Hey,
A lot of purchased apps, that have license checks, fail to start properly on my GT-P7510. Perhaps 1 out of 100 license checks works properly. (Literally. This includes restarting the same apps.) The apps which I'm struggling with most are Generation of Chaos, Spectral Souls and FPSe.
Does anyone know what the heck is causing this? I've seen this question a lot across the web, but no one seems to be able to answer it. For the record, my GT-i9000 handles the apps just fine. (Last I checked.)
Thanks~
Edit: I think I found the solution. I changed the DNS servers on my Tab to Google's public DNS servers and the license checks actually seem to pull through now.
Related
Hey guys, lately i've been developing an Android online game that i pretend to sell on Google Play for about 1€, and as i am about to launch it to the market within a week or two, the question i have is: what should i do to make it as hard as possible to crack and be distributed for free? I am not rich and i need the money i hope to get from the downloads to pay for the server... so i wouldn't like to have loads of people loading my server and not paying
Any ideas? I thought about making regular updates to the app and making the server to only accept the latest app version and denying access to old app versions, but i'm unsure about how efficient that is.
If the app requires additional data, you could have it verified online each time a user attempts to connect.
http://android-developers.blogspot.pt/2010/09/securing-android-lvl-applications.html
found this, the last solution "You can offload license validation to a trusted server." is exactly what i'm looking for, having the server checking license and only accepting sockets from legit clients, not really sure how to do it yet, but i'll try to implement that.
I installed the black market alpha .apk on my phone and it works perfectly. tonight i downloaded Easy Voice Recorder Pro on my phone from BMA which is supposed to be 3.99 from the play store and on BMA it had the price crossed out through the number with a line and i downloaded it without a problem. the app opens and works fine. Here's The Conundrum. when i try to make a recording it stops itself after one second and says could not find market license!! so what i don't understand is, what is the point of black market alpha even though it does work and gets the app if the app still knows you don't have the license and doesn't give you permission?
i should also add the fact that i noticed the free version, easy voice recorder(without the pro) works by having advertisements and if you are rooted and use ad away you can just have no ads anyway. although there also seems to be some other limitations such as recording time length etc
but really my question stands, what is the point of BMA if the app can still not find license permission? perhaps easy voice recorder pro is atypical of most things and most other pay apps don't have this issue off of BMA but i was rather shocked. the bottom line is this app in particular still wont function even if obtained off of BMA
This is against the rules. Xda doesn't allow threads that deal with, or distribute warez ( paid stuff for free ). Please make an effort to read the xda rules
Reported
i should also add that other PAY apps i've obtained off of BMA haven't had this issue and this is the first i've run into. but it gave me serious pause for concern. should i expect more apps to follow suit in the future? if an app developer is aware of this and can simply make the app need the market license so it wont work if obtained from BMA so you have to pay for it from the play store anyway then i would expect at some point the BMA would just become completely useless and redundant
my apologies. i was under the impression that using BMA was in the same vein as rooting and apps that use SU perms. i'm quite sure that ad away which uses root SU perms would be just as frowned upon since it blocks ads from apps
No its not the same. Pirating payed for apps is not the same as blocking ads that no one clicks on anyway. You will find not help here on this. Thread closed.
Sent from the Bat Cave
Was just wondering what peoples thoughts were on using the Android Licensing copy protection in their apps? Do you use it and do you spend a lot of time on it or have any creative ways to help enforce it?
As we all know any kind of drm will always be cracked but I just wanted to know if people found it worthwhile to have..
I'm using In-app-billing, because I found that even licensed apps can be copied.
And yes, all apps can be cracked eventually, but most of the publishers of cracked apps remove them if you ask to. So that's what I'm gonna do!
Sent from my Nexus 4 running Android 4.2 JB
I don't like license checks that force you to be online, but I do like to have 'something' in place...
Recently I started working with some OEMs in India who wanted to pre-load my apps on their devices. Very exciting obviously, but I didn't know if I could trust them as I'd never heard of them.
So what I did was get the app to load a web page on one of my servers off the screen (9000%x...) so that it couldn't be seen. The page it linked to was empty, but if I wanted to I could modify the code to include a redirect that would send it to another page. Then in my 'onPageOverride' event I just said if URL = 'stopapp.htm' then do whatever it was I wanted to do.
What I actually have it do in that event is to fill the entire screen with that web page. The user then can't interact with the app underneath, but they get a message that I can create at the time saying 'This app has been illegally distributed' or whatever else I want to say. I can even forward them on to the download page if I want this way.
This works well too because if the user isn't online, the page just doesn't load and nothing happens. But if I want to stop offline use as well I can save a file in File.DirInternal and have the app check for that. 'SwitchOff.txt'. They get caught once, then they can't use the app.
Obviously this doesn't work quite like a license check, but what you *could* do with it is to have the app pop up with a message to people using an old version that's not updated. That's probably downloaded off of some file sharing site, so you could then just keep pestering them to 'update' and send them to the Play Store to do so. You can also check how many of the users on that version of your app are legitimate by looking at your Play Developer Console.
One thing to note is that the redirect URLs you use will need to be different in every version of your app that you release.
Hope this helps someone! I wish I'd done it sooner, one of my apps is all over the web grrrr...
pretty much the same as what I'm doing atm except I just ping a server in the background and display a popup if the result meets certain conditions.. I don't disable the app either as I can't be 100% certain it's pirated, instead I display a "scary" popup saying if they're using a pirated copy this is illegal etc.. your average user won't know how the popup was generated so it should be enough to make them think "someone" is onto them and go the proper route.. With the added bonus a genuine user can just press ok and carry on using the app
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4
Currently, none of my apps use licensing.
For one of my paid apps, about 5% of the downloads are from non-Google Play sources, meaning, I'm not seeing any revenue from those 5%.
There is an Android API, that allows developers to see which platform their app was downloaded from. So, I've been thinking about adding that hidden feature to my apps and maybe do something fun with it. But, haven't got around to it yet. My thinking has been that if somebody downloaded a pirated copy of my app, then they probably weren't going to pay for it in the first place. And, hopefully, they will tell their friends about it and maybe one of them will actually purchase it through Google Play.
I already have all my licensing code in place and commented out. Since my app is pretty new I want to see how it does before adding licensing. Since the app is free and income is from IAP its not too bad. I'd only turn on licensing in the next release if I see a pressing need for it.
Currently, none of my apps use licensing.
Hi All,
I'm looking at getting more into android development and have a question.
If I develop an app for a client and wish to use a subscription (monthly / yearly) and would like to be able to use the convenience of the Play Store to do so, is there a way to restrict or distribute an application to one client, without the general public seeing it?
Would it be better to have some kind of built in in-app license system to deal with this kind of thing? (obviously there are many things involved in this type of system to avoid problems with the end user).
I have heard you can do private Beta's, but I have no idea if this can be paid and go on indefinitely...?
I have never released an app on on the play store and don't even have an account yet, but wanted to try and understand how best to go about this kind of thing.
Many thanks in advance
Logicalstep
Hello,
My question is about policies app publisihing/developing companies
seem to have. It's not technical question but hopefully not totally
off topic. First I think I need to give some background, however.
I run AOPS based phone and F-droid is my only app store. I also like
Signal and Spotify and luckily signal.org publishes Signal apk on
their website and more importantly - their release certificate and its
identification fingerprint. I find that very convenient and even
secure (with jarsigner and keytool). Spotify doesn't appear to do
so. Actually, nobody else seems to do that
I know that I can get apks from e.g. apkpure.com. I know the good
people behind Apkpure say that they don't mess with the apks. And I
have tested their Signal apk with the signal.org release certificate
and I can say that it verifies ok. I'd like to trust them but I like
to *verify* more.
I understand that releasing actual apks can be a burden for a bank or
charging network. Google does it very well for them. But certificates'
lifetimes are usually many years so publishing them and their
fingerprints should be "nearly free".
So what is the thing with withholding release certificates and/or
their fingerprints? They just didn't come to think of it?
Thanks in advance,
Sauro