I don't think anyone would flame you on this list. You had a free app, you made some improvements which cost you this and that hours of hard work, angry wife, etc.... :) and you want a reward for that - how this can be wrong?
What I'd do is have the lite version display a dialog on 1st startup, showing a 1-time notice explaining everything you've just said in a way that users can understand, including instructions on how to download and install the previous full-featured free version from your web site (explaining to users that they have to enable apps from 2rd party sites, menu paths to do that, etc.). Don't forget to mention that it can't possibly be your fault that an imbecile at Google decided that an app's description could fit in 325 chars, and express your confidence that the issue will be fixed by Google in a timely manner, and asking users politely to file this is a bug on the Market's forums :) Cheers On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Keith Wiley <kbwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > First I will explain my situation. Then, I would greatly appreciate > constructive dialog on how other developers feel similar situations > should be managed. > > I wrote a simple app in November. I offered it for free on the Market > for two reasons. One, Google hadn't implemented paid apps yet, so I > had no choice. Two, by my own admission, v1.0 was too simple too > garner payment. > > However, in the app's documentation, I requested donations toward > future development. Out of thousands of installs, I received nothing. > > This week I finished a considerably fancier version of the program. > Given hundreds of hours of unpaid development, I decided to charge a > few bucks for the new version. I split the app into lite and pro > versions. The lite version has all the new fancy features enabled but > is limited in how large a document can be created (spread sheet, I > limited the number of rows/cols, admittedly unlimited in the earlier > version). The pro version went to Market as a new app, the lite > version on top of the old app to retain the long feedback history. > > Since the Market provides no way to downgrade, I put the old unlimited > version on my website and put directions in the new lite version in > multiple places explaining how to revert to the old version. Thus, > any user dissatisfied with the rol/col limit could restore the EXACT > functionality they had before upgrading to the lite version. > > Incidentally, the 325 character blurb allotted on the Market was > insufficient to list the new features and the lite version's > limitation and the caveat that the lite version could be reverted > through my website. I simply could not communicate these facts to > users to help them decide whether to upgrade or what to expect after > upgrading. > > The complaints about the new lite version have been diverse. Most > pertinent to this discussion are complaints that the lite version now > limits the rows/cols where the previous version didn't. I find such > complaints unjustifiable since I explicitly permit reversion. I > literally don't see what they have to complain about. Another irksome > genre of complaints is that the program is still too simple to ask any > money for at all. I am infuriated. It costs less than an ice cream > cone. > > So, as discussion, how would other developers handle this situation: > initial app is simple so offered for free, later version is complex so > split into lite/pro. You don't want to limit the lite version by not > showing the new fancy features, so the limitation must be something > else, a time limit, a forced delay splash screen, something. I chose > limited rows/cols on a spreadsheet app, but also permitted reversion > to the old unlimited version. > > How would other developers implement an increase in complexity, charge > for it, yet provide a lite version that doesn't anger users of a > previously unlimited, but also much more simplistic app? > > Instead of flaming me where you think I made mistakes, please just > open the floor for honest discussion. I'm trying to figure out how to > do this properly. A lot of us are probably trying to figure out the > same thing. > > Thanks. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
