Related
Here I provide a half legal (I included the HTC drivers for the hardware...) stock AOSP (android-1.5_r3) ROM!
You can add Google Apps legally if you have bought a Google experienced phone by running this script on a linux-machine:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=564744
Features:
-No special features
-Just stock w/o Google apps
Download for G1:
http://www.4shared.com/file/135524283/e812c64f/dream.html
Instructions:
Unzip the file, then:
fastboot erase userdata
fastboot flash system system.img
fastboot flash boot boot.img
fastboot reboot
To Do:
I'm a lazy guy.
Next release will be cyanogenmod w/o googleapps.
Well does the rom working without all googles stuffs ?
Can we add them easily ?
Thanks for the new build, hope this googles' issue will be fine
It does work, but it's nearly useless.
I work on a windows version of my script which adds google apps legally.
I also will create a script for recovery.
I'll work on this ROM when I'm done with these, as soon as the scripts are ready, this ROM will get some goodies from Cyan.
Nice work Maxisma!
Its a good start
awesome bro
keep it up it's a start!
maxisma said:
It does work, but it's nearly useless.
I work on a windows version of my script which adds google apps legally.
I also will create a script for recovery.
I'll work on this ROM when I'm done with these, as soon as the scripts are ready, this ROM will get some goodies from Cyan.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent.
With all this doom and gloom.
Surely this is the problem solved?
But what do you mean by google experience?
I know I got all the apps with my phone... T-Mobile G1...
Google Experience are all phones with Google Apps preinstalled.
Just some indian and russian HTC devices don't have it.
Out of interest would this boot fine without running the script?
I am presuming not, but i am just curious?
I would try it out, but at the moment I am not at home and only have 2g coverage on my phone so its a bit slow to download
Edit //
Could i (in theroy) install, boot and then use wget to download sam3 from slideme.org and then download a third party dialer / K9 etc... etc..
So use all third party apps
vixsandlee said:
Out of interest would this boot fine without running the script?
I am presuming not, but i am just curious?
I would try it out, but at the moment I am not at home and only have 2g coverage on my phone so its a bit slow to download
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It boot's fine w/o the script ;-)
Not to rain on your parade, but ....
Hi Maxisma,
Not to rain on the parade, but ...
Per Google, this ROM is no more "legal" than any other ...
The following is taken from http://source.android.com/documentation/building-for-dream
* The Dream device software contains some proprietary binaries. For contractual reasons, these cannot be redistributed separately from the shipping hardware, but the provided script may be used to extract these binaries from your development device so that they can be correctly included in your build. These libraries include the openGL|ES library, the Qualcomm camera library, the HTC Radio Interface Library, etc. You need adb to be in your path, and you need your device to be configured for adb access. If you don't have adb already, do a generic build first, which will put it in your path.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just my understanding of things.
~enom~
Interesting, i am going to have to have a look and a play later.
Cheers for the work (forgot to say that in my first post)
if you're interested on maybe trying to do this on your own:
http://www.johandekoning.nl/index.php/2009/06/07/building-android-15-build-environment/
Contrary to what you might think, a room w/o google apps is not entirely useless. Probably the major setbacks are the lack of market access, the lack of a YouTube player (we need to work on a port of Totem's Youtube implementation but for android), and a way to manage contacts (irrenhaus is looking at the posibility of setting up a Google Contacts sync), plus we'd probably need to write an utility to actually read/write contacts to and from SIM.
G-mail, you can acess from the browser (which, AFAIK, is still free and open source under the Apache Licence), Maps can be downloaded once we get Market access.
Other than that, a bone-stock android build will keep you connected to the internet, allow you to tether, allow you to run scripts, deliver your mms, give you camera and music player, have theme support, and ofcourse, make phone calls just like any other build will. You'll just have to go a bit off of your way to get apps, but again, that's the main drive here, either get acess to market of create a new one and invite app developers to submit their apps there too
enomther said:
Hi Maxisma,
Not to rain on the parade, but ...
Per Google, this ROM is no more "legal" than any other ...
The following is taken from http://source.android.com/documentation/building-for-dream
Just my understanding of things.
~enom~
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's dead on too, and I forgot about it. The issue would not be with google anymore though, but with HTC and it's hardware partners. This is what cyanogen realized, now that the spotlight is on rom development, companies will have watchdogs for re-distribution of binary code. If you own an ADP device, you can legally download the binaries from the HTC website and MAKE YOUR OWN BUILD (so redistribution targeting dream is out, unless we can talk to HTC about it), either that, or, as I've said before, move onto an open hardware platform so we can write our own drivers.
---edit---
By the way, I still don't agree with the whole feeling of gloom floating around here. This is only a change to the way we're doing things right now, but it doesn't hinder development in any way. If you're the kind of dev that's here for the praise, then yeah, you wont like it that now people will have to actually know what they're doing, so your fanbase will be reduced. I for one welcome the change. This rom, for example, can still be distributed without the HTC binaries and maybe have instructions for the user to download them, install them in their OTA package, and the actually flash the rom. But then that requires that people actually know what they're doing, since we can't legally provide them the finished product.
Also, it doesn't hinder improvement of the platform. None, I repeat, NONE of cyanogen's or other dev's work ever even touched the proprietary parts of the build, as this is nearly impossible without the source (I know, baksmali, but really, I'm trying to make a point here!...) and most of what made his work awesome was the behind-the-userland work; kernel's bfs patches, scripting, cpu time management, modifications to available source, for example, the settings package.
We can still improve the platform, we can contribute, and maybe this time around the way Google wanted people to, by submitting code for their consideration to have it maybe implemented in android's next build.
I'll be glad to see all the "OMG, MY PHONE WONT START" threads diminish as people realize that this will no longer be the place where you get it all dumbed down and easy to use.
hey just by simple curiosity, how do you then log into the phone, if this rom is google less? I presume you still need a google account to set up your machine right????
kmassada said:
hey just by simple curiosity, how do you then log into the phone, if this rom is google less? I presume you still need a google account to set up your machine right????
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't need to login as there is no setupwizard.
jubeh said:
That's dead on too, and I forgot about it. The issue would not be with google anymore though, but with HTC and it's hardware partners. This is what cyanogen realized, now that the spotlight is on rom development, companies will have watchdogs for re-distribution of binary code. If you own an ADP device, you can legally download the binaries from the HTC website and MAKE YOUR OWN BUILD (so redistribution targeting dream is out, unless we can talk to HTC about it), either that, or, as I've said before, move onto an open hardware platform so we can write our own drivers.
---edit---
By the way, I still don't agree with the whole feeling of gloom floating around here. This is only a change to the way we're doing things right now, but it doesn't hinder development in any way. If you're the kind of dev that's here for the praise, then yeah, you wont like it that now people will have to actually know what they're doing, so your fanbase will be reduced. I for one welcome the change. This rom, for example, can still be distributed without the HTC binaries and maybe have instructions for the user to download them, install them in their OTA package, and the actually flash the rom. But then that requires that people actually know what they're doing, since we can't legally provide them the finished product.
Also, it doesn't hinder improvement of the platform. None, I repeat, NONE of cyanogen's or other dev's work ever even touched the proprietary parts of the build, as this is nearly impossible without the source (I know, baksmali, but really, I'm trying to make a point here!...) and most of what made his work awesome was the behind-the-userland work; kernel's bfs patches, scripting, cpu time management, modifications to available source, for example, the settings package.
We can still improve the platform, we can contribute, and maybe this time around the way Google wanted people to, by submitting code for their consideration to have it maybe implemented in android's next build.
I'll be glad to see all the "OMG, MY PHONE WONT START" threads diminish as people realize that this will no longer be the place where you get it all dumbed down and easy to use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I could probably write a Java application that would allow the user to:
1) hook their google phone up over USB and grab the existing google apps off of it
2) point to the location of their proprietary drivers on a manufacturers website for download
3) point to a central location of legal ROMS for download
4) click an ASSEMBLE button to put it all together. The resulting update file would be like they have always been, but no illegal redistribution has taken place.
One little problem ...
Ohsaka said:
I could probably write a Java application that would allow the user to:
1) hook their google phone up over USB and grab the existing google apps off of it
2) point to the location of their proprietary drivers on a manufacturers website for download
3) point to a central location of legal ROMS for download
4) click an ASSEMBLE button to put it all together. The resulting update file would be like they have always been, but no illegal redistribution has taken place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Ohsaka,
One little problem with that is ... the manufacturers do not post the drivers (standalone) on their websites for download, they only redist with the hardware. Also, there are other library files as well, it's not only drivers.
~enom~
Simple fix.. just don't include it. People will have to "magically" find the drivers on their own.
If it boots, why is it nearly useless?
Important note about Gapps, please go to the following or read the excerpt below: http://goo-inside.me/gapps/#234
So what's up with the 2.3.4 GApps?
**(Please note, YMMV with all of the following information. Nandroid is your friend!)**
This is a tricky one. The problem here is that Google, unlike what they've done for every previous
update to the G1, Nexus One, Nexus S, etc., decided to compile the Talk2.apk and libtalk_jni.so to
be compatible only with the neon board, and ARM v7 (aka, the Nexus S), rather than every board, the
actual Gingerbread API's, and ARM v6 and Tegra as well. So here's where this leaves us:
20110307: Technically works just fine on 2.3.4, just as it did on 2.3.3. Just doesn't have the Market
updates already in it (you'll get the updates as soon as you launch the Market for the first/second/third
time or so), nor does it have the new Google Talk. Because of this, it's still used in ROM Manager for
AOSP ROMs such as CyanogenMod, listed as Recommended in the Google Apps listing, and is given
at the latest/7/universal page, and the above table.
20110503: This is made directly from the 2.3.4 Nexus S OTA. The new Google Talk is included, but
is not recommended for Android 2.3.3 (CyanogenMod 7.0.x), and on most devices four main bugs are present:
Google Talk FC's when switching cameras.
Contacts do not see your video, but you see theirs, and you see your own preview.
Contacts do not see the ability to start a voice/video chat with you, and get an error instead.
Incompatible with ARMv6 or Tegra devices.
Lithid's GApps: Technically, these work. Problem is that they don't work on ARM v6 or Tegra, still generate
FC's when switching cameras, and it has modified APK's and libraries. Because the files have been modified,
they cannot be distributed here or on ROM Manager under the "back up our software" approach.
So what can be done? In the meantime... Not much. We're basically waiting for a manufacturer to release a 2.3.4
OTA update which has a universally-compiled library and app. Otherwise, 20110307 is recommended for everyone on
2.3.3-2.3.4 (CyanogenMod 7.0.x-7.1.x). There might be other options that present themselves (a new OTA for a
Nexus device which has the files we need, someone breaking into the Googleplex (that was a joke!), etc.), but
until then, there's not much anyone can do. If you have any questions, ideas, etc., you can contact me on Twitter.
Thx, was wondering why video chat wouldn't start on 20110503... this explains it.
Got the same problem here.. Black screen when trying to make a video call on latest CN7.. sucks.. hopefully they will fix this soon.. basically we're waiting for LG/Google to release 2.3.4 officially for us?
Recommend as a sticky... This is good info that's going to get buried....
So the Galaxy Nexus guys got Wallet working on their phone with just an .Apk. I installed the .apk and it installed but FCed every time I tried to run it with NFC enabled. I was hoping someone more talented than me would be able to make it work for us.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1365360
[APP] Google Wallet (Flash: 1.1-R41v8, APK: 1.1-R41v8) [18/12/2011]
I'm running the taste of ics from and tried side loading the apk today. All I got was a black screen.
i installed the apk and when the app started up i got an error saying my version of android was not supported (2.3.5) and then a second error saying that my device is not supported. Im thinking that maybe if i installed a 2.3.6 rom and then modified my build.prop to fake my device as a sprint nexus s, maybe that would trick the app into working? The rom will need to have nfc enable of course too. Anyone know of a good 2.3.6 rom with nfc?
I'm running TPCv2 with DaG.3 kernel and didn't get any errors when installing it. The app came up and said NFC needed to be enabled and when I did that it FCed. But otherwise it didn't FC or error.
EvilEvo said:
I'm running TPCv2 with DaG.3 kernel and didn't get any errors when installing it. The app came up and said NFC needed to be enabled and when I did that it FCed. But otherwise it didn't FC or error.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same here. Installed fine and asked to enable NFC in settings. Once enabled though, Wallet forced closed. Running Quikwiz 1.0.3
I'm curious if changing build.prop to what the galaxy nexus is would fix the issue.
I would be eternally grateful if a dev were able to get this working for us.
I got the same result. Launched at first to tell me NFC needed to be enabled, but after I enabled it, I got force closes. Running QuickWiz 1.0.3
Its sounds like we are missing some important libraries that are required for wallet to talk to the NFC hardware. I noticed that the process for the nexus includes adding another JAR and APK which look like they add additional NFC functionality. Has anyone tried going thru the install process listed on this thread?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1365360
sclarke27 said:
Its sounds like we are missing some important libraries that are required for wallet to talk to the NFC hardware. I noticed that the process for the nexus includes adding another JAR and APK which look like they add additional NFC functionality. Has anyone tried going thru the install process listed on this thread?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1365360
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Instructions in that thread basically just say install the .apk. I just tried it again with the same result. With NFC enabled, it FCs when trying to load. When NFC is NOT enabled, it starts up and initializes and then says NFC needs to be turned on. When I do that, it FCs.
right, i was talking specifically about the section below that where it talks about installing NFC extras via a command line.
Has anyone looked in their logs to see if they can find a stack trace after a FC happens? It may give a hint as to what we are missing. I dont get the same errors on my phone so my logs aren't useful.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1282890
XK72 said:
I've seen a couple posts regarding getting Google Wallet to work (and hopefully I'm not being redundant with this post). I've had Google Wallet working on my own 2.3.5 source ROM for quite some time now and I figured I'd share what got it working for me. As a matter of disclosure, I do have the 4G, but I haven't seen anything in the code that would give reason for why this wouldn't work.
While I'm able to build a ROM, I for some reason, don't know how to put together a flashable update. Maybe somebody with a little more know-how can piece this together and try it out, or at least tell me I'm wrong.
Files needed from the GWK74 ROM:
system/etc/permissions/com.google.android.nfc_extras.xml
(I just added the permission entry to the existing com.android.nfc_extras.xml file instead to keep the clutter down).
system/framework/com.android.nfc_extras.jar
The version in the GWK74 ROM contains code that has yet to be released, since korg is down and all. The extra file has something to do with NFC emulation, but I've only glanced at it, so I really couldn't tell you what it does.
system/app/Wallet.apk
Obviously.
Here's the catch: The Wallet app requires permissions from Nfc.apk (NFCEE_ADMIN). By default, the Nfc.apk is signed with the "platform" key, but as long as these two files are signed with the same key, it will grant it the proper permissions to Wallet.apk no matter what key that may happen to be. Considering that Nfc.apk also requests other permissions from "platform" as well, certificate consistency would be advisable.
Hope this works out or at the very least, gets the ball rolling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suspect that the reason the ADK does not work on the Skyrocket is because the phones have different NFC chip. According to this post, the Galaxy Nexus has the NXP PN65N which contains an NFC controller as well as an embedded secure element (SmartMX) supporting both JavaCard as well as Mifare technology. The Galaxy S II (of which the Skyrocket is a variant) comes with the PN544 which does not have the embedded secure element. This could explain why NFC can be enabled on the Skyrocket (with a custom ROM) but it would FC the Wallet app. The SE (Secure Element) is needed to securely store transaction info and perform all the card emulation functions. Without it, the GW won't work. The app probably just check to see if a SE is available or not, and finding none, simply FC. Now it is possible to use the SIM as a SE but that would require a different SW.
It appears that folks were able to enable GW on the Nexus S, but I think it also sports the PN65N chip with SE. Can somebody confirm it?
wyt168 said:
I suspect that the reason the ADK does not work on the Skyrocket is because the phones have different NFC chips.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I have found some support for my speculation. In a thread on Android Developer Google Group, Michael Roland explained the 3 different modes of NFC. In particular, the role of SE in the card emulation mode, supports my view expressed earlier, I've lifted the relevant paragraphs here:
So the card-emulation mode allows the emulation of a contactless smart
card (and not an NFC tag, although the smart card could *possibly* be
used as NFC tag). As applications like credit cards typically have high
security requirements, card emulation is not handled by the NFC device
itself (i.e. the application processor of an NFC-enabled mobile phone).
Instead, the NFC device has a dedicated hardware component (the
so-called Secure Element) that handles all the card emulation. (*)
(*) This is not entirely true, as some NFC controllers (like the
PN544) would theoretically allow the emulation of ISO/IEC
14443-4 contactless smart cards from the application processor.
Yet, I don't know of any NFC phone that makes this functionality
available to the user and I rather doubt that this will become
available on the Nexus S.
The Secure Element (SE) is typically a smart card itself. But instead of
a normal contact/contactless smart card interface it has a connection to
the NFC controller, which connects it to the NFC antenna.
The Nexus S has an integrated SE (a SmartMX combined into the same
package as the PN544 NFC controller). This SmartMX emulates a ISO/IEC
14443 (Type A) smart card and a MIFARE Classic card.
In addition to this integrated SE it is possible to use a special UICC
(also known as SIM card) that supports the Single Wire Protocol (which
is an interface designed for the communication between the NFC controller
and a UICC) as the SE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
DELETE
Looks like Google Wallet was just released for AT&T Nexus devices, hopefully Skyrocket isn't too far behind. Officially or otherwise androidcentral . com/google-wallet-now-available-nexus-s-and-galaxy-nexus-att
LoSt180 said:
Looks like Google Wallet was just released for AT&T Nexus devices, hopefully Skyrocket isn't too far behind. Officially or otherwise androidcentral . com/google-wallet-now-available-nexus-s-and-galaxy-nexus-att
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried the newest version from the market and got a secure element error. I don't think we're going to get wallet support any time soon because our devices don't have a secure element.
Would it be possible to edit the build.prop to appear as a Nexus S or Galaxy Nexus GSM now to all it to work? It installed fine on my phone but now says my hardware isn't supported.
EvilEvo said:
Would it be possible to edit the build.prop to appear as a Nexus S or Galaxy Nexus GSM now to all it to work? It installed fine on my phone but now says my hardware isn't supported.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No because our phones lack a secure element. Physically lack. So no edits to the app will work until Google decides to update this specifically for phones without a secure element.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk
I bought some of the nfc tags from sparkfun and the task launcher app and tasker so I could use the tags to run tasker tasks. you know, swipe when you get home, to work, into the car.
When I swipe one I get a force close on the nfc service.:-(
I tried skyicecream and buoyancy roms. fixed permissions. super clean install of rom. Thoughts?
mcmasterp said:
I bought some of the nfc tags from sparkfun and the task launcher app and tasker so I could use the tags to run tasker tasks. you know, swipe when you get home, to work, into the car.
When I swipe one I get a force close on the nfc service.:-(
I tried skyicecream and buoyancy roms. fixed permissions. super clean install of rom. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the Alien ROM supports NFC to a certain extent
Hi there all
I have an important question. As I have never been a huge fan of Gapps, and currently using 2 devices with Android, I have 2 questions regarding safety on those devices.
1st one: AOSP Rom, 4.4, no Gapps or anything Google's installed, just the open source F-droid, and sometimes downloading an app via Google Play download sites. I regularly update my Firefox web browser, but since I dont have any Google apps such as Play Services, does that mean that I wont get any important safety updates for my device?
Does this mean that, using any "not the latest" Android device without Google Play Services is a dangerous device? Do I really need it?
2nd device, Android 4.2 with Gapps installed (no custom rom), but with all Gapps deleted or disabled, including Play Store and Services. Also using the open source F-droid. Same question: is this device vulnerable?
I suppose they are vulnerable even with the latest Firefox installed, as Android bugs are not repaired at all. Is there anything I could do to make my devices safer? My 4.2 device is not able to be rooted as it is an unknown brand. My 4.4 device is the Sony Xperia T phone.
I only use my devices to check email, read the newspapers, do some Facebooking and Whats-apping and have some medical apps installed.
Many thanks for reading.
@ruben112 , not sure if this would be helpful , and you may have already seen ; but is an informative thread.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2960077
"err on the side of kindness"
mrrocketdog said:
@ruben112 , not sure if this would be helpful , and you may have already seen ; but is an informative thread.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2960077
"err on the side of kindness"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks a lot for the thread, I had looked for some tutorials but hadnt found them yet! So newer Androids dont per se bring better security? And with some of those apps the security bugs get fixed too?
as i understand things AOSP is less intrusive than what some custom roms are based on. as far as android versions go , "stagefright" is a vulnerability that just got patched in lollipop (i think). but i believe there are sometimes tradeoffs , i.e. the newest may give more security while at the same time taking more control over an OS.
i am really hoping someone more knowledgeable will chyme in :what:. as far as apps go ; just look at what permissions are asked for by the app , some are quite unreasonable to say the least.
i personally never install gapps.
sorry i dont really know more.
"err on the side of kindness"
mrrocketdog said:
as i understand things AOSP is less intrusive than what some custom roms are based on. as far as android versions go , "stagefright" is a vulnerability that just got patched in lollipop (i think). but i believe there are sometimes tradeoffs , i.e. the newest may give more security while at the same time taking more control over an OS.
i am really hoping someone more knowledgeable will chyme in :what:. as far as apps go ; just look at what permissions are asked for by the app , some are quite unreasonable to say the least.
i personally never install gapps.
sorry i dont really know more.
"err on the side of kindness"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. That is exactly what Im wondering: I almost use no apps so they might have security issues but there should not be that many, OS updates on the contrary could in theory make your phone much safer, but do they do it and could the issues not be patched otherwise?
if you have way more knowledge than me about coding and such then you might be.able to patch it yourself.
i personally do not know any other way. but there probably is.
"err on the side of kindness"
I tried doing a search and couldn't find a relevant thread, but I have a few questions...
OK first, the issue that brings me here is the only web browser that I like (Boat) has long been dead and out of development, it's long not been on the play store but I've had the APK for a long time and just transfered it to every new phone I got so I could keep using it. I have tried finding a different browser, but I hate them all, none of them have any of the features I want. My last phone was running Android 9.0 and Boat was still working on it. Well, I got a new phone now (Pixel 4a 5g) that has Android 11 and boat still mostly works... except it crashes if I click the bar at the top to type in a URL and a few other bugs... but otherwise still works flawlessly.
1. So, I'm wondering first is it even OK for someone to look to hire a developer to basically update a dead app? Any website and contact information for the original developer no longer exists, but I don't know if it's OK for someone to take over a dead app like that, if it would be considered stealing or something.
2. Second, well if it's OK... I have the last APKs of the browser and I had used a guide to deconstruct the APK into a project thinking maybe I can figure it out and how to update it so that it still works but... yeah that's not happening. So I have the APK files and the already deconstructed into a project and was wondering where I can ask about hiring a developer just to basically update the app so that it still works (bug fixes only, not really making any changes to the look/feel/etc, just fix any bugs or code that's old and deprecated and doesn't work anymore)? And when I say hire, I mean like actually hire, with real money.
sardonicus87 said:
I tried doing a search and couldn't find a relevant thread, but I have a few questions...
OK first, the issue that brings me here is the only web browser that I like (Boat) has long been dead and out of development, it's long not been on the play store but I've had the APK for a long time and just transfered it to every new phone I got so I could keep using it. I have tried finding a different browser, but I hate them all, none of them have any of the features I want. My last phone was running Android 9.0 and Boat was still working on it. Well, I got a new phone now (Pixel 4a 5g) that has Android 11 and boat still mostly works... except it crashes if I click the bar at the top to type in a URL and a few other bugs... but otherwise still works flawlessly.
1. So, I'm wondering first is it even OK for someone to look to hire a developer to basically update a dead app? Any website and contact information for the original developer no longer exists, but I don't know if it's OK for someone to take over a dead app like that, if it would be considered stealing or something.
2. Second, well if it's OK... I have the last APKs of the browser and I had used a guide to deconstruct the APK into a project thinking maybe I can figure it out and how to update it so that it still works but... yeah that's not happening. So I have the APK files and the already deconstructed into a project and was wondering where I can ask about hiring a developer just to basically update the app so that it still works (bug fixes only, not really making any changes to the look/feel/etc, just fix any bugs or code that's old and deprecated and doesn't work anymore)? And when I say hire, I mean like actually hire, with real money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First topic is about licence agreement and legal stuff. It is owned by "Boatmob, Inc." / "Digital Life International Limited" / "Crunchbase Inc.". Although the app was for free, it does not seem to be a free licences. But I am not an expert in this area.
About the browser app itself, I have seen that you were already active here: https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/boat-browser.3821682/
You either need a permission of the owning company and then maintain the app yourself (or via a hired dev), or you have to switch to another and still actively supported browser app.