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.
Related
Yes, you developers need to eat!
Yes, you should be paid to work!
But PLEASE think about how much you are charging. What exactly are you charging X amount for?
If you are not careful, you will do nothing but promote the Piracy of applications. I don't think you would find that acceptable, if everyone stole your work. Please just remember, that you are working on an OPEN SOURCE device. So when you take a bunch of files, do minor editing, and slap 2.99 on it, it is not worth it.
PLEASE use your brain for more then just code. THINK about the people that don't code, and think - are they going to spend $100-300 to buy all the apps for their phones? If they don't think they are getting the value, people WILL steal. Just look at the music industry!
THIS does not mean that you should just make everything free. This does mean that if you spent 10 min's making a new search bar widget (dxTop) that you probably shouldn't charge for it.
If I am wrong, please tell me, and tell me why.
Well, since you have 24 hours to return them, what's the problem?
I mean, anything under $3,- who cares? That's less than a coffee at Starbucks, when all is said and done.
I'm a video game engineer and web developer, and I charge poeople around $20/hour for my services, so if someone spends 15 minutes building an app to better your uses, then $3 I can understand. Now, I don't think a lot of the apps are worth the money because it really isnt THAT much work to do, and when you had no problem offering it for free, to now charge? Donating, thats no problem. But you shouldn't force those to buy it. Programs like BetterCut, we not available prior to paid app releases, and apposed to anycut, has multiple new and truley great features that I will in a heart beat pay $3.00.
Spending the money isn't the problem for me, $10 on an app, who cares. It's only 10 bucks. However, I just don't like the way developers went about making paying for apps a neccessity, and turning their old versions into trials. And then starting to restrict features.
When its all said and done I mean, guess there isn't much I can do but *****. If I want the app I'll buy it, I've already got 15-20 apps I've paid for so far because I find them to be necessities worth my cash. It's just stupid how it goes down.
I don't mind for people charging for apps. I haven't found the need to buy any apps yet because I haven't seen an app that interests me enough to buy it. There are a lot of apps out there and a bunch of them are getting crap reviews. I think the market just needs some time to find out what prices work and what don't. And it seems like when a good app concept comes out, another dev makes a few version.
I totally agree with you q426669,they are releasing a bunch of ****ty apps,sorry about the ****ty part....and I know you guys are busy and it´s your time.....etc....etc..When I first listened about the paid apps I was very excited thinking....cool we´re gonna start seeing nice apps,but as of now I am getting tired of stupid joke apps,flashlights etc....I don´t even feel like trying any app out,and yes I am willing to pay like I used to do with Windows Mobile.
Gonna be real interesting with the Blackberry App Store.....their lowest price starts at $3.
Anyone who buys a paid wallpaper/ringtone app deserves what they get lol. They are all out there if people search for them. I cant understand for the life of me why people have bought the paid flashlight app but ok. Developers take the time to make them so I will pay for it if its something I really want, no problem. I agree though that the apps and games coming out are pretty lame but i just ignore them. People whining about a .99 cent app are ridiculous to me, how much money do you waste on fast food and other stuff you don't need? Take that 5 bucks for your burger king and get a few cool games or apps to deck out your phone! As far as piracy of stuff its gonna happen no matter how much people charge, nothing anyone can do about it. I think making demo versions though will help cut piracy down a little.
Anyone know of a way to remove ads from applications without purchasing them?
Root phone and use adfree.
Here is a novel idea.
If you use something created by another's labour and find it useful, either PAY for it, or tolerate the alternative way of supporting the developer that doesn't cost you the (most likely) measly dollar.
I still use the host file found in doc's jpc superslim Rom. It will reroute a lot of ad sites to localhost. This will won't remove the screen space needed for the advert but prevent adverts to show.
Changing your host file is as easy as copying over it or changing it with a text editor.
qtJz said:
Anyone know of a way to remove ads from applications without purchasing them?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pay for it or dont use it and it will go away
fokkenwerk1 said:
Here is a novel idea.
If you use something created by another's labour and find it useful, either PAY for it, or tolerate the alternative way of supporting the developer that doesn't cost you the (most likely) measly dollar.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly! Phone apps aren't THAT expensive. If you don't want ads, don't use the applications, or develop your own clones (but don't be surprised if after working working ages on it, that you want to sell it too).
I use adfree. The population of people who root their phones (which is a fair amount of effort, at least it was before unrevoked ) and can use adfree, compared to the overwhelming majority who don't, can't possibly make much difference in terms of revenue and developer support.
Your call.
Seriously guys?
As a developer I'm quite offended. The apps I'm currently developing don't have ads and if people purchase full version applications then I'd like to keep it that way. Whilst I've chosen not to include ads I can totally understand why other developers have.
Ads give you the chance to be provided with free software that you would otherwise have to pay for, or steal. If you like some software then support the developers don't be arses. Developers make software for a living, it's their job, it's how we pay our bills. Especially when we're talking about the kind of small-time developers who tend to target the android market, we're not big corporations, we're not rich (quite the opposite). Please actually support developers of software you use so that they can continue to make great software.
I couldn't help but notice that, on average, the Android market apps are much more expensive than apps at the iTunes store. Is this because there is much less of a clientele? If I look into the apps for jailbroken iPhone etc. the prices are more similar.
Do you guys think that the prices will come down once the Android community grows? For now I love to support programs I use (e.g. SetCPU) but over time I'd like to get the "99 cent" apps as well
The problem is kind of the opposite from developer's pov, the lions share of apps on our devices are free. Partly this is offset by ad revenue. Some of the higher prices also have to do with exchange rates, and the relative weakness of the dollar these days,
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
I am not sure I agree
funnycreature said:
I couldn't help but notice that, on average, the Android market apps are much more expensive than apps at the iTunes store. Is this because there is much less of a clientele? If I look into the apps for jailbroken iPhone etc. the prices are more similar.
Do you guys think that the prices will come down once the Android community grows? For now I love to support programs I use (e.g. SetCPU) but over time I'd like to get the "99 cent" apps as well
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have not paid for an app yet on my Android phone. You have to look around. I don't think I can agree with your comment though about ITunes being cheaper. But, to my defense it has been awhile since I logged in on there. It seems like I was always paying for something on my iPhone
Kent_Davis said:
I have not paid for an app yet on my Android phone. You have to look around. I don't think I can agree with your comment though about ITunes being cheaper. But, to my defense it has been awhile since I logged in on there. It seems like I was always paying for something on my iPhone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that is the exact reason for some of the problems lol. android users, perhaps because they are smarter, rarely pay for apps. apple users seem to be the same people that a couple years ago were paying 5 dollars for a 15 second ringtone lol. the whole "willing to pay" aspect of the apple fanbase is the main reason why media companies, corporations, etc love to push and develop for iOS; sometimes makes me wonder if i would be happier being a chump.
real lesson though: donate/pay for android apps people! (i personally prefer donate model, but people love to be free riders, so that might not work)
Thanks for all the input! I agree with all of you. When I pay the devs here at the Android community I feel like I pay someone in person. At iTunes it will most likely be gobbled up by Apple (30%) and the big software corporations.
The main reason why I posted this was that I saw the same game at the Android market for 250% of the iTunes price... If I think something is worth buying (or donating to the creator) then I'll do it. Heck, I'd even be willing to pay if someone would develop a stable Honeycomb ROM for the NOOK!
funnycreature said:
Thanks for all the input! I agree with all of you. When I pay the devs here at the Android community I feel like I pay someone in person. At iTunes it will most likely be gobbled up by Apple (30%) and the big software corporations.
The main reason why I posted this was that I saw the same game at the Android market for 250% of the iTunes price... If I think something is worth buying (or donating to the creator) then I'll do it. Heck, I'd even be willing to pay if someone would develop a stable Honeycomb ROM for the NOOK!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't forget that Goolgle gobbles up that same 30% from developers.
i have the HTC one X but i need to give it to my father...
so i am buying a new phone and wp8 look good, new and refreshing
but i have one problem
say i buy the ativ S and i want a game that cost money on marketplace
on android i can jast download and install
on IOS installus
on WP8?
i need a custom rom? or hacking the phone? what is my options?
thanks
You could pay for the app instead of pirating it.
i can do that on android and iphone...
StevieBallz said:
You could pay for the app instead of pirating it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THIS.
Don't come in here asking how to bork devs out of money they deserve.
Well if say you work somewhere would you like it if your employer does not pay you for your work?
I have owned many different mobile OS and i always pay for my apps after using Android for 3 years i payed 60€ in total for 88 payed apps. Are you that cheap?
Verstuurd van mijn GT-I9300 met Tapatalk
ok............................
soo why are you making a wp7 custom rom? or the bazaar app ( its like installus right?) ?
if you pay for it why do need need developers for... (android dev i understand...)
edit: you can lock... i read somewhere i got my answer...
CustomROMs and Unlocks enable you to run Apps that are not possible with the official APIs. Bazaar is an alternate Marketplace that provides the possibility to centrally discover and install those Apps not possible in the official Marketplace. Bazaar does not allow you to pirate applications from the official Marketplace.
doron050 said:
i have the HTC one X but i need to give it to my father...
so i am buying a new phone and wp8 look good, new and refreshing
but i have one problem
say i buy the ativ S and i want a game that cost money on marketplace
on android i can jast download and install
on IOS installus
on WP8?
i need a custom rom? or hacking the phone? what is my options?
thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its people like you that have already destroyed the PC games market something I personally loved and could out perform any console (eyefinity anyone, not to mention far more hardcore graphics etc). Now the Pirates are doing what they can to rip off the phone market. I mean how cheap is this world??? If you cant afford a couple quid then maybe you should get a job!
Im waiting on this answer too, thinking about moving from my Titan to a HTC 8S, but only if I can sideload my apps, I have 3 I have wrote and probably will never send to market (never get round to polishing them up) and REALLY dont wanna pay $99 for the use of my own apps on my own phone, as soon as this information hits Ill pre-order a 8S
What this dude said
|
|
|
|
V
lumpaywk said:
Its people like you that have already destroyed the PC games market something I personally loved and could out perform any console (eyefinity anyone, not to mention far more hardcore graphics etc). Now the Pirates are doing what they can to rip off the phone market. I mean how cheap is this world??? If you cant afford a couple quid then maybe you should get a job!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my Lumia 900 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
Companies will be able to install Apps from outside the Marketplace but we don't know yet how that will be managed. If I had to guess I'd be pretty sure that there will be no free sideloading, given that Windows 8 doesn't allow sideloading of Metro-Apps either without a developer certificate (though they are issuing them for free at the moment).
Microsoft will be allowing third-party developers to build Live Apps. These Live Apps can integrate with the lock screen, and also integrate into the new Windows Phone 8 Wallet and other hubs on the phone. The ability to choose among three different sizes of tiles as part of Windows Phone 8 OS.
http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-windows-phone-8-has-live-tiles-and-live-apps-7000006545/
is its mean that i can install a third-party app?
if soo i want to install waze, this one: http://meirtsvi.wordpress.com/
is it possible?
You can't install Apps from outside the Windows Phone Store unless your Apps are signed with a specific Certificate that you only get after being verified as a company.
Pirates destroyed PC Gaming?
WTF are you on about the PC market is doing better than ever right now and it's driving future business models for all platforms. I mean not only is there a Free 2 Play revolution going on but it's been a platform for mods to drive sales for games like Dayz has sold at least 1 million copies of ArmA 2 as a result. On top of that we have Steam which is currently the best digital distribution software for any platform and it has created this whole Sales trend. Then we have the flash games and all the casual Facebook games which I would be has more people playing than any platform alone.
The PC is just fine, the strongest platform out there and brings in the most revenue. The only difference is people tend to think of game sales just being retail box copies. Also lets not forget the fact that people who pirate media buy more media than people who don't, they just cannot afford to buy everything because it is their hobby and it would become so expensive. For example my friend buys all his games on his Xbox 360 but he's only bought 2-3 games this year and he doesn't know how to torrent, where as I torrent every game to try it out, yet I've bought over 20 games on Steam alone this year and some how I'm labeled as a pirate. Most of my friends torrent games and again they all buy far more games than any other group of gamer I know of.
So please put that piracy bull**** argument away, it was old 5 years ago and it's even older now.
Lets not forget the PC mod and indie scene has produced some of the best developers out there today. When a developer tries to deal with Microsoft or Sony they have to go through all these legal and restriction issues with them and wait around for ages. When their games are released they hardly get any coverage and are forgotten quickly. I think you'll find indie developers find far more success on Steam or even their own sites like Minecraft or Project Zomboid.
Start using bing rewards. you earn points for searching with bing, and you can use those points & redeem them for MS points, amazon $$, Starbucks, and now you can use them to but wp8 apps/games. This is better that pirating because you get updates on time, and if its an xboz game you can get achievements.
Venekor said:
The PC is just fine, the strongest platform out there and brings in the most revenue. The only difference is people tend to think of game sales just being retail box copies. Also lets not forget the fact that people who pirate media buy more media than people who don't, they just cannot afford to buy everything because it is their hobby and it would become so expensive. For example my friend buys all his games on his Xbox 360 but he's only bought 2-3 games this year and he doesn't know how to torrent, where as I torrent every game to try it out, yet I've bought over 20 games on Steam alone this year and some how I'm labeled as a pirate. Most of my friends torrent games and again they all buy far more games than any other group of gamer I know of.
So please put that piracy bull**** argument away, it was old 5 years ago and it's even older now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You will not get people here to agree with you that it would be great to pirate software. Most games on WP7 and WP8 have a Trial-Mode anyway that allows you to play the start of the game to check if it would be interesting to you - actually ALL XBox Live titles in the Marketplace have that.
Aside from that your price argument falls to pieces really quickly in the Smartphone sector given that most games don't cost more then 3$. That's less then you pay for a beer at a bar. We're not talking about expensive Software here. Piracy is especially bad for small developers, given that they don't earn much to begin with.
Modding is a completely different topic that does not have too much to do with piracy. Many games actually have their own APIs available to allow for those extensions. This has nothing to do with unlicensed copying.
It always amazes me to see people buy phones for $ 600 and then get annoyed when they are told they should shell out $ 1 - 3 for a game every once in a while.
I plan to switch to simple mobile, and im eyeballing the 920. i could care less about pirating windows app but i would like to know if there is any form of emulator apps, or perhaps a way to sideload those like you can in android?
my concern regarding pricing is fairly simple, on android i can get angry birds for free, pay 99 cents and get adfree versions. on iOS its 99 cents, with windows devices you pay 5 bucks and it doesnt seem like its updated nearly as often. im only using this as an example i wont be bother to play angry birds, wheres my water is much better . i wont pirate the apps that arent IMO worth while but i sure as hell wont buy em either.
and before anyone comments on if im cheap or not etc, ive spent at least 80 bucks on various android apps the most expensive one being 7 bucks for a fairly useful app
As was already stated above: there is no sideloading on WP8 unless you have a company certificate or have your device developer unlocked. There have been homebrew Emulators for WP7 but given that the inclusion of ROMs would have been a violation of the ROM-owners copyrights those Emulators were not allowed in the Marketplace.
Angry Birds btw. is 99 Cents at the moment in the Marketplace. Some months ago they dropped the prices on several XBox Live games. Indie games have regularly been at the 99 Cent price point even before that.
Nobody takes issue with people saying they won't pay for an App they don't enjoy and just won't use it for that reason. The problem is that there are many people around that say they won't buy into a phone because it is so expensive by itself and they don't want to pay for the Apps they use on it for that reason.
interesting, why would they have included roms? with teh android versions you download the app and put the files on your sdcard. and thats what i was wondering more about, i have a dreamspark account due to my student status and i believe at the time it allowed you to unlock your wp7 device?
i havent truly looked throught any of teh marketplace and ive only loaded up my recent install of win8 and saw angry birds space was 5 bucks, which suits me fine i have plenty of those kind of "smartphone" games on my tablet. im more interested in getting better quality xbox live enabled games, those im willing to drop the money on
i think its actually a valid point, i mean im fairly vested into android and for me to uproot and switch OS' means that day one after i drop x amount of dollars on a new device if i want any of teh apps that i used to have back i have to go and repurchase them all. thanks for all the info, as i dont really know a whole lot about wp8
shabbypenguin said:
interesting, why would they have included roms? with teh android versions you download the app and put the files on your sdcard. and thats what i was wondering more about, i have a dreamspark account due to my student status and i believe at the time it allowed you to unlock your wp7 device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You still get one year of Dev Center membership for free with your Dreamspark Account. They would have had to include the ROMs given that there were no exchangeable SD-Cards or an accessible Filesystem in WP7.
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.