Switching my branch of this thread to [android-discuss] since I'm meandering away from developer Q&A...
Al Sutton wrote: > As I read it that clause has two effects; > > 1) It is against the Marketplace T&Cs to provide users with a fully > functional time limited trial version. So users have to buy the "upsell" > option without being able to test the pay-for features. I'm not sure I follow your argument here. Quoting from the clause: >> This is not intended to prevent distribution of free trial versions >> of the Product >> with an "upsell" option to obtain the full version of the Product: >> Such free trials for Products are encouraged. > 2) All app payments are locked into Googles payment system, which stops > developers putting even a paypal link in their app behind a "Buy the > full version button". Right now, this is the far stickier wicket to me, considering that there is no "Payment Processor on the Market". I suppose this is why there are all those "Free Trial Period Ends XXXXX" items on the Market today. Though, at least this clause suggests that the Market will eventually have a Mogees-esque payment API; otherwise, I don't see how they could support the free-trial scenario. > 2 is > against developers best interests (why should they be forced to use one > payment systsem). They're only forced to use one payment system *on the Market*. I've seen nothing in the Market T&Cs that precludes the existence of, say, AndAppStore or for apps distributed by same to use services like, say, Mogees. It is definitely disappointing. I suspect it's a requirement by the OHA carrier partners; otherwise, they'd never get their cut of the app purchases, as people would route around it on the Market itself. Compared to iPhone, there are two bright spots: 1. There *are* alternatives (AndAppStore, etc.), versus the "App Store or bust" iPhone model 2. There are even scenarios under which Android Market becomes an afterthought. Android Market gets its power from being included on carrier-distributed handsets. However, there is no requirement that handsets be obtained from the carrier. If device makers (Asus, I'm looking at you) can create compelling devices that are bought direct (e.g., an EeePhone), more people might start getting their devices from places other than carriers. Since Android is open source, there is no requirement for a device maker to only distribute the Android Market; in fact, they might not even be *able* to distribute the Android Market if there are carrier exclusivity terms tied to it. This opens the door for alternative, less-restrictive markets -- an EeePhone could have a folder full of markets, if it chose. -- Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) http://commonsware.com _The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development_ Version 1.4 Published! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
