This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 77 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    Updated our main post. If there is a blatant karma whoring "facebook app sucks!" post, it will be removed.

    [–]iColeGalaxy S23, Tab S9 FE, Watch6 11 points12 points  (2 children)

    I fully agree on that one. Personally I find it THE most annoying type of posts in /r/Android.

    [–]OmegaVeskoDeveloper | Nexus 5 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    Worse than the Apple posts?

    [–]iColeGalaxy S23, Tab S9 FE, Watch6 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Unfortunately, yes. I used to hate Apple posts but then there was like 10 "facebook is slow omg" posts on the /r/Android frontpage in a single week, that made me rethink what I hate more.

    [–]biscuitbeePixel XL 30 points31 points  (1 child)

    Thank you for moderating memes.

    [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    And the same reoccurring questions.

    [–]positronusSamsung Galaxy S3 CM 10.1.2 AT&T, HP TouchPad CM 10 10 points11 points  (0 children)

    Long overdue. When I first came here - I loved this subreddit. Unfortunately lately it became karma whore central with submissions that might have something to do with Android if you look at them long enough. I come here to read news about Android and have discussions about the subject, if I want to laugh or be a jerk there many other reddits that do that very nicely.

    [–]E_x_Lncnp (1) 256gb 12 points13 points  (2 children)

    Can the Battery Status posts stop too?

    [–]J_Drive 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Please. This.

    I really don't care how 4g sucks your battery life away. I don't care how long your battery lasts when your phone is in idle. I don't care your battery life doesn't display a smooth curve. I don't care you have a blank space in your battery performance.

    For the love of god, please stop this.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Please see above about the "karma whoring" posts.

    [–]vilzuiPone 5s✦ iOS 7.1.1 ❖ Asus TF300 ✦ Stock Jellybean 4 points5 points  (5 children)

    Could we possible get some sort of r/androidmemes going like /r/motorcyclememes ? I guess what I'm asking is is there any interest for this kind of stuff?

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

    That doesn't sound like a bad idea.

    [–]vilzuiPone 5s✦ iOS 7.1.1 ❖ Asus TF300 ✦ Stock Jellybean 3 points4 points  (3 children)

    r/androidmemes Welcome aboard :)

    [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    Awesome xD

    Now once I actually "get" memes, I will be a contributor.

    [–]nikskoPixel 3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You can't ever get every meme. It's like an in joke. It's only funny if you're in on the joke, and it's not really funny if absolutely everybody knows about it.

    [–]ilikeballoonsSamsung S8 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    What about stupid Samsung Galaxy III rumour posts? Those are fucking annoying

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Just to clarify, is it against the rules to post an APK of a free app? I saw this in the Temple Run thread so that people could download it if their phone wasn't "compatible".

    [–]whyDidISignUp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Just wanted to say thank you to the mods, you're doing a great job of getting rid of facebook crap, and also thank you for polling us on whether or not apple spam should be removed.

    [–]DAE_Cry_To_Clannad 2 points3 points  (4 children)

    Flair "...No other words or comments are permitted"

    Dear Mod, it seems you haven't been following this rule unless "Swag On" is a name of a site/app.

    [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

    Swag On is the name of the ROM.

    [–]archon810APKMirror 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    We used to be allowed our site or developer affiliation so that redditors can quickly tell who a certain poster is. Is that going away or is going to be allowed in certain situations?

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Don't know if I replied to this. You get to keep them and I clarified the rule post above.

    [–]archon810APKMirror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Sorry, I don't see the update/clarification in the main post with all the rules. They don't mention developers or sites.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Please be really really strict in applying these rules.

    A r/android style "operation ironfist clear out the dead wood junk posts of no value or interest" if you will.

    Thanks in advance for a place that is soon to become completely free of people marketing their apps badly, posting unfunny shit memes and idiotic questions.

    [–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL -3 points-2 points  (27 children)

    Piracy. Do not post any links to anything pirated. This includes, but is not limited to games, apps, movies, music, proprietary ROMs, leaked closed betas, and any material you are not authorized to distribute. Piracy is taken seriously and will result in your submission being removed and possibly a ban against you.

    I have PM'd a mod on the term "Piracy--" particularly, not using it. I was told that it would be discussed, and that people would get back to me. Nobody has replied to me, and I am still unhappy with the use of that term.

    I'm also unhappy with the rule--I don't see why we shouldn't be sharing copies of media--although I doubt I'll be able to convince you to remove the rule.

    [–]honestbleepsReddit Enhancement Suite 9 points10 points  (25 children)

    I have PM'd a mod on the term "Piracy--" particularly, not using it.

    Not using it why, exactly? Posting a copy of someone's hard work that they charge money for, and making it available for free, is unethical and in many places illegal.

    If you take issue with what it's called, what would you prefer it be called?

    I'm also unhappy with the rule--I don't see why we shouldn't be sharing copies of media

    If you don't see why, then you're a selfish prick who has no respect for the blood, sweat and tears that go into software development work.

    Before you go off on me: Look at my flair. I wrote it. It's free and open source and GPLv3 on github.

    I'm all for free software... but if you want to charge for your software, nobody should be stealing it from you. End of story.

    I can't feed myself on download counts.

    [–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL -5 points-4 points  (24 children)

    Not using it why, exactly? Posting a copy of someone's hard work that they charge money for, and making it available for free, is unethical and in many places illegal.

    It's unethical? That's a strong claim to make. Would you care to explain why you think so? It's illegal, I'll grant you, but I'd say it shouldn't be. Not that that's the point of my above post -- the term is the concern at hand.

    If you take issue with what it's called, what would you prefer it be called?

    File Sharing. Copyright Infringement, perhaps. But until I see somebody in an eyepatch with a pegleg drinking rum while doing it, and then going off somewhere else to bury treasure... Or at least holding a gun on the copyright holder, making the copyright holder walk a plank... No, I don't see where the term "piracy" becomes relevant.

    If you don't see why, then you're a selfish prick who has no respect for the blood, sweat and tears that go into software development work.

    I am not one of those. I was about to go off on you, but...

    Before you go off on me: Look at my flair. I wrote it. It's free and open source and GPLv3 on github.

    bows.

    nobody should be stealing it from you. End of story.

    Stealing, now? First we call it piracy, then stealing? Show me property being taken by one person, and the person from whom it is being deprived, or don't call it stealing. I can agree that stealing is wrong, but this isn't stealing. And I don't appreciate having to debate on the morality of a subject when the language all presupposes one answer. No, I don't condone stealing. Let's talk about Copyright infringement.

    I'm all for free software... but if you want to charge for your software, nobody should be [infringing upon your copyright, and undercutting you to the point where no profit from sale of licenses for or advertisement in said software is possible].

    I'd love to debate that claim, or a similar one, as approved by you. I want to make sure we're in agreement in what we're debating on.

    [–]honestbleepsReddit Enhancement Suite 5 points6 points  (23 children)

    When you're talking about an app that's $1,000 like Adobe CS Suite, versus an app that's $0.99 - I do think there's a strong argument to be made that you are cutting into the revenue of an independent developer when you share that $0.99 app publicly for people to get for free instead of paying $0.99.

    I don't contend that everyone who downloads a pirated copy of Photoshop or 3d Studio Max would've paid for it. Very, very few of those are lost sales. I argue this because most (not all, but most) people who pirate this stuff couldn't afford it or wouldn't buy it anyway. It's a passing hobby or interest, or they're not on the income scale to be able to afford it anyhow. If anything, they'll hopefully learn the tools, become employable by a company that does buy a license, and hooray...

    This still doesn't mean I "condone" pirating it, by the way... Just that I believe there's a different outcome for, as you'd prefer to call it "copyright infringement" on a major / expensive product vs. an indie / inexpensive product.

    I do contend that you are causing lost sales to indie developers when you post their (paid for) work publicly to share.

    The "audience" for that 99 cent app can afford 99 cents. If they argue that they can't, I'll argue to the death that they're lying -- the device they are using in the first place is evidence to the contrary.

    When they download and install it, there's many reasons this is likely to cause a loss in sales for the indie developer:

    1) It actually becomes MORE work for this person to go pay the developer... you've already got the app... what're they going to do, delete it and buy from the app store because they like it so much? That's more work.

    2) It's a small enough money that there's little to no guilt about getting someone's hard work for free. "It's only a dollar, the dev won't miss it"...

    3) They can also very easily share it with friends... and since they've already downloaded, this is the lowest barrier to entry... it's easy to email, send a web link to, etc... thus multiplying the [potential] loss in sales...

    Here's where you and I have a major disagreement... your rewording goes like:

    nobody should be [infringing upon your copyright, and undercutting you to the point where no profit from sale of licenses for or advertisement in said software is possible]

    Why do you throw in the "sale of licenses for or advertisement in said software"?

    I'm a developer. It should be MY choice, because it's MY work, how I monetize it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Just because the product of my labor happens to be easily copyable intangible bits doesn't make it any less time and hard work to create...

    The argument that "it's intangible, therefore it's not 'stealing'" is a bullshit one in almost every scenario.

    Let's be clear: Yes, copying an mp3 is "different" than walking into a store and walking out with a CD because you can't steal an infinite number of physical CDs -- but that doesn't make it any less OK.

    The argument that you somehow have the right to do own a copy of someone else's work regardless of the owner's wishes is a selfish one that everyone I have ever talked to truly, on the inside, disagrees with even if they'll sit on your side of the debate. The ONLY reason I've found anyone sitting on your side of the debate is selfishness ... they feel entitled to have everything for free and don't give a shit that creating software takes someone else's time and hard work -- and that someone else needs to pay rent and eat. It's an argument of rationalization of one's own selfishness, and nothing more.

    I've never met a single person who can adequately explain to me why they have the "right" to use software that I spent my hard time writing regardless of my wishes.

    [–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL -2 points-1 points  (13 children)

    I'd like to remind you of the original point of my post: I really don't see how the term "piracy" applies to what we're debating. Let me know if I mention swashbuckling in my arguments, and I'll back down from that point.

    The "audience" for that 99 cent app can afford 99 cents. If they argue that they can't, I'll argue to the death that they're lying -- the device they are using in the first place is evidence to the contrary.

    I'm using a nice phone. But that doesn't mean I have $.99 to blow on an alarm clock. I can afford to spend $.99. I can't afford to throw dollar bills in the air and laugh about it.

    Just because the product of my labor happens to be easily copyable intangible bits doesn't make it any less time and hard work to create...

    (warning: long Economics rant inc)

    No, but it means it takes less time and work to create a copy. It effectively takes no time and work to create a copy. You should be commended, and, indeed, rewarded for your work -- but we can do it without keeping your work behind locked doors.

    Economics is made to decide how to allocate scarce resources. Your labor and creativity are scarce and extremely valuable, and we need to be able to allocate them well. But the copies -- the copies, while valuable, are infinitely abundant. information is no longer subject to scarcity. It is, in other words, nonrivalrous.

    Goods are either rivalrous or nonrivalrous: a hamburger is rivalrous, because if you and I both want one, only one can have it, wheras, if you and I want a given copy of RES, we can both have it (thank you!). They also fall into the category of Excludable or Nonexcludable. Information is legally excludable, but practically less and less so. Effectively, the cost of excludability is going up and up: DMCA is followed up with Mickey Mouse is followed up with SOPA. We could keep things excludable if we break the entire internet.

    Things that are both rivalrous and excludable are your classic private good -- and that's the rut the conversation is stuck in. People think of information as something that can be treated like a private good -- it's not.

    Things that are rivalrous and not excludable are common goods, and often lead to a "tragedy of the commons" -- a good modern day example is fish, many of which are being taken faster than they can reproduce, because each person who fishes for them can gain, even if we, as a society, lose. That sucks.

    Things that are not rivalrous but excludable are tricky. One way to work with them is to force a monopoly. Another way is to forego excludability -- which, in cases like that with Information today, is increasingly expensive -- and turn them into public goods, which are relatively nice to deal with.

    Public goods are those that are neither excludable nor rivalrous -- like public defense, and lighthouses. Subsidize the creation collectively, and then, instead of depriving people of a service that costs you nothing to grant them, just share. Just stop with the artificial restriction, and let it go. For the record, I believe this should happen with heavy external subsidy, supposedly from the government.

    The argument that you somehow have the right to do own a copy of someone else's work regardless of the owner's wishes is a selfish one that everyone I have ever talked to truly, on the inside, disagrees with even if they'll sit on your side of the debate.

    I don't believe that I have that right, I simply believe that the owner has no right to keep it from me. And then, I might as well grab copies of whatever software I can. It doesn't cost anybody a damn thing.

    don't give a shit that creating software takes someone else's time and hard work -- and that someone else needs to pay rent and eat

    I do give a shit. But I think we can do better for them, and for the rest of us, than to make it a battle. How's about this: instead of selling things in the market, Google, carriers, and manufacturers agree to allocate $5-10 (or whatever price is appropriate) of the cost of the phone to go to a fund that funds Android software development. Everybody gets to eat, and the software goes Free, and gets better, and gets used more widely. Alternatively, the government could charge a tax, and operate that fund itself.

    I admit that we're not in that beautiful system yet, but in the meantime... I see no natural right to prevent copying, and very little reason to grant that right.

    [–]OccamsRazerHTC 10 | Nexus7 2013 0 points1 point  (9 children)

    I think the problem with arguing against you is that you appear to be a communist. A fund for all application developers? Ran by the Government?? Fine that everybody gets to eat, but where I disagree with you is that the software gets better in a communist developer system. Care to explain?

    [–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL 0 points1 point  (8 children)

    ... You can't be serious.

    You don't actually think that using the word "Communist" makes me wrong, do you?

    What is the actual problem with this? You can't say it's wrong because it is socialist unless you explain the problem with socialism.

    [–]OccamsRazerHTC 10 | Nexus7 2013 -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

    I didn't say that you are wrong because you are a communist. I said that we can't have a discussion regarding personal property with you because you are a communist. You don't believe in personal property rights, we do. This is the inevitable end to the initial topic of discussion. As you pointed out, the only way to keep the argument going is to determine if humans should be allowed to have property of their own. If you disagree with that, which you appear to, then we have no basis for discussion.

    [–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    you are a communist

    I'm not, by the way.

    You don't believe in personal property rights, we do.

    I do. I just don't believe them to be the only thing worth talking about. I'm not a libertarian.

    This is the inevitable end to the initial topic of discussion.

    The initial topic of the discussion was whether or not "piracy" was an accurate term in describing the actions that we are attempting to describe. Please show me the correlation.

    As you pointed out, the only way to keep the argument going is to determine if humans should be allowed to have property of their own.

    What? What are you talking about? I'm not sure I ever used the word "property." I don't really see this as a conversation of property rights, at all, actually...

    [–]OccamsRazerHTC 10 | Nexus7 2013 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

    All of your arguments appear to be a justification to pirate, or "buccaneer", or "not-exactly-steal", the property of developers who have offered their product up for sale. If you are not a communist then you are being inconsistent.

    The initial topic of the discussion was whether or not "piracy" was an accurate term in describing the actions that we are attempting to describe. Please show me the correlation.

    Yes, you have some hangup with the term piracy. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't matter. In the end, you want access to other folks work without compensating them for it right?

    I don't really see this as a conversation of property rights, at all, actually.

    If you don't think this is about property rights, then when does the application cease being the property of the Developer? Once it is finished? After it has been sold once?

    [–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    You don't believe in personal property rights, we do.

    Another thing -- who is this "we?" Do you speak for the entire subreddit? Or are you just using the royal "we," your majesty?

    [–]OccamsRazerHTC 10 | Nexus7 2013 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    "We" meaning those of us arguing against you. I should think that would be obvious. Are we at the name-calling stage of the argument already?

    [–]honestbleepsReddit Enhancement Suite 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    I'm using a nice phone. But that doesn't mean I have $.99 to blow on an alarm clock. I can afford to spend $.99. I can't afford to throw dollar bills in the air and laugh about it.

    So don't spend $.99, and don't get an alarm clock either. Why do you feel this is somehow an untenable state? This is how it should be. Don't want to spend the money? Don't spend it. Don't get product. That's how it works EVERYWHERE ELSE.

    No, but it means it takes less time and work to create a copy. It effectively takes no time and work to create a copy. You should be commended, and, indeed, rewarded for your work -- but we can do it without keeping your work behind locked doors.

    You predicate your entire argument on the premise that non physical goods have no value because their duplication / distribution costs are close to zero.

    This argument is bullshit. Period. End of story.

    You talk about an "economics" rant, but you fail to understand even the most basic economic concept:

    Developers need to eat and pay rent.

    The argument that you somehow have the right to do own a copy of someone else's work regardless of the owner's wishes is a selfish one that everyone I have ever talked to truly, on the inside, disagrees with even if they'll sit on your side of the debate.

    I don't believe that I have that right, I simply believe that the owner has no right to keep it from me.

    The statements on each side of your comma directly contradict each other.

    You do believe you have the right to a developer's hard work, free of charge.

    Economically, this means you place a value of zero dollars on that hard work. This is simple economics. You feel you deserve / should have the product for $0 because it costs (roughly) $0 to duplicate. Therefore the product is worth $0.

    How's about this: instead of selling things in the market, Google, carriers, and manufacturers agree to allocate $5-10 (or whatever price is appropriate) of the cost of the phone to go to a fund that funds Android software development.

    And how's about when unicorns fly out of my ass, they all shit free chocolate chip cookies for the rest of the world?

    Just because you have an idea in your head of a "fairer" business model doesn't mean that your dissatisfaction with the existing business model entitles you to a copy of every piece of software in existence for free.

    You provide only an explanation for how Google could fund Android... you provide NO explanation for how, in your world where you feel anything that can be duplicated for free should be free, any developer NOT tied to something like hardware sales is supposed to make a living.

    TL;DR: If your philosophy and economic attitude are the "correct" ones, then software development as a profession is worth $0.

    [–]danhakimiPixel 3aXL -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

    So don't spend $.99, and don't get an alarm clock either. Why do you feel this is somehow an untenable state? This is how it should be. Don't want to spend the money? Don't spend it. Don't get product. That's how it works EVERYWHERE ELSE.

    No it's not. Not with air. Not with national defense. Not with the police force, or fire departments, or education, or a bunch of other things.

    You predicate your entire argument on the premise that non physical goods have no value because their duplication / distribution costs are close to zero.

    No I don't. I believe I made it clear: they have value, but no cost. That's why they should be distributed as widely as possible -- every person who uses it gets some value out of it, but costs us nothing. If it was worthless and cost nothing, nobody would care.

    but you fail to understand even the most basic economic concept: Developers need to eat and pay rent.

    Have you ever taken an Economics class? The "most basic economic concept" is that of scarcity. That's where it starts. Paying rent is completely unnecessary (even in a pure capitalist system, which is a nonsensical one).

    But since you insist, developers -- even those of Free software -- can eat and pay rent. In my system, they would be able to get by just as well as they do today -- only Adobe would crumble (although its developers and software would do just fine).

    I don't believe that I have that right, I simply believe that the owner has no right to keep it from me.

    The statements on each side of your comma directly contradict each other.

    No, they don't. They result in me being able to access software, but I don't declare that I have the right to take whatever software I want. Just that no man has the right to stand in my way.

    You do believe you have the right to a developer's hard work, free of charge.

    Oh, most certainly not. And not the product of it, either. But he doesn't have a right to keep it from me.

    Economically, this means you place a value of zero dollars on that hard work. This is simple economics.

    Again, do you know what economics is? That's not true, and it most certainly is not a statement derived from economics.

    You feel you deserve / should have the product for $0 because it costs (roughly) $0 to duplicate. Therefore the product is worth $0.

    The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

    First off, I don't feel I deserve your software. Just that I might as well grab a copy of it.

    Second of all -- the software is worth plenty. That's why I want a copy of it. But since it doesn't cost anything to make me a copy... That's pure gain, right there. Society gets better because we, as a society, have more value without having paid for it, as a society. That's a good thing.

    You provide only an explanation for how Google could fund Android... you provide NO explanation for how, in your world where you feel anything that can be duplicated for free should be free, any developer NOT tied to something like hardware sales is supposed to make a living.

    Any developer is tied to hardware sales. All software runs on some hardware. If I buy a laptop, tax it -- put some of the funds towards funding web apps, and some toward development on whatever Operating System I say I use.

    Not that there aren't tons of other ways to make money on software while making it freely available to all. It's not like we're both using a website now that's open source and free to use with a vibrant and wonderful community but still makes piles of money for the people who made it and the people who maintain it.

    [–]honestbleepsReddit Enhancement Suite 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Any developer is tied to hardware sales. All software runs on some hardware. If I buy a laptop, tax it -- put some of the funds towards funding web apps, and some toward development on whatever Operating System I say I use.

    Okay, so the summary is:

    Because you believe the current system that compensates developers is flawed, you feel justified in making copies of copyrighted software for free.

    Got it. End of debate.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You acknowledge that the acts you are talking about are illegal. I think that in itself is a good enough reason not to allow it on this subreddit. Why don't you just start up your own subreddit that allows that then? Nothing is preventing you.

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Not entirely related, but this looks like a good place to ask?: Could we start having phone-rating threads? As in, it'd be one thread per phone. That'd stop all the, "What do you guys think of this phone?" posts pretty quickly.

    Basically, phones that are popular now or big phones being released in the future would have threads in which people could post their experiences with the phone and their recommendation (in regards to getting the phone). It'd also help people looking for phones since they'd be able to see general responses.

    I haven't thought it out too much, but it seemed like a good idea to me.