Thank you for visiting the BlackBerry Support Community Forums.
BlackBerry will be closing the BlackBerry Support Community Forums Device Forums on April 1st (Developers, see below)
BlackBerry remains committed to providing excellent customer support to our customers. We are delighted to direct you to the CrackBerry Forums, a well-established and thorough support channel, for continued BlackBerry support. Please visit http://forums.crackberry.com or http://crackberry.com/ask. You can also continue to visit BlackBerry Support or the BlackBerry Knowledge Base for official support options available for your BlackBerry Smartphone.
"When we launched CrackBerry.com 10 years ago, we set out to make it a fun and useful destination where BlackBerry Smartphone owners could share their excitement and learn to unleash the full potential of their BlackBerry. A decade later, the CrackBerry community is as active and passionate as ever and I know our knowledgeable members and volunteers will be excited to welcome and assist more BlackBerry owners with their questions."
- Kevin Michaluk, Founder, CrackBerry.com
Developers, for more information about the BlackBerry Developer Community please review Join the Conversation on the BlackBerry Developer Community Forums found on Inside BlackBerry.
04-30-2011 11:23 AM
05-01-2011 04:34 AM - edited 05-01-2011 05:18 AM
Why Back up apps as a part of the backup at all? Instead, store a list of owned apps and re-download on restore. This is typical behavior in other systems.
No I don't think it is. Please read the entire post for details, but apps are saved with iTunes, not the "list of apps", and this is how it should be, really.
05-02-2011 02:00 AM
05-02-2011 04:26 PM
@tensioncore just watch this issue
It would not hurt if everyone went to that page and voted for it to be fixed.
05-02-2011 06:45 PM
05-04-2011 03:41 AM
I agree this is scary, but I wonder if it's gotten blown out of proportion. It looks like only an unsigned copy of the app is exposed, which makes casual piracy hard since without jumping through hoops with developer tools, users can't run an unsigned app on the PlayBook. Someone would have to stick their neck out by registering with RIM as a "developer" in order to re-sign pirated apps... and RIM could easily put a stop to that by revoking their signing privileges.
It sucks that the SWF itself is now easy to get at, but I'm not even sure that makes much difference. Think of the kind of person who could successfully rip off your app using the SWF -- someone who could decompile the bytecode, understand the decompiled code well enough to rip out your branding, and remove all the QNX dependencies from it. Do you really think a hacker like that wouldn't find some way to get the BAR file off the device anyway?
Still, I hope RIM issues a public response soon, if only to show they're responsive to the developer community's concerns...
05-04-2011 03:51 AM
It won't harm RIM's profits, because average Joe can't install these pirated Apps on his PlayBook. That's right, ytpete.
BUT: the pirate could easily take the SWF part and port it to other platforms (iOS, Android), where piracy is omnipresent. Or he could more or less easily have a look at the source code to manipulate highscores or gain access to non-public APIs...
It's a really bad sitation.