Looks as though their agreement is similar to Google's 4.5 Non-Compete
AppsLib may not be used to distribute or make available Apps whose primary purpose would be to facilitate the distribution of Products outside the AppsLib On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Given the non-standard nature of the device (unsupported resolution, > possible lack of Google apps, etc.) I had hoped they would have tried to > openly work with the development community and engage it. What we've seen so > far is an Android skin which I'm still not sure if it works correctly (see > 6th message and onwards in > http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss/browse_thread/thread/7fd52bdab3cfd1aa) > and spamming as many developers as they could get email addresses for to try > and get them to list on their applications site, which is not the most > friendly of approaches. > > All this and we still don't know much about the device itself; > > - How hacked is the version of Android? The status bar in > http://appslib.com/img/website/screen_dev1_big.jpg look like the UI at > least has changes well beyond what HTC did with Rosie (look at the status > bar). > > - Can you use the SDK to run apps on device? The appslib site only refers > to using the emulator & skin and makes no mention of on-device development. > I'd have thought their marketing department would jumped in with a plug for > the devices to tap into the developer market with a pre-order link. > > - Archoses have a history of protecting the internals of their firmware > (see http://forum.archosfans.com/viewtopic.php?p=75799#p76889) so would > they let people poke around on the device with adb shell, pull, etc.? > > - How much space is there for apps?, are we going to have another Samsung > Galaxy moment where the device manufacturer makes the total amount of > storage prominent in their specs yet the space for apps is still quite > limited? > > - What is the "Approved by Archos" scheme shown in that screenshot?, Is it > similar to the idea I blogged about nearly a year ago? ( > http://alsutton.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/google-android-and-code-signing-app-shops/), > and how does an app become "Approved by Archos". > > > One of the reasons I have these concerns is that I own a current Archos 5 > and have found it to be less than ideal with problems with playback of > encoded video is hit and miss (see > http://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8819) amongst other things > and it's now been EOLed in terms of firmware with these issues being left > unfixed. > > Looking back at how the current Archos 5 was received (see > http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/29/archos-5-unboxing-and-hands-on/) it > would appear that Archos have released great devices with disappointing > software in the past, so I'm wondering if we could be heading down this road > again. > > Al. > > -- > > * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * > > ====== > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > subsidiaries. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of JP > Sent: 02 September 2009 06:42 > To: Android Discuss > Subject: [android-discuss] Re: Archos Device/Email from appslib > > > > I do fault them. Freedom comes with responsibility so > I rather not deal with people that operate > like that. > > > On Sep 1, 2:16 pm, "Mark Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with most of your concerns, except for a minor quibble on this > one: > > > > > (has anyone seen any posts from > > > them to any mailing lists or forums?). > > > > I'm fairly certain, particularly on the AOSP groups, that some hardware > > manufacturers' engineers post under personal/generic email accounts. > > > > Now, it'd be *much* better if firms who have announced devices would post > > from addresses on their own domains, but it's a free Internet, so I can't > > really fault them if they want to be anonymous. Certainly, if they have > > not announced devices yet, being anonymous makes perfect sense. > > > > I'm always pleased when I see major Android players post publicly, such > as > > our T-Mobile contingent. > > > > -- > > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)http://commonsware.com > > Android App Developer Books:http://commonsware.com/books.html > > > > > -- Shane Isbell (Co-founder of SlideME - The Original Market for Android) http://twitter.com/sisbell http://twitter.com/slideme --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
