Hi Al, Just from one user, I think your site is vastly superior to the Android Market in terms of usability and functionality. I do believe that if the Market continues down its current path of offering 1000 apps while only being able to show 5-6 at a time, your site will get the lion's share of the business. I wish you the best of luck!
On Dec 29, 10:08 am, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
