Your point is irrelevant. Those who don't have access to the paid market aren't going to be paying anything AT ALL, whether piracy is possible or not, so nothing lost.
If one wants to capitalize on THOSE customers, then one must select an alternative revenue model that doesn't depend on market sales. Maybe sell the application from your own website? Then you can capitalize on the free advertising. On Jun 30, 4:25 am, Tomáš Hubálek <[email protected]> wrote: > Genius, > > I agree with many statements in your email. > > I have one concern: Current Android market situation really supports piracy. > Majority of the world needs either to buy US SIM (on eBay) or use Market > Enabler to get paid apps. Buy legally android application is everything but > not easy. Much easier is to get pirated copy from warez site :-( > > Tom > > > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM, a genius <[email protected]> wrote: > > If your program is good, it will be pirated a certain amount NO MATTER > > WHAT YOU DO. Factor that into what you CHARGE for it and pick the best > > balance. > > There is literally NOTHING that you can do to completely stop piracy. > > You can make it hard, sure, but never stop it. > > > There are THREE kinds of users: > > 1) The users who will just pay for it. > > 2) The users who will use it if its free. > > 3) The users who won't bother with it. > > > You will probably find that most of the potential users are in groups > > 1 and 3. There are a few in 2, and out of those, most will quickly > > jump into group 3 if you make it difficult to pirate. VERY few will go > > from group 2 to group 1 (especially if you price it *reasonably*), so > > having group 2 really doesn't matter that much. > > > IN FACT, having group 2 exist can actually be TO YOUR BENEFIT! The > > reason is simple: FREE ADVERTISING! Why so many people keep missing > > this is beyond me! If your application is great, then the more > > installs there are, the more people GET EXPOSED to it, and the more > > that are EXPOSED to it, the more YOU SELL! > > > Especially since humans tend to naturally be LAZY... they will search > > the MARKET for it, and if its $5, they'll buy it rather than running > > around the 'net looking for a pirate/haxxor site that is giving it out > > for free. If its a PROFESSIONAL program (even if it is expensive -- > > hundreds of dollars), then virtually NOBODY will bother pirating it > > (except for the odd moron who things its cool to have an anatomy > > program when they are just a brick layer). The reason why these won't > > be pirated is because it is a reasonable expense for their profession. > > > Quite frankly, I don't think that the platform should have ANYTHING to > > do with preventing piracy. That is NOT the job of the operating > > system. That is the job of the APPLICATION DEVELOPER. If YOU think > > that you should apply technologies to prevent piracy, then that is > > YOUR business. You definitely should NOT be demanding that of the > > operating system. > > > And FYI: having too much anti-piracy nonsense built into your software > > or platform WILL frustrate users, and move a whole lot more users from > > group 1 to group 3 than you'll EVER convince to move from group 2 to > > group 1. It is INSULTING to pay for a piece of software just to be > > treated like a criminal and forced to jump through hoops to get it to > > work. > > > The job of the operating system is to the benefit of the USER, not the > > application developer. Yes, I realize that this is completely contrary > > to the way apple does things... well sorry, but apple does NOTHING to > > the benefit of the user, which is one of many things that will lead to > > their ultimate downfall. > > > On Jun 26, 2:36 pm, Tomáš Hubálek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Genius, > > > > and how do you really want to fight piracy? Current app protection is > > > very poor (almost none?) > > > > Tom > > > > On 25 čvn, 19:55, a genius <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No. > > > > If the user buys it, it should work. If you like keys, go play with > > > > windoze. > > > > > On Jun 24, 5:22 pm, licmax <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > We were wondering if there is interest amongst the community here for > > > > > Android Market to support the Dynamic Licensing model as do > > BlackBerry > > > > > App World, Handango and MobiHand. > > > > > > We've established a cooperative petition to Android Market to > > > > > introduce Dynamic Licensing athttp:// > >www.petitionspot.com/petitions/licmaxandroid. > > > > > > If we collect a significant number of signatures from the community, > > > > > we'll approach contacts inside Android Market to elevate this agenda. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > The licmax Team > > > -- > > 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]<android-discuss%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en. > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tom Hubalek > ([email protected]),http://android.hubalek.net,http://blog.hubalek.net/http://facebook.com/thubalek,http://www.linkedin.com/in/thubalekhttp://twitter.com/thubalek,http://twitter.com/android_dev_tom -- 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.
