> c) As I understand it there's no way to update an app without charging > for it again. That's ok for a game but not so cool for something more > complex.
Then you misunderstand. This is absolutely supported, in fact this is the default modality. Let me explain a Market concept that doesn't seem to be presented anywhere. Conceptually users are not purchasing access to an application in the sense of a particular set of bits. What they are buying is unlimited, permanent access to an "application stream". The application stream is created when you first upload your app to Market. You can then publish zero or more *updates* to this stream. The user will receive all these updates for free. Users may uninstall the application, but may grab it later again from the stream. They may buy multiple devices and use the same Google Account on those devices. Each device is subscribed to the same set of streams. Hopefully this clarifies. Cheers, Justin Android Team @ Google On Mar 10, 12:32 pm, markz <[email protected]> wrote: > Woot, an update! > > As just a few comments. > > a) I just submitted a reply/comment somewhere. It'd be nice if the > group search didn't take me to the forward message. > > b) I think it's pretty clear to the developers when we get shills. At > 2-4$ an app who minds buying their competitor and trashing it when the > result is so crisp? (well, i do, but...). For someone shipping a mass- > market product maybe they end up getting an equal-weight with othe > reviews but for more focused stuff with a smaller audience it's the > kiss of death. I have a guy who's reposted garbage (different each > time) repeatedly so he's constantly top-of-stack. How nice... > > c) As I understand it there's no way to update an app without charging > for it again. That's ok for a game but not so cool for something more > complex. > > Thanks for listening, > > Mark > > On Mar 10, 1:58 pm, "Justin (Google Employee)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 5) We still don't have .33 for our phones. I can't mark something as > > > Spam yet nor even see what's for sale on Market. This should have been > > > ready when it rolled to users. Or at least tell us WHEN it will be > > > ready. This 'coming soon' stuff doesn't do much fo rme. > > > How about > > now:http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/03/software-update-availa... > > > Cheers, > > Justin > > Android Team @ Google > > > On Mar 10, 10:34 am, Inderjeet Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In democratic systems, even the dumb shills should have a voice. They at > > > least downloaded your app, or (for paid applications) bought and may be > > > refunded it. > > > I agree if there was a bad rating because of market problems (couldn't > > > download, or copy-protection issue), it is worth taking down. But that is > > > probably hard to do in an automated manner. Moreover, if enough people > > > mark > > > it as spam, it will probably get excluded. May be all the developers on > > > this > > > list should commit to doing so if they see such a comment on any app. > > > > Inder > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Sundog <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On "dumb shills": When everyone else is giving your app 5 stars, and > > > > one idiot gives it one star and leaves a comments proving she never > > > > even ran the program, that's one clue. Outliers should automatically > > > > be treated as spam. > > > > > Thanks for your answers. Nice to hear any feedback from anyone.- Hide > > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" 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-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
