>There are lots of free loaders who don't want to pay for anything. And there are lots of people with >lots of free time creating free apps, thus reinforcing the mentality of the free loaders. Well, and it didn't help that Google screwed up with the release of paid apps. As you remember developers are not on equal footing. Paid apps were available in mid of Q1, but only for developers from the US and UK. A major screwup. If there is one thing we learned from Apple's Appstore then it's this: The winner (of a category) takes it all.
So what should you have done as a developer from another country? I wanted to release a paid version, but I couldn't. At the same time my "competitors" released full versions of their apps. I tried to use Ads as a way to limit my free, but fully functional version, but that only gave me bad reviews, no money (of course, I knew that) and in the end I scraped even that. After Google continued to disappoint me with their special communication style and no end was in sight I gave up. There isn't that much functionality left that I could implement to "justify" a paid version. And now my app is free (as in beer) and will be the only significant app I wrote for the Android platform. I invested 500 hours and I am not gonna do that again for free. I can't do that to my girl friend and paying job again. Having said that. Since yesterday, some more countries were allowed to promote the failure that is called Google Checkout. So at some point in time, developers of new apps will be on equal footing. And burned developers like me, will not pollute the Android Market anymore with free apps that should have cost money. So these are just growing problems and will go away soon. I think this is part of the whole growing up thing, for Google and their Android Market, but also for developers. And maybe, in an ideal world, users will learn to appreciate paying for polished, non-trivial software (like they do on the Mac platform), but I am not holding my breath. On the downside, I think, that Android is already established as a platform for free loaders. Let's see how Palm handles this. On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Mattaku Betsujin < [email protected]> wrote: > I think you can make the situation a lot better for yourself by .... > accepting that people generally suck. > > There are lots of free loaders who don't want to pay for anything. And > there are lots of people with lots of free time creating free apps, thus > reinforcing the mentality of the free loaders. > > I think the people who complain about your paid app are a minority, albeit > a loud one. So just ignore them and life goes on. Also, most paid apps on > Android market are harnessed equally by the free loaders, so you're not the > only one. > > If their comments on the market really bother you, then just get 3 G1 > accounts, and you can make sure that you always have 3 five-star comments on > the first page :-) > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> My solution would be to leave the old version on the market, then, under >> a new name, have the lite and pro versions. >> >> Put in the 325 char description that the old app is not supported and >> people may want to look at the new app name. >> >> Al. >> >> Keith Wiley 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. >> > >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * >> >> ====== >> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the >> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, >> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >> >> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not >> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's >> subsidiaries. >> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
