Related
I am not a lawyer and I don't know too much about this... but isn't it illegal to sell apps such as sound boards and pictures that are copyrighted on the market or anywhere for that matter if they don't have the rights from the owners?
I am seeing a bunch of apps on the market with icons from other copyrighted pictures and apps such as soundboards that use copyrighted content. Doesn't it make it illegal for the devs to sell them w / out copyrights?
P.S im not complaining just inquiring.
mmafighter077 said:
I am not a lawyer and I don't know too much about this... but isn't it illegal to sell apps such as sound boards and pictures that are copyrighted on the market or anywhere for that matter if they don't have the rights from the owners?
I am seeing a bunch of apps on the market with icons from other copyrighted pictures and apps such as soundboards that use copyrighted content. Doesn't it make it illegal for the devs to sell them w / out copyrights?
P.S im not complaining just inquiring.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It probably is illegal, but until someone claims copyright, no one will do anything.
Karolis said:
It probably is illegal, but until someone claims copyright, no one will do anything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, it would be a good way to clean up the market wouldn't it? =P
amgupt01 said:
Well, it would be a good way to clean up the market wouldn't it? =P
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but I don't think if anyone but the copyright holder will complain, Google will do anything.
Well, you could always mark the app as innappropriate and email the dev and stuff...
yea the sound boards are copyright infringement but the themes aren't. the themes use pictures you can find through google and most people dont care about it. You then have the sound boards that use trademark words and catchphrases. selling these would probably be considered illegal just like bootlegging. They take a sound thats supposed to be approved to be sold and sells it without the consent of the people or companies behind it.
If you complain about the paid ones then they'll be taken down along with the free ones because the companies will want to be compensated for the use of their property even in a free way.
whoops double post lol
wizern23 said:
yea the sound boards are copyright infringement but the themes aren't. the themes use pictures you can find through google and most people dont care about it. You then have the sound boards that use trademark words and catchphrases. selling these would probably be considered illegal just like bootlegging. They take a sound thats supposed to be approved to be sold and sells it without the consent of the people or companies behind it.
If you complain about the paid ones then they'll be taken down along with the free ones because the companies will want to be compensated for the use of their property even in a free way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just because you can find an image through Google or find it on a message board, or hanging on a wall in a mall does NOT mean you have any rights to it.
The second point to your argument is right though. Most people won't really care to pursue it.
Now, the things that piss me off are people posting things such as books (military guides for one) and CHARGING for it. It's not their book and if I recall correctly from way back in 1997 when I was in basic training, not supposed to be for the general public.
I've wondered about this as well.
My limited knowledge says that as long as they are using public domain images from the net without any posted copyright notices and they are free on the Market, then they are probably OK.
Those who are selling apps that use copyrighted material are opening themselves up for prosecution.
Now some apps that are for sale.....say Doom for example. You buy the Android port, but you download the proprietary doom.wad file separately after purchase. Now the gray area here is that the Doom app actually is setup to go ahead and download it for you right out of the box. But I think it's using the shareware version, so it's probably OK.
Ditto for MAME....you download the emulator....how and where you obtain the ROMs are your business. Many of the original copyright owners are no longer legal entities anymore, and others that *are* still around have graciously donated their ROMs legally. But there are still plenty of illegal ROMs floating around. I suspect it's just a drop in the bucket compared to music/movie illegal sharing.
In all actuality, as long as the material (photos, music, and video) are public domain you can use them and even charge for them. For instance look at things like South Park and Family Guy. These shows use a lot of copyrighted material as parodies, they pay little to no royalities on these materials. And you might think these TV shows are free to watch, but think where they started... on a paid cable network.
1) Images, sound clips, video, etc. available on the internet are NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN unless noted as such. Do we get away with a lot? Yes... However, it doesn't mean that if someone wanted to pursue the matter, they wouldn't win.
2) It's copyrighted, no such thing as copywritten.
3) The sound clips and video you see on TV are either paid for or they use the "celebrity likeness" legalities which if deemed necessary, we can go into further.
I don't think anyone ever said that things on the net are public domain. And not all parodies are paid for. It all depends on the situation.
neoobs said:
I don't think anyone ever said that things on the net are public domain. And not all parodies are paid for. It all depends on the situation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suppose you have completed law school as well. There are a lot of semantics on this topic.
Long story short, I take offense to people charging for information that isn't public domain (such as field manuals for soldiers).
neoobs said:
For instance look at things like South Park and Family Guy. These shows use a lot of copyrighted material as parodies, they pay little to no royalities on these materials.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WTF are you talking about? Unless you work in finance for the companies that produce South Park or Family guy you have NO IDEA what they do or don't pay for.
Someone in another forum made a good point. Sometimes the devs are selling the time and coding that allows the app or game to be used on the android. The actual app/ game is not what they are selling.
But I see where that can be a fine line to the owners of the apps. If I made a paid app for the pc and someone ported it to android and are making money off of it and not giving me royalties I would be upset. Even if he was selling his time and his coding. Its my app.
mmafighter077 said:
Someone in another forum made a good point. Sometimes the devs are selling the time and coding that allows the app or game to be used on the android. The actual app/ game is not what they are selling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see how that's a good point. If you photocopy a book or copy a CD, you can't sell "your time" that you took to make it. Otherwise people selling copies of DVDs on the street would never get busted. That has to be the most retarded argument I have heard thus far.
momentarylapseofreason said:
I don't see how that's a good point. If you photocopy a book or copy a CD, you can't sell "your time" that you took to make it. Otherwise people selling copies of DVDs on the street would never get busted. That has to be the most retarded argument I have heard thus far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you serious?
Making a copy and making a code are two totally different things. I am not saying it is right sell the code for someone elses ported app but to compare simply making a copy to creating a code is like apples and oranges.
Making a photocopy is simply duplicating.... Creating a code so that an app can work for different platform takes time and effort. Its like taking someones invention and enhancing it.
I am also not saying this is legally correct. Its just a good point.
You have to realize that in the instance of a sound board, the copyright holders have no reason to complain especially if it's free.
We are basically looking at free publicity and distribution of the material in a non-profitable manner, meaning, the infringer isn't making money selling the copyrighted works- so why would the owners have a gripe about it?
Now if there were full episodes, or these were being sold, I'm sure they may stand up and say something.
Basically- it appears that it is, in fact, copyright infringement- but there is little to zero reason to file a complaint about it by the copyright holder, why complain about hundreds of thousands of people enjoying your work and all the free publicity with zero negative side effects?
mmafighter077 said:
Are you serious?
Making a copy and making a code are two totally different things. I am not saying it is right sell the code for someone elses ported app but to compare simply making a copy to creating a code is like apples and oranges.
Making a photocopy is simply duplicating.... Creating a code so that an app can work for different platform takes time and effort. Its like taking someones invention and enhancing it.
I am also not saying this is legally correct. Its just a good point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If there is one thing that I learned in my copyright law class, it's that you can be a stupid infringer. Meaning, just because something took more time and effort, and you get no profit from it, doesn't mean you aren't an infringer all the same- just a stupid one.
vr24 said:
If there is one thing that I learned in my copyright law class, it's that you can be a stupid infringer. Meaning, just because something took more time and effort, and you get no profit from it, doesn't mean you aren't an infringer all the same- just a stupid one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stupid infringer or not, some of this stuff gets a bit ridiculous. I just found this app, Flash Keyboard, doing pretty much whatever they can to get installs. I've seen fake wallpapers (text bubbles like raindrops), video of a virtual keyboard (not available), and today a post using the images of Snoopy, Mickey & Minnie, and Hello Kitty.
(note: could not provide links, as I'm a new user, but they can be found with a simple facebook search)
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
If someone were to upload their music/videos to a cloud service such as amazon cloud or google music, would legal action force the service to open users stored files to scrutiny by investigators looking to sue for copyright infringement?
D2G stock & rooted
I can't see how they could tell the source of the music even if they had access to it. They'd be on very shaky ground legally if they tried to gain access to it anyway. How could they dictate where people store their music?
I am sick and tired of the mafiaa tactics though. They're trying to maintain a stranglehold on their antiquated business models whilst stymying innovation, pretending they care about the artists when all they are really doing is dipping into everyones pockets to make money for themselves.
After lawyers, these people are the worst bottom feeding scum on the planet. I wouldn't piss on one if they were on fire, but i would dance on their graves.
ElectroGeek said:
If someone were to upload their music/videos to a cloud service such as amazon cloud or google music, would legal action force the service to open users stored files to scrutiny by investigators looking to sue for copyright infringement?
D2G stock & rooted
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm... will be illegal/impossible on several fronts. I'll try explaining from both the legal and technological point of view. We'll start with the legal.
LEGAL
First, they need to prove that the music is:
1. Copyright belongs to them
2. Under your current ownership
3. You didn't get it legally
To do that, they will need to prove that the entire song has been obtained from an illegal source, and that you are currently using/having it.
TECHNOLOGICAL
The limitation is on two ends here:
1. They need to identify the song
2. They need to identify that you've gotten the song illegally
So, long story short, there is a chance for that to happen, because they might be able to prove where you downloaded the music from.
Stay safe. Stay behind 7 proxies.
So to be clear, you could be facing a lawsuit. Need some more info on this. I want to use these services, but...
D2G blur-stock & rooted
DirkGently1 said:
I can't see how they could tell the source of the music even if they had access to it. They'd be on very shaky ground legally if they tried to gain access to it anyway. How could they dictate where people store their music?
I am sick and tired of the mafiaa tactics though. They're trying to maintain a stranglehold on their antiquated business models whilst stymying innovation, pretending they care about the artists when all they are really doing is dipping into everyones pockets to make money for themselves.
After lawyers, these people are the worst bottom feeding scum on the planet. I wouldn't piss on one if they were on fire, but i would dance on their graves.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dance on their grave while pissing your pants?
ElectroGeek said:
If someone were to upload their music/videos to a cloud service such as amazon cloud or google music, would legal action force the service to open users stored files to scrutiny by investigators looking to sue for copyright infringement?
D2G stock & rooted
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Question is i guess is: How would the cloud server even now if its Legit or not ?
although i hope that it would all be legally paid for
DanWilson said:
Dance on their grave while pissing your pants?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't be the first time....
This is on-topic:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/27/robertson_predicts_cloud_music_victor/
Let's hope EMI lose this case.
I do not think it will happen.
When I first read about the Amazon Cloud service, almost every news article said that Amazon themselves might be getting sued for the service. I did/do not understand this either. Seeing as it is my music, and Amazon is offering a storage space for it, why could it bring any lawsuit to Amazon?
mallend said:
I do not think it will happen.
When I first read about the Amazon Cloud service, almost every news article said that Amazon themselves might be getting sued for the service. I did/do not understand this either. Seeing as it is my music, and Amazon is offering a storage space for it, why could it bring any lawsuit to Amazon?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because big media don't want you to do anything with the music that you paid for without being able to charge you more for doing it.
Don't forget that you don't own that music. You're only paying for the right to use it under their terms and conditions.
Any other news on this. Any press etc.
D2G blur-stock and rooted
Anybody have any more news on this topic?
Droid 2 Global [ROM]Hexen 1.0.1 (Final)
Back in the good old days of LP's and cassettes, nobody ever threatened a lawsuit if you made a cassette copy of a record or of another cassette.
Edit: That is, unless you made a couple of hundred copies and were selling them on the street corner.
TravisBean said:
Back in the good old days of LP's and cassettes, nobody ever threatened a lawsuit if you made a cassette copy of a record or of another cassette.
Edit: That is, unless you made a couple of hundred copies and were selling them on the street corner.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, they did, but it wasn't widespread, and the business model wasn't that good. Now we have organized crime in Asia doing it.
Seen this on Reddit, works pretty good for MP4 and WebM videos for sites like Vimeo.
https://dabble.me/cast
*I should mention this only works with Chrome at the moment.
I wish there was some way to use this for Amazon Prime video....casting the full tab isn't a great option for me. Of course a mobile app would be the real answer but Amazon just won't do it!
primetime34 said:
I wish there was some way to use this for Amazon Prime video....casting the full tab isn't a great option for me. Of course a mobile app would be the real answer but Amazon just won't do it!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree. Amazon Instant Video is pretty much the only thing my TiVos and TV have over Chromecast for my intended use.
r00t4rd3d said:
Seen this on Reddit, works pretty good for MP4 and WebM videos for sites like Vimeo.
https://dabble.me/cast
*I should mention this only works with Chrome at the moment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
List of working sites:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Chromecast/comments/1x5ik0/send_vimeo_ted_facebook_etc_from_the_desktop_to/
Creators Twitter:
https://twitter.com/@parterburn
Amazing, youporn works. Thanks!
I wish it would work for watchespn
uncrx2003 said:
I wish it would work for watchespn
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMEN!! WatchESPN, along with WatchDisney Junior, are the two channels that I have been wanting more than ANY other channel out there! I'm a huge college football fan and although I've got a pretty nice channel lineup and sports package via Charter, there are still games out there that just simply aren't offered around here on Charter. In addition to WatchESPN, I have a 4 yr old son and like how I used to be when I was younger and how most other kids his age are, he LOVES to watch cartoons, especially the likes of Disney Junior, Cartoon Network, Sprout, etc. The WatchDisney Junior channel coming to the Chromecast would just make my (and my son's) day. I think the only thing holding it back is probably having to do something with licensing issues because if you've ever tried to view WatchESPN or WatchDisney on your computer, you must log-in to their service by typing in your cable tv service provider login info before being able to view those channels.
:good:
jsdecker10 said:
I think the only thing holding it back is probably having to do something with licensing issues because if you've ever tried to view WatchESPN or WatchDisney on your computer, you must log-in to their service by typing in your cable tv service provider login info before being able to view those channels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Likely there would be an app like HBO GO, which requires you to do the provider login on your phone/tablet during setup.
As always, be sure to contact the content provider to request support. Unlikely you'll get a response, but hopefully your vote will be counted.
It works very well for me at this www.mistreci.al with movreel and uptobox thats what i needed
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
bhiga said:
Likely there would be an app like HBO GO, which requires you to do the provider login on your phone/tablet during setup.
As always, be sure to contact the content provider to request support. Unlikely you'll get a response, but hopefully your vote will be counted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that many of the content providers who rely on Cable Company Sub payments are very hesitant to release content for use on Big Screens (which CCast support basically is) which could hurt their Subscription fees later on due to the Chord Cutters taking the cheaper route to their content.
One of the Major hold ups with Time Warner and CBS in that last contract battle was over rights to Internet streaming.
Time Warner wanted the rights to them but CBS wanted to hold on to it for further sales to companies like NetFlix and Hulu or even for their own sites (which the three major nets do now) To a OTA broadcaster it's easier to keep their content free because the content has already been paid for via the Advertising and the goal is to hook more viewers to the shows on their Network.
But someone like ESPN, HBO and SHOWTIME, they are highly dependent on Cable Subs and therefore can't just put the content out there so will likely require a Cable Subscription/Login to view because if they did it on their own without such a subscription or tried to do subscriptions on their own it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face plus add the cost of a Subscription support department they have to pay to maintain their own sub service. So those companies are likely to remain a Cable Sub only service.
This is the one thing Chord Cutters will have to deal with, Sure you can get the OTA stuff and some stuff from low rated networks trying to lure people to their content but the stuff you REALLY want will almost always require a Cable Sub to get.
I have been in quite a few meetings where this is discussed and while the greed makes them think about offering their own ala carte subscription model they quickly realize that no one is going to pay as much for HBO on HBO's website as they currently get from the Cable companies themselves.
And if the Cable companies decide they are not worth having on their system anymore these companies like HBO stand to lose their shirts!
So they back down quickly.
Just a quick comment on the Amazon Prime thing....
I think this may be a sign that things between Google and Amazon are not as rosy as they probably should be.
You would think Amazon Prime was all over this from day one but apparently not.
Now that the SDK is public I expect to see something from them in the future.
Good points. It's not easy to understand the policies and actions of all the parties involved unless you know something about the business model from their point of view.
BTW, it's "cord cutters", not "chord cutters", as in cable = cord. Chord usually refers to music or geometry, but in any case nothing to do with this topic.
Re: Amazon - I wonder if they are coming up with a media box solution too. Could explain their reluctance.
WhisperCast?
Of course Canadians ignore them because they offer no media content here. Which is strange as they're selling these walled-garden Amazon tablets with beautiful screens in Canadian stores, and nothing but Netflix & YouTube to watch on them.
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.