Good discussion DJ n stuffe. Point in fact unwarranted underlying assumptions are made in building the house of cards 24/7Street put together and therefore the results are immediately and of course deeply suspect. That being said, could devs actually build into the apps a "phone-home function" that would confirm purchase and auto-disable the app if it is not verified? Perhaps. If the app was already set-up for a phone-home infrastructure, otherwise you are looking at additional overhead for locally installed apps. Would I as dev want to do that? Is the potential revenue I would see enough to merit the additional risk around possible failures where my app did not correctly identify a paid status and disabled incorrectly - thereby pissing off a purchaser and compromising my market? Would it be worth having to add additional infrastructure costs to manage that function? In other words, would the real chance of pulling in a small percentage of real additional revenue, from existing pirates, justify the additional cost and potential failures that such a control would create.
For some yes, but I imagine for most .99 app devs, not so much. And on the flip side of all this, it is interesting that some of the same people who want Apple to be the source of the solution vis a vis DRMing the App Store are also those who already complain about how restrictive it is and about all of the other DRM in place by Apple anyway. It is an ironically inconsistent stance to take.
The key question to ask is "are the vast majority (or even a simple majority) of apps piraters likely to buy the apps they pirated?
The logical answer would seem to be no.
Make no mistake, pirating apps (or anything) is functionally wrong, and damaging to the developers who invest heavily in the coding and marketing of their works. There is no way to directly correlate the number of piracy events to the number of purchases that they potentially represent. This would assume that every pirate (which has been noted several times above) would purchase the app if they could not steal it. In fact the opposite is true - a person who is likely to pirate, is NOT likely to be a legitimate purchaser. This should be logically obvious.
Good discussion DJ n stuffe. Point in fact unwarranted underlying assumptions are made in building the house of cards 24/7Street put together and therefore the results are immediately and of course deeply suspect. That being said, could devs actually build into the apps a "phone-home function" that would confirm purchase and auto-disable the app if it is not verified? Perhaps. If the app was already set-up for a phone-home infrastructure, otherwise you are looking at additional overhead for locally installed apps. Would I as dev want to do that? Is the potential revenue I would see enough to merit the additional risk around possible failures where my app did not correctly identify a paid status and disabled incorrectly - thereby pissing off a purchaser and compromising my market? Would it be worth having to add additional infrastructure costs to manage that function? In other words, would the real chance of pulling in a small percentage of real additional revenue, from existing pirates, justify the additional cost and potential failures that such a control would create.
For some yes, but I imagine for most .99 app devs, not so much. And on the flip side of all this, it is interesting that some of the same people who want Apple to be the source of the solution vis a vis DRMing the App Store are also those who already complain about how restrictive it is and about all of the other DRM in place by Apple anyway. It is an ironically inconsistent stance to take.
I think it's relatively easy (not as someone queried above as simple as assuming that if the phone is jailbroken, the app must be pirated).
Part of the app submission involves signing the app with Apple's public keys. To pirate apps, these keys have been compromised and the app recompiled without the signing (perhaps an over simplification, but close enough). In effect, a pirated app isn't just an app on a jailbroken phone downloaded from somewhere other than the app store - it's a patched app that should checksum differently. The phone-home aspect should be as trivial as sending the checksum of itself, or the filesize even. A simply tally of the differing sizes should be enough for you to stat the problem, allowing you to work out your own piracy rates.
As for what to do about it, that's tricky. Some advocate the developer writing their own code to either disable, or hobble the app back to "lite" status. Others have reported minor success just splash-screening pirated versions with nag-ware type delays and messages when loading the software. Apple itself has a kill-switch for apps which I believe has never been used, although I am not sure it can be against non-signed apps.
If it was me (and whilst I have dabbled with the SDK, I have no and probably will never have any apps in the store), I would probably try a combination of the above. A splashscreen nag that get's progressively longer, and finally a restriction of functionality. I wouldn't kill it totally, that's one way to definitely lose a potential "switcher". If it was a game with public highscore tables or profiles etc, I would probably mark each one that was from a pirate app in some way.
I think it's relatively easy - not as someone queried above - as simple as assuming that if the phone is jailbroken, the app must be pirated. Part of the app submission involves signing the app with Apples public keys. To pirate apps, these keys have been compromised and the app redistributed without the signing (perhaps an over simplification, but close enough). In effect, a pirated app isn't just an app on a jailbroken phone downloaded from somewhere other than the app store - it's a patched app that should checksum differently. The phone-home aspect should be as trivial as sending the checksum of itself, or the filesize even. A simply tally of the differing sizes should be enough for you to stat the problem, allowing you to work out your own piracy rates.
As for what to do about it, that's tricky. Some advocate the developer writing their own code to either disable, or hobble the app back to "lite" status. Others have reported minor success just splash-screening pirated versions with nag-ware type delays and messages when loading the software. Apple itself has a kill-switch for apps which I believe has never been used.
If it was me (and whilst I have dabbled with the SDK, I have no, and probably will never have any) apps in the store, I would probably try a combination of the above. A splashscreen nag that get's progressively longer, and finally a restriction of functionality. I wouldn't kill it totally, that's one way to definitely lose a potential "switcher".
I could see them easily disabling such call-home code. This sort of thing is a never ending fight between the two. As long as it doesn't affect the honest apps...
App piracy is too common place. I unlock blackberries and iphones for side cash and usually the first things people ask me is if I unlock their iphone is to show them how to get free apps, which I just tell them Google it. Apple started the whole thing when they refused to unlock the phone, people don't like to be tied to a cell carrier or they want the phone for their respective carrier if its not offered.
I can't see Apple doing anything at all to stop it either, they have a hands off approach and they could do MUCH better to help developers. Why doesn't iTunes check your device for unsanctioned software? While an iPod doesn't force you to have an iTunes account, downloading apps do, as such if your not a dev and you have more apps on your phone than your purchase history shows then your account should be locked out from the iTunes completely or have iTunes delete apps itself off your device when your connected to the net or sync via computer. They can bitch as much as they want but you don't own the software, and no moron in their right mind would challenge Apple legally without admitting to piracy themselves.
Also, on the picture note I can almost guarantee the peons don't even get to bring cell phones near top secret projects and the higher ups prolly have their phones camera locked out.
App piracy is too common place. I unlock blackberries and iphones for side cash and usually the first things people ask me is if I unlock their iphone is to show them how to get free apps, which I just tell them Google it. Apple started the whole thing when they refused to unlock the phone, people don't like to be tied to a cell carrier or they want the phone for their respective carrier if its not offered.
I can't see Apple doing anything at all to stop it either, they have a hands off approach and they could do MUCH better to help developers. Why doesn't iTunes check your device for unsanctioned software? While an iPod doesn't force you to have an iTunes account, downloading apps do, as such if your not a dev and you have more apps on your phone than your purchase history shows then your account should be locked out from the iTunes completely or have iTunes delete apps itself off your device when your connected to the net or sync via computer. They can bitch as much as they want but you don't own the software, and no moron in their right mind would challenge Apple legally without admitting to piracy themselves.
Also, on the picture note I can almost guarantee the peons don't even get to bring cell phones near top secret projects and the higher ups prolly have their phones camera locked out.
I think part of the issue there is the legality of jailbreaking your phone. I don't know that they are ready to go there and have it decided for them that it is legal, so they just leave it alone and leave it up to the dev to secure their apps.
I could see them easily disabling such call-home code. This sort of thing is a never ending fight between the two. As long as it doesn't affect the honest apps...
I could be wrong here, but I believe that whilst that could be done, it currently isn't.
At the moment, I think all it takes to create a pirate version is quite literally downloading the real thing once, and running a script or program against it to "patch" it to remove the signing stuff. This is something anyone with the "pirating tool" (whatever it is) can do with little or no programming skill.
To go one step further and actually modify the program in question to remove feature like this, is going to take skill and knowledge - chances are you are going to have to be a reasonably skilled developer yourself to achieve it. Straightaway this reduces the number of people not just who are able to compromise the app, but the people willing to do it. If you know enough about Cocoa-Touch and the iPhone SDK to modify apps, then chances are you are a developer yourself, with a self-interest in not having your apps nicked.
Of course, there are some out there with the skills to do so regardless, but this will probably reduce the number of apps being pirated, or at least increase the time from release to crack (giving an app a vital few weeks of "paid exclusivity"), and quite probably indirectly affect the type of apps that are targetted - instead of "anything goes", the high value ones will probably be targeted before the dollar apps, possibly pushing some of the losses away from bedroom developers, and more towards the larger companies.
I could be wrong here, but I believe that whilst that could be done, it currently isn't.
At the moment, I think all it takes to create a pirate version is quite literally downloading the real thing once, and running a script or program against it to "patch" it to remove the signing stuff. This is something anyone with the "pirating tool" (whatever it is) can do with little or no programming skill.
To go one step further and actually modify the program in question to remove feature like this, is going to take skill and knowledge - chances are you are going to have to be a reasonably skilled developer yourself to achieve it. Straightaway this reduces the number of people not just who are able to compromise the app, but the people willing to do it. If you know enough about Cocoa-Touch and the iPhone SDK to modify apps, then chances are you are a developer yourself, with a self-interest in not having your apps nicked.
Of course, there are some out there with the skills to do so regardless, but this will probably reduce the number of apps being pirated, or at least increase the time from release to crack (giving an app a vital few weeks of "paid exclusivity"), and quite probably indirectly affect the type of apps that are targetted - instead of "anything goes", the high value ones will probably be targeted before the dollar apps, possibly pushing some of the losses away from bedroom developers, and more towards the larger companies.
At least, that's what I think...
Ugh..I had no idea they'd made it that simple. Seems like at least some work on Apple's part could make that more difficult to crack.
Ugh..I had no idea they'd made it that simple. Seems like at least some work on Apple's part could make that more difficult to crack.
I might not have got it totally correct - certainly there is a part to play with the jailbreaking process also, which enables the installation of unsigned apps also. But yeah, I believe it's the work of moments to crack open the apps these days. Be interesting to see an article on how it's achieved someday.
App piracy is too common place. I unlock blackberries and iphones for side cash and usually the first things people ask me is if I unlock their iphone is to show them how to get free apps, which I just tell them Google it. Apple started the whole thing when they refused to unlock the phone, people don't like to be tied to a cell carrier or they want the phone for their respective carrier if its not offered.
I can't see Apple doing anything at all to stop it either, they have a hands off approach and they could do MUCH better to help developers. Why doesn't iTunes check your device for unsanctioned software? While an iPod doesn't force you to have an iTunes account, downloading apps do, as such if your not a dev and you have more apps on your phone than your purchase history shows then your account should be locked out from the iTunes completely or have iTunes delete apps itself off your device when your connected to the net or sync via computer. They can bitch as much as they want but you don't own the software, and no moron in their right mind would challenge Apple legally without admitting to piracy themselves.
Also, on the picture note I can almost guarantee the peons don't even get to bring cell phones near top secret projects and the higher ups prolly have their phones camera locked out.
I should probably clarify a bit more there. There are two issues about jailbreaking. The Apple legal stance that they own the software on the phone and that jailbreaking bypasses DRM. Aside from the whole Jailbreaking question, the other is the hardware itself, which you actually 'buy'. Once you own the hardware, technically you should be able to modify it as you please as long as it doesn't break any existing laws.
Say you jailbreak your phone, and then purchase an app that isn't sold via the App store. I think it's legally very shaky ground for Apple to insist that all apps on the phone are via the App Store and therein lies the lurch. If they were to go in and delete someone's personal app, all hell would break loose.
They are assuming that 17% of the apps downloaded from the store are paid. I think that's also a bit generous. I would be very curious to hear real numbers from Apple, but I'm guessing that's not likely to happen given their stance on such things. On my phone, I have 2 apps that I paid for and all the rest are free. My percentage is closer to 5% paid apps. I wonder if I'm typical?
I think the worst offender in the article is the 75% piracy rate for EVERY app that's sold, which is obviously not true. There are your typical top 100 popular apps that might come close to that, and the rest would be far lower if at all.
I should probably clarify a bit more there. There are two issues about jailbreaking. The Apple legal stance that they own the software on the phone and that jailbreaking bypasses DRM. Aside from the whole Jailbreaking question, the other is the hardware itself, which you actually 'buy'. Once you own the hardware, technically you should be able to modify it as you please as long as it doesn't break any existing laws.
Say you jailbreak your phone, and then purchase an app that isn't sold via the App store. I think it's legally very shaky ground for Apple to insist that all apps on the phone are via the App Store and therein lies the lurch. If they were to go in and delete someone's personal app, all hell would break loose.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
Well they can check the Apps on the device only against the catalog that Apple offers. While they can't tell you what to load on your device, loading software you knowingly didn't pay for that is only offered via App Store I'd say Apple has the right to pull that software off your device. For the 30% developers cough up to Apple I think Apple can atleast give this to them.
Well they can check the Apps on the device only against the catalog that Apple offers. While they can't tell you what to load on your device, loading software you knowingly didn't pay for that is only offered via App Store I'd say Apple has the right to pull that software off your device. For the 30% developers cough up to Apple I think Apple can atleast give this to them.
They don't' have that authority. Apple is not a jury, or judge, or police force. They are a corporation. Things like that must be handled via the legal system.
If the app in question was owned and supplied by Apple, I could see that happening. Since that is not the case, I don't think they could legally do that.
The pirating numbers appear grossly exaggerated. 90% of itunes apps are pirated. Doubtful. I would hope they'd find a better way of calculating these numbers before they post junk like this again.
The pirating numbers appear grossly exaggerated. 90% of itunes apps are pirated. Doubtful. I would hope they'd find a better way of calculating these numbers before they post junk like this again.
Yes and no. They took actuals for apps that 'phone home' and used those as a basis for all apps in the store. Although there may be apps with such high numbers, it doesn't make sense that they would all be that high. Popular ones, possibly, but not all of them.
The pirating numbers appear grossly exaggerated. 90% of itunes apps are pirated. Doubtful. I would hope they'd find a better way of calculating these numbers before they post junk like this again.
1) The rate of piracy, as noted in the article itself, was estimated to be 75%, not 90%.
2) A real developer has commented with figures of 87%.
3) I rounded this to 90%, for ease of maths when doing the sums for example purposes.
Why do you find this doubtful? If you have other information you would like to share, we'd all love to see it. Wired have had an article which states a potential 100:1 piracy : pay ratio, as taken from analytical stats, rather than guesswork.
They don't' have that authority. Apple is not a jury, or judge, or police force. They are a corporation. Things like that must be handled via the legal system.
If the app in question was owned and supplied by Apple, I could see that happening. Since that is not the case, I don't think they could legally do that.
Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product
Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product
Agreed. Apple could make it more difficult to pirate these apps, but legally their hands are tied. They can't assume guilt on the part of the user and take action. They are limited in what they can do. I think their only good option is prevention, rather than policing.
Agreed. Apple could make it more difficult to pirate these apps, but legally their hands are tied. They can't assume guilt on the part of the user and take action. They are limited in what they can do. I think their only good option is prevention, rather than policing.
Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product
Comments
For some yes, but I imagine for most .99 app devs, not so much. And on the flip side of all this, it is interesting that some of the same people who want Apple to be the source of the solution vis a vis DRMing the App Store are also those who already complain about how restrictive it is and about all of the other DRM in place by Apple anyway. It is an ironically inconsistent stance to take.
The key question to ask is "are the vast majority (or even a simple majority) of apps piraters likely to buy the apps they pirated?
The logical answer would seem to be no.
Make no mistake, pirating apps (or anything) is functionally wrong, and damaging to the developers who invest heavily in the coding and marketing of their works. There is no way to directly correlate the number of piracy events to the number of purchases that they potentially represent. This would assume that every pirate (which has been noted several times above) would purchase the app if they could not steal it. In fact the opposite is true - a person who is likely to pirate, is NOT likely to be a legitimate purchaser. This should be logically obvious.
Take it right. I'm not gonna enter in the discussion. Will you stop advocating the piracy?
Was there a question in there somewhere that made sense?
Was there a question in there somewhere that made sense?
No more than rhetorical one. We already heard all answers. They don't hold.
Good discussion DJ n stuffe. Point in fact unwarranted underlying assumptions are made in building the house of cards 24/7Street put together and therefore the results are immediately and of course deeply suspect. That being said, could devs actually build into the apps a "phone-home function" that would confirm purchase and auto-disable the app if it is not verified? Perhaps. If the app was already set-up for a phone-home infrastructure, otherwise you are looking at additional overhead for locally installed apps. Would I as dev want to do that? Is the potential revenue I would see enough to merit the additional risk around possible failures where my app did not correctly identify a paid status and disabled incorrectly - thereby pissing off a purchaser and compromising my market? Would it be worth having to add additional infrastructure costs to manage that function? In other words, would the real chance of pulling in a small percentage of real additional revenue, from existing pirates, justify the additional cost and potential failures that such a control would create.
For some yes, but I imagine for most .99 app devs, not so much. And on the flip side of all this, it is interesting that some of the same people who want Apple to be the source of the solution vis a vis DRMing the App Store are also those who already complain about how restrictive it is and about all of the other DRM in place by Apple anyway. It is an ironically inconsistent stance to take.
I think it's relatively easy (not as someone queried above as simple as assuming that if the phone is jailbroken, the app must be pirated).
Part of the app submission involves signing the app with Apple's public keys. To pirate apps, these keys have been compromised and the app recompiled without the signing (perhaps an over simplification, but close enough). In effect, a pirated app isn't just an app on a jailbroken phone downloaded from somewhere other than the app store - it's a patched app that should checksum differently. The phone-home aspect should be as trivial as sending the checksum of itself, or the filesize even. A simply tally of the differing sizes should be enough for you to stat the problem, allowing you to work out your own piracy rates.
As for what to do about it, that's tricky. Some advocate the developer writing their own code to either disable, or hobble the app back to "lite" status. Others have reported minor success just splash-screening pirated versions with nag-ware type delays and messages when loading the software. Apple itself has a kill-switch for apps which I believe has never been used, although I am not sure it can be against non-signed apps.
If it was me (and whilst I have dabbled with the SDK, I have no and probably will never have any apps in the store), I would probably try a combination of the above. A splashscreen nag that get's progressively longer, and finally a restriction of functionality. I wouldn't kill it totally, that's one way to definitely lose a potential "switcher". If it was a game with public highscore tables or profiles etc, I would probably mark each one that was from a pirate app in some way.
I think it's relatively easy - not as someone queried above - as simple as assuming that if the phone is jailbroken, the app must be pirated. Part of the app submission involves signing the app with Apples public keys. To pirate apps, these keys have been compromised and the app redistributed without the signing (perhaps an over simplification, but close enough). In effect, a pirated app isn't just an app on a jailbroken phone downloaded from somewhere other than the app store - it's a patched app that should checksum differently. The phone-home aspect should be as trivial as sending the checksum of itself, or the filesize even. A simply tally of the differing sizes should be enough for you to stat the problem, allowing you to work out your own piracy rates.
As for what to do about it, that's tricky. Some advocate the developer writing their own code to either disable, or hobble the app back to "lite" status. Others have reported minor success just splash-screening pirated versions with nag-ware type delays and messages when loading the software. Apple itself has a kill-switch for apps which I believe has never been used.
If it was me (and whilst I have dabbled with the SDK, I have no, and probably will never have any) apps in the store, I would probably try a combination of the above. A splashscreen nag that get's progressively longer, and finally a restriction of functionality. I wouldn't kill it totally, that's one way to definitely lose a potential "switcher".
I could see them easily disabling such call-home code. This sort of thing is a never ending fight between the two. As long as it doesn't affect the honest apps...
I can't see Apple doing anything at all to stop it either, they have a hands off approach and they could do MUCH better to help developers. Why doesn't iTunes check your device for unsanctioned software? While an iPod doesn't force you to have an iTunes account, downloading apps do, as such if your not a dev and you have more apps on your phone than your purchase history shows then your account should be locked out from the iTunes completely or have iTunes delete apps itself off your device when your connected to the net or sync via computer. They can bitch as much as they want but you don't own the software, and no moron in their right mind would challenge Apple legally without admitting to piracy themselves.
Also, on the picture note I can almost guarantee the peons don't even get to bring cell phones near top secret projects and the higher ups prolly have their phones camera locked out.
App piracy is too common place. I unlock blackberries and iphones for side cash and usually the first things people ask me is if I unlock their iphone is to show them how to get free apps, which I just tell them Google it. Apple started the whole thing when they refused to unlock the phone, people don't like to be tied to a cell carrier or they want the phone for their respective carrier if its not offered.
I can't see Apple doing anything at all to stop it either, they have a hands off approach and they could do MUCH better to help developers. Why doesn't iTunes check your device for unsanctioned software? While an iPod doesn't force you to have an iTunes account, downloading apps do, as such if your not a dev and you have more apps on your phone than your purchase history shows then your account should be locked out from the iTunes completely or have iTunes delete apps itself off your device when your connected to the net or sync via computer. They can bitch as much as they want but you don't own the software, and no moron in their right mind would challenge Apple legally without admitting to piracy themselves.
Also, on the picture note I can almost guarantee the peons don't even get to bring cell phones near top secret projects and the higher ups prolly have their phones camera locked out.
I think part of the issue there is the legality of jailbreaking your phone. I don't know that they are ready to go there and have it decided for them that it is legal, so they just leave it alone and leave it up to the dev to secure their apps.
I could see them easily disabling such call-home code. This sort of thing is a never ending fight between the two. As long as it doesn't affect the honest apps...
I could be wrong here, but I believe that whilst that could be done, it currently isn't.
At the moment, I think all it takes to create a pirate version is quite literally downloading the real thing once, and running a script or program against it to "patch" it to remove the signing stuff. This is something anyone with the "pirating tool" (whatever it is) can do with little or no programming skill.
To go one step further and actually modify the program in question to remove feature like this, is going to take skill and knowledge - chances are you are going to have to be a reasonably skilled developer yourself to achieve it. Straightaway this reduces the number of people not just who are able to compromise the app, but the people willing to do it. If you know enough about Cocoa-Touch and the iPhone SDK to modify apps, then chances are you are a developer yourself, with a self-interest in not having your apps nicked.
Of course, there are some out there with the skills to do so regardless, but this will probably reduce the number of apps being pirated, or at least increase the time from release to crack (giving an app a vital few weeks of "paid exclusivity"), and quite probably indirectly affect the type of apps that are targetted - instead of "anything goes", the high value ones will probably be targeted before the dollar apps, possibly pushing some of the losses away from bedroom developers, and more towards the larger companies.
At least, that's what I think...
I could be wrong here, but I believe that whilst that could be done, it currently isn't.
At the moment, I think all it takes to create a pirate version is quite literally downloading the real thing once, and running a script or program against it to "patch" it to remove the signing stuff. This is something anyone with the "pirating tool" (whatever it is) can do with little or no programming skill.
To go one step further and actually modify the program in question to remove feature like this, is going to take skill and knowledge - chances are you are going to have to be a reasonably skilled developer yourself to achieve it. Straightaway this reduces the number of people not just who are able to compromise the app, but the people willing to do it. If you know enough about Cocoa-Touch and the iPhone SDK to modify apps, then chances are you are a developer yourself, with a self-interest in not having your apps nicked.
Of course, there are some out there with the skills to do so regardless, but this will probably reduce the number of apps being pirated, or at least increase the time from release to crack (giving an app a vital few weeks of "paid exclusivity"), and quite probably indirectly affect the type of apps that are targetted - instead of "anything goes", the high value ones will probably be targeted before the dollar apps, possibly pushing some of the losses away from bedroom developers, and more towards the larger companies.
At least, that's what I think...
Ugh..I had no idea they'd made it that simple. Seems like at least some work on Apple's part could make that more difficult to crack.
Ugh..I had no idea they'd made it that simple. Seems like at least some work on Apple's part could make that more difficult to crack.
I might not have got it totally correct - certainly there is a part to play with the jailbreaking process also, which enables the installation of unsigned apps also. But yeah, I believe it's the work of moments to crack open the apps these days. Be interesting to see an article on how it's achieved someday.
App piracy is too common place. I unlock blackberries and iphones for side cash and usually the first things people ask me is if I unlock their iphone is to show them how to get free apps, which I just tell them Google it. Apple started the whole thing when they refused to unlock the phone, people don't like to be tied to a cell carrier or they want the phone for their respective carrier if its not offered.
I can't see Apple doing anything at all to stop it either, they have a hands off approach and they could do MUCH better to help developers. Why doesn't iTunes check your device for unsanctioned software? While an iPod doesn't force you to have an iTunes account, downloading apps do, as such if your not a dev and you have more apps on your phone than your purchase history shows then your account should be locked out from the iTunes completely or have iTunes delete apps itself off your device when your connected to the net or sync via computer. They can bitch as much as they want but you don't own the software, and no moron in their right mind would challenge Apple legally without admitting to piracy themselves.
Also, on the picture note I can almost guarantee the peons don't even get to bring cell phones near top secret projects and the higher ups prolly have their phones camera locked out.
I should probably clarify a bit more there. There are two issues about jailbreaking. The Apple legal stance that they own the software on the phone and that jailbreaking bypasses DRM. Aside from the whole Jailbreaking question, the other is the hardware itself, which you actually 'buy'. Once you own the hardware, technically you should be able to modify it as you please as long as it doesn't break any existing laws.
Say you jailbreak your phone, and then purchase an app that isn't sold via the App store. I think it's legally very shaky ground for Apple to insist that all apps on the phone are via the App Store and therein lies the lurch. If they were to go in and delete someone's personal app, all hell would break loose.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
I think the worst offender in the article is the 75% piracy rate for EVERY app that's sold, which is obviously not true. There are your typical top 100 popular apps that might come close to that, and the rest would be far lower if at all.
I should probably clarify a bit more there. There are two issues about jailbreaking. The Apple legal stance that they own the software on the phone and that jailbreaking bypasses DRM. Aside from the whole Jailbreaking question, the other is the hardware itself, which you actually 'buy'. Once you own the hardware, technically you should be able to modify it as you please as long as it doesn't break any existing laws.
Say you jailbreak your phone, and then purchase an app that isn't sold via the App store. I think it's legally very shaky ground for Apple to insist that all apps on the phone are via the App Store and therein lies the lurch. If they were to go in and delete someone's personal app, all hell would break loose.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
Well they can check the Apps on the device only against the catalog that Apple offers. While they can't tell you what to load on your device, loading software you knowingly didn't pay for that is only offered via App Store I'd say Apple has the right to pull that software off your device. For the 30% developers cough up to Apple I think Apple can atleast give this to them.
Well they can check the Apps on the device only against the catalog that Apple offers. While they can't tell you what to load on your device, loading software you knowingly didn't pay for that is only offered via App Store I'd say Apple has the right to pull that software off your device. For the 30% developers cough up to Apple I think Apple can atleast give this to them.
They don't' have that authority. Apple is not a jury, or judge, or police force. They are a corporation. Things like that must be handled via the legal system.
If the app in question was owned and supplied by Apple, I could see that happening. Since that is not the case, I don't think they could legally do that.
The pirating numbers appear grossly exaggerated. 90% of itunes apps are pirated. Doubtful. I would hope they'd find a better way of calculating these numbers before they post junk like this again.
Yes and no. They took actuals for apps that 'phone home' and used those as a basis for all apps in the store. Although there may be apps with such high numbers, it doesn't make sense that they would all be that high. Popular ones, possibly, but not all of them.
The pirating numbers appear grossly exaggerated. 90% of itunes apps are pirated. Doubtful. I would hope they'd find a better way of calculating these numbers before they post junk like this again.
1) The rate of piracy, as noted in the article itself, was estimated to be 75%, not 90%.
2) A real developer has commented with figures of 87%.
3) I rounded this to 90%, for ease of maths when doing the sums for example purposes.
Why do you find this doubtful? If you have other information you would like to share, we'd all love to see it. Wired have had an article which states a potential 100:1 piracy : pay ratio, as taken from analytical stats, rather than guesswork.
They don't' have that authority. Apple is not a jury, or judge, or police force. They are a corporation. Things like that must be handled via the legal system.
If the app in question was owned and supplied by Apple, I could see that happening. Since that is not the case, I don't think they could legally do that.
Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product
Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product
Agreed. Apple could make it more difficult to pirate these apps, but legally their hands are tied. They can't assume guilt on the part of the user and take action. They are limited in what they can do. I think their only good option is prevention, rather than policing.
Agreed. Apple could make it more difficult to pirate these apps, but legally their hands are tied. They can't assume guilt on the part of the user and take action. They are limited in what they can do. I think their only good option is prevention, rather than policing.
Yes, but Apple can enforce their policies that protect their developers. Apple has shown their stalwart tendencies but when it comes to piracy they are about as soft as Richard Simmons. Hell all it takes
I'm not saying anything not made by Apple be deleted, I would not be in support of that. What I am saying is Apple not screw its devs over when they could be proactive about this. This is a situation where Apple can play off big. Not only does our 30% get you into our store and updates but gives you added protection for your product