RIM Nuking PlayBook App Side-loading Over Piracy Concerns; Calls Android Market

Status
Not open for further replies.

gilbertfh

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2009
93
0
18,580
0
Maybe I am the exception but I don't think I am. I have never ever had a problem with malware on my Andriod devices. Admittedly I typically get the majority of my apps from Google Play or what ever it is called these days. I think by closing it off it will keep many potential customers from purchasing their devices.
 

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
651
0
18,930
0
Well for normal users, the ability to sideload is no big deal AS LONG as the device still has a legitimate market available, like Google Play Store.

The least they could do is allow access to the Google Play Store, or provide an alternative build for those who want to use their Playbook for sideloading etc..
 
G

Guest

Guest
Errr, Talk about old news, there was a clarification from RIM saying that side loading is going to be allowed and that tweet has been misread.
But please, let me not stop your RIM bashing.
 

hetneo

Distinguished
Aug 1, 2011
128
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]VoiceOfSanity[/nom]Errr, Talk about old news, there was a clarification from RIM saying that side loading is going to be allowed and that tweet has been misread. But please, let me not stop your RIM bashing.[/citation]
Have you read that tweet? It says "@Spy520e we're removing sideloading for consumers. Pretty sure we've got a solution for devs." I would believe to RIM's PR if they said "we changed our minds out of respect to consumers' opinion", but saying it was "misread" is pure Bovine Scatology.
 

testerguy

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2011
54
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]you know the best way for me to not go with you as a company? treat me like a pirate when i have don't nothing.[/citation]

You what?
 

Verrin

Distinguished
Jan 11, 2009
42
0
18,580
0
Considering how much ground RIM has lost, I figured they'd be working extra hard to win back consumers. But whenever I see what they're up to these days, I'm always shocked at their choices and decisions. Their new OS should have been out months ago; their phones are still always one step behind in hardware and feature sets from other manufacturers; and worst of all, they don't seem too interested in accepting consumer feedback. They're riding like they're still on top-- when really they need a new outlook and a new approach. As much as I want to see RIM succeed, I've never been so disappointed with their products and services.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Good. Glad RIM has come to its sense and is dropping the JOKE that is Android - stapling two irrelevant platforms together was never a good idea to begin with!
 

joebob2000

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2006
525
0
18,930
0
Dear @asaunders, Feel free to get your own market if you don't like the Android one. Oh that's right, you have one that is so clean it doesn't have ANY apps in it at all! Brilliant move!

Sincerely,
@androidusers
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
200
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Well, the Android market is indeed somewhat of a cesspool...[/citation]
It really is. Don't get me wrong, I love my Bionic, but being somewhat new to Android (got my Bionic last November) it definately feels like I have a target on my back. Of course for the record before any iPhone fans start up, I haven't had my Droid hacked, but did have a bad app on my iPod Touch, so don't think iOS is any safer with Apple reviewing every app. Some obviously do slip through.

You really have to go through the list of permissions carefully on Google Play. Of course I wonder how Google is making sure they list every permission the app needs as they claim they make the devs do. I know the Amazon App Store doesn't as the list of permissions for the same app is generally a lot smaller list there. And I've given up on Amazon's free app of the day as it's generally junk with permissions that type of app doesn't need.

I can understand the frustration some people have over RIM's decision, but it does seem that when people ask companies to take steps to try to increase security, people then turn around and complain about any steps they take. Would be nice if a magic wand could be waved that would end all malware, but that will never happen, so some inconvenience is a price to pay for data security.
 

zaznet

Distinguished
May 10, 2010
262
0
18,930
0
Seems like the wrong way to go for RIM after trying to make a course correction in this market. Now they are going to be supporting their own proprietary market app. This reduces the usefulness of the table for their customers and increases the work they have to do all for a one-off device.
 

scuba dave

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2009
253
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]inever had one problem with malware affecting my Nexus S. i had one app though that pushed ads to my phone but once i deleted the app i had no problems after that.[/citation]

So in other words... You've only had malware affect you once in actuality?

As for RIM's decision... Meh. I don't think people are specifically buying their platform exclusively to run Android apps, however, this move can't possibly go well for them. If they wanna shoot themselves.. be my guest. Just don't cry to me when your bleeding.
 

shaod

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2011
6
0
18,510
0
This is the same as claiming Windows or Linux are a cesspool of bad apps because you can install what you want on them.

[citation][nom]wildkitten[/nom]Of course I wonder how Google is making sure they list every permission the app needs as they claim they make the devs do. I know the Amazon App Store doesn't as the list of permissions for the same app is generally a lot smaller list there. [/citation]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but when you create an Android app you have to go into the manifest and explicitly state the permissions the app needs. If you don't set a permission that the app requires it won't load. The devs can't "not list a permission", or the app simple doesn't work.
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
200
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]shaod[/nom]This is the same as claiming Windows or Linux are a cesspool of bad apps because you can install what you want on them.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but when you create an Android app you have to go into the manifest and explicitly state the permissions the app needs. If you don't set a permission that the app requires it won't load. The devs can't "not list a permission", or the app simple doesn't work.[/citation]
I am talking about the list on the web site for a customer to review. If you go look at Amazon's App Store at some apps and then to Google Play, you will see that the permission list on Amazon is not nearly as extensive. So if some permissions can be left off of Amazon's site for an app, how can someone know that the permission list is complete on the description on Google Play?

I'm not sure what this manifest is, but the way you describe it I assume it's something inside the app itself. Writing a description on a web site that leaves off a permission won't keep an app from installing or running on a phone/tablet. And Google does not police their app store the way Apple does. Apple may have many faults, but reviewing each app isn't one of them and honestly is something Google should do as well.

Also, Android is Linux. And Windows is a cesspool for bad applications and always has been. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be the need for strong security in the OS as well as strong security applications. That's not a knock on Windows, it's just the nature of something that anyone can develop for.

Android is a great platform, but Google needs to do tighter oversight on apps. I think this latest Angry Birds malware fiasco is a good example. It may not be on Google Play (yet), but Google could do a lot more about warning from 3rd party app stores. Yes, if someone sticks with Google Play they are a lot safer, but it's not guaranteed. Google has gone through and had to pull malicious apps before.
 

shaod

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2011
6
0
18,510
0
The permissions list within Google Play is completely automated based on the manifest, and I'm 99% sure the Amazon App Store list is too. The information is freely available within manifest.xml, there is no reason for anyone to manually enter a list of permissions.

When you see different versions of apps with different permissions they are generally the free (with ads) versus the paid (without apps). The app providers require permissions in order to load the ads within the app, and that's where the extra permissions come in.

Why should Google police apps? Should Microsoft? I like the freedom to install what I want on my own computer. And Windows doesn't have strong OS level security: it uses a very poor ACS system. LinuxSE contains a much stronger security set. And Android OS level security is far superior to Windows OS level security. Android OS level security is actually probably the best OS level security of any OS in mainstream use, only being beaten by lesser used systems such as FreeBSD thanks to capabilities.

As for Android being Linux, well it uses the Linux kernel. That's not really the same thing, as it is missing a lot of features that come as standard on desktop Linux distros. The point I was making is simply that you can install what you want on Linux, and I'd like to keep it that way for Android too.
 

wildkitten

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
200
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]shaod[/nom]The permissions list within Google Play is completely automated based on the manifest, and I'm 99% sure the Amazon App Store list is too. The information is freely available within manifest.xml, there is no reason for anyone to manually enter a list of permissions.When you see different versions of apps with different permissions they are generally the free (with ads) versus the paid (without apps). The app providers require permissions in order to load the ads within the app, and that's where the extra permissions come in.Why should Google police apps? Should Microsoft? I like the freedom to install what I want on my own computer. And Windows doesn't have strong OS level security: it uses a very poor ACS system. LinuxSE contains a much stronger security set. And Android OS level security is far superior to Windows OS level security. Android OS level security is actually probably the best OS level security of any OS in mainstream use, only being beaten by lesser used systems such as FreeBSD thanks to capabilities.As for Android being Linux, well it uses the Linux kernel. That's not really the same thing, as it is missing a lot of features that come as standard on desktop Linux distros. The point I was making is simply that you can install what you want on Linux, and I'd like to keep it that way for Android too.[/citation]
Well, if the permission list is self generating from the manifest for both Amazon and Google Play, then something is wrong. I routinely check the permissions listed on Amazon for their FAOD against the same app on Google Play and everytime there is more permissions listed under Google Play.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 2
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 13
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 20
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 71
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 13
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 20
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 35
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 23
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 26
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 22
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 7
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 28
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 5
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 26
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 8
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 37
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 22
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 21
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 40
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 50

ASK THE COMMUNITY