[android-beginners] Re: Creating a Lite and Pro version of an application

[Justin Anderson]

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  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 thisproject setup
> etc.
>
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-beginners] Re: Creating a Lite and Pro version of an application

[Steve]

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  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  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 thisproject setup
> > etc.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-beginners] Re: Creating a Lite and Pro version of an application

[Justin Anderson]

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  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  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  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 thisproject setup
> > > etc.
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-beginners] Re: Creating a Lite and Pro version of an application

[Steve Oliver]

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 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  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  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  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 thisproject setup
>> > > etc.
>>
>>
>
> >
>


-- 
Android mobile application development
http://steveoliverc.squarespace.com/

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[android-beginners] Re: Creating a Lite and Pro version of an application

[Jeffrey Blattman]

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 
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 
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 
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  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 thisproject
setup
> > etc.
  
  
  







  
  
  
  
  
-- 
Android mobile application development
  http://steveoliverc.squarespace.com/
  
  
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
  


-- 

[android-beginners] Re: Creating a Lite and Pro version of an application

[Justin Anderson]

*> So a user would need to download both the free app, as well as the paid
app (which unlocks features in the free app)?*

Yes.  I don't think that is that big of a deal... That is how the Documents
To Go app by DataViz works.  And that is an extremely successful app.  Also,
the paid app does virtually nothing, and so the size of it is not really an
issue.

*> Is there a way where a user could download just the paid app?*

There sure is.  That is how my current version of AppSwipe! works.  I am
switching to the "Key" method I mentioned above with my next release because
it makes maintaining the code so much simpler.

It is a royal pain to have both of them on the market because they have to
have different package names...  And since the package of an application in
Java is based on a real file structure, it makes it a bear to change the
package just to be able to create the paid .apk file.

My justification for using the paid key is that, in the long run, the users
will benefit because it is much easier for the developer to maintain the
code and so there will be less bugs.  It will also make it easier to fix
bugs because they can be fixed in a single place.

--
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  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 
> 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  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  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  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) 

[android-beginners] Re: Creating a Lite and Pro version of an application

[Justin Anderson]

*> 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  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 
> 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  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  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  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

[android-beginners] Re: Creating a Lite and Pro version of an application

[jax]

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  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 
> > 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 
> > 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  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  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.
> >>> > --
>
> >>>  >

[android-beginners] Re: Creating a Lite and Pro version of an application

[Justin Anderson]

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  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  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