don't do the Big Media thing and assume that everybody that pirates your app would have paid for it if it hadn't been available. A lot of folks collect, or just try something once. You'll only work yourself into a funk thinking about all that money you "would" have if only they hadn't been able to pirate it. They wouldn't have. At least not all of them.
More importantly, be aware that placing something out there with value does reach folks that otherwise would have no idea of you or your plight. More than once, I've purchased an app that I don't really need, but found clever and cheap enough I can buy it without thinking about the investment. I've spent more on Android software at $1-15 over the last year than I did over the last 25+ at $30-100 a pop. I've only refunded an app once, by accident.
Finally, be up front about your situation. A guy trying to make do does influence my impulse buying. So does his reputation. If you're doing a lot, be sure that's clear on your app page, and let us know clearly you're the guy that also brought us whatever.
I am curious, though: How much did you actually bring in?
Chad- thanks for telling your story, I agree that you have every right to be disappointed. Especially the buying and refunding, that to me send almost worse because you can't stop dedicated pirating, but I would have hoped the rest would have bought the app.
It's easy to forget the human side of development, so thanks for sharing your side.
Jesus christ Chad. This is f$%&*#@ ridiculous. Probably the best and most generous kernel dev I have ever come into contact with, and people are cheating you out of 1.50. Please don't abandon Android. I need kernels when I get my rezound! but in all seriousness, warez needs to stop.
Sent from my ADR6400L
Yep. Sucks. After getting serious about android , which wasn't too far in, joining with a nexus one and seeing all the free HARD work we get, I definitely try buying stuff I use. If I can't pay sometimes I will see if dev does something else I can donate to. Its an issue I've thought about and part of it really boils down to how sorry people are in general. They want free and cheap. $1 is laughable even when it can be easily had for free. You really should market yourself a bit even though you don't want to. And people should really put a complimentary $5 or so budget a month or more and try to support devs. Maybe if you have something he gave free but has an app you won't use for a buck, buy the dollar app and uninstall after the 15 minute period. Or throw him a 5 through PayPal or something. Its simple really. If these devs don't have to resort to ramen and water they keep dev'ing especially for the community supporting him or her. And if they're eating vegetables and have plenty of red bull money it gives them wings. Otoh, the devs that make us pay to reinstall an app after we bought it on another or lost our phone suck. Balls. Won't buys theirs anymore.
teach a man to fish, you feed him for life. teach a man to fastboot, and you create competency. and less threads on xda.
Maybe you should implement a system like some developers do where you download the app for free with a time limited trail, then they would go to another website to pay for the app to unlock it, and the unlock codes would be unique for every user which would minimize piracy.
Sent from my GT-N7000 Samsung Galaxy Note "Go big or go home" using XDA app
rafa6571 said:
I hope google sells PlayStore cards (like itunes cards) that allows user to buy apps, music, movies, books without a credit card. I really want to buy some amazing apps but i dont have a credit card so i just use free apps. I think that if u cant buy an app that cant be a reason to piracy or sidedownload that app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the Netherlands we have prepaid Visa card.
Works well.
Maybe you google something similar in your own country.
(3V prepaid Visa cards)
That does suck but if someone wants to pirate an app even licencing doesn't stop them as there is an app that apparently patches licence checks.
It is so easy for even a non root and new user to find cracked apps, I have seen links on here and even on peoples facebook sites, it's got to the point where people can just browse a webpage and click a link to get the cracked version of an app.
Unfortunately if someone wants to crack it they can. Unless you could implement your own security check somehow, something obfuscated in the code, licencing is the only alternative as it would stop people using backed up cancelled versions at least.
Unfortunately it seems a lot of people just don't want to pay for apps.
Dave
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk
also have to look at both sides. some people just refuse to pay for **** whatever it is, or get it as cheaply as they can. being android apps, the free route is how they're going to go. but the other side, you hsould be grateful for all the people that do pay. they're the ones helping keeping google, open source, android and everything in between chugging along. open source is the future and you can tell every corporation i said that. and thanks for you your work even though i've never used it.
jago25_98 said:
...
Also just to make that point again, if one does not believe in property then inconveniently there is no moral crime here. I suggest learn to live with this and go with the flow
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is plenty to disagree with in your post as it all seems like an attempt at rationalizing ways to get around the system. This last statement is a ridiculous attempt at summarizing why stealing is OK. Your morals don't define the crime, the law does. Stealing property, physical or intellectual, is not legal and not right regardless of your morals or lack of.
Chad,
I am sorry to hear of your products' abuse. I used your kernels all the time on my Incredible devices and bought IncrediControl to support development. I have purchased many applications just to support development and believe that is the way to get high quality applications.
Piracy is just so damn easy on Android. I know ppl that are doing it who I wouldn't even expect to be doing such a thing. This guy I know love android only because he can get everything free by just googling the apk.
awww thats sad i feel really bad for you!
I've used pre paid visa debit cards to buy apps. You can find them in Any money shop like Cheque cashing places for example. You can even just stick a dicky diver (£5) on them. Perfect for situations like this
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium
I made this thread so people can discuss the addition to HCTLinkify and how it affects you and why it came into existance.
Background:
Apple has a patent on the way Sense (possibly Android 4.0) handles links on screen and how the user interacts with the touch input. Instead of trying to expalin the whole patent dispute I will let you read more HERE
The patent in question is HERE
This is also the reason the delayed Shipping of the HTC One X and the Evo 4G LTE.
Current situation:
HTC has circumvented the patent dispute with the use of HTCLiunkify which simply changes the way it handles the onscreen links. This has caused concern for some users because they feel functionality has been degraded. This is debateble.
My delimna:
Some, handfull of users, are asking me to remove this work around from my ROM and violate apples patended "link" technoilogy. I state that if HTC and Google, Sprint and ATT can be sued so cant I. Maybe this is an unreliatic fear but none the less quite possible.
My Answer: Im not removing at this time but may consider it in the future. ITs functioning the way HTC / ATT intended.
DISCUSS!
Talk about why Apple sucks or you feel this was a good ruling by the courts. Give me a valid reason to take this out of the ROM and risk Apple's wrath (Albiet prolly unrealistic).
More importantly tell me if it even affects you?
Edit...hope this stop discussion in ur thread....see its open again...
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
mykeldrip said:
Edit...hope this stop discussion in ur thread....see its open again...
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I didint want my thread to get embattled with the apple hatred / why wont you change this debate.
I personally can't stand the half-ass change HTC implemented. When I was running your ROM, I spent a few hours trying to remove it.
The way it's supposed to work is when you click a link to YouTube, Google Play, Google+, etc., it's supposed to prompt you to use the app. If they can no longer prompt because of the lawsuit, they should just redirect the link to the app instead of the browser. Why would anyone want otherwise??
Here's a good example of how stupid it is. When I watch YouTube videos, it's usually from people emailing me a link, sharing it on Google+ or being embedded/linked in a web page. I seldom ever launch the YouTube app to view a video. With their implementation, the YouTube app is virtually useless.
Now, why does your ROM have to have it, but mine doesn't? Mine's obviously based on the Rogers RUU which never implemented the workaround because they didn't have to. But if you successfully removed all AT&T references, we would be left with virtually identical ROMs with different bases. Since your ROM isn't specifically made for US residents, why would that not be ok?
Anyways, discuss
Is there a way to create a flashable mod to remove it so that the user takes responsibility and not the rom developer?
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Turge said:
I personally can't stand the half-ass change HTC implemented. When I was running your ROM, I spent a few hours trying to remove it.
The way it's supposed to work is when you click a link to YouTube, Google Play, Google+, etc., it's supposed to prompt you to use the app. If they can no longer prompt because of the lawsuit, they should just redirect the link to the app instead of the browser. Why would anyone want otherwise??
Here's a good example of how stupid it is. When I watch YouTube videos, it's usually from people emailing me a link, sharing it on Google+ or being embedded/linked in a web page. I seldom ever launch the YouTube app to view a video. With their implementation, the YouTube app is virtually useless.
Now, why does your ROM have to have it, but mine doesn't? Mine's obviously based on the Rogers RUU which never implemented the workaround because they didn't have to. But if you successfully removed all AT&T references, we would be left with virtually identical ROMs with different bases. Since your ROM isn't specifically made for US residents, why would that not be ok?
Anyways, discuss
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like your way of thinking
I hate the idea of keeping the htclinkify so keep up this way sounds good
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
Turge said:
I personally can't stand the half-ass change HTC implemented. When I was running your ROM, I spent a few hours trying to remove it.
The way it's supposed to work is when you click a link to YouTube, Google Play, Google+, etc., it's supposed to prompt you to use the app. If they can no longer prompt because of the lawsuit, they should just redirect the link to the app instead of the browser. Why would anyone want otherwise??
Here's a good example of how stupid it is. When I watch YouTube videos, it's usually from people emailing me a link, sharing it on Google+ or being embedded/linked in a web page. I seldom ever launch the YouTube app to view a video. With their implementation, the YouTube app is virtually useless.
Now, why does your ROM have to have it, but mine doesn't? Mine's obviously based on the Rogers RUU which never implemented the workaround because they didn't have to. But if you successfully removed all AT&T references, we would be left with virtually identical ROMs with different bases. Since your ROM isn't specifically made for US residents, why would that not be ok?
Anyways, discuss
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good pioint... BUT...
My ROM is (phisicyally) hosted in the US and would therefore need to comply with all US Copright and Patenet laws.
And no... Im not going to buy a server outside of the country to circumvent this, lol
mrjaydee82 said:
I like your way of thinking
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL.. anyone who knows me knows that I like to challenge things. When I'm told to do something, I do the opposite. (Well, within reason )
Aren't you technically breaking copyright by modifying HTC's software anyway?
Unless somewhere they state that their Sense stuff is free to modify. They provide the source so that people can work use that for open-source AOSP. Sense, I believe (I could be wrong) is NOT open source.
KitF said:
Aren't you technically breaking copyright by modifying HTC's software anyway?
Unless somewhere they state that their Sense stuff is free to modify. They provide the source so that people can work use that for open-source AOSP. Sense, I believe (I could be wrong) is NOT open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not open source but HTC has differnt policies than Apple.
Ive never seen HTC Threaten to sue someoen.. Well once.. but that was because unreleased code was being released (IE LEaked ROMS for devices that were not even on the market yet). But other than that they given the "unofficial" greent light to making modifications to there product and distibute
We are called the "enthusiast community" and help sell there product. This is why HTC has created HTCDev.com. Specifically to unlock the pohones for the purpose of custom built ROMS / Mods, etc, no?
I am also part of HTC Elevate (elevate.htc.com <- Private boys club for HTC developers and vendors and HTC Staff to dicsuss HTC Products, give input, request changes to products) and will try to seek clarification. But HTC and Apple are two differnt animals all together.
If Apple opened up the bootloaders on iCrap devices I would agree with your point but honestly... Two differnt animals we are talking about.
Once the above issue occrued (releaseing unreleased code) HTC Made a statement at that time that it was ok to re-release the code as long as it was normally publicly available... IE Not Leaked code and definetlay not leaked for device that were not even on the market yet.
Search Google / XDA for this word "conflipper" You will understand then...
Also, I want to point out...
This is about Apple, not HTC. If HTC opens a lawsuit with me for making Custom ROMS then I am pretty sure all of XDA woudl be shut down, etc etc etc...
So lets not derail the Apple issue with HTC...
Its an Apple to Oranges comparison (Get it, Apple, gett it?)
scrosler said:
Its not open source but HTC has differnt policies than Apple.
Ive never seen HTC Threaten to sue someoen.. Well once.. but that was because unreleased code was being modified and released. But other htan that they give the "unofficial" greent light to making modifications to there product.
We are called the "enthusiast community" and help sell ther eproduct. This is why HTC has created HTCDev.com. Specifically to unlock the pohones for the purpose of custom built ROMS, no?
I am also part of HTC Elevate (elevate.htc.com <- Private boys club for HTC developers and vendors and cool users!) and will try to seek clarification. But HTC and apple are two differnt animals all together.
If Apple opened up the bootloaders on iCrap devices I would agree with your point but honestly... Tow differnt animals we are talking about.
Once the above issue occrued (releaseing unreleased code) HTC Made a statement at that time that it was ok to re-release the code as long as it was normally publicly available...
Search Google / XDA for this word "conflipper" You will understand then...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a little different, but I remember HTC asking the developers of Launcher Pro to remove their "HTC-like" flip clock from their launcher. I don't think they're bothered with all of the other flip clock developers since though since it might just have been a momentary lapse of judgement, or a rogue power-tripping HTC employee. Just wanted to point out that there is a little bit of history between HTC and developers.
Turge said:
It's a little different, but I remember HTC asking the developers of Launcher Pro to remove their "HTC-like" flip clock from their launcher. I don't think they're bothered with all of the other flip clock developers since though since it might just have been a momentary lapse of judgement, or a rogue power-tripping HTC employee. Just wanted to point out that there is a little bit of history between HTC and developers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is a dieffernt case though... But once again... This is not about HTC suing anyone, its about Apple.
Lets keep the discussion on Apple being the douceh bags, not HTC.
Me and a friend were thinking. Say for example when you go buy your phone. You pay an extra 20 bucks for the apple tech. Just a thought. And yes I understand that it still is an imperfect plan but everybody wins. We as consumers get what we want and apple gets there money for there code.
Edit
Hey I don't like to support apple either. But this whole mess hurts everybody including apple. Apple looks like a big jackass for suing over something so stupid and all the rest of the cellphone makers have to scramble to fix this while all of their product sits in the ports.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Never ever support Crapple products.
Turge said:
I personally can't stand the half-ass change HTC implemented. When I was running your ROM, I spent a few hours trying to remove it.
The way it's supposed to work is when you click a link to YouTube, Google Play, Google+, etc., it's supposed to prompt you to use the app. If they can no longer prompt because of the lawsuit, they should just redirect the link to the app instead of the browser. Why would anyone want otherwise??
Here's a good example of how stupid it is. When I watch YouTube videos, it's usually from people emailing me a link, sharing it on Google+ or being embedded/linked in a web page. I seldom ever launch the YouTube app to view a video. With their implementation, the YouTube app is virtually useless.
Now, why does your ROM have to have it, but mine doesn't? Mine's obviously based on the Rogers RUU which never implemented the workaround because they didn't have to. But if you successfully removed all AT&T references, we would be left with virtually identical ROMs with different bases. Since your ROM isn't specifically made for US residents, why would that not be ok?
Anyways, discuss
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely agree. I would prefer the links just opening directly w/in the apps, even if I dont get the luxury of a prompt. the apps are far better - and intended - for viewing the content that many of these links are referring to. I dont want XDA, YouTube, Facebook, Groupon, etc. all opening up my browser and viewing what is often a 'desktop' site as directed by the link. If I want that, I can just copy/paste the link into my browser, but I'd nearly always prefer that a link automatically went directly into the associated app. i'd support pretty much any method available for getting a damn link to open in an app that I already have on my phone and, therefore, presumably would rather use over the web version of the site. I mean, why else would the user have apps? To me, this is a prime example of where patent laws have just gone too far.
Spankly said:
Me and a friend were thinking. Say for example when you go buy your phone. You pay an extra 20 bucks for the apple tech. Just a thought. And yes I understand that it still is an imperfect plan but everybody wins. We as consumers get what we want and apple gets there money for there code.
Edit
Hey I don't like to support apple either. But this whole mess hurts everybody including apple. Apple looks like a big jackass for suing over something so stupid and all the rest of the cellphone makers have to scramble to fix this while all of their product sits in the ports.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually this is a feasible busniess model! Did you know that Google has to pay Microsoft every time an Android phone is activcated due to patentes used by Google in the Android OS.
Microsoft was smart about it. Apple is just plain ****ing greedy. How many 12 year old Asian boys does it take to make an iPod.... Ask Apple they can tell you.
Google it... Goole everything I say. Its all true.
fitchpuckman said:
Completely agree. I would prefer the links just opening directly w/in the apps, even if I dont get the luxury of a prompt. the apps are far better - and intended - for viewing the content that many of these links are referring to. I dont want XDA, YouTube, Facebook, Groupon, etc. all opening up my browser and viewing what is often a 'desktop' site as directed by the link. If I want that, I can just copy/paste the link into my browser, but I'd nearly always prefer that a link automatically went directly into the associated app. i'd support pretty much any method available for getting a damn link to open in an app that I already have on my phone and, therefore, presumably would rather use over the web version of the site. I mean, why else would the user have apps? To me, this is a prime example of where patent laws have just gone too far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be honest with you man. Can someone explain to me what it even does differntly? When I click phone number in a text message it goes right to the phone.
What doesnt even work? Or work as expected?
scrosler said:
Also, I want to point out...
This is about Apple, not HTC. If HTC opens a lawsuit with me for making Custom ROMS then I am pretty sure all of XDA woudl be shut down, etc etc etc...
So lets not derail the Apple issue with HTC...
Its an Apple to Oranges comparison (Get it, Apple, gett it?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the point was originally raised to ask "Where do we draw the line?".
I'm sure Cyanogenmod will never have to worry about Apple, so why should we/you?
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
It's getting ridiculous! Too often I open an app and get a pop-up asking for a review (most of them I've already left one for). If your app is worthy of a review you'll get one.!
If it's a free app, thank you and I'll deal with it. But most of them I paid for. Examples are GymRat, Tapatalk, MobileBiz Pro, Office Suite Pro, Instant Heart Rate I'm very good about leaving reviews (mostly positive, but not afraid to leave a negative) for an app. So please stop it.
And if it is something the play store adds to the app, let me know and I will pass this along
/rant
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I adgree I don't mind the little ads to the side so the developers get a little money buts its annoying when every time I try to use something there's a giant pop up that says RATE ME NOW PLEASE GIVE ME REVIEW lol
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Unfortunately, the search rankings are heavily affected by number / quality of reviews. Even good apps have a very hard time reaching a large user base without paying $0.40 per download, so developers want to get the most out of each of these downloads, especially if the app is free.
My approach is to only notify long-time users, and to only notify them once. I think this is reasonable.
Unfortunately there is no way to detect whether a user has already rated your app, and there likely never will be.
IMO if I pay for an app no time is reasonable (I thought more people would agree with me). I understand the need/want to be rated for exposure, but nobody likes spam even if it only happens once. Especially if I spent money to get an ad free version. And like it or not pushing a notification for a review is an advertisement.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
I have to agree. If I pay for an app and hit the screen to open it, I want it to open to the app right away. not a nag screen. I wonder if this is a checkbox that Google has put in when posting an app in Play? If so Google, please add a "never ask again" option to that. Thanks.