Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Businesses Communications Google Handhelds The Internet Hardware

Google Dev Phone 1 Banned From Paid Apps 134

Posted by timothy
from the please-contradict-this-claim dept.
ScrewMaster points out an short article according to which purchasers of the G1 Android phone's developer-oriented variant will be out of luck if they want to buy apps from Google's application store. "Google is not going to allow programmers who have purchased the Dev Phone 1 to purchase paid apps from the Android Market. I just signed up as a G1 developer, and was about to plunk down the $399 for a Dev Phone 1, but now I'm going to have to think about it. I know that Google is interested in preventing (cough) 'piracy,' but does this seem like the right way to go? I know the Dev Phone 1 is primarily a developer's tool, but I would like to actually use the thing, and not have to spend another $180 from T-Mobile for a regular G1 just for the privilege of buying software." I hope this isn't true; the unlocked G1 looked like a pretty cool phone, especially (being unlocked) for travel to countries where pre-paid SIM cards are the norm.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Dev Phone 1 Banned From Paid Apps

Comments Filter:
  • How many times does it take to realize that crackers will get around any kind of protection? Especially on an open source platform.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AvitarX (172628)

      Way to perpetuate the myth that source is such a huge bonus when trying to crack a framework.

      Thanks.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's true, though. Disassembly and protocol analysis is more frustrating, holds less inherent information and takes much more time. Access to the source is a boon for any cracker.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Something being open-source means that more eyes will see the code and potential bugs will be caught quicker. Meanwhile, the kind of people who would maliciously exploit bugs are the kind of people who thrive on challenges like disassembly and reverse-engineering.

          • by fracai (796392)

            Of course, it's harder so it's more attractive.

            Closed source may be easier to find a hole once disassembled / reverse-engineered, but released Open Source should have fewer bugs to begin with. Closed source is more attractive because it's more likely to be crackable. Disassembly / etc is trivial enough that the result is on par with source viewable projects. It's the amount of attention paid to the product. I'd expect to find more bugs is some large, open, unpopular project than I would in a large, clos

    • by D-Cypell (446534) on Friday February 27, 2009 @09:23AM (#27010647)

      Yes, if only Windows was open source.... the 'black-hat' community would have found ways to subvert it years ago!

    • It might be possible to crack the protection but Google should still not leave the barn door open and support piracy. If they do then they will kill the commercial side of the App Store or will at least get sued by App Store developers: "We wrote this cool app, but Google just made it easy for pirates".
      • "We wrote this cool app, but Google just made it easy for pirates"

        I doubt that case would get very far ... I mean, if you're a developer you should have the brains to understand the terms under which your software is being sold. If you don't, that's your problem, not Google's. Now, a more likely scenario, if the App Store is perceived as being too insecure in this regard, is that devs will consider it too risky.

  • Evil google (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mc1138 (718275) on Friday February 27, 2009 @08:56AM (#27010505) Homepage
    As a company like google grows, practices like these are only going to become more common. They have to start "protecting" their interests. Not that it will work, but it's the natural reaction, much like a "fire hot, fire bad" reaction.
  • device not banned (Score:5, Interesting)

    by colonslash (544210) on Friday February 27, 2009 @08:57AM (#27010517)
    It's not the device that is banned...

    I have a Dev Phone 1, I created an app for it, and I couldn't see my own paid-app on the Market. Installing the Google bonus phone firmware let me access paid apps on the Android Market.
    • Re:device not banned (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lissajous (989738) on Friday February 27, 2009 @09:18AM (#27010625)

      I was going to mod you informative, but as I've just dropped 400 bucks on a Dev Phone 1, I'd rather be selfish and ask for more info on this "Google bonus phone firmware" of which you speak. So much for altruism ;-)

      • Re:device not banned (Score:5, Informative)

        by alphamerik (948212) on Friday February 27, 2009 @12:23PM (#27012901)

        I confirm this story is bunk, and anyone who is carrying this story should be ashamed (I am looking at you Engadget and Slashdot).

        Go and download "holiday_devphone-userdebug 1.1" image, paid apps will show up fine because it has the features of the Tmobile g33 firmware required to see paid apps. I shouldn't need to google that for you...

        The thing is, the ADP1 does not come with support, the original ADP1 firmware does not update automatically. As a developer and ADP1 owner one should be able to keep up with the news and figure this stuff out for oneself.

        • This is not true (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The holiday 1.1 firmware, which is the rc33 equivalent for the phones google gave to their employees, is also unable to see __protected__ apps on the market.

          The important part is protected, not paid. You will be able to see/buy unprotected paid applications, but not protected paid applications. So the holiday 1.1 adp firmware is 'banned' from purchasing protected apps as the news says.

          • by CTachyon (412849)

            The holiday 1.1 firmware, which is the rc33 equivalent for the phones google gave to their employees, is also unable to see __protected__ apps on the market. The important part is protected, not paid. You will be able to see/buy unprotected paid applications, but not protected paid applications. So the holiday 1.1 adp firmware is 'banned' from purchasing protected apps as the news says.

            Mod parent up. The issue is that, since you have root access on an ADP1 (via su), you can pluck .apk files directly from

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mdm-adph (1030332)

      What's your app? I'll give it a look.

      What? Of course I'll pay for it.

      • Apuzil - please take a look.
        • by mdm-adph (1030332)

          Hey, not bad -- got the free version to try it out. Nice spin on regular tetris -- good to see something different!

          If it catches on with me I'll even make it my first app store purchase. ;)

    • Re:device not banned (Score:5, Informative)

      by BiggoronSword (1135013) on Friday February 27, 2009 @10:37AM (#27011387) Homepage Journal
      I could be mistaken, I haven't tried this, but perhaps this is the firmware [andblogs.net] colonslash is referring to.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yincrash (854885)
      I'm pretty sure if you have the original firmware on the g1 as well, it cannot access paid apps? Only the newest g1 firmware allowed paid app access.
    • This, along with alphamerik's post below, really needs to be put in an update to the story. Misinformation is bad.

      Also, offtopic, but if your nick was tildeslash, your user page would be "H T T P colon slash slash slashdot dot org slash tilde tildeslash slash".

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      There has been no firmware update for the ADP1, but one is supposedly in the works. In all likelihood, all that's needed to access paid apps is an updated Android Market application. The holiday bonus firmware quite probably has an updated market app, and thus works.

      If that's true, this article is completely alarmist. I won't believe the ADP1 can't access paid apps until I hear it from Google itself.

  • Important points (Score:5, Informative)

    by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Friday February 27, 2009 @08:59AM (#27010531)
    - Google allows you to return apps up to 24 hours after purchase for a refund.
    - The Dev phone allows total access to the restricted location where purchased programs are stored. It is restricted to prevent copying.
    - It is entirely possible to copy the contents of the restricted folder on the Dev phone once a program has been purcahsed, then return the app.
    - It can then be distributed and modified at the Dev's wish, against the licensing terms of the app.

    It is the wrong way to go about it, but let's be honest; The only thing which they can test with purchasing is the install mechanism, and they can do that anyway. They already have their app.
    • Re:Important points (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chrisq (894406) on Friday February 27, 2009 @09:05AM (#27010561)

      It is the wrong way to go about it, but let's be honest; The only thing which they can test with purchasing is the install mechanism, and they can do that anyway. They already have their app.

      Maybe not the only thing. perhaps they want to write an app that works in conjunction with another. Maybe they got a fault report that "after I installed XXX your app stopped working". I don't know how good inter-application isolation is on the Android but it is a possibility.

    • This mechanism is guaranteed to be entirely ineffective. Sooner or later someone will sit down with the two phones and figure out a) how to get full access to the dev area on a normal phone and b) how to convince the app store that you have a retail G1 when you have a dev phone.

      The simple truth is that it is impossible to prevent piracy, and shitting on developers is the best way to guarantee that your platform will fail. Remember when Apple "accidentally" expired the development OS for the iPhone? Remember

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        1) Root the phone
        2) There is no 2

      • by yincrash (854885)
        Do you really believe that not being able to buy paid apps on non t-mobile firmware constitutes as shitting on your developers?
        • by GooberToo (74388)

          Absolutely. Anyone that thinks otherwise is ignorant.

          Developers must be able to download protected applications if they develop protected applications. Period. Keep in mind any application can be "protected"; even free apps. Anything else is shitting on developers. Period. Otherwise is it impossible to test your own release. Otherwise it is impossible to test application upgrades. Otherwise it is impossible to test cross-application communication. How can you properly support your application and your custo

          • by eudaemon (320983)

            I anticipate developing apps for the phone and have purchased the dev G1. What if a) Twidroid (or a better competitor) goes paid,
            and b) I need to test live integration between Twidroid and my app? Google just told me I can't be trusted to do that lest
            I steal twidroid. Ironic, considering as a paid app developer I'm probably very sensitive to piracy and the *least likely person
            to pirate another developer's paid app.*

          • by yincrash (854885)
            From what I'm told, you can install the tmobile g1 firmware on your phone and it can download paid apps just fine. that way you have the same exact functioning as an enduser and can test the way an enduser would test. does that alleviate your concerns?

            It's only the nontmobileg1 builds that do not have access to paid apps

            if this is wrong, someone please let me know.
        • by GooberToo (74388)

          Here is a post [slashdot.org] I read yesterday which nicely sums up the situation.

          • by Cowmonaut (989226)
            It seems no one agrees with you or him. Never mind DRM is a waste of resources, you keep fighting to get your phone more locked down!
            • by GooberToo (74388)

              Care to explain anything you stated?

              I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion no one agrees with me or him? While both of our posts are obviously upset everything stated (well, most of it posted by anonymous) is factual. How can you disagree with fact?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by drinkypoo (153816)

          Do you really believe that not being able to buy paid apps on non t-mobile firmware constitutes as shitting on your developers?

          Yes, for exactly the same reason that putting SafeDisc or SecuRom into a game is shitting on your customers. It is an ineffective means of achieving the stated goal (prevent piracy) and makes life harder for the customer. You are paying Google for the right to develop applications for their platform, and then you're paying them again for the right to test them, because you're going to have to have a separate phone. Paying to be abused? I don't fucking think so. Lots of people pirate games just so they don't

      • by charlesnw (843045)
        Well, Apple fanboys would stand by Apple if Steve Jobs came to their house while they were asleep in the basement and raped their mom hmmm..... that explains why he is so sick. :)
    • The interesting thing here is the total lack of trust Google is showing for their developer community. By definition, these folks are more tech savvy than average - if they really want to pirate they'll eventually find a way no matter what Google does. They raised the entry barrier by charging $400 for the phone - but exactly how many of this already small pool of people are going to be pirating? It seems to me that Google just pissed off their entire (and comparatively small vs Apple) developer community

      • by AndrewNeo (979708)

        They raised the entry barrier by charging $400 for the phone

        You have to remember that while this is marketed as a developer's phone, it's basically an unlocked, unbranded G1 with the ability to flash any firmware, unlike T-Mobile's G1 which you have to root in order to install non-official firmwares. So really the price difference is due to the lack of subsidy, it's a general 'retail' price.

        On the other side of the coin, I think the point of all this is that the Developer G1 isn't really supposed to be a common-use phone, despite being unbranded and unlocked. It's

        • You're missing the point! Everything you say is true, but how many of these phones are out there? Hardly any! And the vast majority are being sold to DEVELOPERS. Why piss them all off to lock out a few bad eggs? How do you know they wouldn't buy paid apps? Why not? If you spend $400 to get one to develop are you going to have another one for general use? Of course not.

      • by shmlco (594907)

        You're missing the important point: Google isn't worried so much about DEVELOPERS ripping off paid applications as they are about unscrupulous USERS getting a developmental phone (or ROM) and suddenly gaining access to any and all protected applications.

        So get a subsidized phone for $200, or for $200 more buy a "developers" phone that allows anyone to rip off all the applications and games they want?

        Hmmm.....

    • It is the wrong way to go about it, but let's be honest; The only thing which they can test with purchasing is the install mechanism, and they can do that anyway. They already have their app.

      Maybe I have already spent $399 for the platform and don't want to spend another $199 to buy a second one just so I can use the phone as my daily communications device.

    • by Rich0 (548339) on Friday February 27, 2009 @12:02PM (#27012591) Homepage

      This is a silly reason to ban the dev phone.

      Any application can be pirated on any platform. PERIOD! You can make it easier or harder, but you can't prevent it as long as users have physical access to the hardware that the program runs on. All DRM shares this fundamental flaw. Now, with a phone you could assume connectivity at all times and run the bulk of the software on your own servers, and that would prevent copying of the software (consider MMORPGs as an example).

      In the case of the G1 you can just buy the app using a non-dev phone with a root exploit installed, then copy the files off and install them on your dev phone. Viola - DRM bypassed. Sure, they could make it harder, but you could always patch the app. You could make the phone require signed apps, but then you could patch the firmware. There is always an expoit - even if it involves an electron microscope. The device is implemented in actual physical hardware, and if you have the means to take it apart you can do so. The only thing you can do is make it so hard that it isn't worth it for some $5 application.

      However, half the attraction of android is its openness. If you lock the whole thing down like Fort Knox, what is the point? And if devs can't buy apps from other devs, then that just makes open source that much more competitive on the platform. :)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tlhIngan (30335)

        In the case of the G1 you can just buy the app using a non-dev phone with a root exploit installed, then copy the files off and install them on your dev phone. Viola - DRM bypassed. Sure, they could make it harder, but you could always patch the app. You could make the phone require signed apps, but then you could patch the firmware. There is always an expoit - even if it involves an electron microscope. The device is implemented in actual physical hardware, and if you have the means to take it apart you ca

    • There is no difference (as far as I can tell) between the Dev1 and a rooted G1. The firmwares are interchangeable. There's also no evidence Google is even deliberately keeping Dev1 users out. They just haven't released an updated Market App for the Dev1 yet. Even if they did, it would be stupid since it's pretty trivial to put on the rooted retail firmware.

      Whether it's aps or apricots, some people will steal. That's life. Some security measures are reasonable "to keep honest people honest" so long as

  • You could always, -er, ah, *cough* pirate them.

  • Those of us who would like to do iPhone development have to buy an iPod Touch if we want to use a "developer device" that isn't our main phone. That so-called "developer device" doesn't even have the full hardware capabilities. Considering the fact that the iPhone is still a fairly buggy platform, you develop on your main phone at your own risk. I've owned my iPhone for 3 months now, and even after reboots and firmware reinstallation, I still cannot get the speakerphone to work anymore.

    So please, stop compl

  • So don't buy them - get them from your favorite torrent tracker instead. What else would Google expect? I mean they are supposed to be tech savvy, right? Not like the suits at Microsoft and the creative types at Apple who might make this mistake accidentally because they thought it would be good for business, or make their brand seem more hip.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lumpy (12016)

      I've been waiting for Google to become the typical corporation doing anti customer work, but to kick your developers squarely in the balls, that's a bold move.

  • Paid apps only (Score:5, Insightful)

    by squiggleslash (241428) on Friday February 27, 2009 @09:33AM (#27010719) Homepage Journal

    I hope this isn't true; the unlocked G1 looked like a pretty cool phone, especially (being unlocked) for travel to countries where pre-paid SIM cards are the norm.

    It's still a cool phone. You're banned only from using apps where the apps are only available from the Google store, and which cost money. It's not as if you're banned from developing apps, or using free apps, or using apps you've installed via alternative means, or anything like that.

    Essentially, any developer who insists on payment and who insists on using only the Google avenue for distribution will find they're not making a lot of sales to users of free (as in freedom) phones. That's a choice they make, just as those who develop paid apps for Windows that insist upon using copy prevention techniques also lock themselves out of other markets. You've not going to run that software under GNU/Linux.

    This is a website where a significant number of people have chosen to use Free operating systems, and where even the non-free software that most of us use under those Free operating systems has been made in an environment in which the authors have made a conscious decision to allow the software to install on an environment they have no control over. You and I know it works. You and I know that those of us using distributions like Ubuntu are having a much more relaxed, friendly, and productive time than we do using the non-free platforms, despite some developers boycotting - consciously or otherwise - our platform and not making their software available for it.

    If you want a G1, there's no good reason to let this news stand in the way of you doing so. Do it. Add yourself to the numbers of those with unlocked phones. Make developers choose between locked down and free, rather than making them choose locked down by default.

    • Re:Paid apps only (Score:4, Informative)

      by GooberToo (74388) on Friday February 27, 2009 @10:24AM (#27011203)

      You're banned only from using apps where the apps are only available from the Google store, and which cost money.

      Wrong! Any application can be marked, "protected", including free applications. Some free applications are marked protected.

      The rest of your post is non-sense as it is based on incorrect assumptions.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by squiggleslash (241428)

        The rest of your post is non-sense as it is based on incorrect assumptions.

        What part is "non-sense"? The "en-tire" post is about the fact that only software from software "au-thors" who "re-fuse" to allow their software to run in an "unlock-ed" "en-vi-ron-ment" is affected. Are you seriously saying that it matters how the consent of those authors is determined?

      • by supersat (639745)
        ... and I can download those to my ADP1. I downloaded Pac-Man when it was free, and sure enough, the .apk is in /data/app-private.
  • This action reminds me of tactics used by Ebay sellers. "I said the screen was in good shape; I never said it was attached to the laptop." - sethpackard. "We said you could buy a G1 development phone; we never said you'd be able to use it." - google

    If google did this to me, I'd file a credit card chargeback and return an empty box to Google with tracking. I will not be ripped off by ANY dishonest seller, whether it be an ebayer or a corporation. Reverse-scam the scammer and teach them a lesson.

  • If it's an unlocked dev phone, and you're a dev, can't you come up with a workaround? Though I admit it's a PITA, as a non-dev that seems like the obvious solution.
    • That would involve finding a hack that gives you unauthorized access to their web based store. That's the bad type of hacking that lands you in Federal PMITA prison.

  • For tests only (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pmontra (738736)
    Something strange is going on. These limitations turn the G1 Dev into just a unit and functional test platform for your application. You need another G1 to perform integration tests, but if you could debug the integration system easily why would you need the G1 Dev? I wonder if Google does develop applications in that way.
  • I thought there were so many OSS apps for Android, who needs to buy apps for it?
  • Also, I've noticed a bunch (at least two) tethering apps, which are (a) paid, and (b) require root access (e.g., developer phone). I wonder if there is any connection here...

  • This isn't true! (Score:3, Informative)

    by albrnick (562907) on Friday February 27, 2009 @10:28AM (#27011239)
    From what I can tell, this article isn't true! I have a developer phone and have purchased apps within the last week, and right after I read this, I went and purchased another app. So don't know why the guy thinks developer phones can't. Peace, -Nick
    • right after I read this, I went and purchased another app

      This is a trick. Lot of people like you are going to & purchase an app after reading the article.
      Hence the article.

  • When Google announced the Android phone and cellphone carriers started to talk about how much better this was than OpenMoko I figured this was where things were going. They didn't care for OpenMoko because it was too open. The Android phone is thoroughly Tivoized... which is fine for a single-use device like a Tivo, or a plain old dumb phone, but it makes a mockery of the whole idea of a smartphone.

    I bet Palm's new phone is locked up tighter than a drum, too.

    Oh, the irony. Microsoft's smartphones are the open ones. Way to kill my schadenfreude, you bastards.

    • by AndrewNeo (979708)
      To add to the irony, I can run Android on my Windows Mobile device.
  • What's the appeal of an android phone over an openMoko device?

    The latter is designed to be completely open to you, top to bottom, for the purposes of being completely open.

    Android is "more open" perhaps than some previous phone offerings, but its clear that your free-as-in-speech rights are not part of the equation.

    When I have some reason to ditch my $75 ebay unlocked GSM phone, I'll probably grab an openmoko. I was impressed enough with all of the knobs you get with the P2ktools on a motorola phone, but i

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What's the appeal of an android phone over an openMoko device?

      The advantage is that it just works. Some people want to just buy a phone and then have a nice phone that does it's job well. They don't want to deal with inconsistent, half-assed software that you have to manually hack around with in order to get it to function at all.

      (and this is coming from somebody who had been interested in the OpenMoko project for years before giving up on it)

    • Because the ADP/G1 is an open phone that also works to make phone calls?

      I waited a long time to buy an OpenMoko. Waiting for them to say: development has reached a stage you can buy this phone, expect to use it as a phone: software is *very* stable, and have enough (implemented software) features for a modern phone, AND hack it.
      All I would hear about it, is that there was yet another "not-fully working" framework that could be installed on it.

      You should also notice that the Moko is (like the G1) also qui

  • ...because what am I supposed to do if I'm an Android dev (which I am intermittently) and a customer wants to know why there's a problem with my application and another application when my application used to work fine...? We must be in a perfect world now.

    • ...because what am I supposed to do if I'm an Android dev (which I am intermittently) and a customer wants to know why there's a problem with my application and another application when my application used to work fine...? We must be in a perfect world now.

      Well, from what I've been reading Android does a pretty good job with task isolation ... hopefully your scenario won't play out too often.

  • I have paid, including the developer fee and taxes, $450 for an ADP1 from Google. One of the key selling points for developers is that they can publish hooks that are available to other apps, called "intents." Most major actions, like "call so and so," or "go to the home screen" are done with intents. New ones can be added and then called by other apps.

    In light of this, I think it is pretty shitty of them to restrict access to software that will be publishing intents that applications I develop could intera

  • This story started yesterday at Engadget. Where the usual idiots could be heard bashing Google.

    In that thread, many people tried to point out to the idiotic Engadget editors that the whole point of a Dev phone is that you can change it. It should be bloody obvious that an over-the-air update to the OS would not happen in these phones. As it would wipe the changes made.

    It is amazing how many people seem to take the ADP to be a "sim-lock" free G1. Is is not. It is an unsupported (as far costumer service go

    • My understanding is that the reason they had to turn off the app store for these phones is that the DRM is stored in an easly hackable file in the OS that would, otherwise, not be accessable were it not for "developer" settings on these phones. This allows some people to download and copy apps without paying for them. To me, that sounds like incompetently implemented DRM (not that I'm a fan of DRM in the first place). I don't see how devs (especially hobbiest/garage/talented amateur devs without the money

      • they did not turn the apps off. It is just that with the ADP you need to update the OS yourself to have the latest version - which is the one that gives you paid apps.
        • they did not turn the apps off. It is just that with the ADP you need to update the OS yourself to have the latest version - which is the one that gives you paid apps.

          So you're saying the linked article was bogus. I kinda figured ... didn't really sound like a Google-type move.

  • I bet Google's workers are pretty peeved that the "bonus" they got last year can't download protected apps from the Android store. Granted there aren't many of them yet, but that is nearly certain to change soon.
  • Unlock one. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lord Jester (88423)

    I live in an area that has piss-poor coverage from T-Mobile.

    I wanted the G1 and considered the dev phone.

    However, I did it cheaper. I bought a G1 on eBay for $329.99 (w/shipping) and paid $24.99 for an unlock code. Setup the APN info for AT&T and I have a (almost 100%) functioning G1.

    I do not have 3G as AT&T uses different frequencies and the G1 cannot use them. So, I am on the Edge/GPRS network.

    I have yet to get MMS working.

    Other than that, I am happy. And I did it for $350.

  • Something worth mentioning is that you don't need a DevPhone to develop applications. You only need a DevPhone to be able to install non-Google OS images.

    So if you're "just" an application developer and not an OS hacker, then just get the normal phone.

    • Something worth mentioning is that you don't need a DevPhone to develop applications. You only need a DevPhone to be able to install non-Google OS images.

      So if you're "just" an application developer and not an OS hacker, then just get the normal phone.

      Somebody give this guy a couple of mod points. I just want to write a few apps: at this point I don't have any interest in kernel hacking. Are you saying that the SDK will work with the regular G1?

  • Unlocking the phone (Score:5, Informative)

    by goaliemn (19761) on Friday February 27, 2009 @12:23PM (#27012899) Homepage

    T-mobile will unlock the G1 for you. If you've been a customer for more than 90 days, they will provide the SIM unlock code for you. T-mobile is the best at doing this.

    • T-mobile will unlock the G1 for you. If you've been a customer for more than 90 days, they will provide the SIM unlock code for you. T-mobile is the best at doing this.

      Really? I did not know that, and since it looks like I'm going to be a T-mobile customer soon I'm glad you mentioned it.

      • by geniusj (140174)

        Just keep in mind that SIM unlock != firmware unlock. The SIM unlock will just allow you to use other carriers. Nothing more.

  • Someone at T-Mobile has pressured someone at Google into doing this so nobody, not even developers, can have a "real" G1 without it being locked to T-Mobile.

This is a good time to punt work.

Working...