[bobauckland]

+1000

BINGO. You've nailed it. With 10.2.1.1055, APKs install without dodgy hacks. They just install and run. Note that part of this process involves acknowledging a lengthy disclaimer; this isn't some hole that BlackBerry accidentally left open, it's a new capability they deliberately implemented.

I don't get why some are having such a hard time grasping this; it's an OPEN SOURCE OS. Any device is "allowed" to run it in the form that it is in BB10, because BlackBerry isn't trying to certify it for Google Services.



Posted from CB10 running on my awesome Z30

Oh man, you really just don't get it.
You're selecting the posts you respond to, and even then, just getting so much mixed up its scary.
You've done some serious damage to your forum tech rep in this thread.

Posted via CB10

[MarsupilamiX]

+1000

BINGO. You've nailed it. With 10.2.1.1055, APKs install without dodgy hacks. They just install and run. Note that part of this process involves acknowledging a lengthy disclaimer; this isn't some hole that BlackBerry accidentally left open, it's a new capability they deliberately implemented.

I don't get why some are having such a hard time grasping this; it's an OPEN SOURCE OS. Any device is "allowed" to run it in the form that it is in BB10, because BlackBerry isn't trying to certify it for Google Services.

Posted from CB10 running on my awesome Z30

I'll just quote myself again...

It's a semantic debate...
That you'll probably lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideloading
"When referring to Android apps, "sideloading" typically means installing an application package in APK format onto an Android device. Such packages are usually downloaded from websites other than Google Play. Sideloading of apps is only possible if the user allowed "Unknown Sources" in their Security Settings.[1]"

http://phandroid.com/2013/07/20/andr...eloading-apps/
"What is sideloading?

?Sideloading? is just another word for installing an Android application onto your phone, from somewhere other than the Google Play Store. While this is generally a bad idea for beginners (you never know what kind of viruses you can catch on the internet), there are times when you need to test an app from a trusted developer, or even install a leaked version of something official (like a new Google Play Store, Google Maps, etc.).

Take heed. This should never be used as a way to circumvent paying for games or applications on Google Play. With Android being the most targeted mobile OS in regard to viruses and malware, stick to the Play Store if possible. This is actually one of the main reasons why Android doesn?t allow sideloading by default (but this can be turned off)."

Posted via CB10

Apart from that, BB10 doesn't run the whole Android OS and only because an APK can run on a BB10 device doesn't make it an Android device.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that as long as this isn't officially supported, with official support channels and an officially supported app store for Android apps on BB10, this isn't any legitimate solution of getting apps?

It's just sideloading 2.0 without as much tinkering, but IT'S NOTHING OFFICIAL.

Posted via CB10

[Tehedra]

I would like to say, this is an interesting point. Though you bring this up as though it commonly happens on BlackBerry's and it just isn't true. Sure maybe you are an Android and iPhone now, if you are you can stop being negative in this forum and move on. Negativity is okay a little, yes the App Gap is an issue, is it as big as an issue now? No.

You bring up small bugs that have happened, but probably ignore the bugs you've hit on the Android or the iPhone. My girlfriends iPhone randomly wiped her entire phone, just randomly restarted and needed to be re-activated. This of course was while we were on the road and an iPhone requires a computer to be activated. At least for some reason this time it did, so her phone was useless until we got back to "HER" laptop to activate. Even than we couldn't activate, it required that we re-installed the OS which wiped her data.

My old Samsung Galaxy S, yes it is an older phone but hell most users who complain about BlackBerry's usually are comparing to a older phone like a 9800 or older. Which means they are about the same age. Unfortunately as Android released updated operating systems, they prevented Google Play from working on the old operating systems. This forced me to upgrade my Android to the latest Android operating system, but my phone was too old to be able to handle this operating system. So it constantly crashed, even when making a phone call the phone call application itself would crash out before I was able to dial a number. It made my phone useless, yes I was able to go back to an older Operating System but than no access to the Google Play market place. I guess that would indicate an App Gap there? At least at the time my work BB torch even though there was newer operating systems out, it still had access to BlackBerry world so I could still download some apps, even though there weren't many.

I guess my point here is, all phones have bugs sometimes. iPhones, Androids, BlackBerry's, Windows Phone, and even my Z30 on BB10. I guess the whole point of this article is, whats next to complain. The point has been proven, even if you can install Android apps without side loading. There are going to be other complaints, but no one remembers the positives. On 9 11 when SMS went down after the twin towers were hit, BBM kept working. It kept people moving. When apple was hit with the virus that affected Adobe because they don't do updates when adobe does they implement them themselves. Android and both Apple was hit by this virus and it infected hundreds of thousands of phones with most owners not knowing. BB did not get touched. When reception for work phones out in the middle of the boonies is poor, BlackBerry's typically use to find better that they had better reception (though that may have changed now)

What I'm trying to say is yes there are issues, but everything has issues and there will always be apps on one phone that aren't on another. There will always be phones that crash for some reason, that stop working, that erase contacts or lose service. This isn't limited to any one phone, and if you were lucky enough that it only happened to one great! But don't assume that was the only reason why.

Cheers,
Tehedra

[stackberry369]

I'll just quote myself again...



Apart from that, BB10 doesn't run the whole Android OS and only because an APK can run on a BB10 device doesn't make it an Android device.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that as long as this isn't officially supported, with official support channels and an officially supported app store for Android apps on BB10, this isn't any legitimate solution of getting apps?

It's just sideloading 2.0 without as much tinkering, but IT'S NOTHING OFFICIAL.

Posted via CB10

Technically speaking,can't side loading be considered rooting?

Sent from my SM-N900P using CB Forums mobile app

[bobauckland]

I would like to say, this is an interesting point. Though you bring this up as though it commonly happens on BlackBerry's and it just isn't true. Sure maybe you are an Android and iPhone now, if you are you can stop being negative in this forum and move on. Negativity is okay a little, yes the App Gap is an issue, is it as big as an issue now? No.

You bring up small bugs that have happened, but probably ignore the bugs you've hit on the Android or the iPhone. My girlfriends iPhone randomly wiped her entire phone, just randomly restarted and needed to be re-activated. This of course was while we were on the road and an iPhone requires a computer to be activated. At least for some reason this time it did, so her phone was useless until we got back to "HER" laptop to activate. Even than we couldn't activate, it required that we re-installed the OS which wiped her data.

My old Samsung Galaxy S, yes it is an older phone but hell most users who complain about BlackBerry's usually are comparing to a older phone like a 9800 or older. Which means they are about the same age. Unfortunately as Android released updated operating systems, they prevented Google Play from working on the old operating systems. This forced me to upgrade my Android to the latest Android operating system, but my phone was too old to be able to handle this operating system. So it constantly crashed, even when making a phone call the phone call application itself would crash out before I was able to dial a number. It made my phone useless, yes I was able to go back to an older Operating System but than no access to the Google Play market place. I guess that would indicate an App Gap there? At least at the time my work BB torch even though there was newer operating systems out, it still had access to BlackBerry world so I could still download some apps, even though there weren't many.

I guess my point here is, all phones have bugs sometimes. iPhones, Androids, BlackBerry's, Windows Phone, and even my Z30 on BB10. I guess the whole point of this article is, whats next to complain. The point has been proven, even if you can install Android apps without side loading. There are going to be other complaints, but no one remembers the positives. On 9 11 when SMS went down after the twin towers were hit, BBM kept working. It kept people moving. When apple was hit with the virus that affected Adobe because they don't do updates when adobe does they implement them themselves. Android and both Apple was hit by this virus and it infected hundreds of thousands of phones with most owners not knowing. BB did not get touched. When reception for work phones out in the middle of the boonies is poor, BlackBerry's typically use to find better that they had better reception (though that may have changed now)

What I'm trying to say is yes there are issues, but everything has issues and there will always be apps on one phone that aren't on another. There will always be phones that crash for some reason, that stop working, that erase contacts or lose service. This isn't limited to any one phone, and if you were lucky enough that it only happened to one great! But don't assume that was the only reason why.

Cheers,
Tehedra

Every phone has issues.
Your insinuation that people are thinking of decade old BlackBerry devices is silly.
There are at least 3 years of android devices that can access Google play.

Your post just makes no sense. Do you know when 9/11 was? Do you know what year BBM was released in?

Posted via CB10

[bp3dots]

Just trying to read all the posts here and really feel the need to respond to people who think negatively of the advantages with direct loading of Android apps from various sources.

From an average end-user perspective, I really don't think they'll care how they get their apps as long as they can get them. Don't you think Amazon will see the advantage and make an app that connects directly to their site for easy access to apps. Heck BB if they're smart should include some of these market apps in an OS update so they get installed right to your homescreen like BBW. More sources the better. This should be a huge advantage over WP where developers have to make specific WP apps.

BB has always had Android access in mind to address putting apps on their devices.. this latest OS will well..just makes it dead nuts easy. What's wrong with that? BB is fighting for their life right now and the biggest complaint I've been hearing for a while is no apps. Now they have it and people are still complaining - but now the complaint is how the apps got there? Sheesh...

I don't think anyone has said that it's not an advantage to be able to install this way. I think it has been pointed out that it creates a very gray area ethically, as it gives easy access to pirated apps, which BB didn't have to allow. (Not saying other platforms don't have this as well, just that BB could have prevented it)

Average end users want things to be simple, and to be able to get help with them when they break. So far (well once this release is out officially on devices) they will still have to find an alternate app store. Who is to say these stores are providing the type of screening the official ones do? Is there a higher chance of malware? Will they support me if I purchase from them and want a refund or need help? All of those are unknowns. Also, as soon as you install that software from unsupported sources, you toss your warranty out the window. If they have problems with that software, or even hardware problems with the device, they won't be able to get help from carrier stores or the manufacturer. All of that is bad for the average end user.

Not to mention, the sheer number of apps the Q series won't work with. It's going to be hard to make this official when BB won't be able to guarantee support for 100% of their devices.

Windows phone, which faces similar app gap problems, has addressed the issue by getting native apps, which have none of those problems. THAT is more friendly to the end user.

This may be easy, but IMO its the wrong way to do things. It won't appeal to regular folks and it could alienate devs even more than they are.

[bobauckland]

I don't think anyone has said that it's not an advantage to be able to install this way. I think it has been pointed out that it creates a very gray area ethically, as it gives easy access to pirated apps, which BB didn't have to allow. (Not saying other platforms don't have this as well, just that BB could have prevented it)

Average end users want things to be simple, and to be able to get help with them when they break. So far (well once this release is out officially on devices) they will still have to find an alternate app store. Who is to say these stores are providing the type of screening the official ones do? Is there a higher chance of malware? Will they support me if I purchase from them and want a refund or need help? All of those are unknowns. Also, as soon as you install that software from unsupported sources, you toss your warranty out the window. If they have problems with that software, or even hardware problems with the device, they won't be able to get help from carrier stores or the manufacturer. All of that is bad for the average end user.

Not to mention, the sheer number of apps the Q series won't work with. It's going to be hard to make this official when BB won't be able to guarantee support for 100% of their devices.

Windows phone, which faces similar app gap problems, has addressed the issue by getting native apps, which have none of those problems. THAT is more friendly to the end user.

This may be easy, but IMO its the wrong way to do things. It won't appeal to regular folks and it could alienate devs even more than they are.

The other stunning part is, despite trying to combat the horrible fragmentation on android, which is more mythical than true, BlackBerry has 4 bb10 devices out at the moment, and there's different apps compatible for all 4!
How insane is it that apps compatible with z10 won't necessarily be available on the z30?

Sideloading apps from android ironically is less fragmented even on bb10 than actual bb10 apps! You couldn't make it up.

But yes, as you say, the refund, support and official question has been put out multiple times over the last few pages, and for some reason people are just ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist.
Only on bb10 will people pay for pirated apps, that's not what any consumer wants.

Posted via CB10

[Tre Lawrence]

Technically speaking,can't side loading be considered rooting?

Sent from my SM-N900P using CB Forums mobile app

Not at all, IMHO. Completely different.

[MarsupilamiX]

The other stunning part is, despite trying to combat the horrible fragmentation on android, which is more mythical than true, BlackBerry has 4 bb10 devices out at the moment, and there's different apps compatible for all 4!
How insane is it that apps compatible with z10 won't necessarily be available on the z30?

Sideloading apps from android ironically is less fragmented even on bb10 than actual bb10 apps! You couldn't make it up.

But yes, as you say, the refund, support and official question has been put out multiple times over the last few pages, and for some reason people are just ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist.
Only on bb10 will people pay for pirated apps, that's not what any consumer wants.

Posted via CB10

The support question is being ignored, because it can't be answered by the users propagating this new sideloading method as the ultimate answer to every problem BlackBerry currently has.

Posted via CB10

[Byronjx]

The app gap isn't gone until everyone has 10.2.1... then we will have to continue to complain about the staggered OS rollouts. Of course, everyone may stop complaining because if the new CEO doesn't pull a hell of a magic trick, BlackBerry will be sold for parts.

Posted via CB10

[tickerguy]

LOL.

Sideloading, in and of itself is not piracy. Taking intellectual property without permission is.

If I sideload Whatsapp from their website, I've made use of an app as designed by the developer. If I sideload from a site that hosted the apk without permission of the developer, I feel, in essence, that this is piracy.

As it stands, some developers have no say in what platform their apps are distributors on. That's an ethical issue BBRY has surreptitiously created. But hey, it's only for developers, right?

BBRY's stance on privacy mirrors what I've said, BTW. Maybe you should be upset with BBRY?

Sorry, wrong.

Any developer who cares if people use their application or not (and on what) can enforce that requirement themselves.

There are two simple and easily-available means to do so -- personally through their own infrastructure (e.g. by requiring registration before the app works, etc) and through the various app store payment and registration systems.

The thing is that most app developers want the maximum number of people to use their application, and therefore they not only don't care if you load it somewhere else they want you to load it somewhere else.

The tools have always existed for those app developers and applications that have a different point of view, for example, those who want to charge you for the app itself or limit the device(s) it runs on for some reason. I agree that circumventing those restrictions (e.g. by de-compiling an APK into .smali code and removing the check, then re-compiling and re-signing it) is piracy because you are circumventing an access device that the developer built into the application. That not only is piracy on an ethical level it is illegal under the DMCA and a handful of other statutes, at least in the US.

But that's not at-issue here. What's at issue here is people doing what the app developer intends and wants, which is to use their application as often and as widely as possible.

BTW I'm a software developer and network guy by trade, have built a national IP backbone, run a large regional Internet company and written software for corporations, government entities and myself for some 30 years. This ain't my first rodeo.

[bobauckland]

Sorry, wrong.

Any developer who cares if people use their application or not (and on what) can enforce that requirement themselves.

There are two simple and easily-available means to do so -- personally through their own infrastructure (e.g. by requiring registration before the app works, etc) and through the various app store payment and registration systems.

The thing is that most app developers want the maximum number of people to use their application, and therefore they not only don't care if you load it somewhere else they want you to load it somewhere else.

The tools have always existed for those app developers and applications that have a different point of view, for example, those who want to charge you for the app itself or limit the device(s) it runs on for some reason. I agree that circumventing those restrictions (e.g. by de-compiling an APK into .smali code and removing the check, then re-compiling and re-signing it) is piracy because you are circumventing an access device that the developer built into the application. That not only is piracy on an ethical level it is illegal under the DMCA and a handful of other statutes, at least in the US.

But that's not at-issue here. What's at issue here is people doing what the app developer intends and wants, which is to use their application as often and as widely as possible.

Absolutely 100% wrong, and I think you know it.
You have no right to guess what devs want to do with their apps, and then use their ip in a way they didn't intend it to be used.
There is a reason, for the thousandth time, why BlackBerry and their reps will no specifically recommend sideloading or endorse the sideloading of these other app stores.

Posted via CB10

[tickerguy]

Absolutely 100% wrong, and I think you know it.
You have no right to guess what devs want to do with their apps, and then use their ip in a way they didn't intend it to be used.
There is a reason, for the thousandth time, why BlackBerry and their reps will no specifically recommend sideloading or endorse the sideloading of these other app stores.

Posted via CB10

There is no guessing involved.

The developer who wants to limit the use of his or her application to a specific group of devices or via a specific route need only check for validation of the user's account via that access method. This may or may not, at the developer's option, include whether or not the user has paid a fee. This is a standard part of the development environment both on Android and in the BlackBerry 10 store environments.

Stripping such checks is both unethical and unlawful. The developer is free to include or omit them and it is their intentional act that either includes or omits said checks. I have APKs that while they will load on 10.2.1 will not run as they cannot verify that I am an authorized user, despite the fact that I did not have to pay money to acquire said APKs -- I acquired them in exchange for a service provided to the authors. I am a rightful user of said APKs due to the licensing terms given to me but due to the fact that the software cannot verify my right-to-use it errors out. The developer has no desire to fix this (I've asked) as they think there is an insufficient market in BB10 devices to be worth their time but should BlackBerry indirectly fix it via integration of the Play Store I would then be able to use said APK.

That change would not violate anyone's IP as the check would be performed and I would, as a rightful user, be allowed to run that particular piece of code.

You'll notice that many apps want access to your device ID. That access can be used to enforce single-device access for a given application, to limit access to "N" devices (where "N" is up to the developer) and can also be used to detect and block pirated copies. Coupled with a sign-in to either the developer's infrastructure (e.g. for a messaging app, game that has online content supplied or similar) or a given app store's login environment this is both effective and easy. The expression of either the presence of absence of such a desire comes through what it is or is not in the code itself.

In short there is no guessing involved.

Despite the fact that legally I am entitled to run said APK, and further despite the fact that I am technically capable of stripping said check from the APK, I have not nor will I do so, as there is both an ethical problem with that and potentially a legal one as well, since circumvention of an access device, even if said device is wrongfully denying me access, is claimed to be unlawful under the DMCA. While I doubt such a provision is enforceable in this particular instance it certainly is in the general case and there's no real motivation for me to play "test case."

What this has done, however, is terminate my willingness to make improvements to the interface that I wrote and made available for that particular APK. The reason for this is simple -- I prefer BB10 devices and since I no longer use an Android smartphone until and unless that developer makes it possible for me to use that APK I cannot verify that any changes I make to my code will interoperate properly. As such he has lost some number of customers who might have otherwise bought his product.

Such is how the market works when it is left alone.

[bp3dots]

There is no guessing involved.

The developer who wants to limit the use of his or her application to a specific group of devices or via a specific route need only check for validation of the user's account via that access method. This may or may not, at the developer's option, include whether or not the user has paid a fee. This is a standard part of the development environment both on Android and in the BlackBerry 10 store environments.

Stripping such checks is both unethical and unlawful. The developer is free to include or omit them and it is their intentional act that either includes or omits said checks. I have APKs that while they will load on 10.2.1 will not run as they cannot verify that I am an authorized user, despite the fact that I did not have to pay money to acquire said APKs -- I acquired them in exchange for a service provided to the authors. I am a rightful user of said APKs due to the licensing terms given to me but due to the fact that the software cannot verify my right-to-use it errors out. The developer has no desire to fix this (I've asked) as they think there is an insufficient market in BB10 devices to be worth their time but should BlackBerry indirectly fix it via integration of the Play Store I would then be able to use said APK.

That change would not violate anyone's IP as the check would be performed and I would, as a rightful user, be allowed to run that particular piece of code.

Despite the fact that legally I am entitled to run said APK, and further despite the fact that I am technically capable of stripping said check from the APK, I have not nor will I do so, as there is both an ethical problem with that and potentially a legal one as well, since circumvention of an access device, even if said device is wrongfully denying me access, is claimed to be unlawful under the DMCA. While I doubt such a provision is enforceable in this particular instance it certainly is in the general case and there's no real motivation for me to play "test case."

What this has done, however, is terminate my willingness to make improvements to the interface that I wrote and made available for that particular APK. The reason for this is simple -- I prefer BB10 devices and since I no longer use an Android smartphone until and unless that developer makes it possible for me to use that APK I cannot verify that any changes I make to my code will interoperate properly. As such he has lost some number of customers who might have otherwise bought his product.

Such is how the market works when it is left alone.

If I write an app for Android, and publish it in the Play store, I intended it to be run by users of Android devices. The fact that I did not include a specific check to exclude BB10 devices that are also able to run Andrioid apps is irrelevant, and in no way implies that I give permission for those users to use my app.

I don't lock my car when it's in my garage, but that doesn't mean I'm allowing anyone who figures out how to get into my garage and knows how to drive to use my car as they see fit.

[bekkay]

Installed Instagram, Netflix, Google Earth, Youtube, and every other worthwhile Android app that was missing. So whats the big complaint now? 10.2.1 seems to have fixed what people didnt like about BB10... Great os but no apps. Now its a great os with every app.

It's absolutely ridiculous to even think that the improved "sideloading" addresses the app gap issue in any meaningful way. It may make the "sideloading" experience better for folks like Crackberrians, but for the majority, it's moot.

1. There is no native support for Google Play or any other major Android store. You'll need to search for APKs.
2. There will be potentially limited functionality and UIX inconsistencies of "sideloaded"/unofficial apps.
3. There will be no direct updates (vulnerability patches, enhancements, new features, etc.). You will always have to look for updated versions of the APK.
4. There will be no official support from the developer.
5. It is still illegal to "sideload" without the developer's permission. So, you still have the problem of potential copyright infringement and source app store policy violation.

[tickerguy]

If I write an app for Android, and publish it in the Play store, I intended it to be run by users of Android devices. The fact that I did not include a specific check to exclude BB10 devices that are also able to run Andrioid apps is irrelevant, and in no way implies that I give permission for those users to use my app.

A BB10 phone with a Dalvik interpreter on it is an "Android device" as it is a device capable of running Android applications. Since Android is open source by definition any device that can run Android code is an Android device.

If you intend to prevent use by other than a specific subset of Android devices, that is, you wish to exclude some subset of open source users, then you implement some sort of check to do so.

In fact many apps do exactly that for various reasons. It is trivial for an app developer who wishes to implement such a restriction to do so; he can simply check the runtime to see if the user has authenticated against a Google account, for example.

It takes a couple of lines to do that, by the way, should you so choose. Of course if you do that you're then excluding those users who do not wish to sign into Google or who are using some subset of open source Android devices. That's a choice the app developer makes and he expresses that preference by whether he includes such a check or not.

Many times the reason for such checks is compatibility but it can also be simply that you choose to limit where the app is used in some form or fashion, sometimes in exchange for some sort of consideration but sometimes not.

You are confusing the situation here with a closed-source OS where you need a license to use said operating system. Android is an open-source OS with published source code and APIs that are free to use by anyone who wishes to do so on any particular hardware at their option. Those who develop for it but wish to limit where their code can run are free to do so and there are many options available to do so -- at the developer's option.

[bobauckland]

If I write an app for Android, and publish it in the Play store, I intended it to be run by users of Android devices. The fact that I did not include a specific check to exclude BB10 devices that are also able to run Andrioid apps is irrelevant, and in no way implies that I give permission for those users to use my app.

I don't lock my car when it's in my garage, but that doesn't mean I'm allowing anyone who figures out how to get into my garage and knows how to drive to use my car as they see fit.

Well said sir.
Some people don't understand that certain parts of android are open source, certain parts are not.
Hearing even a fraction is open source is seen as license to steal.

Walls of text don't change facts.

Posted via CB10

[bekkay]

A BB10 phone with a Dalvik interpreter on it is an "Android device" as it is a device capable of running Android applications. Since Android is open source by definition any device that can run Android code is an Android device.

Is this your interpretation? Because Dalvik is just a part of Android. Is it possible that the ability to run the Dalvik VM doesn't really make a device an Android device?

[bobauckland]

Is this your interpretation? Because Dalvik is just a part of Android. Is it possible that the ability to run the Dalvik VM doesn't really make a device an Android device?

By that definition the PlayBook is an android device. Somehow I don't feel optimistic about having any useful android apps easily loaded onto my PlayBook 'android device'.
Reality is a bummer.

Posted via CB10

[Terser Nori]

A little less lag would be great.

Posted via CB10

[tickerguy]

Is this your interpretation? Because Dalvik is just a part of Android. Is it possible that the ability to run the Dalvik VM doesn't really make a device an Android device?

Android is by definition open source.

This is how Amazon and others forked it; they had every right to do so for that very reason.

Never mind that it is generally unlawful to tie sales; go ask IBM about that. But in this case it's immaterial since the predicate (the operating system) is an open-source thing and thus there is no base limiting factor on what is an "Android device" other than someone's willingness (e.g. BlackBerry) to compile and include the open-source code on their hardware.

[Terser Nori]

A BB10 phone with a Dalvik interpreter on it is an "Android device" as it is a device capable of running Android applications. Since Android is open source by definition any device that can run Android code is an Android device.

If you intend to prevent use by other than a specific subset of Android devices, that is, you wish to exclude some subset of open source users, then you implement some sort of check to do so.

In fact many apps do exactly that for various reasons. It is trivial for an app developer who wishes to implement such a restriction to do so; he can simply check the runtime to see if the user has authenticated against a Google account, for example.

It takes a couple of lines to do that, by the way, should you so choose. Of course if you do that you're then excluding those users who do not wish to sign into Google or who are using some subset of open source Android devices. That's a choice the app developer makes and he expresses that preference by whether he includes such a check or not.

Many times the reason for such checks is compatibility but it can also be simply that you choose to limit where the app is used in some form or fashion, sometimes in exchange for some sort of consideration but sometimes not.

You are confusing the situation here with a closed-source OS where you need a license to use said operating system. Android is an open-source OS with published source code and APIs that are free to use by anyone who wishes to do so on any particular hardware at their option. Those who develop for it but wish to limit where their code can run are free to do so and there are many options available to do so -- at the developer's option.

Andriod is open source, Google play is not. There is a guy who has been stressing that fact all over crackberry for a while now, and he has been right.

Posted via CB10

[Terser Nori]

Andriod is open source, Google play is not. There is a guy who has been stressing that fact all over crackberry for a while now, and he has been right.


Android, and the dalvik runtime are both open sourced, but the apps might be licensed to be used on Google play.

Posted via CB10

Posted via CB10

[BBjer]

not interested in installing leaks .. so when can I download LINE from the blackberry app store?......

Probably a lot sooner than when that haircut comes back in style.

Posted from the Great White North via Z10

[tickerguy]

Andriod is open source, Google play is not. There is a guy who has been stressing that fact all over crackberry for a while now, and he has been right.

Posted via CB10

That's true.

Therefore anyone who wants to limit their apps to distribution by Google Play need only check to see if you're signed into Google Play and refuse to run if not. That is a legitimate use of DRM and app developers are fully within their rights to use it should they care to.

Since this check is a literal couple of lines of code there's no reason not to do it if you care. Of course should Google and BlackBerry come to an agreement on loading Google Play on BB10 devices (E.g. via a BlackBerry World download).....

Further, stripping such a check (while technically possible if you know what you're doing) is illegal. That, if you do so, is piracy.

The fact of the matter is that most app developers don't care if you run their code; indeed, they'd rather that the maximum number of people run their apps irrespective of how they obtained it or or on what device it is being used because they're getting paid by advertising revenue displayed in the application -- the more eyeballs the more revenue they receive.