[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
Whether on or off topic, I don't know, but my approach has been to keep a lite/demo version and pro version of my app. This requires more effort on my part, but it seems like the best solution. I've been chided for calling my lite version lite instead of demo, but that is a matter of perspective. One person's interpretation as demo might be another's lite because it suits their limited needs. Users are so rude in their comments, I just can't get over how horrible some people can be. On May 14, 5:31 am, Mariano Kamp mariano.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:33 PM, mirko mirkocze...@googlemail.com wrote: If you are interested in a pro license you can have a look at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/threa... Thanks for the link. P.S. Great little app your NewsRob, I loaded it 2 months ago ;-) Thanks. Besides the monetary benefits or the lack thereof I learned a lot during the development. I also now have an app that does exactly what I think a Google Reader client should do - and what I've never found on any other platform. No matter how cool Palm's pre or the iPhone 3.0/4G will be, I am staying with Android as a user, until somebody brings out a better app for this purpose on another platform. So even though my comments from above (about the Android Market and its rollout) may sound like I am bitter, I am not. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
What's your app? On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Sundog sunns...@gmail.com wrote: I think you can make the situation a lot better for yourself by accepting that people generally suck. Sadly, yeah. Any moment now there will be an everything-should-be-free freak here saying that you should write code for the sake of your art, not for any expectation of monetary gain. Somehow we seem to be crawling with these types, and guess what? They're getting the crappy free software they deserve. I don't have this problem, thankfully. I have comments and ratings to die for and no troll problems at all. I attribut this almost entirely to the fact the my sales are well over 90% to women. So maybe that's your answer, lol. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
There are lots of free loaders who don't want to pay for anything. And there are lots of people with lots of free time creating free apps, thus reinforcing the mentality of the free loaders. Well, and it didn't help that Google screwed up with the release of paid apps. As you remember developers are not on equal footing. Paid apps were available in mid of Q1, but only for developers from the US and UK. A major screwup. If there is one thing we learned from Apple's Appstore then it's this: The winner (of a category) takes it all. So what should you have done as a developer from another country? I wanted to release a paid version, but I couldn't. At the same time my competitors released full versions of their apps. I tried to use Ads as a way to limit my free, but fully functional version, but that only gave me bad reviews, no money (of course, I knew that) and in the end I scraped even that. After Google continued to disappoint me with their special communication style and no end was in sight I gave up. There isn't that much functionality left that I could implement to justify a paid version. And now my app is free (as in beer) and will be the only significant app I wrote for the Android platform. I invested 500 hours and I am not gonna do that again for free. I can't do that to my girl friend and paying job again. Having said that. Since yesterday, some more countries were allowed to promote the failure that is called Google Checkout. So at some point in time, developers of new apps will be on equal footing. And burned developers like me, will not pollute the Android Market anymore with free apps that should have cost money. So these are just growing problems and will go away soon. I think this is part of the whole growing up thing, for Google and their Android Market, but also for developers. And maybe, in an ideal world, users will learn to appreciate paying for polished, non-trivial software (like they do on the Mac platform), but I am not holding my breath. On the downside, I think, that Android is already established as a platform for free loaders. Let's see how Palm handles this. On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Mattaku Betsujin mattaku.betsu...@gmail.com wrote: I think you can make the situation a lot better for yourself by accepting that people generally suck. There are lots of free loaders who don't want to pay for anything. And there are lots of people with lots of free time creating free apps, thus reinforcing the mentality of the free loaders. I think the people who complain about your paid app are a minority, albeit a loud one. So just ignore them and life goes on. Also, most paid apps on Android market are harnessed equally by the free loaders, so you're not the only one. If their comments on the market really bother you, then just get 3 G1 accounts, and you can make sure that you always have 3 five-star comments on the first page :-) On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote: My solution would be to leave the old version on the market, then, under a new name, have the lite and pro versions. Put in the 325 char description that the old app is not supported and people may want to look at the new app name. Al. Keith Wiley wrote: First I will explain my situation. Then, I would greatly appreciate constructive dialog on how other developers feel similar situations should be managed. I wrote a simple app in November. I offered it for free on the Market for two reasons. One, Google hadn't implemented paid apps yet, so I had no choice. Two, by my own admission, v1.0 was too simple too garner payment. However, in the app's documentation, I requested donations toward future development. Out of thousands of installs, I received nothing. This week I finished a considerably fancier version of the program. Given hundreds of hours of unpaid development, I decided to charge a few bucks for the new version. I split the app into lite and pro versions. The lite version has all the new fancy features enabled but is limited in how large a document can be created (spread sheet, I limited the number of rows/cols, admittedly unlimited in the earlier version). The pro version went to Market as a new app, the lite version on top of the old app to retain the long feedback history. Since the Market provides no way to downgrade, I put the old unlimited version on my website and put directions in the new lite version in multiple places explaining how to revert to the old version. Thus, any user dissatisfied with the rol/col limit could restore the EXACT functionality they had before upgrading to the lite version. Incidentally, the 325 character blurb allotted on the Market was insufficient to list the new features and the lite version's limitation and the caveat that the lite version could be reverted through my website. I simply could not communicate these facts to users to
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
Hi Mariano, yes, I know what you mean. I was in the same position and wanted to start before my 'competitors', so I decided to start very early with a free 'beta'. I think this was the right direction because it still the only application for this porpose. I will keep a limited version in the future and will start the next weeks with a 'Pro license' that will switch off some limitations in the free version. Now we can offer paid apps from Germany. We will see, which negative comments I will get for this... If you are interested in a pro license you can have a look at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/df5a3a1d08b9ae2f Mirko P.S. Great little app your NewsRob, I loaded it 2 months ago ;-) On 14 Mai, 09:18, Mariano Kamp mariano.k...@gmail.com wrote: There are lots of free loaders who don't want to pay for anything. And there are lots of people with lots of free time creating free apps, thus reinforcing the mentality of the free loaders. Well, and it didn't help that Google screwed up with the release of paid apps. As you remember developers are not on equal footing. Paid apps were available in mid of Q1, but only for developers from the US and UK. A major screwup. If there is one thing we learned from Apple's Appstore then it's this: The winner (of a category) takes it all. So what should you have done as a developer from another country? I wanted to release a paid version, but I couldn't. At the same time my competitors released full versions of their apps. I tried to use Ads as a way to limit my free, but fully functional version, but that only gave me bad reviews, no money (of course, I knew that) and in the end I scraped even that. After Google continued to disappoint me with their special communication style and no end was in sight I gave up. There isn't that much functionality left that I could implement to justify a paid version. And now my app is free (as in beer) and will be the only significant app I wrote for the Android platform. I invested 500 hours and I am not gonna do that again for free. I can't do that to my girl friend and paying job again. Having said that. Since yesterday, some more countries were allowed to promote the failure that is called Google Checkout. So at some point in time, developers of new apps will be on equal footing. And burned developers like me, will not pollute the Android Market anymore with free apps that should have cost money. So these are just growing problems and will go away soon. I think this is part of the whole growing up thing, for Google and their Android Market, but also for developers. And maybe, in an ideal world, users will learn to appreciate paying for polished, non-trivial software (like they do on the Mac platform), but I am not holding my breath. On the downside, I think, that Android is already established as a platform for free loaders. Let's see how Palm handles this. On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Mattaku Betsujin mattaku.betsu...@gmail.com wrote: I think you can make the situation a lot better for yourself by accepting that people generally suck. There are lots of free loaders who don't want to pay for anything. And there are lots of people with lots of free time creating free apps, thus reinforcing the mentality of the free loaders. I think the people who complain about your paid app are a minority, albeit a loud one. So just ignore them and life goes on. Also, most paid apps on Android market are harnessed equally by the free loaders, so you're not the only one. If their comments on the market really bother you, then just get 3 G1 accounts, and you can make sure that you always have 3 five-star comments on the first page :-) On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote: My solution would be to leave the old version on the market, then, under a new name, have the lite and pro versions. Put in the 325 char description that the old app is not supported and people may want to look at the new app name. Al. Keith Wiley wrote: First I will explain my situation. Then, I would greatly appreciate constructive dialog on how other developers feel similar situations should be managed. I wrote a simple app in November. I offered it for free on the Market for two reasons. One, Google hadn't implemented paid apps yet, so I had no choice. Two, by my own admission, v1.0 was too simple too garner payment. However, in the app's documentation, I requested donations toward future development. Out of thousands of installs, I received nothing. This week I finished a considerably fancier version of the program. Given hundreds of hours of unpaid development, I decided to charge a few bucks for the new version. I split the app into lite and pro versions. The lite version has all the new fancy features enabled but is limited in how large a document can be
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:33 PM, mirko mirkocze...@googlemail.com wrote: If you are interested in a pro license you can have a look at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/df5a3a1d08b9ae2f Thanks for the link. P.S. Great little app your NewsRob, I loaded it 2 months ago ;-) Thanks. Besides the monetary benefits or the lack thereof I learned a lot during the development. I also now have an app that does exactly what I think a Google Reader client should do - and what I've never found on any other platform. No matter how cool Palm's pre or the iPhone 3.0/4G will be, I am staying with Android as a user, until somebody brings out a better app for this purpose on another platform. So even though my comments from above (about the Android Market and its rollout) may sound like I am bitter, I am not. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/df5a3a1d08b9ae2f On 19 Mrz., 21:16, Keith Wiley kbwi...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the various responses. Well received. I will consider them in depth when I get a chance to tear myself away from the debugger. Cheers! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
I think you can make the situation a lot better for yourself by accepting that people generally suck. Sadly, yeah. Any moment now there will be an everything-should-be-free freak here saying that you should write code for the sake of your art, not for any expectation of monetary gain. Somehow we seem to be crawling with these types, and guess what? They're getting the crappy free software they deserve. I don't have this problem, thankfully. I have comments and ratings to die for and no troll problems at all. I attribut this almost entirely to the fact the my sales are well over 90% to women. So maybe that's your answer, lol. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
I don't think anyone would flame you on this list. You had a free app, you made some improvements which cost you this and that hours of hard work, angry wife, etc :) and you want a reward for that - how this can be wrong? What I'd do is have the lite version display a dialog on 1st startup, showing a 1-time notice explaining everything you've just said in a way that users can understand, including instructions on how to download and install the previous full-featured free version from your web site (explaining to users that they have to enable apps from 2rd party sites, menu paths to do that, etc.). Don't forget to mention that it can't possibly be your fault that an imbecile at Google decided that an app's description could fit in 325 chars, and express your confidence that the issue will be fixed by Google in a timely manner, and asking users politely to file this is a bug on the Market's forums :) Cheers On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Keith Wiley kbwi...@gmail.com wrote: First I will explain my situation. Then, I would greatly appreciate constructive dialog on how other developers feel similar situations should be managed. I wrote a simple app in November. I offered it for free on the Market for two reasons. One, Google hadn't implemented paid apps yet, so I had no choice. Two, by my own admission, v1.0 was too simple too garner payment. However, in the app's documentation, I requested donations toward future development. Out of thousands of installs, I received nothing. This week I finished a considerably fancier version of the program. Given hundreds of hours of unpaid development, I decided to charge a few bucks for the new version. I split the app into lite and pro versions. The lite version has all the new fancy features enabled but is limited in how large a document can be created (spread sheet, I limited the number of rows/cols, admittedly unlimited in the earlier version). The pro version went to Market as a new app, the lite version on top of the old app to retain the long feedback history. Since the Market provides no way to downgrade, I put the old unlimited version on my website and put directions in the new lite version in multiple places explaining how to revert to the old version. Thus, any user dissatisfied with the rol/col limit could restore the EXACT functionality they had before upgrading to the lite version. Incidentally, the 325 character blurb allotted on the Market was insufficient to list the new features and the lite version's limitation and the caveat that the lite version could be reverted through my website. I simply could not communicate these facts to users to help them decide whether to upgrade or what to expect after upgrading. The complaints about the new lite version have been diverse. Most pertinent to this discussion are complaints that the lite version now limits the rows/cols where the previous version didn't. I find such complaints unjustifiable since I explicitly permit reversion. I literally don't see what they have to complain about. Another irksome genre of complaints is that the program is still too simple to ask any money for at all. I am infuriated. It costs less than an ice cream cone. So, as discussion, how would other developers handle this situation: initial app is simple so offered for free, later version is complex so split into lite/pro. You don't want to limit the lite version by not showing the new fancy features, so the limitation must be something else, a time limit, a forced delay splash screen, something. I chose limited rows/cols on a spreadsheet app, but also permitted reversion to the old unlimited version. How would other developers implement an increase in complexity, charge for it, yet provide a lite version that doesn't anger users of a previously unlimited, but also much more simplistic app? Instead of flaming me where you think I made mistakes, please just open the floor for honest discussion. I'm trying to figure out how to do this properly. A lot of us are probably trying to figure out the same thing. Thanks. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
My solution would be to leave the old version on the market, then, under a new name, have the lite and pro versions. Put in the 325 char description that the old app is not supported and people may want to look at the new app name. Al. Keith Wiley wrote: First I will explain my situation. Then, I would greatly appreciate constructive dialog on how other developers feel similar situations should be managed. I wrote a simple app in November. I offered it for free on the Market for two reasons. One, Google hadn't implemented paid apps yet, so I had no choice. Two, by my own admission, v1.0 was too simple too garner payment. However, in the app's documentation, I requested donations toward future development. Out of thousands of installs, I received nothing. This week I finished a considerably fancier version of the program. Given hundreds of hours of unpaid development, I decided to charge a few bucks for the new version. I split the app into lite and pro versions. The lite version has all the new fancy features enabled but is limited in how large a document can be created (spread sheet, I limited the number of rows/cols, admittedly unlimited in the earlier version). The pro version went to Market as a new app, the lite version on top of the old app to retain the long feedback history. Since the Market provides no way to downgrade, I put the old unlimited version on my website and put directions in the new lite version in multiple places explaining how to revert to the old version. Thus, any user dissatisfied with the rol/col limit could restore the EXACT functionality they had before upgrading to the lite version. Incidentally, the 325 character blurb allotted on the Market was insufficient to list the new features and the lite version's limitation and the caveat that the lite version could be reverted through my website. I simply could not communicate these facts to users to help them decide whether to upgrade or what to expect after upgrading. The complaints about the new lite version have been diverse. Most pertinent to this discussion are complaints that the lite version now limits the rows/cols where the previous version didn't. I find such complaints unjustifiable since I explicitly permit reversion. I literally don't see what they have to complain about. Another irksome genre of complaints is that the program is still too simple to ask any money for at all. I am infuriated. It costs less than an ice cream cone. So, as discussion, how would other developers handle this situation: initial app is simple so offered for free, later version is complex so split into lite/pro. You don't want to limit the lite version by not showing the new fancy features, so the limitation must be something else, a time limit, a forced delay splash screen, something. I chose limited rows/cols on a spreadsheet app, but also permitted reversion to the old unlimited version. How would other developers implement an increase in complexity, charge for it, yet provide a lite version that doesn't anger users of a previously unlimited, but also much more simplistic app? Instead of flaming me where you think I made mistakes, please just open the floor for honest discussion. I'm trying to figure out how to do this properly. A lot of us are probably trying to figure out the same thing. Thanks. -- * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * == 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 Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
I think you can make the situation a lot better for yourself by accepting that people generally suck. There are lots of free loaders who don't want to pay for anything. And there are lots of people with lots of free time creating free apps, thus reinforcing the mentality of the free loaders. I think the people who complain about your paid app are a minority, albeit a loud one. So just ignore them and life goes on. Also, most paid apps on Android market are harnessed equally by the free loaders, so you're not the only one. If their comments on the market really bother you, then just get 3 G1 accounts, and you can make sure that you always have 3 five-star comments on the first page :-) On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Al Sutton a...@funkyandroid.com wrote: My solution would be to leave the old version on the market, then, under a new name, have the lite and pro versions. Put in the 325 char description that the old app is not supported and people may want to look at the new app name. Al. Keith Wiley wrote: First I will explain my situation. Then, I would greatly appreciate constructive dialog on how other developers feel similar situations should be managed. I wrote a simple app in November. I offered it for free on the Market for two reasons. One, Google hadn't implemented paid apps yet, so I had no choice. Two, by my own admission, v1.0 was too simple too garner payment. However, in the app's documentation, I requested donations toward future development. Out of thousands of installs, I received nothing. This week I finished a considerably fancier version of the program. Given hundreds of hours of unpaid development, I decided to charge a few bucks for the new version. I split the app into lite and pro versions. The lite version has all the new fancy features enabled but is limited in how large a document can be created (spread sheet, I limited the number of rows/cols, admittedly unlimited in the earlier version). The pro version went to Market as a new app, the lite version on top of the old app to retain the long feedback history. Since the Market provides no way to downgrade, I put the old unlimited version on my website and put directions in the new lite version in multiple places explaining how to revert to the old version. Thus, any user dissatisfied with the rol/col limit could restore the EXACT functionality they had before upgrading to the lite version. Incidentally, the 325 character blurb allotted on the Market was insufficient to list the new features and the lite version's limitation and the caveat that the lite version could be reverted through my website. I simply could not communicate these facts to users to help them decide whether to upgrade or what to expect after upgrading. The complaints about the new lite version have been diverse. Most pertinent to this discussion are complaints that the lite version now limits the rows/cols where the previous version didn't. I find such complaints unjustifiable since I explicitly permit reversion. I literally don't see what they have to complain about. Another irksome genre of complaints is that the program is still too simple to ask any money for at all. I am infuriated. It costs less than an ice cream cone. So, as discussion, how would other developers handle this situation: initial app is simple so offered for free, later version is complex so split into lite/pro. You don't want to limit the lite version by not showing the new fancy features, so the limitation must be something else, a time limit, a forced delay splash screen, something. I chose limited rows/cols on a spreadsheet app, but also permitted reversion to the old unlimited version. How would other developers implement an increase in complexity, charge for it, yet provide a lite version that doesn't anger users of a previously unlimited, but also much more simplistic app? Instead of flaming me where you think I made mistakes, please just open the floor for honest discussion. I'm trying to figure out how to do this properly. A lot of us are probably trying to figure out the same thing. Thanks. -- * Written an Android App? - List it at http://andappstore.com/ * == 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 Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
[android-developers] Re: Polite discussion of lite/trial vs pro distribution
Thanks for the various responses. Well received. I will consider them in depth when I get a chance to tear myself away from the debugger. Cheers! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Android Developers group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
