Paid Android apps blocked on developer phones

A special unlocked version of the G1 phone available to developers is unable to run paid Android applications for fear of piracy.

(Credit: CNET)

Mobile developers who purchased an unlocked HTC G1 phone from Google discovered this week that they can't run paid applications from the Android Market.

Google is denying those developers access to copy-protected applications sold in the Android Market because developers have a higher level of access to the G1 phone than regular users, and could potentially break the copy protection on those applications, according to IDG News Service. "We aren't distributing copy-protected applications to these phones in order to minimize unauthorized copy of the applications," a Google representative said in a statement sent to CNET.

Developers willing to join the Android developer program for $25 can buy an unlocked G1 handset for $399. That version of the device also apparently allows them access to a special folder where paid applications are stored away from the prying eyes of regular customers who may be interested in breaking the copy protection on those applications.

For that reason, Google has simply blocked those using the unlocked G1 from downloading paid applications from the Android Market. That didn't sit well with some developers on a thread on Google's Android Forums, who felt Google was unfairly portraying them as pirates while also denying them the ability to download their own paid applications on the Android Market.

It doesn't appear that the ban on paid applications extends to those who have unlocked the retail version of the G1, at least not as of yet.

[timber2005]

I understand the point but it seems so wrong.
I was tempted to buy one of those too. Anyone know if the unlocked G1 DOES FOR SURE work with Sprint?

[CODKill]

I don't see how it could work for sprint considering that sprint is CDMA and the G1 works on GSM. Unless they made a new model for the CDMA network, I don't think that it'll work for you.

[sflocal]

But..but...but... Android was supposed the be the end-all-be-all of corporate dictatorship and show another (nameless) phone provider just how a truly "open" system would set the standard. Say it ain't so that Google is actually trying to control what one does with their phone?! Oh.. the tragedy!

Hmm.. those folks seem to be missing from this thread.... perhaps they are at the humble-pie restaurant down the road? :)

</sarcasm>

[Renegade Knight]

Interesting. And to think I had hopes for Android. How is it that Windows Mobile is now about the most open mobile OS?

[Rants&Raves]

Personally, I feel cheated. That means that I now need two phones to develop for Android; one to develop, one to test in an actual release environment, watch what my competitors are doing, and obtain the same experience as the average user out there. Given that I can also do all of that on a regular G1, I wonder what I got by shipping Google $400 of my own money. A crippled device that`s actually more expensive than an unlocked G1, that`s what. Boo.

The security of the system relies on its obscurity; instead of sprucing it up, they are limiting and punishing and eroding the goodwill of those most likely to make Android a success. How smart is that ?

Google: pls. reverse that stupid decision. It does absolutely nothing to stop anything from anyone with even a mild interest and a modicum of skill to hack the platform. All it does is annoy developers.

[forever4now]

I suspect this is a temporary measure, until they can devise a solution that will safely permit it (assuming that's possible).

Developers, although inconvenienced, should appreciate this measure, as Google appears to be trying to protect the revenue stream for the applications.

[chrispix99]

forever4now, as a developer, I have to say I agree with you. While somewhat a pain, they are only doing this so your APKs don't get released into the wild, emailed around and installed, thus loosing out on revenue.

I don't know what the fuss is from the developer community. I guess mainly developers who have not released yet?

[The User]

But, but, but it is open source - everyone is free to open, modify and use it. Ah, it is Google open source...

Anyway, I just don't seem to get Google's plan on that one
1. The OS is half-a$$ed compared to anything on the market. It sorta can compete with WinMo 2002 and early versions of Palm, but not at par with any of the mainstream OS in 2009 (Apple, WinMo, BlackBerry, Symbian)
2. The OS is free. Is Google planning to make money on mobile ads? I am curious to see how that is going to work out
3. The OS comes with some odd restrictions. There was a free Linux OS on the market - it died very quickly, so "free" (and especially Google's "free") is not attractive enough for the developers to write apps

I will be surprised if if gains any significant market share. Google hasn't made a single product with half-decent UI (everything Google has looks like it was ported directly from the EGA-resolution programs written in early '90s). The only way Google can succeed is by giving carriers incentives to push its phones to the unsuspected customers. But then, where is a revenue stream? You not just giving something away for free, you pay someone to take it off your hands. Great business plan.

[Maarek Stele]

someone buy me this phone, my b-day is coming up soon.

Well, actually they don't need to buy their own app since the Dev phone allows them to upload the app directly to the phone from their PC.

[darthstupid]

iPhone killer. Right.