Related
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.
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.
4.2 multi-user function does not allow apps to be shared between users on the same device. (An app can share the same storage space, but you'd still need to pay for separate copies for each user.)
I'll use OmniWrench's comment on ArsTechnica in lieu of my own argument:
"I ask this as someone who codes for a living - Do you really think families sharing a single device are going to buy multiple copies of the same app? How realistic an expectation is that? Allowing sharing of paid apps on a single device seems like a raw deal for devs certainly, but realistically how many people would actually buy the same thing 2 or more times on the same device?
...
"The consequence of this approach is that my wife will not use my android devices under her account, she'll just occasionally do some stuff "as me", so she won't "feel at home" with the device or android, and hence, won't be as likely to purchase her own device (or apps) down the road."
A counter-argument presented is that Android apps are cheap vs PC apps, so app-sharing isn't needed. But this faceplants upon closer examination. An Android app isn't the functional equivalent of a PC app. A mobile game doesn't have the same content as a PC game. There are also various money-making mechanisms (IAPs) being employed in mobile games that aren't in PC games. But the bottom line is per OmniWrench's above: It's not realistic to expect people to pay for multiple copies of the same app on the same device, no matter what the cost is. People will just use a single account, or they will resort to warez.
This segues into the piracy issue. We all know that apps piracy is rampant on Android, and it's a major detractor for developing the eco. Devs won't play if they can't make money. My feeling is that 4.2 will promote more piracy, by pushing erstwhile legit users to resort to the warez route to make multi-user work per their expectations, ie with app-sharing. It's a slippery slope: Once people make the decision to use warez for certain situations, the natural inclination is that they'll use warez for other situations as well.
Please participate in the poll above, and voice your opinions.
Wow... this really grosses me out. I don't share my phone, but I certainly expected to share my Nexus 7 tablet (with wife and three kids). I don't want any of them in my email or other communication apps, but I'm happy to let them use anything else. I'd really looked forward to easy, one-click, secure sharing of my tablet. But on reading this, I think that I'll just continue to use App Protector to lock down Gmail, etc. The bum thing is that I also have to lock down Chrome, because the bugger either logs users into mail.google.com automatically or offers to do so. Thus, I can't let family members use Chrome at all on my tablet (although Dolphin is a fine substitute).
The adding a second user feature is something that I will never even try.
--
I go through enough gadgets that my wife and kids end up with their own tablets = "I do not share my (latest) toys" .
No it does not, it enables multiple users to use their own apps on the same tablet. Turning one tablet into four different ones.
What people seem to be confusing this with is a "kid's mode", where a different user is allowed limited access to another user's apps.
Either way Google was damned if they did/ damned if they didn't. They let everyone have access to paid apps they tick off devs, they don't they tick off some users.
It is quite a poorly developed idea.
My nexus is a family tablet, with a shared Gmail account.
I was hoping to put on my own Gmail account as a new user to migrate & amalgamate the two accounts' purchases.
No dice.
Concerned Android User.
I knew this was coming in some form or another.The whole thing is whats the right solution..
I actually thought Google would end up putting some type of device id tag in each app. This would allow it to run only on the device it was purchases for. But of course as much as we change devices and buy new ones. This would be very flawed.
Then there is the Each app linked to one google account. The app can then only be installed on a device using that Google account and only on one device at a time.. Well CO-PILOT tried this.. It failed miserably because of the Administration overhead when users switched or upgraded devices.(I was frustrated beyond belief).
I know its different but with windows Apps and programs for the most part are based on cpu id .. well product key generated from that and coa key. To install on that S pacific pc only.
So what would be Fair to everyone. Especially the Developers.. That is what this is all about. fair to developers and still works for users..
My opinion.. Some apps like simple games email type apps and so on are not so personal and should be allowed to carry on as they are.. But i do see how the apps like high end games and work processors apps. Should be maybe Tied to a Device not so much a Google account.. Well rephrase that
They should be somehow tied to a Google account but allowed to Run on One Device at a time.Any user on that device. Maybe pay a small fee per device above its primary device..
We will all have to give some on this Subject to keep app development moving to better app quality . Keeping developers and users Somewhat happy.. But there is not a solution to Keep this fair for both...
I am willing to pay a slight extra amount to use Really good apps on multiple devices. But only apps that truely make my life easier. Well more fun with some of the games.(thou im not big with games )
Sorry this is such a long winded post . There is change in the air.. Someone should start a true real discussion about this. Get Google and app developers involved . Before Google just decides for us.. We will loose on both ends if they do Developers and users..
PIRACY IS NOT A ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM....
you can get around this.. Setup your google account on the second user . Install the apps.. Then remove the account. Should work..
Work around ... Add the second account for this test ..
Primary account is Erica .
second account Erica Renee
I installed my google account to the erica renee user account. Open play store.. go to your apps .They will show as if they are not purchased . EXIT play store. REBOOT THE TABLET. log back into the second account and then you will see apps purchased .. You can install the paid apps..
Exit back to home screen. Go into setting and accounts Open the google account and delete it.. The paid apps from the first account will Be there still and usable.
The app i used to try this was Sketchbook Pro.. So this is not that big of a deal . My huge post above i still agree i would pay a small extra amount to use apps on multi devices. If the apps were worth it..
The only thing I thought about using a second user account is for my 3yr old, since she figured out how to exit out of Kid Mode (I swear this kid is more tech savy than most adults I know)
Problem is, one size does not fit all.
I can certainly see how highly personalized apps, such as games, should warrant a re-purchase of the game. Maybe that's just the developer in me talking, but when you look like online games like SC2, Diablo3 ... you can borrow the "device" to someone, and they could play it, under your account, but it's not the same experience, and neither is it legal under EULas for these games.
However, it is also clear to me that purchasing, for example, a widget (such as HD widgets) should really be tied to device. I made a second account for my wife, and while I appreciate that we can now have different account for Words With Friends, I will not be rebuying HD widgets, so my wife's account loses that ability.
And there are gray areas. Does VPlayer warrant a re-purchase? I don't know. But I can name many very expensive desktop applications that I have used for decades now, sharing them with my family, under the same device - Office, Photoshop, every single single player game.... this is where the confusion comes from. people are just not used to this re-purchase model, and for good reason!
kangy said:
The only thing I thought about using a second user account is for my 3yr old, since she figured out how to exit out of Kid Mode (I swear this kid is more tech savy than most adults I know)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha! Our 3 year old has figured out the same thing on the phone. He figured out some combination of the right app, going to landscape and back and the brief appearance of the menu bar which gets him to the desktop. We're still not totally sure how he manages it because the sneaky little monster will only do it when we're not looking. No joke.
I was hoping the multi user mode would have allowed me to set up a profile with just the few apps I'll let him play with (he is great at Cut the Rope, Bad Piggies, and all the angry birds).
Google really didn't think about this too deeply. The lead account should be the administrator of the device and when installing an app should be allowed to choose to install "Just for you" / "All users" / "Specific users".. etc etc..
It seems like a really half baked idea especially with the shifting folder tree for user accounts.. Seriously who thought of that idea? It's beyond stupid. Linux has the most simple and effective user and group management and it seems Google tried reinventing the wheel by making it square.
styckx said:
Google really didn't think about this too deeply. The lead account should be the administrator of the device and when installing an app should be allowed to choose to install "Just for you" / "All users" / "Specific users".. etc etc..
It seems like a really half baked idea especially with the shifting folder tree for user accounts.. Seriously who thought of that idea? It's beyond stupid. Linux has the most simple and effective user and group management and it seems Google tried reinventing the wheel by making it square.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its more flat then square.. .
I totally agree with the deciding on What user to install for.. As well there should be settings in the admin account as to what type of apps a user can install. how much disk space they can use.. To really make it usable for what most in here want.. Limit time constraints and so on .
Im sure they will Build more into it as they go.. The way windows does multi user is awesome..
/user
/user/ erica
/user/ erica renee
/user/ guest
I have my /user /erica located on a second partition.. So if i wipe windows no worry about any data because now games email and everything uses the user account for the most part..
Something similar would be awesome..
Poll does not cover my use case.
My daughter can download free games on her ID. She can use my ID if she needs something I purchased.
Bringing up piracy in the context of multi-user is just stupid - people into stealing will and the rest of us won't.
Multiuser has nothing to do with it.
Current Google PlayStore works fine for me. I can download a paid app onto any device I register on my account.
Greedy developers who want more money out of me - can just go find a different customer. I won't buy their product.
I say that as a developer.
SoonerLater said:
Thus, I can't let family members use Chrome at all on my tablet (although Dolphin is a fine substitute).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, as if that's a bad thing. Chrome is horrendous. I also think having played apps only work on one user is stupid as well.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
I have a solution, though I'm not sure whether it's legal or not.
As you can still add multiple Google-accounts to a user, it's not really a problem, just can just add your google account to the other users,disable sync, switch to your account it in the Play Store, install the apps you want(it's just a matter of seconds,no second download needed)..problem solved.
As for your Kids, delete your Google-Account from their account after installing, the apps should still be available.
Worked for me.
I find myself agreeing with many of the sentiments voiced thus far.
I agree that this is part of Android's maturity process as it grows out of its phone roots. For phones, a per-user license model is the natural choice, as device-sharing isn't common. But once device-sharing is needed, this model breaks, and needs modification.
While there are various workarounds available as mentioned, I think there needs to be an official solution, if only for ease-of-use alone. Normal users shouldn't be expected to jump through hoops for a functionality as basic as sharing a device between family members.
For the short term, I think a restricted-mode (aka kid's mode) for the primary account would be very useful for a family device, more useful than the current fully-segregated acct scheme. This avoids any app-sharing abuse, as the restricted mode can't be used as an independent account.
For the long term, I think a more granular licensing scheme is needed for apps. Example: For a $5 app, an "auxiliary" license (say $1) may be offered for a separate account on the same device. This allows the dev to still make some money, but not large enough to push users to avoid paying the cost of a full second license.
I don't think a per-device scheme would be advisable, as it would get confusing and complicated when mixed in with per-user apps. The more complications to paying, the more people will opt for the easy way out, which is warez.
Speaking of piracy, yes, there will alway be people who pirate no matter what. But the facts are that piracy is a major problem for Android, because it is so damn easy and convenient for people to find pirated apps. The more hassle it is for users to pay for what they want, the more people will pirate. Think of it as a convenience function.
It's also a function of user expectation. As some said, we are used to the PC's per-device licensing model for family devices, and paying multiple times for the same thing on the same device just seems wrong, no matter how you couch the argument. I think users can be weaned away from this to the per-user model, but only gradually, and with carrots to lead the way. Doing an abrupt about-face like the current multiuser implementation would only antagonize the user, and be a recipe for increased piracy. Look no further than the music and movie markets for a taster of the draconian approach.
I consider it to be the same thing as two different devices. My solution there? The official Google one. I add my Google account to the Play Store so when I buy something, my wife can use her tablet, go into the store, switch to my account and install it. I'm in the same boat as one of the previous folks said and upgrade often so I don't anticipate having to worry about the multi user deal. I'd actually rather see the ability to add other accounts that aren't tied to a google account for more of a work / fun separation.
My experience is different.
I have separate Google account for buying app, email, and even contacts.
So, I can still share my purchased apps with multi user setup.
On my main account, I setup in the following order:
- google account for buying app
- then add my Gmail account
On second user:
- my wife Gmail account
- then add the Google account for buying app
And I have no problem installing my purchased apps on both users.
Note that I always buy apps, I don't pirate. Even app as expensive as TomTom.
The thing is... I want to share with my family members. Those are my families, we share a house, television, Nintendo Wii, etc.
I share a desktop computer pc with all the apps.
I always do that, and I don't think that's wrong.
And I don't want to change that.
That should be the way multi user setup in a single device.
If I have to buy multiple copies of app, then that's just greedy, and not practical.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------
I don't think I can agree with calling apps sharing an "abuse" and wrong.
I meant, if I have a tablet with an app there, I am may not give it to my wife or kids to play with it? Just because I bought only one license?
"Sorry kid, this is daddy's toy. You may not play this game, daddy only bought one license"
So for that, I must hide the tablet?
That's absurd.
I have never thought like that ever.
e.mote said:
I find myself agreeing with many of the sentiments voiced thus far.
I agree that this is part of Android's maturity process as it grows out of its phone roots. For phones, a per-user license model is the natural choice, as device-sharing isn't common. But once device-sharing is needed, this model breaks, and needs modification.
While there are various workarounds available as mentioned, I think there needs to be an official solution, if only for ease-of-use alone. Normal users shouldn't be expected to jump through hoops for a functionality as basic as sharing a device between family members.
For the short term, I think a restricted-mode (aka kid's mode) for the primary account would be very useful for a family device, more useful than the current fully-segregated acct scheme. This avoids any app-sharing abuse, as the restricted mode can't be used as an independent account.
For the long term, I think a more granular licensing scheme is needed for apps. Example: For a $5 app, an "auxiliary" license (say $1) may be offered for a separate account on the same device. This allows the dev to still make some money, but not large enough to push users to avoid paying the cost of a full second license.
I don't think a per-device scheme would be advisable, as it would get confusing and complicated when mixed in with per-user apps. The more complications to paying, the more people will opt for the easy way out, which is warez.
Speaking of piracy, yes, there will alway be people who pirate no matter what. But the facts are that piracy is a major problem for Android, because it is so damn easy and convenient for people to find pirated apps. The more hassle it is for users to pay for what they want, the more people will pirate. Think of it as a convenience function.
It's also a function of user expectation. As some said, we are used to the PC's per-device licensing model for family devices, and paying multiple times for the same thing on the same device just seems wrong, no matter how you couch the argument. I think users can be weaned away from this to the per-user model, but only gradually, and with carrots to lead the way. Doing an abrupt about-face like the current multiuser implementation would only antagonize the user, and be a recipe for increased piracy. Look no further than the music and movie markets for a taster of the draconian approach.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
Perhaps it could be something set at the app level by developers. If a developer doesn't mind his app being used by multiple users on a device then he can allow it in the app itself. However there will also need to be some way of managing this, perhaps via another option on the play store. a simple check box with "make this app available to other users of this device" would be more than enough, and it's either visible only on apps which allow it, or it's greyed out on apps that disallow it with an explanation why.
Devs could then offer single user and multiuser apps for additional cost.
adfad666 said:
Perhaps it could be something set at the app level by developers. If a developer doesn't mind his app being used by multiple users on a device then he can allow it in the app itself. However there will also need to be some way of managing this, perhaps via another option on the play store. a simple check box with "make this app available to other users of this device" would be more than enough, and it's either visible only on apps which allow it, or it's greyed out on apps that disallow it with an explanation why.
Devs could then offer single user and multiuser apps for additional cost.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would agree with this . But i think the best solution is to somehow bind each user to your google app account. And have the app limited to run on say 3-5 devices Only.. As to where you can remove a device when you retire it. Get a new one you can install your apps. Of course some type of device validation. Google has that now with wallet . As far the above with multi user a device. There needs to be in the app manager a way to make this app available for all users.. FIXES Both issues.
Great Replies everyone.. I am so glad to see this thread civil. they usually are not so much
I have searched everywhere to no avail. I tried registering through a student account at DreamSpark but it doesn't have my school registered. I need to develop apps for this phone but I can't afford the $99 payment for unlocking the set. I can't do anything and its frustrating. Is there no other way to unlock Wp8? I need to make money by app development. Is there any way to get a code to access DreamSpark or any unofficial way which might void my warranty but allows me to develop apps? I need your aid.:crying:
Farzan Hussain said:
I have searched everywhere to no avail. I tried registering through a student account at DreamSpark but it doesn't have my school registered. I need to develop apps for this phone but I can't afford the $99 payment for unlocking the set. I can't do anything and its frustrating. Is there no other way to unlock Wp8? I need to make money by app development. Is there any way to get a code to access DreamSpark or any unofficial way which might void my warranty but allows me to develop apps? I need your aid.:crying:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately, if you can't register through DreamSpark, you'll have to pay the $99. I would go onto the DreamSpark page and contact them and ask about potentially getting you an account even though your school isn't listed as one. I'd probably contact your school also just in case. See if Microsoft and your school can work together and make this possible. Other than that, I don't know of any way you could get a dev unlock besides paying the $99.
Dreamspark
Hey,
I had the same problem, tried to sign up and gave me the error that it could not find my school, not even with the email.
However, if you have access to the msdnaa site(microsoft software) then you definitely have a dreamspark acct and have the same problem I had.
2 solutions:
1. If you have a ISIC card(international student card, which every student should have), Great! signup with that and voila, done.
2. fidle with the school's name until you find the correct one, mine had 3 different ones, only one of them had my acct.
Good Luck,
I'm Loving the 520!!!
We don't have those IDs in Pakistan I used my friends instead
Sent from my HTC Explorer A310e using xda premium
snickler said:
Unfortunately, if you can't register through DreamSpark, you'll have to pay the $99. I would go onto the DreamSpark page and contact them and ask about potentially getting you an account even though your school isn't listed as one. I'd probably contact your school also just in case. See if Microsoft and your school can work together and make this possible. Other than that, I don't know of any way you could get a dev unlock besides paying the $99.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I have a question irrelevant to the thread. I was using Android and the IM and chat applications used to run smooth in background thereby letting me stay online. Now, I use Lumia 520, I can't do the same. I wonder, is it impossible to develop such apps like Nimbuzz & Ebuuddy, to run in background and let peop;e receive instant notification ?
Push notifications only. They're close to instant, but not perfect; there may be a delay of some seconds or even a few minutes. Apps such as IM+ use this to implement something that is close, but not quite exactly, what you're asking for.
Background apps are a major battery life problem, so Microsoft has prohibited then except in specific scenarios (the only one that's close to what you describe is the BackgroundAudioStreamingAgent, used to allow something like the Pandora app to keep streaming music while you do other things). While it's probably possible to abuse that agent to do an always-connected IM app just fine, I doubt Microsoft would allow it into the store. The battery life of WP8 is one of its selling points; with near-identical hardware, WP8 can get 1.5x to 3x the battery life of Android, from the examples that I've seen.
To the OP, if your school doesn't offer .edu emails or verification, you can send the Dreamspark team an email with proof that you are a student (here in germany, we have a "Schülerausweis", Google Translate student ID card) and they'll verify you, at least they did or me.
djfalcao said:
Hey,
I had the same problem, tried to sign up and gave me the error that it could not find my school, not even with the email.
However, if you have access to the msdnaa site(microsoft software) then you definitely have a dreamspark acct and have the same problem I had.
2 solutions:
1. If you have a ISIC card(international student card, which every student should have), Great! signup with that and voila, done.
2. fidle with the school's name until you find the correct one, mine had 3 different ones, only one of them had my acct.
Good Luck,
I'm Loving the 520!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
how to register if isic not available any other solution for free
Hello Everyone,I want to tell you about Marketing Mobile Apps.Build your own application storefront.Integrate mobile apps into your loyalty program.
Leverage mobile applications for promotions.Drive users from the web to apps with full tracking.Thanks
After releasing my first app I've noticed that it's surprisingly difficult to gain users. The game has been hanging at about 20 installs for a few days already, and has two ratings.
It is visible in search, so if people are specifically looking for games in the same genre they will see it there. I suppose that having related word in the app description is the trick?
Hello
Very good discussion........
What is process of android app marketing ?
Please help me.