Related
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/spotifys-android-app-should-frighten-apple/
Anyone know if this app is out yet? Its only available to UK and some other countries. But I would like to get it working over in the US. I've never used the service before but it looks damn cool.
No, it's not been released anywhere yet to my knowledge...
There was an app released to Market yesterday and removed today Called Droidify, did anybody dl it and would be willing to share it?
http://getsatisfaction.com/spotify/...t?utm_medium=widget&utm_source=widget_spotify
I've downloaded Droidify and removed it right away because it asked for a premium account.
Yeah I was trying to locate it as well and to no avail.
Droidify
Here's Droidify I have from backup.
You DO have to have a premium account for full access.
It's a zip files, so I think you will need to unzip it, put it on your sdcard, then install from there.
(MODS: If this is inappropriate, please feel free to delete this message. I don't think it is because it was a free application).
so, how are we gonna get this to work in the states? proxy?
innerspace said:
so, how are we gonna get this to work in the states? proxy?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's why I removed it.
I just happened to have a copy because I had backed up before doing a flash.
I was able to get spotify working on my computer but I get a force close with droidify while trying to log in and I'm in the us by the way.
to clarify...
The RIAA is slowly killing anything decent as far as web-based apps like pandora and is currently bogging down spotify's entry into the US market in an attempt to basically blackmail them into unreasonable and exorbitant royalty scales which (IMO) are entirely designed to "prop-up" and perpetuate a bloated, ineffective and out of touch industry. So my question is, for those of us that have the spotify apk, or have the droidify apk, will they stream to US based IPs? Or will the transmission be blocked (as it implies on spotify's homepage) and if it is, is there a nifty way to route the traffic through a proxy based overseas so the US users can actually enjoy this innovative app instead of being locked out by the corporate, capitalist will of the RIAA?
innerspace said:
The RIAA is slowly killing anything decent as far as web-based apps like pandora and is currently bogging down spotify's entry into the US market in an attempt to basically blackmail them into unreasonable and exorbitant royalty scales which (IMO) are entirely designed to "prop-up" and perpetuate a bloated, ineffective and out of touch industry. So my question is, for those of us that have the spotify apk, or have the droidify apk, will they stream to US based IPs? Or will the transmission be blocked (as it implies on spotify's homepage) and if it is, is there a nifty way to route the traffic through a proxy based overseas so the US users can actually enjoy this innovative app instead of being locked out by the corporate, capitalist will of the RIAA?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here's a link that let me set up spotify on my computer in the us
http://tinyurl.com/q9khoo
thx for the link
Think I'll play with it a bit and see what all the fuss is about. If I like it enough I suppose the monthly fee would be worth it. A lot more functionality here with custom playlists, caching of playlists on my mobile and whatnot. I'm currently a Pandora subscriber, spotify is offering everything I wish they could, though their pricing is much more attractive. I wonder if spotify would balk at the use of a US credit card?
The site allows you to download the official app manually if you're having problems with the market, so here it is. Still need a premium account, though. The download was free and since you need to pay to use the service, I don't think I'm doing anything bad by posting it here...
Rather pissed off I have to have a pay account, because they wont take american credit cards
http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b/ref=sa_menu_adr_app1?ie=UTF8&node=2350149011
It's live now. So yeah, pretty much sign up and get Angry Birds Rio free, this offer expires tonight.
The concept of 'free paid app of the day' is pretty interesting.
i dont understand whats the point of the android app store
tankmaster90 said:
i dont understand whats the point of the android app store
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Basically its just amazon trying to make money
About the Amazon Appstore for Android
Why Amazon Appstore for Android? The Amazon Appstore for Android is a place where you can get a paid app for free every day, view app recommendations based on your past purchases from Amazon, and shop using Amazon's trusted payment technology. You can also test apps on a simulated Android phone using a feature called “Test Drive.” You can shop from your computer, or directly on your phone or internet tablet.
Save on the Apps You Love Our recurring "A paid app for free. Every day." promotion gives all registered users an opportunity to download a new paid app for free every day. You can download the app from your PC, your mobile device, or your internet tablet.
Buying Apps In order to purchase applications from the Amazon Appstore and download them to your device, you will need to have the Amazon Appstore application installed on your phone. To get this, follow the instructions on the left of this page. To purchase paid apps, you will need to have an Amazon account set up with either your credit card or bank information (or both). All paid app purchases will be automatically charged to the card associated with your account and you will receive a receipt for each app purchase.
About the Amazon Appstore
Free App of the Day: Our "Free App of the Day" lets you get a paid app for free every day from your computer, your Android phone, or your tablet.
Test Drive: You can try some of our apps before buying them with our Test Drive feature. Test Drive lets you use the actual app, running on a simulator and controlled by your computer. Look for the "Test Drive now" button throughout the Amazon Appstore.
Reviews and recommendations: Check the star-rating on Android apps and read what other customers are saying about them. Get app recommendations based on your previous purchases and browsing history at Amazon.com.
1. Amazon Appstore downloads are only available to customers located in the United States and only work on Android mobile and internet tablet devices. To redeem a gift card for Amazon Appstore downloads, you must have opened an Amazon account and must accept the Terms of Use for the Amazon Appstore service.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The K-Zoo Kid said:
Basically its just amazon trying to make money
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That may be a role in it but I don't see it as a bad thing. It has its pro and cons:
Pros:
- Google sees this as a threat and significantly improves their app market. (Competition... something that AT&T / T-Mobile doesn't value -_-; incoming Market War? In the end it'll cause the two companies to improve their market/app store whatever you want to call it)
- 15 Minute Trial? Nawww.
Google's Android Market lets you return apps for a full refund within the first 15 minutes after you buy. Apple, by comparison, does not allow for trial periods on iOS devices. Amazon is taking a similar approach to Google by letting you test drive apps on your PC. "You control the app with your mouse and experience it like you would on your phone," Amazon's Test Drive Apps page reads. The feature lets you try the app within your browser before you decide to buy. This feature appears to be reserved for some of the more popular titles and may not be available for all apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^^ winner?
- Some apps are cheaper on Amazon App Store than the Market.
- Free Paid App of the Day (free paid apps? with permanent updates? huge winner -- at least i believe its permanent updates)
- Countries that don't have access to the Android Market are able to buy apps and get free apps.
Cons:
- Possible that more companies will start their own "App Store" and Android will be more spreaded out in terms of App Markets.
just some of the things on top of my head.
And the worst part is that it's unavailable in several countries.
I couldn't care less about Amazon, but I do want Angry Birds Rio.
zephiK said:
Cons:
- Possible that more companies will start their own "App Store" and Android will be more spreaded out in terms of App Markets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends if they want to be sued also. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110322/tc_nm/us_apple_amazon_lawsuit
The K-Zoo Kid said:
Basically its just amazon trying to make money
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i'll only buy direct from Android Market
i'll not trust any other entity trying to make profit
TheRomMistress said:
Depends if they want to be sued also. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110322/tc_nm/us_apple_amazon_lawsuit
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft has already started appealing the term "app store" awhile back. So Amazon would be on Microsoft's side. And I would agree with Microsoft that the term "app store" is too generalized.
http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2011...tore-a-trademark-that-microsoft-also-opposes/
The Seattle area’s two tech giants, Amazon.com and Microsoft, find themselves on the same side today—battling a trademark claim by Apple. As expected, Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) said Tuesday that it was indeed opening its new Appstore for Android, despite a recent federal lawsuit by Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) claiming trademark infringement of that company’s App Store brand.
Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) has been opposing Apple’s attempt to secure the App Store brand name for a while now, but in a different venue—an appeal with federal trademark regulators.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And since we're on Android... I'm going to go ahead and assume that we all want Amazon/Microsoft to win this lawsuit. Not being a fan boy or anything, but I hate Apple's guts when it comes to making lawsuits on patents/etc.
Besides, in most court cases.. even if they lose. So what? it would either end up in the following ways:
A) Amazon pays money to Apple and continues using 'App Store.'
B) Renames it to something else.
@AllGamer: You don't have to use Amazon App Store to make purchases. You could just simply use it to get 'Free Paid Apps of the Day'
But Amazon is pretty trustworthy. Huge successful corporations. I personally just did it to get Angry Birds Rio and gotta say... the graphics in Rio are much more superb than the original Angry Birds & Angry Birds Seasons.
In the end, the developer of the app/game is still getting paid. Thats what really matters.... isn't it?
For some reason it won't let me get Rio. It says I need to add a payment method to my one-click settings, which I checked and there is a payment method...
lfmmoura said:
And the worst part is that it's unavailable in several countries.
I couldn't care less about Amazon, but I do want Angry Birds Rio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Edit: Link removed - sorry.
Rewtor said:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1004186
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could be considered warez, since it is supposed to be limited to US and only free for a limited time...
tekkitan said:
Could be considered warez, since it is supposed to be limited to US and only free for a limited time...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I reported that thread when I first saw it. It is considered warez.
Unauthorized distribution.
EDIT: Looks like the mods deleted the thread.
I shall remove it then
EDIT: Been beaten to it.
tekkitan said:
For some reason it won't let me get Rio. It says I need to add a payment method to my one-click settings, which I checked and there is a payment method...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I figured this out in case anyone runs into the same issue. Apparently you can't use your Amazon store card (the non-Visa card) as a payment option for the app store. I put in one of my credit cards and it works now.
The free paid app of the day looks like groupon concept.
cubewalker said:
The free paid app of the day looks like groupon concept.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well.. it's a very good one Hopefully we'll see some significant changes from Google to their market. Maybe incorporate some of their ideas into the official market.
Today's free paid app, the poker game didn't really appeal to me so I didn't bother with getting it.
Really liking the changes done in Angry Birds Rio.
Seems like a lot of people are leaving poor feedback on a lot of these apps/games when they aren't bad :|
- Countries that don't have access to the Android Market are able to buy apps and get free apps.
yha great.
that would be,if it would actually be available in every country....
and i still dont see the use of it as long as you still need to use a credit card!
ill stick with the android market for now.
ghost010 said:
- Countries that don't have access to the Android Market are able to buy apps and get free apps.
yha great.
that would be,if it would actually be available in every country....
and i still dont see the use of it as long as you still need to use a credit card!
ill stick with the android market for now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well its still relatively new, im sure it'll expand.
everything you buy online requires a credit card or debit card.. i dont get your point? some apps on the "app store" are cheaper than the market... very slightly but it doesnt hurt
Was reminiscing my HD7 days again...
When I had my HD7, most of the apps were, I will be honest, paid. Now before you pull the trigger on me, let me explain something.
A. I am not against paying for an app.
B. But is it necessary that a good app SHOULD b paid? (WhatsApp, Flipboard)
C. Many people do consider this as a deal-breaker before buying a phone. (My boss is one of them, to an extent I'm too.)
D. By good app, I don't mean mind-blowing 3D games. But basic apps like the ones mentioned above.
Shouldn't MS, being MS make deals with other brands and give the buyer some relief?
Opinions, view points, perspectives now welcome. :Z
Sent from my RaZr Nexus.
Apps are created to make money - or at least most of them are.
That being said there are different ways an App can make money:
1.) It connects to a service and by it's existence promotes that service or makes it easier to use that service. In those cases the service behind the App pays for the App. (Twitter, Facebook, etc. are prime examples)
2.) Advertisments - this is the route most free Apps to my knowledge take on the Play Store. Pretty obvious how this works but I actually would rather pay 99 Cent instead of having an advertisment in my face all the time.
3.) In App Purchases - those will come with WP8 but in my experience are most often used in a way that you get a basic App with severly limited functionality which is then made functional through those expensive purchases. I personally prefer to have a price upfront so I can decide if the App is worth it.
All in all and working in software development myself I believe that good apps should be payed and I do believe that they actually should cost more than they do today. People whining over a price tag of 99 Cents for something they are going to use every day. Buy a coke at McDonalds and you pay pretty much the same for it without much whining that it should be free. Most developers don't make much money on Apps (WP or otherwise) with prices being what they are. This is by the way one of the reasons why many developers go iOS first - iPhone users are far more likely to pay for an App than Android users (looking at the statistics).
Prices being what they are Microsoft and Nokia in certain regions added a gift card to phone purchases worth 20$/€. This might be an interesting strategy for the future as well.
No, the phone itself was probably expensive enough.
The monthly bill is probably more than you are getting out of it.
Where does it stop ?
Television was once free in many places, now I believe everybody pays for it.
If you want "premiuim" channels you pay more again.
We pay for internet connections.
If the developer of an application wants to charge for it so be it, if he wants it to be free so be it.
Freedom of choice.
LL13-
When TV is free it is paid for by the country that operates it. Somewhere someone has to pay for it. If it is payed through taxes you also pay for it although you might not notice. Pay-TV-channels are new - which means: they would not exist were they not payed. It is the same for many of those Apps. If Microsoft were to intervene to get certain Apps for free on the platform they would have to regain that cost somewhere which perhaps would drive up the per-unit-pricing of the phones.
I'm not trying to force people to make their App payed, of course it's the developers choice. But all this whining about 99 Cents for a good App you use frequently just has to stop. Effort goes into making those Apps, people spend time implementing and polishing them. They should receive something for that.
Soo, here i am thinking about the newest (and first) WP8 phone ever announced, the Samsung (insert weird name here).
Now on android i am having 90~ apps that i use daily.. now i am pretty sure i'll find them once the OS get's released but if everything will be paid that's a dealbreaker for me.. i don't want to pay too much for a phone and (0.99$ per app) 90~ $ more.
So nope, for me they should be free, actually app developers should decide.
Most of the apps on my last 3 wp7s were paid and most of them were awful. I do not mind paying for apps at all.
Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2
lamplighter13 said:
Television was once free in many places, now I believe everybody pays for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If your in the US, TV is free if you can live with the programming you will get. FCC mandates that all HDTV channels (non premium channels)are broadcasted over the air.
Depending on where you live you can get some but, you might only get a few (I get 4 and not the major networks but, it is free)
Not everyone pays for it...but, most people pay because they want more than 5-7 channels.
As for the topic on hand. I think there should be free apps, some apps I will never use if I can't try them.
It amazes me how cheap some people are! Devs work there nuts off to bring you apps and you don't think they should get paid for that hard work?
MS will NEVER demand that all apps be paid apps that's crazy1 They limit the daily submissions to stop crapware like soundboards that plague the play store. Its a choice the dev makes and most offer you the choice with free versions supported by adds or paid versions (supertube for instance). The WP market place even has a section for free apps and games etc and some rock (archery for one).
All in all i think MS has done a great job keeping app standards high. They could of gone the Android route and let anything pass just to get the numbers up but they didnt! Also not MS offer trials when android and ios normally have lite versions though i see more slipping into the market.
You knew it was only a matter of time before someone figured out a way to fill their wallets off users by annoying them to death..
http://bgr.com/2014/02/12/chromecast-ads-coming-soon/
I will copy and paste a reply I left about this on Reddit
I can see it now for apps like Plex when Casting goes free (whenever that happens)
"We will Cast your content right after this short advertisement"
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
styckx said:
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I agree, the trouble is that video content doesn't really work like software. Every new episode would be a "major" release. It's not like you can release a movie in 2-minute segments. Well, maybe if you're J.J. Abrams...
I don't mind ads as long as I have the option to pay to get rid of them. Even Netflix could opt for a cheaper ad-supported tier if they wanted to.
To be honest, I like apps that are free with ads and paid without as it gives me a way to try the app for a period longer than the Play Store's 15 minutes.
[HOWTO] Chromecast/Netflix outside USA without VPN
Ad Blocking - DD-WRT Wiki
bhiga said:
To be honest, I like apps that are free with ads and paid without as it gives me a way to try the app for a period longer than the Play Store's 15 minutes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or that too.
Brightcove is pretty big VOD provider, but yeah, that would work as long as the stuff you want to watch isn't hosted there.
YouTube could be uber sneaky and host the ads on YouTube itself so then it would be all-or-nothing.
On the plus side, YouTube could become the resurrection of AdCritic. I miss that site...
Talk about a blast from the past. Have you seen -
http://creativity-online.com/
I think everybody is struggling to find ways to make money from this technology. Google doesn't make any money on the hardware, and consumers just don't want to pay much for software (which is why the old PC software business model is gradually failing, and you see even companies like Microsoft going to Office 365-type subscriptions). So the result is they have to find a way to make money from subscriptions, fees, and/or advertising.
Google aren't the only ones considering advertising. Mozilla just announced that they're going to start putting ads in Firefox, inserted in the page of recent sites that appears when you open a new tab.
DJames1 said:
you see even companies like Microsoft going to Office 365-type subscriptions). So the result is they have to find a way to make money from subscriptions, fees, and/or advertising.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The worst thing I've encountered so far with the subscription model is how it virally forces others to buy in.
Case-in-point, I got an Adobe InDesign file that I needed to look at. Fine, I have InDesign CS6. I load it up, and it tells me I can't open it because it was made in InDesign CS7.5
At least Microsoft has Office viewers. I was stuck with the InDesign thing - either go back and ask for a flattened version or subscribe, luckily I had the opportunity to just ignore it.
Like freedom, free software truly isn't free - at least not as long as people need to eat and pay bills. Renewable energy and homesteading may be the zero-cash way, but then we won't have enough time to code!
Maybe we need to come up with some "business productive" games. People-powered OCR Hangman?
Well I'll repeat something else I said
I'm guilty of being an old timer. I came into Android with 1.5 (CupCake).. The Market and Android community used to be a thriving community of freeware, innovation and great discussion.. I just hate what it turned into. It's like a gold rush and the end user is the gold and everyone is trying to sell you their bridge. I just hate how it got like this. I don't mind paying for stuff but it seem anymore it's a constant and quality has taken a back seat. It's like people stopped doing this for fun and a hobby and started trying to make a business.. Anything that is anything that is in demand someone will find a way to charge you for now a days.
P.S. I don't mind subscription services like Netflix etc. Dumb stuff like Plex Pass is a joke though. You're subbing monthly to unlock in-app features. Doesn't make any sense..
DJames1 said:
I think everybody is struggling to find ways to make money from this technology. Google doesn't make any money on the hardware...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do we really know that?
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...tions-despite-strong-nexus-5-chromecast-sales
Biggest seller or a best seller in Q4 2013, depending how you take that article.
The packaging probably costs nearly as much as the product.
True, when it's easy for lots of people to make apps, the market gets crowded and confused.
Doesn't help that the rating system doesn't take into account that people use ratings maliciously to complain or penalize the developer for things often that are user error or out of the dev's control.
PlexPass gives other things like their cloud thing, but yeah, it is kind of "pay to be in the beta club" but hey, if it works for them, funds their continued development, and people are willing to pay, I don't have to like it, but I can't really criticize them either.
And with the $75 PlexPass lifetime, it's the same cost as a mid-range piece of software.
On Google profits, I'm sure Chromecast sold well, we can see from the lack of rootable units on shelves...
Of course they won't tell us how much they're making (or losing) on each sale. I bet most of the profit was Google Play.
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop - until the accountants got involved, because their job is to cover that up. Not whining or ranting, just stating a known part of the corporate income game.
EarlyMon said:
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop - until the accountants got involved, because their job is to cover that up. Not whining or ranting, just stating a known part of the corporate income game.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. Especially given the volume they produced at, I'm sure they negotiated some killer discounts with the manufacturers. :good:
bhiga said:
True. Especially given the volume they produced at, I'm sure they negotiated some killer discounts with the manufacturers. :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/7070288
Job's open.
My issue is not with the ads being there, this is a Google device so ads were to be expected be it from Google or someone else. My issue is with it being video ads, my DSL line is shaped during the day and I don't need this hogging the bandwidth preloading videos while I am trying to browse the web. I wish my country would get "first" world in terms of broadband just so this [email protected] stops bugging me...
/fingers crossed Eureka guys ad-block this .
EarlyMon said:
I just doubt that they lost any money at $35 a pop
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think Google is losing money on the Chromecast hardware, at least not deliberately. But I do think they priced it not to make any money on the hardware.
Think about it:
- Google is not a hardware company. They deliberately try to stay out of the hardware business because they realize that the margins are really low. They make their money on fees and services. They only introduce hardware products as an enabler to get new things started.
- They are undercutting everybody else on price to have the cheapest brand-name media streamer. It's in the same price range as the cheapest Chinese no-name Android TV sticks.
- They introduced the Chromecast with an offer for 3 months free Netflix, which is 2 months more than Netflix normally offers. That's a $16 value for which Google undoubtedly compensated Netflix, although probably at a discounted rate. When Chromecast sales took off the first day, Google canceled that offer immediately, indicating both that they had allocated a limited budget for it, and that the price of the Chromecast would not bear it without losing money.
I'm very confused. So someone created a SDK for developers to include ads on Chromecast apps and people here are upset by this? Please tell me why.
We should keep in mind here, it's not Google inserting ads here, it's Brightcove who is enabling developers to insert video ads compatible with Chromecast. As the title of the linked article says, "Third Party Provides Way For Developers To Add Ads To Chromecast"
I doubt Google will see any of this revenue as Brightcove built this technology using the Cast SDK for their engine.
The key part here, and I could be totally off-base, is that it sounds like a library that a developer would add to their app - essentially using Brightcove's "Cast" function and player. That makes sense since Brightcove has an HTML5 player already in use by sites on the web.
For example, instead of developing my own HTML5 page that Chromecast would go to in order to play a video, I would just trigger the Brightcove "Cast" function, passing it the location and my key/ID. Chromecast would then run the Brightcove player app which plays the video content I chose with inserted ads. The fact that it's being advertised as "seamless" tells me the ads are being stitched into the video content and delivered as a single stream, rather than a playlist drawing from separate sources.
Aside from ad revenue, the huge plus for developers here is that Chromecast-enabled apps wouldn't even need to use the Cast SDK directly, because they're using the Brightcove casting engine. That means the specific Chromecast-enabled app wouldn't need to be on the whitelist or register with Google because it's really the Brightcove app that Chromecast is running. Brightcove is responsible for making sure the engine keeps up with Chromecast updates and changes so that's another burden off the developer.
A "no ads" version of an app that uses the Brightcove player may use the same request to Brightcove, just with a flag saying not to insert the ads. The "gotcha" here is that because Brightcove is the player for the video content the app uses, blocking Brightcove or the Brightcove app would block all casted video from the app.
Of course Brightcove probably shares in the ad revenue, so maybe they won't allow developers to use their engine without ads, in which case the theorized advantages to the developer go away for a "no ads" version as they'd still need to register and use the Cast SDK directly.
But likely Brightcove may take the gamble that enough people are cheap and use ad-supported versions that it covers the paid apps that aren't showing ads. Or maybe part of their developer agreement makes the developer pay for non-ad versions somehow. Just theorizing from the business perspective...
styckx said:
So sick of in app ads, so sick of freemium, so sick of subscription services (ie: PlexPass etc), so sick of pay to win games, so sick of every Android developer (not every, but you get the point) nickel and diming the piss out of users either with ads or micro-transactions. Enough.. Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades. A set price, minor upgrades are free, major revisions you re-pay. The Android software market is the biggest racket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you Sir, these are true words. I agree you to 100%
styckx said:
Just follow the PC software model that has worked for decades.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The PC software model had very few ongoing costs. You boxed up a CD and after that, the costs you incurred were mostly just support costs. Streaming video is not cheap. If you plan on charging once in a lifetime, then you will be out of business very quickly.
@DJames1 - those are good points, I'd like to counter with what the market will bear.
After the Google TV and Nexus Q flops, I don't think that Chromecast could have done better at a higher price point, even if it started out with more apps and features. I think that they had to plan for this price point and knew that going in.
As for the initial Netflix deal, I don't know if anyone besides the accountants know how that worked. Not a personal criticism, just saying - Netflix has a vested interest in DIAL succeeding. It makes secure delivery easy for them. Their revenue models for this sort of thing aren't trivial, see Roku's license deal for example.
Netflix will give newcomers a free month for watching Philip DeFranco on YouTube.
So between their giveaway budget for promotions, surely compensated in part by the content providers and anything paid back by Google in the form of free advertising, I think that entire initial allocation for Netflix with Google was all virtual money, if such a thing exists. Iow, lots of return on investment on both sides but actual investment costs in real dollars - closer to zero.
@bhiga - agree. This reminds me of the AirPush SDK, and quite a few others who seek out devs with revenue schemes.
Pretty simply, after seeing the requirements and the limitations for normal html5 development on the Chromecast, and paying my $5 admission fee.... it's ridiculous.
So if anyone wants to jumpstart their development of an app for Android or Chrome and they already have a Receiver app hosted on an https site (apparently even Google Docs will do), I'll publish your app myself.
Here's a list of things I'd need to know for publishing a Receiver and Sender app. Message me there, or here, if you're interested. I try to keep my Hangouts invites visible.
Things to note:
In Chrome, both a Sender URL and a Receiver URL are required. The sender can be site specific (e.g. if your application is hosted at mysubdomain.site.com/folder/page.html, the sender URL will get shortened to mysubdomain.site.com.)
For the above reason, you can't send Web requests from locally hosted sites. Google needs direct access to them, so they forbid it.
The Receiver URL must be a single page, however. This is what gets displayed on the screen. Because of the restrictions of the Chromecast, even Google considers it safe to assume your content should be hosted in a single 1280x720 rectangle.
All Receiver URLs must go to an https site. There's a way to use Google Drive/Docs to house a Receiver via https. You'll probably have to search around the Chrome store for a reliable Google Drive html editor if you need to go this route, so I would recommend Drive only as a last resort.
OT but to add up. You think that's ridiculous. Play Store admission fee is $20. And for iOS devices only access to SDK is $100.
I am looking to make CC app of my own. Will keep you in mind.
ppero196 said:
OT but to add up. You think that's ridiculous. Play Store admission fee is $20. And for iOS devices only access to SDK is $100.
I am looking to make CC app of my own. Will keep you in mind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It cost me $25 usd when I signed up last week, is there seriously another fee to pay on top of that to publish cc apps?
ppero196 said:
OT but to add up. You think that's ridiculous. Play Store admission fee is $20. And for iOS devices only access to SDK is $100.
I am looking to make CC app of my own. Will keep you in mind.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it's ridiculous that all apps, regardless of target audience, must pass through Google's censors, yes. Previously the only way to have an app available was to publicly list it on their website. No developer account, no app testing... Period. Unlike the Google Play Store, this account is mandatory to do anything.
idone said:
It cost me $25 usd when I signed up last week, is there seriously another fee to pay on top of that to publish cc apps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep.
Not just to publish but to start developing, debugging, or testing.
Google Corporation has recently sent me a threat over email, added a strike to my Google+ account for daring to post this message online.
So I guess I'll amend my words. I'll "partner" with anyone who wants to publish or develop or test a Chromecast app. In said partnership I'll assume no ownership of your stuff. You make it, I'll do everything in my power to make sure you can run it on any Chromecast you want.
If Google hates me, I must be doing some good.
Final update:
Google recently realized their loophole here and closed it, adding a clause to their developer agreement that states that helping anyone with unfortunate circumstances can get you removed from their whitelist.
I guess my developing days are over, and remember: buy a Kindle Fire Stick instead!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using Tapatalk
Yet another reason I regret buying a CC