Related
I browse the market every day and I see this guy putting apps that consistently get low reviews. His highest ranking app is 3 stars. He spams the market with apps that are overpriced photo galleries that show pics and play sounds of one specific thing. I think we should help him get the message that his high refund/low ranking rates are not giving him. Please reply if you agree that his apps need to stop spamming the market. If you have not tried one yet, look here. I am not doing this to be mean, but he needs to be told not to quit his day job.
Where's the option for "No. I dislike spam apps, but I hate censorship more." ?
So if his apps were malicious would you vote to have them removed? Do you feel spam filters on email are censorship? They fill your box with junk in hopes of making a few dollars off of you. I am against censorship but his apps are rediculous.
So if his apps were malicious would you vote to have them removed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are rules in place for the Market in regards to malicious apps. There would be no need to vote because the gatekeepers of the Market have already said malicious apps would be removed.
Do you feel spam filters on email are censorship?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course not. The key difference is who gets to decide what is removed. With a spam filter, each user gets to decide whether he wants to see content or not. Any system that removes apps from the Market (that aren't infringing the basic rules as stated above) without your knowledge and consent is basically censorship, whether the decision is made by ten people at Google or a hundred people on xda-dev.
Not if your email provider passes your email through spamhaus you dont. Also I would ****LOVE**** to have a configureable filter but I doubt we will. As an acceptable alternative, I would like for consistantly low rated and highly returned items to be removed. Guess what walmart does if a product gets returned 80% of the time it is sold. Do they ask you?
Also, I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just stating my view on the subject.
Darkrift said:
Also, I am not trying to start a fight with anyone, just stating my view on the subject.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't care to start a fight either; I'm just pointing out that what you are proposing is a path down a slippery slope, and it generally goes against the "open participation" ethos of Android. You should also keep in mind that one person's junk may be another mans treasure. Would I ever buy one of Khalid's lame $5 joke apps (literally, they're joke books!)? No probably not. That doesn't mean that someone else might not want it.
Edit: Just as an example, back in the early days of Market before developers could geotarget the regions for distribution, some Chinese developers put up some app whose interface was completely Chinese. I think it was a Chinese input method or a frontend for a Chinese website. Regardless, the ignorant fresh T-Mobile masses downloaded it, didn't understand what it was for, and then promptly uninstalled it and rated it zero stars. If you do a filtering system based on ratings, you are giving every uninformed ignoramus an equal say in whether an app is allowed to stay or go.
The Markets sucks! It needs the possibility for user to set their own filter
e.g.
dont show apps publiced by Khalid Shaikh! lower than 2stars, more expensive than x$ and so on..
only show apps of a specifig language (e.g. for traffic,taxi,bus,tv gadgets..)
sort for recently updated and so on .. that's what the market app really needs!
bassbox said:
The Markets sucks! It needs the possibility for user to set their own filter
e.g.
dont show apps publiced by Khalid Shaikh! lower than 2stars, more expensive than x$ and so on..
only show apps of a specifig language (e.g. for traffic,taxi,bus,tv gadgets..)
sort for recently updated and so on .. that's what the market app really needs!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the market app needs customizable local (meaning on a user's own device) filters. That will partially solve the problem of crap apps littering the marketplace. However, I think overhauling Market client is low on the Google Android team's priority list. Unfortunately since it is a proprietary closed source app, there is no way for the dev community to take the matter into its own hands.
You would think that the king of searching would have some sort of decent searching on their own platform..
jashsu said:
Yes, the market app needs customizable local (meaning on a user's own device) filters. That will partially solve the problem of crap apps littering the marketplace. However, I think overhauling Market client is low on the Google Android team's priority list. Unfortunately since it is a proprietary closed source app, there is no way for the dev community to take the matter into its own hands.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am planning on developing an interface to the Market which allows for custom filters. I have a prototype Yahoo Pipe, which uses Cyrket to display Market data and allow simple filters. Basically, I can filter out apps that have certain words in the title, are from a certain developer (or more than one), or are below a certain rating threshold.
I will have to agree though on the statement about censorship. While it is true that his apps may be without any true merit, I do not believe that they are (or he is) breaking any of the Market rules or developer agreements. Unfortunately, as we've seen in the the "free" market and the iPhone AppStore, people are willing to download and even spend money on useless apps. I think as long as there is a market for this type of app we will continue to see them. Now, unfortunately that means we all have to deal with him, his apps, and others like him and his apps until either the Market allows for better filtering/sorting or a developer creates this for the community... It is much needed nonetheless.
nEx.Software said:
I am planning on developing an interface to the Market which allows for custom filters. I have a prototype Yahoo Pipe, which uses Cyrket to display Market data and allow simple filters. Basically, I can filter out apps that have certain words in the title, are from a certain developer (or more than one), or are below a certain rating threshold.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats awesome. if its anything like BarTor its going to be good
nEx.Software said:
I am planning on developing an interface to the Market which allows for custom filters. I have a prototype Yahoo Pipe, which uses Cyrket to display Market data and allow simple filters. Basically, I can filter out apps that have certain words in the title, are from a certain developer (or more than one), or are below a certain rating threshold.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's good to hear. What I meant is that the actual Market App itself cannot be modified to work the way we want it to. While being able to display Market data with filtering on a PC is nice, the bulk majority of users are still going to be suffering the standard Market app interface.
Unfortunately, as we've seen in the the "free" market and the iPhone AppStore, people are willing to download and even spend money on useless apps. I think as long as there is a market for this type of app we will continue to see them. Now, unfortunately that means we all have to deal with him, his apps, and others like him
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There will be more, that much I can assure you. As the Android platform grows, there will be more opportunist developers seeking to make a quick buck. It really is like spam. You throw a line out and because digital publishing is free, anything you get back is profit. There is basically no monetary risk involved in creating and distributing crapware. Atleast we won't have to suffer iPhone's idiotic ninety-nine cent "custom" name dialers. Although the number of soundboards posted daily is reaching dangerous limits...
I intend to make it an Android app. While it won't be a permanent fix,it might be what is needed to get Google moving on updates to the official Market app.
Anyway, on another note. I haven't looked at any one of the apps in question but I would venture a guess that they are in violation of copyright laws and as we have seen with the Tetris clones, Google does take action on matters of copyright. Maybe the best recourse then is to inform this developer of the copyright issues either directly or through Google.
?
Frankly i can't agree with having a dev (does this word really apply in this case) removed from the market for producing crap. However i am completely in favour of spamming his inbox with as much crap as i can possibly manage just to see how he likes it. Free porn search here i come!
Anyone wants to help it's --EMAIL REMOVED-- Yes this is a very childish response but i'm pissed with having to sift through his crap every morning, i think it's only fair!
Ideally google can resolve this issue by allowing to create a list of blocked developers. And the ability to block any apps containing the word soundboard would make my day
nEx.Software an app that was basically cryket.com for the android would be awesome. What would really be sweet was if it had an independant comment system that was filterable as well. So we could ban commenters based on their username, words, etc... Filtering by ratings, developer, keywords, etc.. I love it already. Just link the products to their entries in the market. Basically, cryket for the android with comments... I CAN HAZ IT NOW PLZ K?
Also, I'd love to add IndiaNIC, LLC to the filter list. I'm sure *someone* out there likes that they're putting out 300 e-books about India a day, but I'm sure tired of scrolling past them.
The last thing I'd want is to see rigorous policing on the Android Market. He's spreading expensive crapware but I'm sure people are buying it and I'm sure some actually enjoyed it. I don't think removing his apps from the market is the best solution, keep the market as free from censorship as possible if you ask me.
I think the best solution is market search filters as discussed above.
I agree, the ability to "ignore" certain developers would be nice. The new developer I would instantly add to this list would be IndiaNIC, LLC. or whatever the hell they are called. They have about 40 apps on the market, and I don't think a single one has a comment.
/if anyone affiliated with IndiaNIC, LLC reads this, no offense, but please get the message when nobody is buying what you're selling
The more I think about it, the more I realize a filter would be a better idea than removing junk from the market. While I do not agree that anyone will find his apps useful, I do see the point in letting them choose. But at the same time we should be able to choose not to see his crap. As for IndiaNIC, I disagree with placing them in the same category. They have products with good ratings and seem to be making at least SOME useful apps. While I agree they put out too many at once, they seem to have a market for their apps unlike Khalid Shaikh.
Still, a filter would be better for all. I wish I could edit the poll now to add that as an option
ryan75 said:
/if anyone affiliated with IndiaNIC, LLC reads this, no offense, but please get the message when nobody is buying what you're selling
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spammers don't need to "get the message"! They know exactly what they are selling (junk). The whole point is they are trying to make a quick buck. And in the immortal words of P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute."
Nevermind the fact that all of those texts can be downloaded for free from manybooks or feedbooks and then read on FBReaderJ...
androidplayground (link removed to comply with forum rules, google and take the first result, it's the ****hole in question)
This actually disgusts me.
I won't lie, I'm pro-piracy, and don't mind sites that host apps for free download, but profiting off someone else's work is frankly, sickening.
They do have a contact page, why not let them know how much you appreciate your hard work being stolen?
Looks pretty shady anyway, I'd much rather use the Android Market.
I agree. Charging people do get software you stole is worse than stealing it in the first place IMO.
I feel like I just took a trip back to a 1997 Geocities website
this is pretty much a site that leads to warez and shouldnt be posted. i am just saying.
brian_v3ntura said:
this is pretty much a site that leads to warez and shouldnt be posted. i am just saying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And changed.
It's being hosted by hostedsolutions, their contact info is here:
http://www.hostedsolutions.com/contact/
I'm sure they'd like to know what's on their servers.
Wow that's ballsy.
They even link back to the xda forums for formatting and rooting info.
And Dev's they are taking paypal payments. File a complaint with Paypal too.
They used a privacy company to hide who they are.
And then they used Tucows address as their domain registration address?
The whois phone number rings to a looped recording telling you to go to the privacy companies website. Which does not seem to work.
To bad these A$$munchs didn't also make the stupid Android7 Flash Player. We could have killed 2 birds with one stone.
If the site ever starts 'offering' SetCPU, I will do whatever is in my legal power to take them down. I can't do anything about those Chinese or Russian websites, but if it's hosted in the USA, they're going down.
ThrashWolf said:
This actually disgusts me.
I won't lie, I'm pro-piracy, and don't mind sites that host apps for free download, but profiting off someone else's work is frankly, sickening.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Piracy is piracy. Don't think somehow a for-free piracy distribution site is any more justified than a paid one. If anything, for-free distribution sites hurt developers more than paid sites: which one do you think attracts more pirates? (Note: Don't somehow come to the twisted conclusion that I support piracy of any kind; I don't.)
The difference between the two jashsu is that there is a large contingent of the "try before you buy" type of pirates out there. They'll get a warez version of an app, and if they like it, they'll often uninstall it and pay for the market version. However, if they pay for it through a third party website, the original developer never sees that profit.
Thats not to say I support piracy, because I dont. I fully believe that people should be compensated for hard work. I'm more than willing to pay for an app up front, and if it sucks, the dev will find out by reading the refund notice when i uninstall it within 24 hours.
kusotare said:
The difference between the two jashsu is that there is a large contingent of the "try before you buy" type of pirates out there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please show me some numbers. To get the ball rolling, i'll post a link.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-more-serious-than-first-though-on-iphone.ars
"The numbers that developers might find most interesting are the ones that show "conversion rates" from "lite" versions to full. Only one out of every 14 average users tends to purchase the paid version of an app after using the lite version, which is just under 7.5 percent. For pirates, the conversion rate is less than half a percent, or one out of every 233."
I download apps. If I like 'em, I pay for them. I'll usually go for a "lite" version if one exists. Anyway, rather than have this thread derailed into a debate about piracy, can we get back to the topic at hand?
I've notified the host, lets see if that does anything.
Sigh. Nothing like a little bit of piracy to set a forum on fire. Doesn't matter what forum you're visiting, could be a forum for food - and the first mention of piracy is bound to bring up what I like to call the forum nazis. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and no amount of gestapo trolling will change that. I find it interesting that people break various laws of various countries / cities / states daily and of course, it's overlooked. Someone makes mention of piracy and all of a sudden you've got the ePolice regime banging on your every post as if it were going to change something. What's my point? None, really. (But there again, there's also no point in bashing piracy, it's not going to make it any less existent.)
DarkNytefire said:
Someone makes mention of piracy and all of a sudden you've got the ePolice regime banging on your every post as if it were going to change something.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope you don't think that I assumed my post would change ThrashWolf's perception on piracy. I was merely pointing out how humorously sad this statement is:
This actually disgusts me.
I won't lie, I'm pro-piracy, and don't mind sites that host apps for free download, but profiting off someone else's work is frankly, sickening.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean.. maybe i'm the only one who finds that just a bit hypocritical? I would have been completely okay if he/she just said "hey dudes, theres a paid piracy site, lets get it shut down" or "I like piracy". But to go and say "I am a pirate, but these other pirates disgust me".. idk.. maybe it's just me, but that's just ridiculous.
Then again what do I know?
Also they spam the android market with there links so make sure if you see it report it as spam.
Doesn't anyone pay for their apps anymore ...
I'll admit it, I pirate apps too, but only to either try it or if I have no other way to even purchase the application.
The thing is, being a high-schooler, I have a cheap, prepaid credit card that only allows transactions in USD. Many apps aren't available in the Market in currency other than Euros or Pounds so I have no other choice to use the apps than to pirate them.
This kind of behavior where people are selling pirated copies instead of just making it available for people who otherwise can't even buy them is really annoying though... anybody thought of a way to get them shut down?
I'm honestly debating to pay for a membership and email every dev that has an app on their. The other known site I've already found 6 apps from me on their and they were removed. But since this place charges just to get a peak I'm very tempted to pay and make sure every company knows and can write C&D's to them and the host.
Piracy is always going to be an issue. Always. I have pirated apps before, usually to test out an app update I have already downloaded and refunded from the marketplace. If the update fixes things I had issues with, I will buy it. If not, then I delete it. I have bought and kept 21 apps from the marketplace so far. I believe my use of pirated apps is fair.
I am not trying to justify piracy, but merely stating it is a great tool for me. I am aware that a lot of people pirate apps just so they don't have to pay for them. I believe that is wrong. However when comparing those who distribute an app for free to those that charge for an app that is not theirs, I believe that the one who distributes for free is the lesser of the two evils. The one who distributes for free is going to reach out to more of the potential market yes, but the scumbags who actually charge for apps that someone worked hard on are the true thieves IMO. They affect a lesser share of the potential market, but keep in mind their "share" is willing to make a purchase in the first place, while the freeloaders "share" is questionable in that department.
Just my 2 cents.
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
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.
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!