Google’s New DRM for Android Marketplace

J

John_Keck

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
379
Google is implementing a new DRM program for the Android Marketplace which will use a licensing server to verify a user has purchased the app before it launches.

Apps can be written to handle the interaction with the licensing server in any way the developer choose, but Google is providing two preconfigured implementations that will stop an app from running if the server doesn't or can't verify the app's license. The second method will only allow the app to start if the server is available to verify the license.
Click to expand...
 
This is quite possibly the most pointless endeavor I've ever seen from Google.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
eThe second method will only allow the app to start if the server is available to verify the license.
Click to expand...
I'm so where with no data, now I have no apps?
 
Great! If the server is down I can't run the freaking app I paid for. Way to go Google! x(

Now all they have left to do is to tear down their mission statement banner and replace it with one that says that they are now evil.

I'm gonna go get a goddam iPhone. At least I know where I stand with Apple.
 
Namakan said:
I'm so where with no data, now I have no apps?
Click to expand...

wra18th said:
Great! If the server is down I can't run the freaking app I paid for. Way to go Google! x(

Now all they have left to do is to tear down their mission statement banner and replace it with one that says that they are now evil.

I'm gonna go get a goddam iPhone. At least I know where I stand with Apple.
Click to expand...

yup, good old DRM tieing you to a server. no internet or server is down, and you lose your stuff that you paid for.
 
So let me get this straight, if I buy an app and use it on my tablet or something that doesn't have internet access at the time I will be unable to use it!? I think I will be waiting for meego, hell I might as well buy an apple product...

Also, just to note most apps are crap anyways, but if someone is only using pirated apps then they probably broke the drm on said app anyways, no need to have restrictive drm like this.

I really hope there is a big backlash from this, I do not want to feel restricted like I do with modern game purchases.
 
Namakan said:
I'm so where with no data, now I have no apps?
Click to expand...

Yep, no data = apps with this DRM won't launch. Annoying enough on the desktop, but on a phone? Oh man that could potentially be REALLY annoying if you're anywhere the signal has a tendency to go in and out like a city.

Not to mention if their server goes down, remember how often Ubisoft's server for AC2 was down? Constantly. (Granted they blamed hackers, but who cares WHY their server is down. All that matters is that it is down so often and that it's preventing you from using something you paid good money for.)
 
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2010/07/30/google_adds_phone_home_drm_to_android_market

More information. They offer a method to cache a server response:

Both will stop an app from running if the server doesn't verify the app's licens, but one will use a cached response from the last time the app was run if no connection to the Market is available. The other will only allow the app to start if the server is available to verify the license.
Click to expand...

They're not retarded. They're Google. I mean, we can not like DRM, fine, sure, but they're blathering morons sucking on a teet or something.
 
You guys are missing the entire point, and bashing on google needlessly.

These are new DRM OPTIONS for the application developers. They are NOT required. Yes, Android is STILL more open than any other phone platform.

So a developer could make their app use the second preconfigured option, and require server access before working. And for something like a premium Pandora app or something, it would even make sense. If you have no data access, the app is useless anyways.
But the application developers will not be required to use that option. Maybe they'll use the first option - the app works unless the server says "No" - meaning that if the server can't be contacted, the app works.
Or maybe the developer will come up with their own implementation, as it mentions as a possibility. Or maybe use no DRM.

You guys over-react to everything, for no reason.

If an app uses the form of DRM you don't like, DON'T BUY IT.
 
"If an app uses the form of DRM you don't like, DON'T BUY IT."

Good advice, I won't be buying *it*, or anything else with this type of annoying DRM. I've learned my lesson long ago from buying a couple of PC games with this type of DRM and and now flat out refuse to purchase anything else with draconian DRM. "Screw 'em" is my motto.
 
I hope this will be optional as a developer. I would rather release stuff without DRM than something like this. Mind you, I don't know what it's like real-world.
 
1. Should have an offline mode where it still runs the application if the server is not available.
2. If I recall correctly the DRM is implemented by the programmer and will not be used with all applications, just the applications that the programmer chooses.
3. As long as the end user never notices in normal use, I am all for DRM, but if it prevents the end user from using the purchased product for more than 1 second, then it should not be used.

"If an app uses the form of DRM you don't like, DON'T BUY IT."
Click to expand...

^^^
So very true...
 
Althornin said:
You guys are missing the entire point, and bashing on google needlessly.

These are new DRM OPTIONS for the application developers. They are NOT required. Yes, Android is STILL more open than any other phone platform.

So a developer could make their app use the second preconfigured option, and require server access before working. And for something like a premium Pandora app or something, it would even make sense. If you have no data access, the app is useless anyways.
But the application developers will not be required to use that option. Maybe they'll use the first option - the app works unless the server says "No" - meaning that if the server can't be contacted, the app works.
Or maybe the developer will come up with their own implementation, as it mentions as a possibility. Or maybe use no DRM.

You guys over-react to everything, for no reason.

If an app uses the form of DRM you don't like, DON'T BUY IT.
Click to expand...

This. As an Android developer myself, it will be an easy thing to use the first method for apps not needing data, and make it harder for people to do the buy, copy, return piracy trick. The second route makes sense for some app types but not most. Google is forcing nothing. This has zip to do with openness.
 
android cannot be considered to be a legitimate development platform until it has at least some safeguards to protect programs.
 
From the point of view of a developer, I would jump on this right away. Have you seen all the ads for those $10/mo download-all-the-pirated-apps-you-want sites? The ++++s who subscribe to these sites make me mad as heck. SERIOUSLY? You can't pony up for a $2 app!?!

The people in my office email APK's left and right. I wish the company would make an example of these paid app sharing pricks. If they were using any of the apps for productive means I'd BSA them right away. The arrogance of these ++++++++s is astonishing. Our company made software for Symbian / PalmOS / Windows Mobile / BlackBerry and its piracy rate was astonishing. We stopped making the Symbian / PalmOS / Windows Mobile app entirely because our engineers couldn't figure out copy protection. Now we've gone back to only selling our software running on our hardware, with the exception of BlackBerry. On BB, the apps data is hosting on BlackBerry servers, where the tighter controls eliminate piracy.
 
IRSmurf said:
From the point of view of a developer, I would jump on this right away. Have you seen all the ads for those $10/mo download-all-the-pirated-apps-you-want sites? The ++++s who subscribe to these sites make me mad as heck. SERIOUSLY? You can't pony up for a $2 app!?!

The people in my office email APK's left and right. I wish the company would make an example of these paid app sharing pricks. If they were using any of the apps for productive means I'd BSA them right away. The arrogance of these ++++++++s is astonishing. Our company made software for Symbian / PalmOS / Windows Mobile / BlackBerry and its piracy rate was astonishing. We stopped making the Symbian / PalmOS / Windows Mobile app entirely because our engineers couldn't figure out copy protection. Now we've gone back to only selling our software running on our hardware, with the exception of BlackBerry. On BB, the apps data is hosting on BlackBerry servers, where the tighter controls eliminate piracy.
Click to expand...

Thats twice the cost of a song and people won't pay for them.
 
The real joke is that even free apps will probably have this shit enabled, just because "it can".

Althornin said:
You guys are missing the entire point, and bashing on google needlessly.

These are new DRM OPTIONS for the application developers. They are NOT required. Yes, Android is STILL more open than any other phone platform.

So a developer could make their app use the second preconfigured option, and require server access before working. And for something like a premium Pandora app or something, it would even make sense. If you have no data access, the app is useless anyways.
But the application developers will not be required to use that option. Maybe they'll use the first option - the app works unless the server says "No" - meaning that if the server can't be contacted, the app works.
Or maybe the developer will come up with their own implementation, as it mentions as a possibility. Or maybe use no DRM.

You guys over-react to everything, for no reason.

If an app uses the form of DRM you don't like, DON'T BUY IT.
Click to expand...
 
Althornin said:
If an app uses the form of DRM you don't like, DON'T BUY IT.
Click to expand...

Capitalism 101.

Capitalism 102:
How to use media (professional and unprofessional) to discourage a company from making certain undesired decisions while influencing market norms.

Yeah, that's right. Facebook is slightly little better now because people opened their mouth.
 
Jesus, this thread need a large tube of KY for all the knee-jerking going on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top