Well-- there are a lot of obnoxious users for sure. I have just about 50,000 downloads and 945 reviews for a pretty simple little game I coded in a couple evenings while learning how Android works.
Of my 945 reviews-- and hundreds of emails--- the vast majority has been positive, and those with criticism the vast majority had constructive comments. "The board is too small." etc Which is true-- it was a simple game for me to learn the API with--- which is why it was free. (I was very surprised by how many people really love the game.) I don't feel the majority of g1 users are dishonest or bad people at all--- this ratio of good/bad feedback has given me hope despite these harsh TOS. If I had these TOS without the userinput I've had I would have already ditched android. I have spent the weeks since then on a much more detailed game (arcade shooter/strategy)-- much much better than Mushroom Wars:Wrath of the Fungi. (Although I am also planning to make a more full version of the original Mushroom Wars too-- with a larger board, smarter ai, items at some point in the future--) Hundreds of hours spent on this other new game coding, and working out sprite animations + special FX (I'm paying an artist.)--- following iPhone pricing I'm going for a .99 price. (1/4 a latte for pete's sake.) If you pay .99 for a game that entertains you for several hours or something cool you want to show your friends---- is that not worth it? If people play it for 4-5 hours then uninstall within the 48 hours... how is that fair to developers? If, due to these TOS, it's a huge debacle--- or not worth my while, the advanced version of the original Mushroom Wars and future games will be on the iPhone. Like I said-- the only thing that's given me hope is all the positive and constructive feedback I've gotten from users-- I don't think the majority are dishonest. We shall see. -- Evil Mushroom Lord On Feb 13, 10:10 am, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > Dishonest Users. > > (The Market comments gave as idea of some of the types of people that > have G1s). > > > > Incognito wrote: > > Testing > > > On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My main concern is that this affects apps right up to $10. Whether we > > like it or not, the iPhone app store has set the market expectations for > > pricing, and, given that a vast majority (around 90+%) of pay-for iPhone > > apps are priced between $0.99 and $10 it looks like the Android Market > > TOS are being hardest on the very price points where most apps would be > > sold. > > > Al. > > > madcoder wrote: > > I've invested a lot of time on this single platform. I'm currently > > branching out to other mobile devices and sadly, I may drop android > > entirely based on the TOS. I'm not too worried about the $1 apps > > getting calls to credit card companies - that's just a pain in the > > butt for anyone to do. But I can see the potential for many small, > > fun apps to be virtually non-existent, due to the number of returns > > that will likely occur. > > > I would rather earn a few dollars for a fun app on the iPhone, instead > > of having most of my money returned on android. Besides, how many > > people really call their credit card company over and over wanting > > refunds for $1 software titles on the iPhone? I could be wrong, but > > it's probably rare. > > > For those of you who think this will make the android software of > > better quality - you may be right. But be prepared to see far fewer > > developers stay with android, who ultimately could produce larger, > > better apps with money made from the smaller apps. > > > Only time will tell... > > > On Feb 13, 10:13 am, Evil Mushroom Lord <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > I agree, Al--- I found this TOS to be overtly harsh. > > > I'm extremely skeptical. I will release one paid app and observe. If > > there is abuse, I will develop on other mobile platforms. > > > 48 hours refund is already pretty ridiculous. -$10 fee for a > > challenged account is just stupid. > > > On Feb 11, 9:32 am, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As I understand charge backs you can contest them, but with the Google > > T&Cs developers don't get the chance. > > > I can see this and the 48 hour refund rule potentially doing a lot of > > damage to developers who want to release simple fun apps in the sub $10 > > price range, which, in the end, will do more harm to Android adoption > > than good. > > > Al. > > > Shane Isbell wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On top of the 48 hour refund period I've just noticed the following in > > section 3.5 of the developer distribution agreement > > (http://www.android.com/us/developer-distribution-agreement.html); > > > "...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products > > sold for > > less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in > > addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..." > > > I'd be interested in what the handling fees are. If the user calls > > Google support (or whoever handles this), and they issue a refund, > > likely the fees will be less than $1. If the user calls their credit > > card company and does a charge back, it will be $10 according to the > > T&C. The difficultly here is that if a developer get's $1 for their > > app, then a chargeback, they owe $9+ dollars. If they get a lot of > > these, the developer is going to take a big hit. I'd also be > > interested in whether Google's 30% transaction fee is also refunded or > > kept in pocket > > > I'm not sure of Google's policy. At SlideME we have the same problem, > > and will pass back these costs to the developer, but we also have > > policies in place to limit this type of abuse, as well as general > > fraud detection. > > > Shane > > > -- > > ====== > > 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. > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
