*> So a user would need to download both the free app, as well as the paid app (which unlocks features in the free app)?*
Yes. I don't think that is that big of a deal... That is how the Documents To Go app by DataViz works. And that is an extremely successful app. Also, the paid app does virtually nothing, and so the size of it is not really an issue. *> Is there a way where a user could download just the paid app?* There sure is. That is how my current version of AppSwipe! works. I am switching to the "Key" method I mentioned above with my next release because it makes maintaining the code so much simpler. It is a royal pain to have both of them on the market because they have to have different package names... And since the package of an application in Java is based on a real file structure, it makes it a bear to change the package just to be able to create the paid .apk file. My justification for using the paid key is that, in the long run, the users will benefit because it is much easier for the developer to maintain the code and so there will be less bugs. It will also make it easier to fix bugs because they can be fixed in a single place. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There are only 10 types of people in the world... Those who know binary and those who don't. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Jeffrey Blattman <jeffrey.blatt...@gmail.com > wrote: > what's missing from the market is dependencies. i often had the idea of > publishing an "app" that is just a service for use by other apps ... but the > fact that the user needs to manually download the service first sort of > rules that out. > > if we had dependencies, you could have an app core and then have a free and > paid app "check" that depend on the core. all the checker activity does it > set some bit and then launch the core. yes i know that's a lot of hand > waving. > > > On 10/5/09 1:55 PM, Steve Oliver wrote: > > So a user would need to download both the free app, as well as the paid app > (which unlocks features in the free app)? > Is there a way where a user could download just the paid app? > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Justin Anderson > <janderson....@gmail.com>wrote: > >> The method is to have a main application and an application that acts a >> key to "unlock" functionality in the main app. You can't upload two >> products with the same package to the android market. >> >> Doing it the way I described in the other thread allows the main >> application to contain all the functionality to run in both "lite" and >> "paid" modes. The mode that the application runs in is determined by >> whether you have the key installed, which of course would have to have a >> separate package name because you are not allowed to upload two projects >> with the same package name. >> >> The application that acts as a key never even has to run... it just has to >> exist. Although, in my case, I have my key program set to just launch my >> main app and quit. >> >> Pulling common stuff out into a separate library would "work" (kind of) >> but it would not be as easy as my method. >> >> Thanks, >> Justin >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> There are only 10 types of people in the world... >> Those who know binary and those who don't. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Steve <steveoliv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> I don't think the other thread explained how to do this without >>> creating two package names. You would either have to re-name your >>> package each time you published, or you would need two different >>> projects, wouldn't you? >>> >>> Another approach is to try to pull out as much common functionality as >>> you can into a 3rd Java-only project, with each of your projects (paid >>> and free). The tough part is that you can't move anything that >>> references resources into a Java-only project. >>> >>> On Oct 5, 11:58 am, Justin Anderson <janderson....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I have already asked the same question, and later the solution on >>> another >>> > thread. Just do a quick search for "code base" and you will find out >>> how to >>> > do this. >>> > >>> > If you have done this already, then you can ignore this, but a lot of >>> > duplicate questions can be eliminated simply by searching for an answer >>> > before posting a new question... >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Justin >>> > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > There are only 10 types of people in the world... >>> > Those who know binary and those who don't. >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:48 PM, jax <jackma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > I want to crete two seperate android applications. >>> > >>> > > 1. A "Lite" version with limited functionality >>> > > 2. A upgrade to the lite version (Pro version) with extended >>> > > functionality (This will cost money) >>> > >>> > > Can someone tell me the best way to approach this....project setup >>> > > etc. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Android mobile application development > http://steveoliverc.squarespace.com/ > > > > > -- > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to android-beginners@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-beginners-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-beginners?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
<<inline: qr-gmail.png>>
