thanks Justin, I think I will follow this method. Sorry about not searching the forums properly. I was googling for a while but didn't find anything there.
On Oct 6, 4:54 am, Justin Anderson <janderson....@gmail.com> wrote: > *> what's missing from the market is dependencies. * > > I wholeheartedly agree... > > *> 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. > > *Yes and no. It is a little bit of an annoyance, but the programmer who > wishes to use your service could look for it and provide a one-button-push > method for them to go to the market and install it. > > My paid key app does just this. When the user tries to launch it, it simply > tries to launch the free version of my app. If the free version doesn't > exist an exception is thrown and I display a dialog that more or less says > "AppSwipe! was not found. Please go to the market and install it now" The > dialog has a button that says "Go to market..." and when they click on that > it goes to the market and pulls up only the application that needs to be > installed. > > It sounds like a lot of work, but really it isn't all that bad. I > programmed that functionality in about 20 minutes. > > 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 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/ > > > -- > > > > qr-gmail.png > < 1KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
