On Apr 12, 11:35 pm, Mariano Kamp <[email protected]> wrote: > Jesse, > the name Google is much more valuable then some of your better implemented > features.
Then I guess I'll just have to implement even more features to set my product apart. I don't control what users want. If they think a familiar brand name is as valuable as, say, 5 novel features, how can the solution be anything other than "add 6 novel features"? Who am I to tell them they *can't have* the app with the familiar brand name? > While in the short run you're right, in the long run the end user looses > when the platform doesn't attract developers who are willing to bet their > livelihood on their work. If the reason those developers are unwilling to bet their livelihood on their work is that other developers are doing the same work for free, I think the end user comes out ahead. > I really like the Mac culture where it is considered good style to pay for > apps from little ISVs. The apps are roughly 50 USD and are polished, > documented, not half-assed and relatively bug free. I would gladly pay for > apps like that on my Android phone. Interesting. I actually hate that aspect of the Mac "culture", it's one reason why my Mac gets so little use. I suspect the reason it happens on the Mac is the same reason it happens on the iPhone: a higher barrier to entry. Give me a half-assed free Windows app over a polished $50 Mac app any day. In this case, though, it doesn't sound like the free alternative is half-assed at all. Jesse --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
