There is not need to rely on Google to support in app billing. Feel free to checkout out Single-Click Checkout for in-app Android payments. The APIs are available to validate a transaction and expose the full/premium app.
On Feb 3, 5:03 pm, Mark Carter <mjc1...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Interesting points, String. > > I was recently thinking about how to change an existing Lite/Pro combo to > use in-app-upgrade instead. > > I can't see a nice way to do it. The best way I can think of is to introduce > in-app billing to the Lite version and convert the Pro version into some > kind of "pro key" token app. The Lite version would check for existence of > this "pro key" app (and validate) if the in-app-upgrade had not been > purchased. > > Does that work? > > On 4 February 2011 03:53:38 UTC+7, String > <sterling.ud...@googlemail.com>wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:25:29 AM UTC, hackbod wrote: > > > How about using it to be able to put your app up on market as a free trial > >> version, using in-app billing to unlock the full version? > > > I've been thinking about this since the announcement yesterday. I used to > > think this was a good use for in-app billing, but now I'm not so sure. > > > My issue is with how to present the app. That's *app,* singular, because > > you'll only have one, as opposed to the lite/pro or trial/unlock pairs which > > are common now. With this current approach, especially lite/pro, users > > understand what they're getting with the free aspect. They see "Lite" in the > > title, and they immediately know they're not getting the whole enchilada. > > Expectations are managed. > > > If the app is all-in-one (unlocked through in-app billing), I'm betting > > many users won't realize that they need to pay until AFTER they install it. > > It's well established that a large percentage don't read the Market > > description. So then they'll be annoyed that they didn't get the full > > version, with crappy 1* Market comments following soon after. Not a recipe > > for success. > > > OTOH, I've had good results with separate lite/pro apps. My top-selling app > > was fed by a Lite version which rose in the Free rankings of its category, > > then more recently has fallen back down. But not before the Pro version rose > > high enough to gain decent visibility on the Paid side, and it's now doing > > well enough that it doesn't need the support of Lite any more. Moral: with > > two apps, you get two shots at success. > > > I'm not saying that in-app billing to unlock a trial may not be right for > > some apps, some devs. Just that I, for one, am not convinced. > > > String > > > -- > > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -- 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