Did not realize the first time i read this that this is at the Android developers expense. Since I do not agreed with the sentiment of the original poster please disregard my statement saying that this was a good idea.
On Mar 12, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Incognito <androind...@yahoo.com> wrote: Great idea! Let's see who finishes first. On Mar 12, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Stoyan Damov <stoyan.da...@gmail.com> wrote: I'm wondering, would you devs pay me $0.99 for a game titled iTorture, where you get to pick from various fictional cartoon-like Google support employees and torture them with different weapons ;) Hey, don't you dare steal that idea, I've just created the project in Eclipse ;) Cheers On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Alexander Maxwell <okthat...@gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 14:03, Stoyan Damov <stoyan.da...@gmail.com> wrote: Searching for Bobby Kolev yields his LinkedIn profile, he's the president of Beiks LLC, and his apps for Android are: http://www.cyrket.com/search?q=beiks ;) Looking at the sales I can see why he's not happy. The 24hr period is the killer IMVHO for this kind of games. Cheers Here's a good reason Netwalk was doomed almost from the start: http://www.cyrket.com/package/org.hermit.netscramble Plus, as to the game that free app was based on: "KNetwalk is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL), " (http://games.kde.org/game.php?game=knetwalk ) The user-base of the G1 is highly likely to be aware of or involved in open-source development, so trying to make money on a game largely similar to one released under GPL would be difficult.(It's also a bit much of a price for an Android game, at least currently.) When I saw this happen on the Market, I did feel sympathy for the developer, but really it just made me shrug and think "C'est la vie".....Reminds me of Linspire, and also their attempt to charge for access to their Click 'N Run APT service. Decent logic, just not the right kind of market with which it would ever be popular. Bottom line is that development for paid apps on Android is a largely different animal than developing for markets like the iPhone, and I think the Return Policy exhibits this. Perhaps there a quiet wisdom here - how many Fart apps are there on the market currently? Likely playing off of the iPhone's success with such apps, these are obviously not innovative development, but gimmicks; and gimmicks rarely have lasting value, and have little long term use. If a dev comes out with something useful (as in "serving a beneficial purpose") on the Android market, it should meet with much more success than if they were to release something simply amusing. I see that as the logic behind the Return Policy. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to android-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
