The items need to be published, the application uploaded as draft (at least), the test account listed under your developer profile. 18.04.2011 5:42 пользователь "ishihata" <ishihata.k.t...@gmail.com> написал: > Hello, > > On 4月17日, 午前12:42, Kostya Vasilyev <kmans...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The issue with 2.1 devices only seems to affect purchases of pre-defined >> test items, at least that's what I was >> seeing with my Motorola Milestone. > > It was not so for me. > I tried buying real items by using In-app billing with some 2.1 > devices on my app (not published) > but I could not buy them because the issue appeared. > > Is not publishing the app a cause? > > On 4月17日, 午前12:42, Kostya Vasilyev <kmans...@gmail.com> wrote: >> My experience is as follows (I went live with in-app billing on Monday >> the 11th). >> >> Lost purchase notifications affect about 5% of my orders, and when they >> do, requesting transactions from Google again fixes it. >> >> The good side of this bad thing is that it happens after the user places >> the order, so they have an incentive to resolve it. At least most do, >> some just post 1-star comments in Market and leave it at that. >> >> The issue with 2.1 devices only seems to affect purchases of pre-defined >> test items, at least that's what I was >> seeing with my Motorola Milestone. >> >> The end-to-end order turnaround time for actual purchases was less than >> 30 seconds in my tests, don't know how typical it is. >> >> There is a fairly large percentage of orders that don't pass >> authorization, however, I'm not sure if that's specifically in-app >> billing related, also happens with paid apps (I believe it does), or is >> caused by genuinely bad/incorrect credit card data. >> >> -- Kostya >> >> 16.04.2011 18:36, Nikolay Elenkov пишет: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Here's an honest questions to people who have in-app billing in production: >> >> > Does it work and is it worth the trouble? >> >> > I've been reading the list and it does seem that there are a number of >> > problems: >> >> > * it just doesn't work on 1.6/2.1 (some devices only?) >> > * it takes a while for purchases to get processed >> > * testing sometimes doesn't work >> >> > Besides that integrating it is a bit of a PITA. Nevertheless, I have it mostly >> > implemented (licensing server/encryption/obfuscation, etc.), but I'm >> > starting to wonder whether this is the way to go. If it takes a few hours >> > to process orders, I think most people will just think it doesn't work >> > and give up. And/or I will have to deal with lots of complaints/refunds. >> > Plus 1.6 and 2.1 makes up for more than 40% of my users, so if it really >> > doesn't work on all devices with those versions, that's a lot of lost users. >> >> > I want to use in-app billing to offer upgrades from within the application, >> > without having to maintain two separate versions, but I'm thinking maybe >> > a separate 'pro' version (with LVL) will be a lot more user friendly. I could >> > of course launch in-app billing and if it doesn't work, switch to a 'pro' >> > version, but that's a lot of unnecessary work. >> >> > What do you think? >> >> -- >> Kostya Vasilyev --http://kmansoft.wordpress.com > > -- > 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
-- 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
