Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Businesses Google Piracy Your Rights Online

Google Adds Licensing Server DRM To Android Market 184

Posted by Soulskill
from the do-androids-dream-of-electric-rights dept.
eldavojohn writes "According to AfterDawn, Google has given app makers the option to use a license server as DRM to ensure the user has paid for an app before they can download it. Reportedly, the Market app will communicate with a Google license server using RSA encryption. It is important to note this is only available for non-free apps (built with SDK 1.5 and later), and it was instituted to provide a better solution to the old and widely criticized copy protection scheme that was susceptible to Android app piracy (like sideloading). For better or for worse, Android's Marketplace appears to now have an optional, phone-home form of DRM." Following news of the new licensing service, Hexage Ltd, makers of a popular Android game called Radiant, released the data they had collected on piracy of Radiant over a 10-month period beginning last October. A series of charts shows total users, paid users and the piracy rate, by region.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Adds Licensing Server DRM To Android Market

Comments Filter:
  • by sbrubblesman (871975) on Friday July 30, 2010 @04:46PM (#33089024)
    Maybe if paid apps for android market where available for everywhere, piracy rates would be much smaller. I'd rather google made paid apps available everywhere before they add DRM.
    • by KlaymenDK (713149)

      Maybe if paid apps for android market where available for everywhere, piracy rates would be much smaller. I'd rather google made paid apps available everywhere before they add DRM.

      ...or just came out and said what the hell it is we're waiting for. As it is, it might take another month, or another decade -- we have no clue. :-(

    • by hitmark (640295)

      that, and loosen up the device requirements.

      sure, they dropped phone with 2.1, but there is still the 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis compass (huh?), 2mpix camera and GPS thats non-negotiable (with screen size and resolution being defined in groups, but with a "call us" for anything outside of that).

      if they had dropped the phone focus properly, we would have had android powered devices that could go head to head with ipad by now. Instead we are left with some saber rattling and some chinese media players thats

  • by BassMan449 (1356143) on Friday July 30, 2010 @04:47PM (#33089028)

    I don't fault Google for adding this in. They are trying to build up Android and one part of doing that is by developing a strong development ecosystem around it. The problem is if there is huge piracy numbers it's hard to get money behind developing an app for Android. By giving some businesses a little more comfort, they can help to encourage adoption of the platform as a viable development platform for a business.

    • by unix1 (1667411) on Friday July 30, 2010 @05:56PM (#33090068)

      This is generally a bad idea:

      1. Much of the justification for paid apps when both free and paid are available, is to get rid of the ads and tracking in the free versions (admob, etc. at dev's option). Now, you'll be tracked by Google (again, at developer's option) even for paid apps.

      2. There are 2 modes: strict and server managed. Strict mode will always verify license every time you start an app. This is useless when no network connection is available - e.g. on airplane, and gives maximum tracking to Google. Server managed can cache the server response and use the cached response when there's no network connection available. This has 2 problems: (1) from users' perspective: you'll have to pre-open such apps that you'd want to use on a plane before taking off (or going off-roading, camping, hiking, etc.) - for example, you don't usually play a certain game (but you will on a plane), so cached response could have expired - better remember to pre-open and re-cache everything before taking off! Users shouldn't have to deal with this crap. And (2) from developers' perspective: the cached response is stored "obfuscated" locally. The "obfuscation" is an encrypted file with a 20-byte salt. The salt is stored inside the application. This is not secure by design and once broken, useless.

      There are better ways, none of which involve a lot of extra tracking by Google. For example, even in this licensing scheme, since the salt stays the same per apk, why not just validate the license at install time, and "cache" the encrypted license forever for that specific apk? Another option - why not encrypt the apk itself, decrypt when run or JIT compiled binaries only. In general, why not implement a generic encrypted storage container that could be used by users, developers, and the OS to securely store any information? This could even be encrypted via an optional user-settable password to an encryption key. This is not rocket science, it's been done everywhere else.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126)

        You can copy an installed app from your phone back into an .apk (installable package) if it is routed, so at the moment all someone needs to do to release a warez copy is buy it themselves.

        That is why Google wants to add better protection for apps. Piracy is rife, although as many iPhone developers have discovered that isn't actually a bad thing most of the time.

        I go abroad and rent a local SIM card, but due to the high cost of data I only allow access via wifi. It would really suck if I couldn't use an app

      • by rxan (1424721)

        From the article:

        one will use a cached response from the last time the app was run if no connection to the Market is available

        Which doesn't sound like the train wreck that you make it out to be:

        from users' perspective: you'll have to pre-open such apps that you'd want to use on a plane before taking off (or going off-roading, camping, hiking, etc.) - for example, you don't usually play a certain game (but you will on a plane), so cached response could have expired - better remember to pre-open and re-cache everything before taking off! Users shouldn't have to deal with this crap.

        It doesn't sound to me like the cached responses expire. Where did you get that information from?

        why not just validate the license at install time, and "cache" the encrypted license forever for that specific apk

        If there ever was a problem with the DRM then it could never be fixed unless users reinstalled their apps. This method is more secure. The cached response from last run seems like the best solution possible.

    • by stoanhart (876182)

      You're right, this is a good thing.

      Why is Steam so good? Because developers feel secure in the DRM, but it's not obtrusive so users don't mind it.

  • Requiring a phone to be online in order to run an app, especially if it otherwise has no need to communicate with the Internet, will hurt users of non-phone Android devices such as the Archos 5 Internet Tablet. I hope any developer that feels the need to do this will use the Steam-style "cached response from the last time the app was run if no connection to the Market is available", as the article puts it, rather than the Assassin's Creed 2-style "only allow[ing] the app to start if the server is available
    • by Shoeler (180797) *
      <quote>Requiring a phone to be online in order to run an app, especially if it otherwise has no need to communicate with the Internet, will hurt users of non-phone Android devices such as the Archos 5 Internet Tablet. I hope any developer that feels the need to do this will use the Steam-style "cached response from the last time the app was run if no connection to the Market is available", as the article puts it, rather than the Assassin's Creed 2-style "only allow[ing] the app to start if the server
  • by DWMorse (1816016) on Friday July 30, 2010 @04:50PM (#33089100) Homepage

    At the great risk to my karma, I guess I have to just pipe up and say that I don't see the problem here.

    License-server based apps have been selling on various platforms for years. Decades. Android now supports this, adding a little attraction to developers to invest time and money making an application for use on Android. Given the lack of QA on a great many Android apps (can anyone offer an explanation how Facebook for Android is such pure garbage, all jokes about content aside?) I for one see this as a step in the right direction.

    Android developers, you now have a piracy deterrent for your applications you would like monetary compensation for creating, and more importantly, maintaining. I fail to see how this is evil and how any of the wry 'do-no-evil-lol' quips are deserved.

    • by tepples (727027)

      License-server based apps have been selling on various platforms for years.

      How well do license-server based apps work on laptops? And how well would they work on Android device without a cellular radio, something like an Archos 5?

      • by nschubach (922175)

        That's really up to the developer. If I were to use such a service, I'd allow a certain number of executions without validation before validation was required again. For example, if the validation comes back, I save that date to my app database, maybe encrypt it, and run the same check each time it's run. If I don't get a reply for N days (or N runs) then disable the app. It would most likely be easily hacked (cause I'd have to store the value somewhere...) but it would most likely cut out the couch pir

      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        How well do license-server based apps work on laptops? And how well would they work on Android device without a cellular radio, something like an Archos 5?

        Sad to say, but Google doesn't care if your Android device isn't a phone. They don't care, they don't "With Google" you or anything. To Google, if it's not a phone, they're not interested.

        As for the Archos 5, that thing is so locked down it's practically impossible to root it or customize it, so it's stuck with Android 1.6, which won't support this anyhow

        • Even if Google encrypts the binary, it has to be decrypted somehow

          Put cryptographic hardware in your CPU, and have it decrypt the binary inside the CPU at instruction cache miss time. The Capcom CPS-2 arcade board did something similar, coupling a crypto-processor and an MC68000 CPU.

        • by ADRA (37398)

          Piracy is a big problem on Android in no small part due to the pathetically small number of supported payee countries in the world. China should be 100% piracy because you can't legitimately buy apps from China. Same with any other country not in this list:
          Australia
          Austria
          Canada
          France
          Germany
          Italy
          Japan

    • by mlts (1038732) *

      I don't see the problem, provided the app doesn't pop a license check every time it runs. Instead, it should cache the result against the phone's IMEI and some random obfuscation that would take some disassembly of the .apk to yank. When the app runs, if the IMEI is different, it automatically polls the license server and rebuilds the cached value. If it gets back that the user doesn't have that app purchased, it should either work in a demo mode, or point the user to the store to purchase it proper. If

      • by Lifyre (960576)

        I agree completely with yourself and the GP. I love my rooted Eris and this is a great way for app makers to try to get paid for their work.

      • by Rich0 (548339)

        I don't see the problem either - it is just DRM. That means in two weeks there will be a hacked market app on your favorite site that validates anything as legit.

        The only way to keep people from running apps you don't want them to run is to not hand them the code to the apps - source, binary, or otherwise. Write a web-based app and nobody will use it without buying an account or whatever.

        If you want your app to run offline, then it can be run without buying it - full stop.

        • by mlts (1038732) *

          Of course, people can do that or just go decompile the Java in the .apk files and strip out the API calls. Frequent updates by app makers will make that a slow job, especially if the developer has a Java obfuscation tool.

          I just don't want any more incentive for phone makers to having eFuses, signed kernels, read-only filesystems that stay that way even as root, and other stuff that has to be tediously gotten around by experts in order to mod an Android phone. If piracy is dealt with by a mechanism other t

          • by Rich0 (548339)

            Well, I'd be happy if they just released open source drivers for the phones, and source to all the good parts of the phone (sure, they can keep the parts of the market that support paid software closed).

            Then I could just flash my phone with my favorite android distro, and I could care less what Google does with theirs. There are all of about 14 programs I can buy for my desktop, so why should I care if I can't buy any software for my phone either?

    • Well it's not a problem per se, but every bit of DRM that's built into Android chips away at it's status as the "free" alternative to Apple's iOS. We can argue about whether or not that's fair, but it seems to be why people care about news like this.

    • (can anyone offer an explanation how Facebook for Android is such pure garbage, all jokes about content aside?)

      Because the Facebook developers suck?

      The iPhone Facebook app isn't much better. They finally got it stable, but that's after several versions and even then some people still have some crashing, and there are still plenty of missing features (I can filter the Newsfeed on the website to exclude those stupid facebook game posts people post every 5 seconds, but I can't seem to do the same on the phone

  • by acid06 (917409) on Friday July 30, 2010 @04:54PM (#33089166)

    You can see in the charts something like 98% piracy in South America.
    This happens because... there's no way to buy applications if you're in South America. So, anyone with a paid application here *has* to pirate it.

    • by mobby_6kl (668092)

      Those charts are completely useless as it's impossible to buy Android software in many parts (most?) of Europe as well. Not that I'd want to buy any if everyone starts using this phone-home DRM.

    • by AndrewNeo (979708)

      It doesn't make it any less illegal.

      • by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Friday July 30, 2010 @05:06PM (#33089382) Homepage Journal
        If you have to infringe because the legitimate publisher doesn't want to take your money, then copyright is failing "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by MBCook (132727)

          Why doesn't a publisher have a right to choose not to sell somewhere/to someone?

          So it's OK to steal it, because you can't buy it? So what if the publisher sells it to one person in South America? It was available, so now it's not OK?

          That argument doesn't seem to hold up.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by 91degrees (207121)
            I don't follow.

            Of course a publisher has the right not to sell his software. I just don't see that he is harmed if the people he chose not to sell it to pirate a copy. He hasn't lost anything. He still has his copy. He can't claim a lost sale since if the pirate hadn't pirated then there still wouldn't have been a sale.

            Why does he have the right to disadvantage everyone else?
            • by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Friday July 30, 2010 @07:40PM (#33091258) Homepage

              Why is your right to acquire something more important than his right to control his creation?

              While someone's right to their own creation is pretty well established (after all, that's the purpose of copyright), where does the idea that people should have to either sell you something or let you take it come from?

              It seems like just because something isn't physical (has no marginal cost), people argue that a creator's rights don't apply.

              • by Rich0 (548339) on Friday July 30, 2010 @10:33PM (#33092464) Homepage

                While someone's right to their own creation is pretty well established (after all, that's the purpose of copyright), where does the idea that people should have to either sell you something or let you take it come from?

                Uh, nobody is taking anything from anybody - they're making a copy. The creator still has their creation, and they are completely unharmed.

                I'm fine with the purpose of copyright - encouraging the creation of content by giving the creator a limited monopoly on their creation so that they can monetize it and finance the creation. The problem is that in this case no monetization is happening, which means the law has failed to achieve its purpose.

                A copyright law that only protected works that were available for sale would be JUST as effective at promoting science and the arts. Indeed, it would be more effective as it would remove the extinction of orphan works. Ditto for a law that limits copyright to some sane duration.

                For some reason everybody acts like copyright exists to protect the rights of content creators. It doesn't exist for this purpose at all. It exists to benefit society by creating a demand for content creators in the first place. Content creators who don't share their content at all have no benefit to society at all. Now, that's fine if you want to paint masterpieces in your basement - nobody is forcing you to sell it. However, you aren't harmed at all if your masterpiece can be purchased at the local walmart if you weren't ever going to sell it yourself.

                Who is being harmed in this case, and how? And I don't hurt feelings either - I'm talking about loss of some kind that can be measured in things you can see and touch.

                • by llZENll (545605)

                  "The creator still has their creation, and they are completely unharmed."

                  False. When you copy a song, artwork, program, game, or porno you are destroying the very thing which you want. That art has to be made by someone, and it cost money to live, by not paying for art you are depriving the artists of the means to make their art. The problem people have today is in a digital world the fraction they are stealing is so small it seems trivial, but it adds up just the same.

                  "Who is being harmed in this case,

                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by Rich0 (548339)

                    That art has to be made by someone, and it cost money to live, by not paying for art you are depriving the artists of the means to make their art.

                    You're not paying them either way - because they aren't accepting payment.

                    It doesn't matter if the creator is never selling their art, if you copy it, you are still hurting creators who are selling their art by displacing your need for that type of art from art that is for sale which would support someone, to art that isn't for sale that you stole.

                    Now you're argui

              • by the_womble (580291) on Friday July 30, 2010 @10:36PM (#33092482) Homepage Journal

                Because there is no intrinsic right to control your creation.

                It is a monopoly granted by the state because it is deemed to be for the public good by creating an incentive (see the US constitution) and to ensure that you can share profits others make on your work (one reason for the Statute of Queen Ann).

                If neither of these apply (which it clearly does not in these circumstances) you have just subverted the reason it (copyright) exists in the first place.

              • by Sun (104778)

                Why is your right to acquire something more important than his right to control his creation?

                Because neither are rights. 91degrees has no "right to acquire", and Hexage has no right to control their creation.

                Copyright was introduce in order to encourage people to create and publish, knowing that, for a limited amount of time, they get to make money from that creation. As such, copyright is not a right (the way free speech is), it is a compromise between free commerce and creating incentive to create, and on

              • by Yvanhoe (564877)
                Why ? For greater good.
                Let's be utilitarian on this one. What are the consequences of both options ? If you give priority to the right to acquire, you end up with widespread possession of something of value, with the possible drawback of making it more difficult to make a living out of providing this content (which is not proven IMHO and highly dubious)
                If you give priority to control, you end up with the nightmarish tech market of incompatible DRM schemes, tracking of users, closed apps and obfuscated "s
        • by BobMcD (601576)

          If you have to infringe because the legitimate publisher doesn't want to take your money, then copyright is failing "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

          True, but for better or worse, copyright is a property right, too. The publisher has the right to refuse sale to anyone, largely speaking. This wouldn't obviate their other rights, however.

        • by msauve (701917)
          What does a phrase from the US Constitution have to do with selling copyrighted software in South America?
          • That isn't from the US Constitution. It's from international copyright law.

          • What does a phrase from the US Constitution have to do with selling copyrighted software in South America?

            For one thing, Google and many of these application publishers are in the United States. For another, the United States Trade Representative has been pushing "free trade agreements" with other countries, such as Australia and the countries of South America, that in essence require other parties in the treaty to implement copyright as the United States knows it.

        • by Dhalka226 (559740)

          While I agree that somebody not selling a product to willing customers is stupid, you're just wrong.

          Promoting the progress of science and the useful arts is about getting things made, not getting things exposed.

          • by tepples (727027)
            In that case, a (distant) argument under a foreign counterpart to fair use law [copyright.gov] could be made. Please explain any substantial negative "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" in a region where authentic copies are not available. Or what does the corresponding statute in Brazil and Argentina say?
        • If you have to infringe because the legitimate publisher doesn't want to take your money, then copyright is failing "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

          You don't "have" to infringe.

          You can do without - or make something better. That is what drives things forward.

          The fan has been obsessed with recreating Star Trek: TOS. But the technology is there for the him to make on original space opera, action adventure, or whatever he chooses.

          If he needs a starting point, there are classics in the gen

          • by tepples (727027)

            You can do without - or make something better.

            What should somebody who tries to make something better do about nuisance lawsuits from incumbents who claim that something better infringes the incumbent's exclusive rights? For example, Tetris v. Biosocia or Konami v. Roxor games or Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music. For example, pretend it comes to my attention that I have accidentally used part of someone else's song in my own. What's my next step?

        • But by freely pirating unavailable works you make it difficult for the publisher to find it profitable to eventually bring his product there, creating a sort of death spiral for legitimate works. I'm not suggesting that society has an obligation to help him make money, but if we've agreed that domestically that's an ingredient that helps promote the creation of works, then surely that holds internationally too? Even if there's a delay in the release cycle (not something I'm happy about either)?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rich0 (548339)

        That depends on the local laws.

        Unless something has changed, for example, it is completely legal to intercept DirecTV service in Canada (I know it used to be at least). Why? Simple - DirecTV refused to sell service to Canadians (licensing issues and all that), so Canada just said, well, we won't regard cloning of access cards/etc as theft of service. As a result you can sell cloned smartcards or whatever in your local walmart if you want.

        Perhaps that has changed, but the bottom line is that if you refuse

  • Call me paranoid (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MikeyVB (787338) on Friday July 30, 2010 @04:59PM (#33089258)

    With recent news about certain Android apps sending private information to whomever created it, I have recently installed DroidWall to filter access (e.g. - Battery meter apps!? Puh-leez!) to my phone's data connection.

    If some app expects me to allow a data connection just to prove I am not a thief, sorry, I won't be buying it! And yes, I do purchase apps that I consider worthy.

    And what happens if someone is abroad? Would they have to pay $20 in roaming charges to play some bubble bobble game for an hour while waiting in some airport?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yincrash (854885)
      I believe that this doesn't actually require the app to need the Internet permission. I believe it just requests the pay information from the Market app and the Market app uses the Internet, so you'd have to use droidwall to block market's internet access.
    • I'm just amazed at the fact you have to install a firewall on your PHONE. What's next, Antivirus and spybot scanners for Driod?

      • by taniwha (70410)
        it's worse than that - he has to install a firewall in his phone to stop things from calling OUT
      • by AaronW (33736)

        I actually have installed an antivirus program that also supports disabling or locating the phone if it's lost or stolen.

      • Yes. Like it or not cycles are so cheap that now everybody is starting to carry around little general computing devices. The unfortunate side effect of this is that people will attempt to compromise them.

  • ... now I see why we have always been at war with Oceania - they are apparently stealing all our apps.

    It's pretty amazing the North America piracy figure is so much lower. I wonder if that's the result of a far larger user base in NA? Or are Europeans (where I thought the figure would be similar) just have a more pirate-prone culture?

    It would also be interesting to see beyond this static view, how many users they saw going from pirated to paid. That I think is the key figure to understand if piracy is a

    • by KlaymenDK (713149)

      As I'm sure you've read from the other comments by now, a simple yet huge factor is the non-availability of paid apps in so many countries.

  • It is obvious that the piracy level is higher in regions where it is impossible to buy paid apps. For the sake of the application customers, application publishers and the Android ecosystem, please do something about it google. The ratio between paid versus free apps in the Android Market is extremely tilted towards free apps for this very reason. As long as there are countries where it is impossible to buy paid apps for Android there will be people who will pirate and crack the applications.
  • That's it! I'm going back to winmo, cause nothing like that ever happens on IT!
  • by Miamicanes (730264) on Friday July 30, 2010 @07:27PM (#33091116)

    There were (at least) two fundamental flaws with the original Android Market protection scheme, neither of which appears to have been rectified by this change (besides possibly to make matters worse for end users):

    * As everyone has already noted, lots of people around the world with Android phones can't actually buy apps from Android Market, EVEN IF they have a Mastercard/Visa/AMEX card with dollar-denominated account. That's just plain fucked.

    * You can't officially purchase and run protected Market apps if your phone is running an unblessed "Developer" kernel. Of course, there's not a single goddamn phone from HTC, Samsung, or Motorola with Google-blessed kernel that has BlueZ Bluetooth HID profile compiled into it, so it's impossible to build your own kernel with it enabled without being formally exiled from 99% of commercial Android apps. At least, unless you crack them. Any DRM scheme that forces legitimate users to crack apps they purchased in order to use them is fundamentally broken, especially when there are still gaping holes in Android phones that need a customer kernel to fix.

    As for "developer's option" whether or not to cache, let's be honest... at least half the developers publishing commercial apps don't have the slightest clue in HELL how to implement a secure caching scheme, and they aren't going to purchase a proprietary one that demands more money up front than they're likely to earn from the app's sale. So, anybody care to guess what's going to happen? Most apps in Market are going to end up checking the server every goddamn time, because the alternatives are too hard/expensive for most Android publishers to deal with. IMHO, Google got THAT part EGREGIOUSLY wrong. They should have distributed the Android DRM module themselves, and made it free & easy for publishers to do cached checking, but left it difficult and minimally-documented how to bypass that caching and check the server every time.

    I love Android. I really do. But it's so incredibly frustrating when Google turns around and fucks things up in ways that CAN'T be fixed by end users with access to Android's sourcecode... usually, mistakes that are almost incomprehensible given the amount of in-house talent and expertise Google has available to it. At times, Google actually manages to make even *Microsoft* look coherent and customer-focused.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by KlaymenDK (713149)

      As for "developer's option" whether or not to cache, let's be honest... at least half the developers publishing commercial apps don't have the slightest clue in HELL how to implement a secure caching scheme, and they aren't going to purchase a proprietary one that demands more money up front than they're likely to earn from the app's sale. So, anybody care to guess what's going to happen? Most apps in Market are going to end up checking the server every goddamn time, because the alternatives are too hard/expensive for most Android publishers to deal with.

      First of all, the devs don't have to implement very much else than an API call ("LicenseChecker.checkAccess()") and supplying code for the two callbacks "allow()" and "dontAllow()". See http://developer.android.com/guide/publishing/licensing.html [android.com] (yeah, they call it a "licensing service" rather than DRM, no real surprise).

      Second, it's very easy for devs to choose the best (from our point of view) option: you use an instance of either "ServerManagedPolicy" (uses cache fallback) or "StrictPolicy" (insists on

  • It requires an internet connection in order to launch. I can't play this game when I'm on an airplane, because of this bullshit. I'm only interested in playing this game in situations where I'm bored and have no internet access, so this really pisses me off. I look forward to the day I can crack it and because Namco chose to use such an obtrusive DRM, I will NO longer buy their games.
  • The only thing DRM is good for is using the white paper to wipe my ass. Nothing has EVER been made better by DRM, nor has the public ever been given much of a chance against it. This is reason enough to tell Android to join the club of unused junk in my closet. Sucks because I really like the (idea of an) open environment. Too bad it isn't really open to anyone but google and the phone companies they have gone to bed with. Remember, the choices you make today may be small, but they may lead to huge mistakes
    • ...because there's nothing like good old over-reaction!

      How long have you been using a PC for and how long has DRM been around for PC games?

      Here's a clue: As long as there are plenty of non-DRM alternatives, as there already are on Android phones & PCs, then *DON'T BUY DRM PRODUCTS* whilst still continuing to enjoy those platforms.

  • There is a need for more than one application market, book market, movie market... Who cares if a $1.99 cell phone game or a $4.95 e-book are DRMed? If you expect any of these to be a masterpiece to share with your grandchildren, you value them way more than their author apparently does. Conversely, a durable hardcover book or an application that handles your important data and guarantees it to be available decades later is worth a lot more. It may make some time, but consumer application developers will st

news: gotcha

Working...