I know, I'm all for it too. Just felt like ranting. On Feb 14, 2009, at 5:31 AM, Muthu Ramadoss <[email protected]> wrote:
The point is making it clear to the users. I'm all for paid apps, but it should be made really clear. take care, Muthu Ramadoss. http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914 http://androidrocks.in - Android Consulting. On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Incognito <[email protected]> wrote: Solution is easy. Never buy from that developer again. As a user I usually feel cheated when the owner of an app wants me to paid for it after the trial time expires. Damn him, how dare that greedy evil bastard force me to pay. Is not like he has any bills to pay after spending hundreds of hours slaving over that code. As a user, it is my way or none's way. On Feb 14, 2009, at 3:53 AM, tekrytor <[email protected]> wrote: As a consumer, I find timebombs extremely negative. I would much rather install a totally FREE lite version, than something that stops working that I have to uninstall and wonder if it all got out. It makes me think EVIL of the suppliers, and plot their extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, and power-tool pedicures, etc. This brings up the topic of starting with and maintaining the "correct" terminology for everyone's benefit, including buyers, sellers and developers. User's need to know up front exactly what they're getting and exactly how much the upgrade will cost before anything at all is installed or they will feel cheated or deceived and not return to the vendor or manufacturer. Make it OBVIOUS (and short) what the customer is getting and stop with the 40 page terms and conditions. It's not necessary and it is proof of too many attorneys and EVIL intent. Google and programmers should think about the way they do business in the long term. I know it takes extra work to make a TRIAL (timebomb) or DEMO (free lite) version. But I also know that the software I enjoy using most are ones that I feel good about, for whatever reason. Any doubt ruins the relationship and the future relationship. For example: I was once burned by AOL, who kept deducting payment months after the contract terminated. So, for years whenever I saw those stacks of their free CDs at computer shops, I would grab the stack and toss it in the first trash can I saw. I was not alone, told all my friends and family, and I saw others doing the same. It was like Fight Club. "You too Man?", "Yeah, I hate AOL". Anyone who asked me about an ISP, I told them to forget AOL. Look where AOL is today. I like to think it was my grassroots campaign. My recommendation: Programmers, for your own good, think of the "taking the lollipop out of the little kid's mouth" scenario. not a good situation.. Go free lite DEMO instead of trial (timebomb). Most of you won't know this, but before there was Wallmart, there were candy stores. Good ones always gave the kids a penny candy on their way out, so they come back. most of you will never be a Wallmart, so try thinking of yourselves as a small town candy store who needs the kids to come back. Cheers, Steve the Customer On Feb 12, 2:40 pm, "Justin (Google Employee)" <[email protected]> wrote: Al, your interpretation of the distribution agreement is incorrect. You may distribute trial version of your apps on the Market. "This is not intended to prevent distribution of free trial versions of the Product with an 'upsell' option to obtain the full version of the Product: Such free trials for Products are encouraged." What is required is that if you provide an "upsell" option to a paid version, this version must be available, and available solely through the Android Market. "However, if you want to collect fees after the free trial expires, you must collect all fees for the full version of the Product through the Payment Processor on the Market." To put it another way, you can **not** use the Android Market as a distribution channel for free, trial versions and then complete the upsell to a paid version through another channel. You can distribute a free, trial version of your application that has an expiration date, and then sell a version without an expiration, but it must be through the Android Market Cheers, Justin Android Team @ Google On Feb 11, 6:48 am, Cédric Berger <[email protected]> wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 14:15, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: The originally posted question was; "I am earger to put my app onto the market, even for free (until paid apps are allowed). Is it allowed to put a time bomb in the app and make it useless after a trial period?" So, in the case that started the thread, it's against Market T&Cs to make the app available for free until paid apps are allowed and then charge for it. Maybe but I am not so sure. If I publish an application using my server (and needing it to run), which will be online for one year, no more : I doubt the market T&Cs puts me in the obligation to keep my server online forever. And so this is indeed an application limited for 1 year. What I wanted to say is that an application said to be limited till a given date is just an application which provide this claimed functionnality. No less no more. Even when the date limit is reached, it still offer the same claimed functionnality, and is still free... but that functionnality is that it is not useable now. In case of a trial version limited in time, the paying version is to be considered a different version. And it is anyway, since it is not limited :-p ... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
