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.
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
Hi Guys,
I saw a lot of threads on the forum by which users could publish their apps for free on Play Store. But unfortunately, the members that were doing this are not active since a lot of time.
I am new to Android Development, and developed an Evolve Calculator for Pokemon GO, and wanted to publish it to Google Play Store, but unfortunately I don't have a credit card, and can't buy a Play Store Developer account.
So I wanted to ask, does Google give away free Developer Accounts to students, etc. Or would someone be kind enough to help me in getting a Play Store Account, or share one with me?
I am currently hosting a signed APK of my app on Google Drive, but i am not sure whether I should share it here or not.
Thanks in Advance
haiderali176 said:
Hi Guys,
I saw a lot of threads on the forum by which users could publish their apps for free on Play Store. But unfortunately, the members that were doing this are not active since a lot of time.
I am new to Android Development, and developed an Evolve Calculator for Pokemon GO, and wanted to publish it to Google Play Store, but unfortunately I don't have a credit card, and can't buy a Play Store Developer account.
So I wanted to ask, does Google give away free Developer Accounts to students, etc. Or would someone be kind enough to help me in getting a Play Store Account, or share one with me?
I am currently hosting a signed APK of my app on Google Drive, but i am not sure whether I should share it here or not.
Thanks in Advance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can't really help you with the publishing (sorry!) but I'll say... don't worry too much about the APK.
The second you put anything on the Play Store, whether free or paid, it becomes available on a couple dozen mirrors and piracy websites. Where are you from? I'm sure there are prepaid credits cards that you can use without a bank account in your country, and getting your own developer account (with the ability to update your apps whenever you want) is REALLY recommended.
Whiskee said:
Can't really help you with the publishing (sorry!) but I'll say... don't worry too much about the APK.
The second you put anything on the Play Store, whether free or paid, it becomes available on a couple dozen mirrors and piracy websites. Where are you from? I'm sure there are prepaid credits cards that you can use without a bank account in your country, and getting your own developer account (with the ability to update your apps whenever you want) is REALLY recommended.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I bought the developer account, and hosted my app. Will make a Post on XDA as well, when I reach 10 posts. As far as pirated copies are concerned, I found none on the internet, I don't know whether thats insulting or what
haiderali176 said:
I bought the developer account, and hosted my app. Will make a Post on XDA as well, when I reach 10 posts. As far as pirated copies are concerned, I found none on the internet, I don't know whether thats insulting or what
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then congratulations on your first published app
They usually start popping out when you emerge in any category, like Top New X or very deep in the Trending rankings. It's all done by bots anyway, rarely the APK ends up on websites that bring some traffic (which can be useful if you integrate ads, and some of them might want to download the "real" updated version).
Whiskee said:
Well then congratulations on your first published app
They usually start popping out when you emerge in any category, like Top New X or very deep in the Trending rankings. It's all done by bots anyway, rarely the APK ends up on websites that bring some traffic (which can be useful if you integrate ads, and some of them might want to download the "real" updated version).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I had high hopes for the app, and hopefully it will do good. As far as Ads are concerned, I will integrate them next year, I am not eligible for AdSense or Merchant Account yet
haiderali176 said:
Well, I had high hopes for the app, and hopefully it will do good. As far as Ads are concerned, I will integrate them next year, I am not eligible for AdSense or Merchant Account yet
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well considering that your app is about Pokemon Go, your users like games which means that you can integrate pretty much any interstitial ad network and not just AdMob
Whiskee said:
Well considering that your app is about Pokemon Go, your users like games which means that you can integrate pretty much any interstitial ad network and not just AdMob
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will see whether I will integrate them or not. Most probably not, I myself don't like ads, and I think others also hate them. As far as making money is concerned, I am not interested that much into it. I just the app to perform well
You could try free stores like: Opera, Amazon, Aptoide.
Just search for mobile marketing forums. There must be people who want!