Even without the legal issues there's no published API and I'd say it'd be almost impossible to do manually for the little (or possibly) reward you'd get given you'd need to track new releases as well as new apps.
With OEMs and porting efforts taking up the offer of bundling the AndAppStore client with their distribution s hopefully we will start to get the market penetration Market has and offer developers more freedom with their choices of payment systems. Al. Ed wrote: > Does anyone know if there are any reasons why a person couldn't just > create a website that reflects the current Android Market and update > it regularly? (I know this would be a tough job to accomplish > manually, but I am trying to find out if Google has some legal > language that prevents this.) > > > On Dec 25, 2:53 am, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think in it's own block would be a good start, beyond that remove any >> references in section 3 which could be interpreted as allowing other >> payment processors (such as 3.1). >> >> 30% is what the Apple App Store takes so I can see it as the model used >> by the carriers of a successful viable application store. (btw, has it >> gone up to 40%?, the original blog post said 30% >> -http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-market-now-ava...) >> >> From a business point of view it really sucks that Google even shipped >> an app store as part of the firmware that uses APIs not available to >> third party apps. It would have been far less "evil" (and more Google) >> to have an app store website which didn't have special access to >> functionality. >> >> Al. >> >> Disconnect wrote: >> >>> Yah, I agree its kind of in a bad place. But I couldn't think of >>> anywhere else to put it, since it basically covers apps that are free >>> -in the market-. >>> >>> Maybe in it's own block.. >>> >>> Either way, the googs say its been forced on them by the carrier(s) as >>> a requirement for shipping market on the phones (and that the 'tax' >>> taken off - 40% iirc - is not kept by goog) .. how true that is, meh. >>> I dunno. I know they have little reason to lie, but.. >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Al Sutton <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Blimey, I missed that one tacked on the end of 3.3. >>> >>> Seems totally contradictory to say "In order to charge a fee for your >>> Products, you must have a valid Payment Account under a separate >>> agreement with a Payment Processor.", and then two clauses later say >>> "All fees received by Developers for Products distributed via the >>> Market >>> must be processed by the Market's Payment Processor". >>> >>> That bit of 3.3 would mean that any pay-for app you distribute via >>> Market can not be distributed by any other means or integrated >>> into any >>> other payment system (otherwise you would be receiving some fees for a >>> product distributed via the Market by the processing of a non-Market >>> payment processor), which is distinctly not good and totally messes up >>> the business model of app directories handling app payments. >>> >>> Thankfully Market is closed source which means that some of the >>> porting >>> groups have been looking at alternatives, so you'll be seeing the >>> AndAppStore client on some Android devices in the near future and >>> developers can leverage it to retain the choice of payment processor. >>> >>> Al. >>> >>> Disconnect wrote: >>> > 3.3 ..You may not collect future charges from users for copies >>> of the >>> > Products that those users were initially allowed to download for >>> free. >>> > .. However, if you want to collect fees after the free trial >>> expires, >>> > you must collect all fees for the full version of the Product >>> through >>> > the Payment Processor on the Market. ... All fees received by >>> > Developers for Products distributed via the Market must be processed >>> > by the Market's Payment Processor. >>> >>> > Thou shalt not use the market to distribute an app, and then collect >>> > money somewhere else. >>> >>> > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >>> >>> > Can you point out exactly where the Market T&Cs say you have >>> to go >>> > through Markets payment processor? >>> >>> > Using a non-Marketplace payment processor isn't listed as >>> unacceptable >>> > in either the "Market Developer Content Policies" >>> >>> >>> (http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=113474&topic=1... >>> >>> <http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=113474&topic=1...> >>> >>> >>> <http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=113474&topic=1... >>> >>> <http://market.android.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=113474&topic=1...>>) >>> > or the "ANDROID MARKET CONTENT POLICY FOR DEVELOPERS" >>> >>> (http://www.android.com/market/terms/developer-content-policy.html), >>> > in >>> > fact neither of these documents even contain the words pay, >>> > payment, or >>> > paid. >>> >>> > The Market Developer distribution agreement at >>> > http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html >>> > says in 3.1; >>> >>> > "In order to charge a fee for your Products, you must have a >>> valid >>> > Payment Account under a separate agreement with a Payment >>> > Processor. If >>> > you already have a Payment Account with a Payment Processor >>> before >>> > signing up for the Market, then the terms of this Agreement >>> shall >>> > supersede your Payment Account terms and condition for Products >>> > sold via >>> > the Market." >>> >>> > which seems to contradict what you say by talking about generic >>> > Payment >>> > Processors with which the developer has an agreement with >>> before even >>> > signing up to Market. >>> >>> > As for it being a misleading the OP was making the point >>> that paid >>> > apps >>> > increase the quality of availability, and I was pointing out >>> that paid >>> > apps are already a possibility but the companies trying to roll >>> > them out >>> > are being actively undermined by Googles removal of apps using >>> > them from >>> > the Market. I understand the world of commercial reasons for >>> it, but >>> > Market was described as "an open service hosted by Google that >>> > features >>> > a feedback and rating system similar to YouTube" in the Android >>> > Developers blog >>> >>> >>> (http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/08/android-market-user-dr...), >>> > so imagine of YouTube started taking down videos of bands >>> just because >>> > they put up "Buy our album at www.????? in a strap line". >>> >>> > Al. >>> >>> > Disconnect wrote: >>> > > The market ToS require all payments for apps downloaded >>> from the >>> > > market to go through the market. So "here is a free trial" >>> is only >>> > > acceptable when followed by "..there is no full version >>> yet" or "the >>> > > full version is available in the market". There are quite >>> a few >>> > list >>> > > threads related to that and the google people have been very >>> > > forthcoming about the reasoning and problems they have had >>> with >>> > > carrier acceptance, etc. >>> >>> > > Google has also been very clear that payment is going to be an >>> > option >>> > > in first quarter, hopefully as early as mid January. >>> >>> > > It is somewhat misleading to leave that fact out when >>> answering.. >>> >>> > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:45 AM, Al Sutton >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote: >>> >>> > > Developers can currently distribute pay-for apps >>> through one >>> > of the >>> > > Market alternatives (AndAppStore, SlideMe, etc.), and >>> pay-for >>> > > functionality is available for integration in any app via >>> > systems such >>> > > as Mogees. >>> >>> > > The problem at the moment is that Google seem to be >>> actively >>> > removing >>> > > apps from Market which have a pay-for option, so you >>> may want to >>> > > try one >>> > > of the alternatives and help support those developers >>> who are >>> > > trying to >>> > > make a go of Android development pay-for apps by going to >>> > one of the >>> > > alternatives and seeing if there is something you like. >>> >>> > > Al. >>> > > http://andappstore.com/ >>> >>> > > j wrote: >>> > > > Is there any info on when paid apps will be supported on >>> > Market? I >>> > > > heard it would be in 2009 but which month? >>> >>> > > > Once that happens, we will see much higher quality >>> apps on >>> > > Market. I >>> > > > can't wait! >>> >>> > > -- >>> > > ====== >>> > > 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. >>> >>> > -- >>> > ====== >>> > 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. >>> >> ... >> >> read more ยป >> > > > -- ====== 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 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
