Well said. Great advice for the developers. Thanks Steve, the Customer :) take care, Muthu Ramadoss.
http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914 http://androidrocks.in - Android Consulting. On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 2:23 PM, tekrytor <[email protected]> wrote: > > As a consumer, I find timebombs extremely negative. I would much > rather install a totally FREE lite version, than something that stops > working that I have to uninstall and wonder if it all got out. It > makes me think EVIL of the suppliers, and plot their extraordinary > rendition, waterboarding, and power-tool pedicures, etc. > > This brings up the topic of starting with and maintaining the > "correct" terminology for everyone's benefit, including buyers, > sellers and developers. User's need to know up front exactly what > they're getting and exactly how much the upgrade will cost before > anything at all is installed or they will feel cheated or deceived and > not return to the vendor or manufacturer. Make it OBVIOUS (and short) > what the customer is getting and stop with the 40 page terms and > conditions. It's not necessary and it is proof of too many attorneys > and EVIL intent. > > Google and programmers should think about the way they do business in > the long term. I know it takes extra work to make a TRIAL (timebomb) > or DEMO (free lite) version. But I also know that the software I enjoy > using most are ones that I feel good about, for whatever reason. Any > doubt ruins the relationship and the future relationship. > > For example: > I was once burned by AOL, who kept deducting payment months after the > contract terminated. So, for years whenever I saw those stacks of > their free CDs at computer shops, I would grab the stack and toss it > in the first trash can I saw. I was not alone, told all my friends and > family, and I saw others doing the same. It was like Fight Club. "You > too Man?", "Yeah, I hate AOL". Anyone who asked me about an ISP, I > told them to forget AOL. Look where AOL is today. I like to think it > was my grassroots campaign. > > My recommendation: > Programmers, for your own good, think of the "taking the lollipop out > of the little kid's mouth" scenario. not a good situation. Go free > lite DEMO instead of trial (timebomb). Most of you won't know this, > but before there was Wallmart, there were candy stores. Good ones > always gave the kids a penny candy on their way out, so they come > back. most of you will never be a Wallmart, so try thinking of > yourselves as a small town candy store who needs the kids to come > back. > > Cheers, > Steve the Customer > > > On Feb 12, 2:40 pm, "Justin (Google Employee)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Al, your interpretation of the distribution agreement is incorrect. > > You may distribute trial version of your apps on the Market. > > > > "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." > > > > What is required is that if you provide an "upsell" option to a paid > > version, this version must be available, and available solely through > > the Android Market. > > > > "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." > > > > To put it another way, you can **not** use the Android Market as a > > distribution channel for free, trial versions and then complete the > > upsell to a paid version through another channel. You can distribute a > > free, trial version of your application that has an expiration date, > > and then sell a version without an expiration, but it must be through > > the Android Market > > > > Cheers, > > Justin > > Android Team @ Google > > > > On Feb 11, 6:48 am, Cédric Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 14:15, Al Sutton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > The originally posted question was; > > > > > > "I am earger to put my app onto the market, even for free (until paid > > > > apps are allowed). Is it allowed to put a time bomb in the app and > make > > > > it useless after a trial period?" > > > > > > So, in the case that started the thread, it's against Market T&Cs to > make the app available for free until paid apps are allowed and then charge > for it. > > > > > Maybe but I am not so sure. > > > If I publish an application using my server (and needing it to run), > > > which will be online for one year, no more : I doubt the market T&Cs > > > puts me in the obligation to keep my server online forever. And so > > > this is indeed an application limited for 1 year. > > > > > What I wanted to say is that an application said to be limited till a > > > given date is just an application which provide this claimed > > > functionnality. No less no more. Even when the date limit is reached, > > > it still offer the same claimed functionnality, and is still free... > > > but that functionnality is that it is not useable now. > > > > > In case of a trial version limited in time, the paying version is to > > > be considered a different version. And it is anyway, since it is not > > > limited :-p ... > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
