Related
/!\ BE AWARE OF YOUR APP, DavinciDevelopers try to steal them and sell them on the market !!
Hello guys,
Be careful, if you post an apk of your free app here, somebody will try to take the apk, remove the signature, and upload it as a paid version on the market !
The proofs : (edited to add new stolen softwares)
Llamadroid
- http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=10113570#post10113570
- http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-kebab-llamadroid-zzjjD.aspx
(removed today, on 5th january)
Typo clock
- http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=814054
- http://www.appbrain.com/app/beautiful-clock-widget-3d/com.semicuda.typoclock
Iron soldiers
- http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=862875
- http://www.appbrain.com/app/iron-soldiers/vuxia.ironSoldiers
(removed from market today, on 5th january, but still referenced)
Championship racing 2010
- http://www.vividgames.com/sub_game.php?id=42
- http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-vividgames-championship_racing_2010-zzxwq.aspx
(removed today, on 5th january)
Liquid wallpaper
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=878252
http://www.appbrain.com/app/liquid-physics/livewallpaper.liquid
Bluetooth Scanner
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=900923
http://www.androidzoom.com/android_games/casual/bluetooth-scanner_pvqg.html
(New !! Now, we have proof that ALL his apps are stolen)
And even Gameloft best sellers (paid games) :
http://www.androlib.com/android.app...ndroid-gand-gloftspaw-heroofsparta-zjCDi.aspx
(removed from market today, on 5th january, but still referenced)
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-gameloft-android-gand-gloftavar-avatar-zjCEx.aspx
(removed from market today, on 5th january, but still referenced)
Minigore
http://minigore.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-minigore-is.html
http://www.appbrain.com/app/minigore-hd/com.ambushgames.minigore
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-ambushgames-minigore-zzjqD.aspx
Zuma's revenge
Original
http://www.zumasrevengegame.com/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/3620/
Scammers
http://www.appbrain.com/app/zumas-revenge-hd/com.popcap.zumas_revenge
http://www.appbrain.com/app/zumas-revenge/com.fox.game.zumasrevenge
How is it possible ?
Google does not check your apk signature when you upload a software.
Even if you signed yous apk with you key, somebody else can put this on his google account.
The signature can be deleted easily if needed.
He can change the title of your app, so nobody see it, but he can't change the apk name nor the icon.
Why do we post our apk here ?
To have testers, to correct bugs, to have a perfect look and feel before put it on the market.
Because on the market people are rude, we have only one chance, so we need to avoid bugs.
And when we put our app online, we want to choose if it's paid or free (with ads or not).
What is the problem ?
If DavinciDevelopers steal and upload your app, he will lock your pak name.
2 apps can't have the same name on the market.
You may have a name like com.myname.myapp.apk
Where "myname" is the same in every app you do.
If he take that, this is a major issue for you because you will be associated to him on every search (google.com, market...).
So, you will have to change your app name and maybe your company name....
Within 1 or 2 days, the market is parsed from androlib, androidzoom, appbrain... and it's done. Google.com will see those websites, and you are trapped.
You will have your buggy app on the market, some people will pay for that, the thief will have some money, and every users will have a bad opinion of your app.
Why DavinciDevelopers does this ?
To make benefit from your work.
Because he doesn't care you are working from a long time on your app.
Because he doesn't care if your work is ruined, he will find somebody else.
How can we be protected ?
Because 2 apps can't have the same name, you should put your app on the market first.
If your app is in development stage, you can upload it as "draft", so it will not be visible on the market, but the name will be locked.
Who is DavinciDevelopers ?
Somebody that have 83 apps on the market !
Almost all of them are themes.
If you look the package name you can see for example :
com.nd.android.pandatheme.p__3d_android_theme
at :
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-nd-android-pandatheme-p__3d_android_theme-qAmiz.aspx
google search : "pandatheme", first link :
http://home.pandaapp.com:888/
So he is not a developer. He makes themes with a free online tool and sell them... nice.
And for the real apps he uploaded (about 5), they all are stolen, coming from poland, germany, and other places.
Almost every of them comes from XDA dev forums.
ps : this message should be marked as sticky in every development section.
Wow, I can't believe this
It gets even better! Check this out:
http://www.androlib.com/android.app...ndroid-gand-gloftspaw-heroofsparta-zjCDi.aspx
http://www.androlib.com/android.application.com-gameloft-android-gand-gloftavar-avatar-zjCEx.aspx
He released the liquid physics live wallpaper I posted on here as well.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=878252
http://www.appbrain.com/app/liquid-physics/livewallpaper.liquid
Attacking GameLoft was a bad move for this/these guy(s).
They hit somewhere they shouldn't have I think.
Khoral said:
Attacking GameLoft was a bad move for this/these guy(s).
They hit somewhere they shouldn't have I think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He has ripped off Popcap as well
http://www.appbrain.com/app/zumas-revenge-hd/com.popcap.zumas_revenge
And MiniGore
http://www.appbrain.com/app/minigore-hd/com.ambushgames.minigore
So STICKY!!!
It's really funny the website slogan:
http://davincidevelopers.weebly.com/
Innovation is everything. WTF
What do you thing, does it matter to left a comment like: app is stolen,... Seller steals apps from real developers or something else in market for "his" apks?
I wrote an email to appbrain and told them about this: maybe they can at least exclude this person from appbrain???
Has anyone emailed him to let him know that we all know?
Dirtbags
Sent from your mom's phone
kiltedthrower said:
Has anyone emailed him to let him know that we all know?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like they would care... they just want to make some quick money from other's work.
The only way we can solve this if somehow we contact google to do something about it.
Since yesterday, he deleted some apps from his market.
I'm the developer of iron soldiers, I had been notified yesterday by another xda forum user that he stole my app.
I emailed him and within 3 or 4 hours he removed the app.
He answered me that he is so sorry, that he shares his key with other people and he didn't know... blabla.
Anyway, he has many stolen apps so he is hard to believe.
Now I see that thanaos2042 created a new thread (thanks ) and that google already referenced it :
If you google "davincideveloppers", this post is already in the first page !
Internet has a memory, and his name will not be forgotten.
they sell a lot of apps which is 80++ but they still using free website ....what a cheapskate...
Holy ****. Mods, please sticky this!!
I sincerely hope Google kicks their ass for this. I'm not familiar with the ToS but I hope they get hit with a lawsuit and instant refunds to say the least.
Stealing from Indie Developers is simply ****ed up. Wouldn't it be funny if a massive attack was launched against this asshole's website? (wink wink)
Chalup said:
Stealing from Indie Developers is simply ****ed up. Wouldn't it be funny if a massive attack was launched against this asshole's website? (wink wink)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it wouldn't. He/they are using a free web host so that would effectively be an attack on a whole lot of innocent sites.
Terrible to steal!
stolen apps are all over the market, ive even seen the r2d2 live wallpaper from the droid, on the market for 99p,
Good to know about these flagrant ripoffs
Looks like someone took their website down. The link now shows a page that isn't published.
Edit: Looks like Google could do something about this since it appears to be a violation of the terms of service (see 11.4, 13.3 and 16)
11. Content licence from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this licence shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
13.3 Google may at any time, terminate its legal agreement with you if:
(A) you have breached any provision of the Terms (or have acted in manner which clearly shows that you do not intend to, or are unable to comply with the provisions of the Terms)
16. Copyright and trade mark policies
16.1 It is Google’s policy to respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement that comply with applicable international intellectual property law (including, in the United States, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and to terminating the accounts of repeat infringers. Details of Google’s policy can be found at http://www.google.com/dmca.html.
16.2 Google operates a trade mark complaints procedure in respect of Google’s advertising business, details of which can be found at http://www.google.com/tm_complaint.html.
So after starting this thread it has raised a stir. And I wanted to point out why the data that Google collects from Android devices is in my own opinion not at all "anonymous" although it is claimed to be.
The WSJ article fully explains. Please read it in full but I'm just going to cite a short passage here and embolden a few words:
...an HTC Android phone collected its location every few seconds and transmitted the data to Google at least several times an hour. It also transmitted the name, location and signal strength of any nearby Wi-Fi networks, as well as a unique phone identifier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apple does not collect the unique phone identifier in the data that they collect.
So Google is collecting location, unique ID, and if you sign into Google services they have your full account information and all within it. This means, via your phone ID that Google could very easily associate YOU PERSONALLY with the location data if they so choose. I know, they say they don't but it's one heck of a data mining marketer's dream to do it!
So I stop Android from phoning home.
I agree i own both a iPhone and a Droid but the difference is the Unique Identifier being sent from some Droid phones ... The real question is what is this unique identifier that is being sent is it the IMEI or MAC address
Looks like Google claims it's not the IMEI, according to this article: Google Responds To Smartphone Location Tracking Uproar, Says Android Is Opt-In
From the article:
Google explains that when a phone transmits data back to its servers some location data is actually assigned a unique identification number, but it says that this number is in no way associated with the device’s IMEI, the user’s name, or other information. In other words, they’d have a hard time associating a user with that data.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That makes me wonder, why must they create this "unique identification number" at the device level in the first place? If they simply want a unique value in their database for incoming data, it's much cheaper and easier to assign the value inside Google within their own databases as each new report comes in. (RowID for example. You who do any database level programing know what I'm talking about.) Than to assign each device a "unique" identifier that is sent with other data each time. The fact the device is sending some sort of "unique" identifier is troubling. And it's the researchers that found the value sent is unique and could be used to identify a phone. So do I believe the researchers who first told us exactly what is being sent or Google, since Google didn't tell us exactly what was being sent till the researchers uncovered it? I suspect if anyone could overcome that "hard time associating", Google could, but that's that my opinion. They know what method they used to create the supposedly unique value and they know how "unique" it is in relation to a specific device. In all my years of software engineering, I can't see how it would be so "hard" for Google to associate all the data they're pulling in with a specific device and person.
I'll just keep my device from phoning such data to Google and leave it at that. I'm also finding my battery life and GPS lock times have improved since stopping Android from phoning home.
ROMs need to address this directly
Darnell_Chat_TN said:
So Google is collecting location, unique ID, and if you sign into Google services they have your full account information and all within it. This means, via your phone ID that Google could very easily associate YOU PERSONALLY with the location data if they so choose.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for starting this thread. This is definitely an issue that we should be concerned about. I wasn't aware that Google was collecting more data than Apple, and your above point is very worrying!
I've asked this on the previous thread too, but I'm keen to see if/how ROM developers can directly manipulate Android to remove this malicious transmission to Google. How can we pressure them to do so? Beyond that, Google themselves need to be held accountable for this,
It actually makes perfect sense; when you're collecting all of this data from random phones, you need a way to vet the quality of the data. If some joker starts having fun and injecting bogus data into the uploads, they can eventually identify which phone the bad data came from and remove it all from their database. If the data is purely anonymous, with no ID tag whatsoever, it's much more difficult to maintain the quality of the data.
highlandsun said:
It actually makes perfect sense; when you're collecting all of this data from random phones, you need a way to vet the quality of the data. If some joker starts having fun and injecting bogus data into the uploads, they can eventually identify which phone the bad data came from and remove it all from their database. If the data is purely anonymous, with no ID tag whatsoever, it's much more difficult to maintain the quality of the data.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, is there a way of "injecting" bogus data deliberately by phones to degrade Google's database? I've also read a report from a NCSU research team creating an application called TISSA for turning off or deliberately feeding misleading info for apps that try to read and transmit personal data. It says with development, this app will be launched on the Android market. Can such methods be used to 'rein in' Google?
Sent from my HTC Incredible S
Of course there is. Just disable the phone-home connection while accumulating data in the cache (using iptables/DroidWall). Then edit the cache files, putting whatever you want in them, and then reenable the connection. The phone won't be able to send the data before you edit it, if you keep the connection locked down.
Sent from my TP2 using Tapatalk
Apple has banned certain hackers from their app store. I'm not trying to send any bogus data to Google, because that might be the tipping point for them to try and ban my device.
Interestingly enough, Steve Jobs himself has come out to proclaim Apple does not track anyone, but he claims Android does: Steve Jobs: Apple doesn't track anyone
Don't iPhones have IMEIs too? Apple have denied using it. So have Google. As far as Google services go, Apple have your info through their store. What's the difference?
deejaylobo said:
Don't iPhones have IMEIs too? Apple have denied using it. So have Google. As far as Google services go, Apple have your info through their store. What's the difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read through the earlier posts for details.
Darnell_Chat_TN said:
Read through the earlier posts for details.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, and despite Google denying using unique identifiers with their data you are of the opinion that they do. But, you believe that Apple does not use unique identifiers based on what? Them saying so?
Nexus SuperAosp
deejaylobo said:
Yes, and despite Google denying using unique identifiers with their data you are of the opinion that they do. But, you believe that Apple does not use unique identifiers based on what? Them saying so?
Nexus SuperAosp
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not based on them saying so at all. Please read in full the article that I've cited, which is the account of 3rd party researchers who looked into what the devices are actually sending. Read the article and view the video on that page as well. Both provide details into the research that was performed and the findings of that research.
Darnell_Chat_TN said:
Not based on them saying so at all. Please read in full the article that I've cited, which is the account of 3rd party researchers who looked into what the devices are actually sending. Read the article and view the video on that page as well. Both provide details into the research that was performed and the findings of that research.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a small update. Once again, Google deny using unique identifiers.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703387904576279451001593760.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I wonder what came of TISSA? I can't find any release information on it. Just the paper:
http://t.co/Rsuq4L2
Also TaintDroid code is still not widely available in custom kernels or as an add-on module, which is quite sad.
We all know the Android privacy and security are quite bad and all Google does is clean up after-the-fact.
Are there any new developments in this arena that users can deploy themselves?
thanks for this info and the iptables tip above. I think I'll add a log and check it after about a week. I'm real curious as to what info my device is sending out and how much.
I just received an update notification for 'Google Play'. Being the cynical type, these type of changes make me suspicious. Oddly enough, a quick search throughout XDA and the internet seems to show that people's only objections to this change revolve mainly (perhaps only ) around the name change. Most don't like the way it sounds, the icons, theme integration, etc.
I find it odd that I can find no mention of Google's probable intent in this matter beyond marketing and 'unification' of Google services. I find it beyond coincidence that Google, just a week or two ago, started sending out notification of changes to their privacy policy.
More than that, I find it odd that no one suspects that there is more behind this than a simple rebranding. After all, Google is a corporate monster whose CEO has clearly and unequivocally stated that privacy of the individual is not only of no concern, but that violation of such privacy should be a given!
A quick look at some of Eric Scmidt's public statements leaves no doubt:
http://www.stateofsearch.com/top-15-of-eric-schmidts-remarkable-quotes/
http://www.seobook.com/eric-schmidt-quotes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-privacy_n_776924.html#s170420
No doubt at all in my mind. After all, to the contrary of what many may think, Google is not free. Google makes money (and lots of it) by collecting and selling our personal data.
I'm not sure, however, what can be done about it, other than to either root and lock down one's phone as much as is possible, whilst still retaining as much as possible of the functionality desired. One sure way is to give up my smartphone. The former is an ongoing practice here. The latter? I'm not ready for that (yet).
But does no one really see a day when smartphone tech will be used to track and control everything we do? Are we not anticipating that Government will see the value of this data collection technology and use it to their own ends, good or bad?
Another example:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/android-photos/
Our personal data is already being mined and profited from by untrustworthy entities, but at least they only seek profit. How long can we expect profit to be the only driving force?
Paranoid? Maybe. But remember the old saying: "It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you...". To my way of thinking, if they aren't now, they soon will be.
The solution is to crate a separate system. Like diaspora. An separate market, mabe an XDA-Market. I was searching the xda app on the market, yesterday it was there, today not but only the premium. This "update" is not normal, updates are here only for fix and repair from my point of view.
Yep is odd.
Let's create an indipendent system for freedom and liberty, open sorce to improve and sharing ideas.
No country restriction. One world, one nation, one free net global wide.
Peace
Sent from my LG-P500 using XDA
As you have indirectly pointed out, one can no longer get into the Android apps market unless you agree to accept whatever Google's legal terms are for their 'Play' and 'Books' services. But I don't intend ever to use these.
I wonder how applications developers feel about this.
Google really is getting beyond the pale, presumably introducing this change on a day when they hope that attention will be focussed on whatever Apple are up to. I shall now be looking for alternate market places. A real nuisance for me as I have a new phone and had intended installing my standard set of add ons.
I think it's a nice idea to keep similir Google's apps under the same brand so it's easier to identify and ,for them , easier to put in market.
If you ever needed evidence that this makes sense then you only need to know the conversation I had with a work colleague today.
..stuff that lead up to this conversation...
Me: Yeah, the Android Market is now called Google Play Shop
Them: Really? Why have they called it that?
Me: Because Android is made by Google.
Them: Oh, I didn't know that!
Seems that Android is known as a brand of its own. I just assumed everyone (or most people) knew that.
I also think that "market" gives a bad connotation comparing to play store
Yes
Re-branding to compete, yes...
I hate it.
Sent from my Nexus S using xda premium
privacy ...
What do you think about this statement ? (in Google Play Terms of Service)
2.4 From time to time, Google may discover a Product on Google Play that violates the Developer Distribution Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. You agree that in such an instance Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your Device at its sole discretion.
So, if i understand right, Google have the right to delete things in my phone ??? C`mon ... isn`t this weird ??? Google Play mean that Google can play with our phone`s content ???
joyradu said:
What do you think about this statement ? (in Google Play Terms of Service)
2.4 From time to time, Google may discover a Product on Google Play that violates the Developer Distribution Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. You agree that in such an instance Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your Device at its sole discretion.
So, if i understand right, Google have the right to delete things in my phone ??? C`mon ... isn`t this weird ??? Google Play mean that Google can play with our phone`s content ???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didn't google retain this right with the market way before this change?
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
Google Play
CharliesTheMan said:
Didn't google retain this right with the market way before this change?
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did it ? I admit i don`t remember, it was a stock-app and if there was a question about my agreement first time when I used market - well i didn`t read it because i was sure the stock-apps can`t be sooo ... malicious ?
Maybe is not the best word but how would one describe an app wich is able to delete his phone content without his permission ?
joyradu said:
Did it ? I admit i don`t remember, it was a stock-app and if there was a question about my agreement first time when I used market - well i didn`t read it because i was sure the stock-apps can`t be sooo ... malicious ?
Maybe is not the best word but how would one describe an app wich is able to delete his phone content without his permission ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's in Google's best interests to be able to do this. They're most likely only getting you to agree to it so that when you download that malware app that starts sending text messages to premium rate numbers, they can remote uninstall it when they find out. It's of benefit to both parties.
Wow - I'm normally really cynical!
It would still be nice to have the choice to decide if you want that done.
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1533775
Hi forum,
So today this student finished his first windows phone app and have been doing research since. I recently found out that making the app is the most fun part, just bringing it to the store is the longest. I decided to use 7 since its also compatible with 8 so appeals to a wider audience.
I've made a sports calculator app using all my own code in c#. I've made my logos and splash screen. My question is firstly do I need to copyright the logos I've made, the unique app name and the app code? If so how is this done, what are the best websites and procedures that don't cost a fortune. I have seen copyright service and myows. Which has worked the best for you and protected you the most?
Now the app I have made collects no user data. Do I need to write a EULA to protect myself and my app? (My English isn't the best and I have no experience with EULAs)? Do you know of any free EULAs one can use?
Since this app does not need to connect to the web, only the ads do. does that mean I must also write a privacy statement?
Once all this sorted and I have tweaked the app to wp7 specs will it be safe to upload?
Thanks for your help.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Anything published in the USA automatically receives copyright protection. Although I think it's possible to still register copyrights, it's not needed and not worth the time.
If you find somebody reusing your IP without permission, as Microsoft to take it down (or the other curator of whatever store publishes it). You may also want to contect them directly, especially if there is no publisher you can use. There's a thing called a DMCA Takedown Request for this purpose in the US, similar things exist elsewhere. If you want actual legal advice, get a lawyer.
TL;DR: You don't need to do anythign else right now, just publish.
Thank you foe the reply. Im going to publish it in the EU region. Will i still need to make a EULA to protect myself?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Making an EULA probably won't hurt anything, though it you want it to be even slightly legally enforceable you should talk to a lawyer. Some common aspects of EULAs are completely unenforceable (for example, prohibiting reverse engineering is regularly ignored), and it depends on the region and the wording. EULAs and copyright license are also not at all the same things. Copyright law covers the right to make (and distribute) copies (and derivative works), nothing more and nothing less. In particular, they don't cover usage. EULAs are usage "agreements" (scare quotes because, as I mentioned, they are frequently not considered a legal contract and are therefore unenforceable).
A copyright license might prohibit me from re-using your artwork in my own app or selling (or giving) it to other people, but it cannot prohibit me from extracting the artwork for myself, or from editing the copy I purchased to replace the spash screen with pictures of kittens. A EULA might require that I not do either of those latter things and continue using the app, but does not take the place of a copyright license.
On the other hand, an explicit copyright license is generally not required; the default licensing for publishing on the app store (which is based on the default copyright license used for works which do not include any other license, but modified to allow Microsoft to make copies of the app to sell, use its artwork for promotions, etc.) is used unless you specify a different license, and that's what most people use.
Reminder: as we say on the Internet, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer). Those cost money, but if you're really concerned about these things then they are the people to talk to.
recently received many mails from google for many of my apps.
The email content is:
Code:
Hi Developers ,
We reviewed your app, XXXXXXX, with package name XXXXXX, and noticed that it violates our developer terms.
REASON FOR WARNING: Violation of the Deceptive behavior policy
You must explain to users why you are requesting the ‘android.permission.BIND_DEVICE_ADMIN’ in your app. Apps must provide accurate disclosure of their functionality and should perform as reasonably expected by the user. Any changes to device settings must be made with the user's knowledge and consent and be easily reversible by the user.
Please complete the following actions within 7 days, or your app will be removed from Google Play: Read through the Deceptive Device Settings Changes policy for more details, and make sure your app complies with all policies listed in the Developer Program Policies. If you don't need the BIND_DEVICE_ADMIN permission in your app: Remove your request for this permission from your app's manifest. Sign in to your Play Console and upload your modified, policy compliant APK. Or, if you need the BIND_DEVICE_ADMIN permission in your app: Include the following snippet in your app’s store listing description: “This app uses the Device Administrator permission.” Provide prominent user facing disclosure of this usage before asking the user to enable this permission within your app. Your disclosure must meet each of the following requirements: Disclosure must be displayed in normal course of usage of your app. Your users should not be required to navigate into a menu or settings to view disclosure. Disclosure must describe the functionality Device Admin permission is enabling for your app. Each security policy used with the Device Admin request must be declared in your disclosure, and each policy must be accompanied with justification for the request. Disclosure cannot only be placed in your privacy policy, TOS or EULA. Alternatively, you can choose to unpublish the app.
All violations are tracked. Serious or repeated violations of any nature will result in the termination of your developer account, and investigation and possible termination of related Google accounts.
Regards,
The Google Play Team
its is enough to update the store listing and the privacy policy ?
I do not think so. You were clearly told that `` Disclosure must be displayed in normal course of usage of your app. Your users should not be required to navigate into a menu or settings to view disclosure.'' and ``Disclosure cannot only be placed in your privacy policy, TOS or EULA. ''
I received the same email regarding my app.
The instructions are quite clear at the first glance. On a closer look, however, it's not so clear, at least in my case:
in my app, the device administrator function is not strictly needed. It depends on what the user wants. The default is that it is not needed. If I would now push a notice and the handling to the main activity, I would hopelessly scare and annoy users who may never even get close to giving the app device admin permissions.
The process to request device admin rights includes a textual description by the app explaining why the permission is needed, and what sub-parts of the device admin rights. In my eyes this already fulfills the requirements in the email. Or does it not?
I'm in a very awkward position right now. The time they allow me to react is very short (7 days) and they don't even provide a reply address. I have now contacted the support team, but if I don't a reasonable response within a few days I might have to butcher this out over night and sure as hell will get bad reviews because of this.
For me it makes sense to remove this functionality for a while. And try to find out from Google what they mean by ``normal course of usage''. I'm afraid that you must show this disclosure in main activity every time regardless.
grfgames said:
For me it makes sense to remove this functionality for a while. And try to find out from Google what they mean by ``normal course of usage''. I'm afraid that you must show this disclosure in main activity every time regardless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah. Thing is that removing an integral part of an app on such short notice is likely to cause regression, let alone angry users that ask where the hell this has gone.
Google Play answered me now, twice, but only with the same lame text blocks. No real human interaction. I've now also posted to G+, let's see if anything happens there.
If I advertise this on the main page, I'm totally over-advertising an optional feature and even invite people to use it, which would be contrary to what Play want to archive. This sucks big time.
xrad said:
Yeah. Thing is that removing an integral part of an app on such short notice is likely to cause regression, let alone angry users that ask where the hell this has gone.
Google Play answered me now, twice, but only with the same lame text blocks. No real human interaction. I've now also posted to G+, let's see if anything happens there.
If I advertise this on the main page, I'm totally over-advertising an optional feature and even invite people to use it, which would be contrary to what Play want to archive. This sucks big time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you want your app to be available on PlayStore then what is so terrible about doing what they expect of developers that put their apps on PlayStore.
Everybody else must follow that rule, why shouldn't you?
It doesn't even matter what the circumstances are as to why you think it's unnecessary or unfair, all that matters is that is how it is to be done. Otherwise, no app on PlayStore, right?
grfgames said:
For me it makes sense to remove this functionality for a while. And try to find out from Google what they mean by ``normal course of usage''. I'm afraid that you must show this disclosure in main activity every time regardless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I DO NOT PROVIDE HELP IN PM, KEEP IT IN THE THREADS WHERE EVERYONE CAN SHARE
@Droidriven: had you actually read my post, then you would understand that I'm in favor of the rule, but that I am criticizing the way they handle explain and enforce it. Essentially, their premise is that a the apps they are addressing with this current campaign always want to be devadmin. Mine only wants to be so if the users asks for it. But Google doesn't tell anything about such a scenario and only talks to me using bots and people using predefined text blocks. All on very short notice.
xrad said:
@Droidriven: had you actually read my post, then you would understand that I'm in favor of the rule, but that I am criticizing the way they handle explain and enforce it. Essentially, their premise is that a the apps they are addressing with this current campaign always want to be devadmin. Mine only wants to be so if the users asks for it. But Google doesn't tell anything about such a scenario and only talks to me using bots and people using predefined text blocks. All on very short notice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know. I was just saying that you're gonna have to do it their way in the end anyway. It's unfair but it is what it is.
I DO NOT PROVIDE HELP IN PM, KEEP IT IN THE THREADS WHERE EVERYONE CAN SHARE
my main issue is i lost my keystore during a hard drive problem so i cant update the application how ever if i updated my description and my privacy policy and say that i clearly use this permission it will solve this problem ??
any help will be appreciated