In hindsight, I think what Google should have done would be to restrict the transition of free to paid apps AFTER paid apps went live. If you were one of the folks to get your app up early for free than yeah, you could rack up some ratings.
On Feb 20, 4:28 pm, 3D <[email protected]> wrote: > @Jay-andro > > I've had the same dilemma. The problem with this strategy is that I > don't think there's a reasonable way to notify those who currently > have your free app NOT to upgrade. When I've upgraded in the past I > remember seeing a list of my installed apps and next to one of them I > would see something like "upgrade now". > > It occurred to me that I could "update" my free app and remove some > vital features while allowing the look and feel of the app to remain. > It could also point to the new paid-for app. While this works fine > for NEW users it screws over those who got your app free, fair-and- > square. If we did this, not only would it be super lame on our part, > but I imagine that these folks would rate us down and ruin the > reputation that we wanted to preserve in the first place. > > So... for now I just said screw it, pulled my free app and released > my paid-for app. I guess those 2000 downloads and 4+ star rating mean > nothing now. > > On Feb 20, 1:28 pm, Jay-andro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, the problem though is that the free app is very feature rich and > > was always intended to convert to paid. I just didnt realize that > > Google wont allow me to flip the price from free to paid when the paid > > market launches. I had always intended for the free users to keep the > > full free product if they want no upgrades, and new users and upgrade > > users would pay the fee. > > > I think the ambiguities of the distribution agreement and Google's > > silence on these topics are causing much unnecessary FUD for > > developers.... > > > On Feb 20, 4:16 pm, lbcoder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My thoughts would be that you leave the free version in the market > > > indefinitely and add your trial/paid app under a different name (in > > > order to take away the direct upgrade path). For example, you'll have > > > "lite", "trial", and "paid", where theoretically, the trial and paid > > > versions will be more feature rich than the free version. You can add > > > an update to the free version with information pointing users to the > > > paid version for more features. > > > > On Feb 20, 3:35 pm, Jay-andro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I have a free app that I want to monetize now that the Market supports > > > > paid apps. Is the following an ok strategy: > > > > > 1. Launch new version of Free app that has additional features but is > > > > a time-limited trial > > > > 2. Launch the same app as a time-unlimited Paid app > > > > 3. When the trial expires, the trial app points the user to the Paid > > > > app on the Market for purchase > > > > > In particular I'm wondering if there is anything wrong with Step 1 > > > > above. I would announce loud & clear in the description that if you > > > > are an existing user and want to keep the free app forever with no > > > > upgrades, DONT UPGRADE because you then have to lose it or pay after > > > > the trial period. Of course users doing a blanket upgrade using the > > > > new RC33 feature will not see that message. > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Jay --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
