Jax, No worries... It sounds like you had done some homework before posting. And like I had said, if you had done some homework then you could ignore my little prodding. :)
I thought of a couple other advantages to using my method: People will most likely try out the free version before getting the paid app... With the key method, they don't have to uninstall what they have already downloaded. If you have updates to your main app that are android-version specific (like Android 1.5 vs. 1.6) you can have two main apps that both use the same key to determine if they are in paid mode...one for the previous version of Android and one that can take advantage of new SDK features. That way your users won't have to pay to upgrade to the better version. Thanks, Justin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There are only 10 types of people in the world... Those who know binary and those who don't. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:14 AM, jax <jackma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
