Android will protect developer rights

@JimB There is no privacy breach at all. The applications requests information if there is a receipt or not. Thats it.
There is nothing draconian about it.

@Oliver Who says that? I don't think many developers will implement it in a wy that you have t go online. The default implementation uses an exponential backoff if you are offline meaning the app still works and the validation will take place the next time you are online.

@Mostor To remove DRM they will have to remove byte code from every single application on any single update. This works for major software releases but imo won't happen for many Android applications.

You description of DRM is complete bullshit.
To make this absolutely clear.
Please never buy any of my applications and stay away from Android.

Oh for the love of the GNU! I am not using any of your apps as far as I am aware, but I *am* in the habit of paying for everything I use.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that illegal versions of your app HAVE YOUR PRECIOUS DRM REMOVED? The whole point of DRM is not to prevent people from copying your app. People copy your app regardless of whether DRM is on them or not.

The points of DRM are:

a) Scare users who are already complying with your rules.

b) Gather usage statistics.

c) Steal your users' personal details in order to sign them up for all kinds of targeted advertisements.

d) Force users to install malware on their computers that disables your app on a whim and roots around on their machine.

Let me make this absolutely clear. If your application includes any form of DRM, then I will not buy it, I will not download it illegally, I will not use it and I will NOT PAY YOU. If, after I buy your application, I find you have included any form of DRM without telling me, then I will do whatever I can to recoup the money I paid to you, stop using your app, advise anyone who asks me about your app not to use it, and depending on what kind of tricks your DRM pulls, possibly sue you.

I have nothing wrong with people trying to protect their software and its use. But I can't stand the idea that I have to connect to a server to use an application. Not every region has a cheap mobile data service plan. Besides that, I like to be in control of when I go online no one decides that for me.

I dont yet use an andriod phone but have been seriously considering it. Although this wont sway my decision, but only make me more alert.

Just because Android apps are paid it doesn't mean that this gives them the automatic right to violate the users privacy. And, just because it's paid doesn't mean users should be assumed to accept draconian DRM.

Not all of us that believe in FOSS believe all software should be free. This is not a universal to us, to every one of us. So, please, stop with the strawman arguments.

This is about privacy violation and DRM. It is an black eye in an otherwise wonderful OS.

@Mike Full Ack

@Anonymous Coward
The bandwidth is not noteworthy since it will most likely require only "one" packet every week or month.
You phone sends hundreds of them every second.

And yes there are alot of pirated Android software out there. Just google for a popular title and add some filehoster name.

This is something many developers have asked for on the official groups and channels for months and finally its there... yay.

@W Android has never been about that naive GPL kind of freedom

I'm sorry, but what about having an open operating system says that everything else dealing with that OS should be free.

What, the developers time, effort, and IP shouldn't be rewarded? If they want to develop apps they shouldn't be able to control the distribution of them?

I'm a programmer. The work I do I expect to be paid for.

If you don't feel the same way, then I'd like you to come and work for me. I won't pay you, but hey, you don't expect me to get paid so why should you.

You all thinking this is bad are out of your mind. This is a good thing and will only promote more development of apps since developers can guarantee payment.

Jarcikon and Anonymous, I dont see your justification for claiming that the bandwidth used by this misfeature is "minimal" or that "most" apps are pirated - you simply assert these things with absolutely no evidence. Almost like some sort of industry shill.

Besides, that misses the point entirely. Which is that I dont see why I should have to pay *anything* - however negligible - because some duhveloper is paranoid about some luser pirating his [cr]app and cant think of a harmless way to enforce his license.

DRM is bad. Phone-home malware is bad. And dumping unnecessary cost and inconvenience on to the end user for no purpose is bad. (I challenge anyone to point to a single extant example of DRM that prevents piracy *or* doesnt screw legitimate users around, let alone both.)

TL;DR: this saves me the expense of buying an Android phone! Excelsior!

So it's all over with the android, now it's hoping somebody else steps in who actually likes open source and freedom and sharing openly and who appreciate privacy and who isn't all about money, and some strange out-of-this-world billionaire to support it.

Yeah I know, not bloody likely, but you never know.

This violates users privacy and forces participation in it without prior consent. You do understand that Android apps have been purchased prior to this? If the consumer has an Android cell they have a 2 year contract and if they wish to use the system they have to participate.

Clearly is is digital restrictions management. It is a black mark on an otherwise excellent OS's record. All DRM is bad. There has never been a positive thing to come out of DRM. Anyone that says otherwise is crazy. DRM is nasty and will always be.

It's an other good reason not to buy software for it use freeware.

This is a great step toward serious application development on Android.

@Monkeydude The bandwidth cost is neglectable and the reality is that almost all paid Android applications are pirated these days.

The bandwidth will be so minimal I doubt you will even notice. Regardless, smart phones these days rely on using the network, and not just for web browsing. Half of the apps in the market rely on network usage of some kind anyways. I really don't see this as being some huge issue for users.

As far as running your app in a location with no service, you will still be able to do this without a problem, unless the developer specifically programs to require a license check each time (I doubt all but a very few would do this). A license check will be run when there is access to the network and will be stored to ensure you can use the app even when there is no service. This is the way Google recommends to all developers to use this service. Frankly, a developer would be pretty stupid to require network connection every time an app is opened.

This is Digital Restrictions Management (DRM). It allows developers to do the same thing that Microsoft's WGA does. And it is a violation of the privacy of the user. What if I don't want Andriod developers peering into my system? And you're going to let them do this for applications that cost in the range of a dollar to two? Is it worth accusing all your customers of being thieves to earn a few more dollars?

Checks for licensing @runtime

Using bandwidth I paid for to protect their profit on a application I also paid for.

and what happens when I am trying to run my app in a location with no service.