The firmware is different. ADP 1.1 is made by google and jail broken G1
probably runs on JF firmware which is a 3rd party developer.
2009/3/30 patg
>
> Is there any difference between a ADP1 and a jail broken G1?
>
> Pat
>
> On Mar 29, 8:31 am, Disconnect wrote:
> > Yes you can, and so long as
Is there any difference between a ADP1 and a jail broken G1?
Pat
On Mar 29, 8:31 am, Disconnect wrote:
> Yes you can, and so long as you do not flash the t-mobile SPL you will be
> fine. (For example, do not use any tmobile dreaimg.nbh files you might come
> across.)
>
> Safer and more function
Yes you can, and so long as you do not flash the t-mobile SPL you will be
fine. (For example, do not use any tmobile dreaimg.nbh files you might come
across.)
Safer and more functional images are available from http://jf.andblogs.net,
where he sets the security code to 0 (so you have root), secure
Such images aren't distributed to the public, and even if you got your
hands on one and managed to flash it, you could indeed end up locking
yourself out of your phone entirely.
It seems to me that if you want to do that you might as well sell your
ADP1 and buy a G1.
JBQ
2009/3/28 Rodin :
>
> J
Yes, you can do that, but you will fully lock your phone.
2009/3/29 Rodin
>
> Jean-Baptiste,
>
> I've looked around and I'm still not clear on something.
> If I order the ADP1, is there a possibility to flash the standard
> TMobile US image and just the use the phone as a fully-functional,
> loc
Jean-Baptiste,
I've looked around and I'm still not clear on something.
If I order the ADP1, is there a possibility to flash the standard
TMobile US image and just the use the phone as a fully-functional,
locked G1?
Thanks,
Rodin
On Mar 2, 3:16 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> That woul
On Mar 3, 5:57 am, John Gruenenfelder wrote:
> However, I plan to purchase an ADP1
> very soon. My plan has always been to have this be my primary device. Like
> many of the other hobbyists here on the list, I can little afford two
> devices. I was very much hoping that the ADP1 would serve al
I'm doing what I can to get a 1.1 update available to ADP1 owners.
At a high level the differences between 1.0 and 1.1 for the ADP1
should be about the same as the differences between 1.0 (TC4-RC30) and
1.1 (PLAT-RC33) for the US T-Mobile G1, but I do not have visibility
over the exact details in
You might want to move this onto this thread;
http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform/browse_thread/thread/803fe73023a24536/
Al.
vendor wrote:
> Then, could you create a virtual partition for the secure dirs and
> encrypt it with key which only the System knows and when you flash the
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:44:21AM -0800, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
>
>Even if you don't want to trust Google at this point, I'm asking that
>you trust me when I say that I'm doing everything that I can to get
>this issue resolved.
>
>JBQ
You've always been as forthright as possible for issues u
Start a topic there:
http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform/browse_thread/thread/a1b7fb4cda42e807
Hope it is not threated as spam :)
On 3 Март, 00:22, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> Anyway, we've wandered far off-topic with little chance of coming back
> on-topic, this discussion should
Then, could you create a virtual partition for the secure dirs and encrypt
it with key which only the System knows and when you flash the system => you
loose the key?
2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru
>
> You don't need for wipe the data and cache partitions when flashing
> the boot, recovery or syst
Anyway, we've wandered far off-topic with little chance of coming back
on-topic, this discussion should move to android-platform where it'd
make more sense so that we don't bother people who are just trying to
use the SDK.
JBQ, self-moderating.
2009/3/2 Jean-Baptiste Queru :
> You don't need for
You don't need for wipe the data and cache partitions when flashing
the boot, recovery or system partitions.
JBQ
2009/3/2 vendor :
> If you flash with the unlocked firmware you should delete the older first?
> And to format the partition?
>
> 2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru
>>
>> That wouldn't wor
If you flash with the unlocked firmware you should delete the older first?
And to format the partition?
2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru
>
> That wouldn't work, as you could download with the "locked" firmware,
> flash an "unlocked" firmware, and get the files out.
>
> JBQ
>
> 2009/3/2 vendor :
> >
That wouldn't work, as you could download with the "locked" firmware,
flash an "unlocked" firmware, and get the files out.
JBQ
2009/3/2 vendor :
> What do you think about the idea of two firmware versions for ADP1?
>
> 2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru
>>
>> As far as I know by the time you remove f
What do you think about the idea of two firmware versions for ADP1?
2009/3/3 Jean-Baptiste Queru
>
> As far as I know by the time you remove from ADP1 the features that
> would allow access to forward-locked apps (flashable, root, debuggable
> system), you have essentially a consumer device.
>
>
As far as I know by the time you remove from ADP1 the features that
would allow access to forward-locked apps (flashable, root, debuggable
system), you have essentially a consumer device.
JBQ
2009/3/2 vendor.net :
>
>> Most importantly though, I'm really disappointed in Google's lack of
>> commu
> Most importantly though, I'm really disappointed in Google's lack of
> communication on the topic. I have to scour the web just to find a
> hint of some idea of what's going on with the dev phone. There is no
> official word or anything. Google should at least have a posting on
> the Develope
Any attempts by anyone to create a repeatable method that can crack the
system for any desired app would be welcomed. I'd rather any problems
were named and shamed that try and hide them.
Al.
Jon Colverson wrote:
> On Mar 1, 9:17 am, Al Sutton wrote:
>
>> I think we're going to have to agr
On Mar 1, 9:17 am, Al Sutton wrote:
> I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
>
> As I see it you're not willing to factor in the difficulty level in
> cracking the system and implementing a generic method as a
> differentiating factor between the protection methods, whereas my
> viewpo
Jon,
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
As I see it you're not willing to factor in the difficulty level in
cracking the system and implementing a generic method as a
differentiating factor between the protection methods, whereas my
viewpoint is based on the level of effort nee
Well, you all have certainly taken this discussion in an interesting
direction.
I would just like to add to my original posting. Hopefully we still
have some official Google person's attention.
I'm pretty understanding when it comes to deadlines not being met when
it comes to stuff like this.
On Feb 28, 6:46 pm, Al Sutton wrote:
> method), and, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a method circulating
> which can be applied to any and every protected application to get a
> protection free copy by following a simple set of instructions (if there
> is I'd welcome information on it so we ca
Jon,
Thanks for expanding on your previous email. I'm always willing to admit
when I've made a mistake, and I'm always willing to learn, so I hope
you'll continue the discussion until either we agree to disagree or come
to a consensus.
The point I'm putting across is that the protection offer
On Feb 28, 6:09 pm, Al Sutton wrote:
> If you're talking about modifying the binary to remove the license
> checking,
Yes, that's what I was getting at. I didn't want to simply say it
because talking about ways of circumventing DRM is legally shaky
ground.
> well, if someone is willing to do th
Jon Colverson wrote:
> On Feb 28, 7:06 am, Al Sutton wrote:
>
>> This
>> isn't neccessarily about encrypting applications, in fact the system at
>> AndAppStore[1] doesn't rely on encrypting the application, it purely
>> relies on using an encrypted piece of data which thae application uses
>>
On Feb 28, 7:06 am, Al Sutton wrote:
> This
> isn't neccessarily about encrypting applications, in fact the system at
> AndAppStore[1] doesn't rely on encrypting the application, it purely
> relies on using an encrypted piece of data which thae application uses
> to determine what rights a user h
On Feb 27, 2:25 pm, Java Developer wrote:
> Can I return my ADP1? I was completely mislead, and so was everyone
> else. Now that I think about it, I believe American Express would
> agree with me. I suggest we all start charge back procedures on these
> bricks as they don't deliver anything near
I've just re-read your last paragraph and felt I should address some of
the claims you've made.
To crack the AndAppStore uses 1024 RSA encryption which is considered
secure, and even if a cracker got the public key used to decrypt the
license information in the application that would only show
Jon,
To give you some background about me so you can understand that I'm not
just shooting in the breeze here, one of the companies I am director of
sells a piece of software I designed which securely stores information
using cryptography, the piece of software in question has been tested
and
On Feb 27, 10:12 pm, Al Sutton wrote:
> DRM tends to be based on Cryptography and yes, all cryptography is
> breakable
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
Cryptography is intended to be used for, and effective at,
transmitting a message secretly between two parties (A -> B) without a
third-party (E, fo
DRM tends to be based on Cryptography and yes, all cryptography is
breakable, but the aim of it is to ensure the information is worthless
by the time it's broken, so in the case of a license, the application
would should have been superseded by a newer version by the time you
expect someone to
On Feb 27, 5:58 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> It would make more sense to not rely on forward-locking for
> copyright-related restrictions. It all boils down to finding time to
> implement it.
All DRM is breakable. I would strongly urge you not to invest any
developer time in making your syst
We were hoping that it would get resolved very soon after the release
of the ADP1, and it's been taking much much much much longer than
anyone had anticipated (even myself, albeit a permanent pessimist when
it comes to schedules, didn't see that one coming at all).
Like I said above, this isn't a
Can I return my ADP1? I was completely mislead, and so was everyone
else. Now that I think about it, I believe American Express would
agree with me. I suggest we all start charge back procedures on these
bricks as they don't deliver anything near what was expected and
"promised".
JBP, how can you
Except you are allowed (and even, kinda, encouraged) to make your app
available in many places.
So how do you distinguish between "I got it from andappstore" or "I got it
for free from the developer" (both legit but not market) from "Joe copied it
off his phone for me"?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12
Sorry, I don't even have visibility over such roadmaps or ETAs.
JBQ
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM, vendor wrote:
> Something unofficial? Not a strict plan like we will be done in 2 days, but
> something more than:
> "We understand your concerns and we will make an update which will treat
> p
Something unofficial? Not a strict plan like we will be done in 2 days, but
something more than:"We understand your concerns and we will make an update
which will treat properly the paid applications and in the feature G1/G2 and
etc will be synchronized with the ADPs." Just an example. Because now,
No roadmap or ETA, sorry.
JBQ
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM, vendor wrote:
> Could you say a roadmap or something? Ex. I did`t know, I was only
> speculating that you are working on this problem, but please share
> information with us. We work together...
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM,
Could you say a roadmap or something? Ex. I did`t know, I was only
speculating that you are working on this problem, but please share
information with us. We work together...
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
>
> It would make more sense to not rely on forward-locking fo
It would make more sense to not rely on forward-locking for
copyright-related restrictions. It all boils down to finding time to
implement it.
JBQ
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Steve Barr wrote:
>
> On 2/27/09, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
>> DRM in this discussion is a mechanism that allows
What you're talking about is the reason that AndAppStore offer a
mechanism to lock apps to 'phones or users phone numbers. Copy
protection is a technology that has been consigned to the past on many
platforms to the extent that even pure digital distribution systems such
as Steam (www.steampow
On 2/27/09, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> DRM in this discussion is a mechanism that allows developers to say "I
> don't want my application to be available on devices from which it can
> be copied".
Given rooted devices, would it make more sense to look for DRM which
locked an app to a partic
I think we're getting two phrases mixed up here. DRM is a blanket term
for many technilogies (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management), I think what
we're taking about is the Android Copy Protection mechanism which is an
attempt to implement a set of DRM principles.
The cur
DRM in this context (and as I've always seen it used in other
contexts) is related to the specific rights of copyright holders and
they way they're granted to users and enforced. For this specific
discussion "DRM" is forward-locking, though it could also be "no-save"
(more restricted), "no-cache"
Huh?, DRM is about ensuring that an application uses only the facilities
that it is supposed to (either by license or by platform design). The
Android "uses-permission" handling system is DRM, are you saying that
the it makes "something not work on the devices that have the most
capabilities".
The incentive to release the ADP1 would have been smaller if the G1
had been available in more geographies, since for a lot of SDK-related
cases the G1 is an adequate development platform, but it wouldn't have
disappeared, and we'd probably have tried to make it happen on the
exact same schedule a
And there was me thinking many ADP1 buyers were splashing the cash
because they wanted an android 'phone and the G1 wasn't available in
their region ;).
Al.
Mark Murphy wrote:
> vendor.net wrote:
>
>> People buy ADP1 to develop apps for G1.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. In fact, one can arg
It's really not an oversight. We've been working on this situation for
months, and we've known about it since before the first ADP1 shipped,
since right from day 1 there was no way for platform contributors
who'd have flashed a custom build to go back to the original build
that their device came w
Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> ADP1 is explicitly supposed to serve both purposes.
Glad to hear it!
--
Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy)
http://commonsware.com
_The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version 2.0 Available!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
ADP1 is explicitly supposed to serve both purposes. Not having
official system images available affects both groups (SDK users who
can't test their code against newer versions of the platform, platform
contributors who can't revert their devices to a known state).
The boundary between the two gro
I know for one I feel a bit misled. I certainly expected it to
receive support going forward on a level with the G1, and other
devices from a software standpoint, including the Market. I also
realize I can use it for much more. The lack of paid app support for
my device really ticks me off, and
vendor.net wrote:
> People buy ADP1 to develop apps for G1.
Not necessarily. In fact, one can argue that is of secondary importance.
As I understand it, the primary intent of ADP1 was to provide a hardware
platform for firmware development.
One can certainly debate whether the priority of the
DRM is a case where more is less and less is more. The whole point of
DRM is to explicitly make something not work on the devices that have
the most capabilities. As such, DRM makes it impossible to have a
device that simultaneously has all capabilities. It's a frustrating
concept for all engineer
We can compare G1 and ADP1, but the intention of buying ADP1 is more
important. People buy ADP1 to develop apps for G1. Not to say: "Hey,
I`ve got a hacked G1 and I can do whatever I like.". So in this case
ADP1 should do the same things as G1. We develop apps for G1, but test
them on ADP1, so we
"There just wasn't enough time to do it." is the phrase which sank a
thousand good projects.
I'm sure if you added up all the time spent implementing the current
method, fixing the problems, segregating it's roll out to avoid rooted
devices, and dealing with developer frustrations there would
No doubt that using a DRM solution that is not based on
forward-locking is the right long-term approach. We know what it would
take to implement it. There just wasn't enough time to do it.
JBQ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Al Sutton wrote:
>
> JBQ,
>
> You can do both (after all apps on Win
JBQ,
You can do both (after all apps on Windows, DOS, Linux, etc., etc., etc.
have been doing this for years).
The solution we offer at
http://andappstore.com/AndroidPhoneApplications/licensing.jsp works
irrespective of whether the 'phone is rooted, non-rooted, copied, spun
dry, etc., etc.,
The problem is that you're fighting between two conflicting goals here:
-the need to have a root-capable debuggable and custom-flashable
device like the ADP1 for application development.
-the need to have a non-root-capable non-debuggable
non-custom-flashable device like a consumer device in ord
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM, vendor.net wrote:
> > JBQ, will ADP1 support copy-protected apps in the future?
On 2/26/09, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> I'd say that the current design would make this hard, but I have no
> visibility over what the future plans might be.
I think a lot of
Completely agree also. I'm still in a WTF mood for the restriction of
selling applications outside the states. I don't get the point of selling
Dev1 phones to Canada but not allowing us to sell applications. I really
feel like "Ok, go ahead and play with the SDK, pay around $550 to get into
develop
Totaly agree. This is funny! I believed in google and still believe. I
was so excited about android and ADP1 and the opurtunity to explore
competitors apps and code mine, but now I can`t do that. I still
believe that goolge will come with some solution. And there is one
more big issue: install app
On Feb 26, 10:17 pm, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> I'd say that the current design would make this hard, but I have no
> visibility over what the future plans might be.
I think the decision to restrict "copy-protected" apps on the ADP1 is
very unfortunate. It's trivial to break the "protection" o
Thanks Jean-Baptiste.
S
On 26 Feb 2009, at 21:10, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
>
> Indeed, copy-protected apps aren't offered on devices where the
> copy-protection is known to be ineffective.
>
> JBQ
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Sena Gbeckor-Kove
> wrote:
>>
>> I can't remember off
So the users who have ADP1 and want to develop apps will be stuck and
won`t have the chance to test the competitors apps?
This is cruel...
Jean-Baptiste Queru написа:
> I'd say that the current design would make this hard, but I have no
> visibility over what the future plans might be.
>
> JBQ
>
I'd say that the current design would make this hard, but I have no
visibility over what the future plans might be.
JBQ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM, vendor.net wrote:
>
> JBQ, will ADP1 support copy-protected apps in the future?
>
> Jean-Baptiste Queru написа:
>> Indeed, copy-protected apps
JBQ, will ADP1 support copy-protected apps in the future?
Jean-Baptiste Queru написа:
> Indeed, copy-protected apps aren't offered on devices where the
> copy-protection is known to be ineffective.
>
> JBQ
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Sena Gbeckor-Kove wrote:
> >
> > I can't remember of
Indeed, copy-protected apps aren't offered on devices where the
copy-protection is known to be ineffective.
JBQ
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Sena Gbeckor-Kove wrote:
>
> I can't remember off the top of my head but I believe that was
> something to do with copy protection. I don't think ADP
I can't remember off the top of my head but I believe that was
something to do with copy protection. I don't think ADP1 Market
displays copy protected apps. Despite the copy protection not being
very effective. Somebody back me up here.
S
On 26 Feb 2009, at 20:28, vendor.net wrote:
>
>
Is this the reason why I can not see/download these apps - Phonebook,
Bomberman, Pac-Man, de Blob and many other apps?
P.S. Phonebook and others are not paid, so I should see them?
Sena Gbeckor-Kove написа:
> Yeah, there was a comment on the article which makes a lot of sense to
> me. How does G
Yeah, there was a comment on the article which makes a lot of sense to
me. How does Google give the 30%, and who does it give it to, on the
ADP 1. Accounting and admin nightmare.
S
On 26 Feb 2009, at 10:06, Al Sutton wrote:
>
> I'm personally wondering if they'll be another firmware update
If you read the text you've quoted you'll find the answer from JBQ who
is an Android engineer from Google
If you're still uncertain, he posted a useful link;
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/search?group=android-developers&q=adp1+update&qt_g=Search+this+group
Al.
http://andapps
WoW! This sounds creepy!!!
Could someone of google confirm it? And will ADP1 support payed apps?
It is redicilus not to. After all we should be able to explore the
competitions apps... and this is only one of the things I came up to
right now.
I have started a new post here->
http://groups.google
I'm personally wondering if they'll be another firmware update for the
G1 which introduces proper DRM (something like
http://andappstore.com/AndroidPhoneApplications/licensing.jsp) before
the ADP gets access to paid apps.
I know there are other issues to overcome with the ADP1, but allowing
acces
Check this out guys,
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/02/25/google-blocking-paid-market-apps-from-dev-phone-1-users/
It seems Google has to do more work on the ADP 1.1 than G1, ADP owner
could be the private of paid apps.
On 26 fév, 01:26, "vendor.net" wrote:
> I know that you can`t tell us
-I don't know when it's going to be released. I really don't.
-Indeed, as far as I know the android market client in 1.0 can't see paid apps.
-I expect that the difference between 1.0 and 1.1 for ADP1 would be
about the same as the one between 1.0 and 1.1 for the G1.
JBQ
2009/2/25 vendor.net :
I know that you can`t tell us a date for the release, but can you tell
us if it will be released next month or something?
Is this the reaseon, why I can`t download some of the apps at the
market?
I thought that the update for the T-Mobile users came a long time ago.
This delay for ADP1 could make
I agree - thanks for the update and your efforts.
Is there anything the community can do to help?
On Feb 25, 6:59 am, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> PLAT-RC33 is the variant of Android 1.1 ported to Dream (G1) and
> customized for T-Mobile US, so it's not the appropriate build for the
> ADP1.
>
>
Shouldn't the dev phone get the new release earlier than the consumer
phone?
Normally the developers get the pre-release, or beta version earlier
before the product gets stablized...
It's because the cell phone is a special device which is "service-
connnected", so the release priority is revers
Release 1.1 is thankfully not based on the cupcake development tree.
JBQ
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:59 AM, roland wrote:
>
> I would like to know if the ADP 1.1 firmware contains the cupcake?
> Waiting for your response...
>
>
> On 25 fév, 14:59, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
>> PLAT-RC33 is the v
I would like to know if the ADP 1.1 firmware contains the cupcake?
Waiting for your response...
On 25 fév, 14:59, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
> PLAT-RC33 is the variant of Android 1.1 ported to Dream (G1) and
> customized for T-Mobile US, so it's not the appropriate build for the
> ADP1.
>
> The
Thanks for the update.
S
On 25 Feb 2009, at 14:59, Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote:
>
> PLAT-RC33 is the variant of Android 1.1 ported to Dream (G1) and
> customized for T-Mobile US, so it's not the appropriate build for the
> ADP1.
>
> There's no news on that subject as there isn't anything to ann
PLAT-RC33 is the variant of Android 1.1 ported to Dream (G1) and
customized for T-Mobile US, so it's not the appropriate build for the
ADP1.
There's no news on that subject as there isn't anything to announce
yet. We're still pushing hard to get 1.1 available for ADP1 owners,
but some things take
84 matches
Mail list logo
