I've just dugg up the URL and it looks soooo close to the Market ones it suggest to me they took a copy of Googles T&Cs and only changed the wording to refer to Appslib and Archos devices. Have a look at these examples (and no, I haven't changed the section numbers, they really are the same);
For example; Market; "4.5 Non-Compete. You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution of Products outside of the Market." Appslib; "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" Market; "5.1 You grant to Google a nonexclusive, worldwide, and royalty-free license to: copy, perform, display, and use the Products for administrative and demonstration purposes in connection with the operation and marketing of the Market and to use the Products to make improvements to the Android platform. " Appslib; "5.1 THE COMPANY will be granted a nonexclusive, worldwide, and royalty-free license to: copy, perform, display, and use the Apps for administrative and demonstration purposes, related to the operation and marketing of the AppsLib and THE COMPANY devices, as well as to use the Apps to improve its devices." Market; "10.2 If you want to terminate this Agreement, you must provide Google with thirty (30) days prior written notice (unless this Agreement terminates under Section 14.1) and cease your use of any relevant developer credentials." Appslib; "10.2 A thirty (30) day prior written notice to THE COMPANY is required from you should you need to terminate this Agreement and cease your use of any relevant developer credentials. This does not apply to Termination under section 14.1." and it goes on, and on, and on like this. I wonder if Archos hired Googles lawyers or have licensed the agreement from them? If anyone wants to compare the two the URLs are; http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html and http://appslib.com/terms_conditions/AppsLib_tnc.htm Interestingly enough the appslib URL uses tnc, but even calls the page "AppsLib Apps Developer Distribution Agreement" which sounds very close to Markets " Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement" Al. -- * Looking for Android apps?, try 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. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Shane Isbell Sent: 04 September 2009 23:13 To: [email protected] Subject: [android-discuss] Re: Archos Device/Email from appslib Even more interesting: Developers are not allowed to issue refunds but they are subject to chargebacks. If the Store Manager (I assume archos) decides not to issue a refund, the user would then just do a chargeback and the developer gets the bill. Am I reading this right? ----- 3.4 Refund Requirements - Special. THE COMPANY will not refund any apps willingly purchased by customers, unless discretional decision by the Store Managers. 3.5 You Support Your Product. Maintenance and Support for Apps as well as Complaints about them are the sole responsibility of the Developers. Each application will explicitly display contact details, and customers are free to contact you for any reason they deem necessary. Failure to provide adequate support for your Products may result in low Product ratings, less prominent product exposure, low sales and billing disputes. Except in cases when multiple disputes are initiated by a user with abnormal dispute history, billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products sold for less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor. Chargeback requests for Products sold $10 or more will be handled in accordance with the Payment Processor's standard policy. On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Shane Isbell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[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]> [mailto:[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]<mailto:[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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
