Hi folks, Laura again. We hear you loud and clear that the contract
needs to change - and we agree. We are working on that!

Definitely under review = payment minimum threshold and lag time; how
the customer relationship is fairly shared if you sell through us,
contract cancellation policy and other points.

Re: payments to resellers are "donations" that is not our
understanding and I have asked our atty to clarify. We definitely
expect developers to need to function as businesses for everyone to
succeed. We aim to support that, not complicate your tax dealings! :)
can you LMK the specific clause #/s that make it sound like that?

The guys are going to weigh in today re: oauth. I know like many of
you, figuring out how to imlement it just right has taken time,
learning and iteration.

Thanks for your patience while we continue to figure out how best to
be of service.

Dewald you are sweet to think of the risk we face by being as open as
we can be and by not being monopolistic like Apple. We're idealist
enough to believe that if we make it easier for others to build their
businesses we all win together.

As always, thanks for all feedback - pro or con - this is what we are
in Beta mode to learn. We appreciate your time and insights.


Laura Fitton, Founder
oneforty inc.

On Sep 28, 3:05 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1. Agree.
> It is my product that is purchased. No more should OneForty own the
> customer relationship than an affiliate of mine should own the
> relationship for having referred a sale to me.
> The other thing that really bugs is me the payment of the 70% in the
> form of a gift or donation. I cannot show that in the Sales Revenue of
> my business. If the amount becomes substantial, how do I explain to
> the tax man why my for-profit incorporated company is getting all
> these gifts and donations? And how do I do the accounting for my
> product units that were sold, but did not generate any top-line
> revenue?
> The idea behind OneForty is novel, but I think they face an uphill
> battle, because they do not have the monopoly on app distribution that
> the Apple App Store has. Hence, it will not work to try and apply the
> same business rules as the Apple App Store.
> Dewald
> On Sep 28, 11:10 am, Waldron Faulkner <waldronfaulk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > But the killer for me is the support-only clause. If I can't own the
> > relationship, that makes it a total no-go.

Reply via email to