"...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products sold for less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..."
which could mean that anyone selling <$10 apps may not get a say in whether or not a user gets a refund even after the 48 hour period.
-- ====== Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.
> "...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products sold for > less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in > addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..."
I'd be interested in what the handling fees are. If the user calls Google support (or whoever handles this), and they issue a refund, likely the fees will be less than $1. If the user calls their credit card company and does a charge back, it will be $10 according to the T&C. The difficultly here is that if a developer get's $1 for their app, then a chargeback, they owe $9+ dollars. If they get a lot of these, the developer is going to take a big hit. I'd also be interested in whether Google's 30% transaction fee is also refunded or kept in pocket
I'm not sure of Google's policy. At SlideME we have the same problem, and will pass back these costs to the developer, but we also have policies in place to limit this type of abuse, as well as general fraud detection.
As I understand charge backs you can contest them, but with the Google T&Cs developers don't get the chance.
I can see this and the 48 hour refund rule potentially doing a lot of damage to developers who want to release simple fun apps in the sub $10 price range, which, in the end, will do more harm to Android adoption than good.
> "...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products
> sold for
> less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in
> addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..."
> I'd be interested in what the handling fees are. If the user calls > Google support (or whoever handles this), and they issue a refund, > likely the fees will be less than $1. If the user calls their credit > card company and does a charge back, it will be $10 according to the > T&C. The difficultly here is that if a developer get's $1 for their > app, then a chargeback, they owe $9+ dollars. If they get a lot of > these, the developer is going to take a big hit. I'd also be > interested in whether Google's 30% transaction fee is also refunded or > kept in pocket
> I'm not sure of Google's policy. At SlideME we have the same problem, > and will pass back these costs to the developer, but we also have > policies in place to limit this type of abuse, as well as general > fraud detection.
> Shane
-- ======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.
> As I understand charge backs you can contest them, but with the Google
> T&Cs developers don't get the chance.
> I can see this and the 48 hour refund rule potentially doing a lot of
> damage to developers who want to release simple fun apps in the sub $10
> price range, which, in the end, will do more harm to Android adoption
> than good.
> Al.
> Shane Isbell wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com
> > <mailto:a...@funkyandroid.com>> wrote:
> > "...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products
> > sold for
> > less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in
> > addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..."
> > I'd be interested in what the handling fees are. If the user calls
> > Google support (or whoever handles this), and they issue a refund,
> > likely the fees will be less than $1. If the user calls their credit
> > card company and does a charge back, it will be $10 according to the
> > T&C. The difficultly here is that if a developer get's $1 for their
> > app, then a chargeback, they owe $9+ dollars. If they get a lot of
> > these, the developer is going to take a big hit. I'd also be
> > interested in whether Google's 30% transaction fee is also refunded or
> > kept in pocket
> > I'm not sure of Google's policy. At SlideME we have the same problem,
> > and will pass back these costs to the developer, but we also have
> > policies in place to limit this type of abuse, as well as general
> > fraud detection.
> > Shane
> --
> ======
> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
> subsidiaries.
I've invested a lot of time on this single platform. I'm currently
branching out to other mobile devices and sadly, I may drop android
entirely based on the TOS. I'm not too worried about the $1 apps
getting calls to credit card companies - that's just a pain in the
butt for anyone to do. But I can see the potential for many small,
fun apps to be virtually non-existent, due to the number of returns
that will likely occur.
I would rather earn a few dollars for a fun app on the iPhone, instead
of having most of my money returned on android. Besides, how many
people really call their credit card company over and over wanting
refunds for $1 software titles on the iPhone? I could be wrong, but
it's probably rare.
For those of you who think this will make the android software of
better quality - you may be right. But be prepared to see far fewer
developers stay with android, who ultimately could produce larger,
better apps with money made from the smaller apps.
Only time will tell...
On Feb 13, 10:13 am, Evil Mushroom Lord <evilmushrooml...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I agree, Al--- I found this TOS to be overtly harsh.
> I'm extremely skeptical. I will release one paid app and observe. If
> there is abuse, I will develop on other mobile platforms.
> 48 hours refund is already pretty ridiculous. -$10 fee for a
> challenged account is just stupid.
> On Feb 11, 9:32 am, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
> > As I understand charge backs you can contest them, but with the Google
> > T&Cs developers don't get the chance.
> > I can see this and the 48 hour refund rule potentially doing a lot of
> > damage to developers who want to release simple fun apps in the sub $10
> > price range, which, in the end, will do more harm to Android adoption
> > than good.
> > Al.
> > Shane Isbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com
> > > <mailto:a...@funkyandroid.com>> wrote:
> > > "...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products
> > > sold for
> > > less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in
> > > addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..."
> > > I'd be interested in what the handling fees are. If the user calls
> > > Google support (or whoever handles this), and they issue a refund,
> > > likely the fees will be less than $1. If the user calls their credit
> > > card company and does a charge back, it will be $10 according to the
> > > T&C. The difficultly here is that if a developer get's $1 for their
> > > app, then a chargeback, they owe $9+ dollars. If they get a lot of
> > > these, the developer is going to take a big hit. I'd also be
> > > interested in whether Google's 30% transaction fee is also refunded or
> > > kept in pocket
> > > I'm not sure of Google's policy. At SlideME we have the same problem,
> > > and will pass back these costs to the developer, but we also have
> > > policies in place to limit this type of abuse, as well as general
> > > fraud detection.
> > > Shane
> > --
> > ======
> > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
> > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
> > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
> > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
> > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
> > subsidiaries.
My main concern is that this affects apps right up to $10. Whether we like it or not, the iPhone app store has set the market expectations for pricing, and, given that a vast majority (around 90+%) of pay-for iPhone apps are priced between $0.99 and $10 it looks like the Android Market TOS are being hardest on the very price points where most apps would be sold.
madcoder wrote:
> I've invested a lot of time on this single platform. I'm currently
> branching out to other mobile devices and sadly, I may drop android
> entirely based on the TOS. I'm not too worried about the $1 apps
> getting calls to credit card companies - that's just a pain in the
> butt for anyone to do. But I can see the potential for many small,
> fun apps to be virtually non-existent, due to the number of returns
> that will likely occur.
> I would rather earn a few dollars for a fun app on the iPhone, instead
> of having most of my money returned on android. Besides, how many
> people really call their credit card company over and over wanting
> refunds for $1 software titles on the iPhone? I could be wrong, but
> it's probably rare.
> For those of you who think this will make the android software of
> better quality - you may be right. But be prepared to see far fewer
> developers stay with android, who ultimately could produce larger,
> better apps with money made from the smaller apps.
> Only time will tell...
> On Feb 13, 10:13 am, Evil Mushroom Lord <evilmushrooml...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I agree, Al--- I found this TOS to be overtly harsh.
>> I'm extremely skeptical. I will release one paid app and observe. If
>> there is abuse, I will develop on other mobile platforms.
>> 48 hours refund is already pretty ridiculous. -$10 fee for a
>> challenged account is just stupid.
>> On Feb 11, 9:32 am, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
>>> As I understand charge backs you can contest them, but with the Google
>>> T&Cs developers don't get the chance.
>>> I can see this and the 48 hour refund rule potentially doing a lot of
>>> damage to developers who want to release simple fun apps in the sub $10
>>> price range, which, in the end, will do more harm to Android adoption
>>> than good.
>>> Al.
>>> Shane Isbell wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com
>>>> <mailto:a...@funkyandroid.com>> wrote:
>>>> "...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products
>>>> sold for
>>>> less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in
>>>> addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..."
>>>> I'd be interested in what the handling fees are. If the user calls
>>>> Google support (or whoever handles this), and they issue a refund,
>>>> likely the fees will be less than $1. If the user calls their credit
>>>> card company and does a charge back, it will be $10 according to the
>>>> T&C. The difficultly here is that if a developer get's $1 for their
>>>> app, then a chargeback, they owe $9+ dollars. If they get a lot of
>>>> these, the developer is going to take a big hit. I'd also be
>>>> interested in whether Google's 30% transaction fee is also refunded or
>>>> kept in pocket
>>>> I'm not sure of Google's policy. At SlideME we have the same problem,
>>>> and will pass back these costs to the developer, but we also have
>>>> policies in place to limit this type of abuse, as well as general
>>>> fraud detection.
>>>> Shane
>>> --
>>> ======
>>> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
>>> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
>>> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
>>> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
>>> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
>>> subsidiaries.
-- ======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.
On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
My main concern is that this affects apps right up to $10. Whether we like it or not, the iPhone app store has set the market expectations for pricing, and, given that a vast majority (around 90+%) of pay-for iPhone apps are priced between $0.99 and $10 it looks like the Android Market TOS are being hardest on the very price points where most apps would be sold.
Al.
madcoder wrote:
I've invested a lot of time on this single platform. I'm currently
branching out to other mobile devices and sadly, I may drop android
entirely based on the TOS. I'm not too worried about the $1 apps
getting calls to credit card companies - that's just a pain in the
butt for anyone to do. But I can see the potential for many small,
fun apps to be virtually non-existent, due to the number of returns
that will likely occur.
I would rather earn a few dollars for a fun app on the iPhone, instead
of having most of my money returned on android. Besides, how many
people really call their credit card company over and over wanting
refunds for $1 software titles on the iPhone? I could be wrong, but
it's probably rare.
For those of you who think this will make the android software of
better quality - you may be right. But be prepared to see far fewer
developers stay with android, who ultimately could produce larger,
better apps with money made from the smaller apps.
Only time will tell...
On Feb 13, 10:13 am, Evil Mushroom Lord <evilmushrooml...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I agree, Al--- I found this TOS to be overtly harsh.
I'm extremely skeptical. I will release one paid app and observe. If
there is abuse, I will develop on other mobile platforms.
48 hours refund is already pretty ridiculous. -$10 fee for a
challenged account is just stupid.
On Feb 11, 9:32 am, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
As I understand charge backs you can contest them, but with the Google
T&Cs developers don't get the chance.
I can see this and the 48 hour refund rule potentially doing a lot of
damage to developers who want to release simple fun apps in the sub $10
price range, which, in the end, will do more harm to Android adoption
than good.
Al.
Shane Isbell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com
"...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products
sold for
less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in
addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..."
I'd be interested in what the handling fees are. If the user calls
Google support (or whoever handles this), and they issue a refund,
likely the fees will be less than $1. If the user calls their credit
card company and does a charge back, it will be $10 according to the
T&C. The difficultly here is that if a developer get's $1 for their
app, then a chargeback, they owe $9+ dollars. If they get a lot of
these, the developer is going to take a big hit. I'd also be
interested in whether Google's 30% transaction fee is also refunded or
kept in pocket
I'm not sure of Google's policy. At SlideME we have the same problem,
and will pass back these costs to the developer, but we also have
policies in place to limit this type of abuse, as well as general
fraud detection.
Shane
--
======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
subsidiaries.
-- ======
Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.
> On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
> My main concern is that this affects apps right up to $10. Whether we > like it or not, the iPhone app store has set the market expectations for > pricing, and, given that a vast majority (around 90+%) of pay-for iPhone > apps are priced between $0.99 and $10 it looks like the Android Market > TOS are being hardest on the very price points where most apps would be > sold.
> Al.
> madcoder wrote: > I've invested a lot of time on this single platform. I'm currently > branching out to other mobile devices and sadly, I may drop android > entirely based on the TOS. I'm not too worried about the $1 apps > getting calls to credit card companies - that's just a pain in the > butt for anyone to do. But I can see the potential for many small, > fun apps to be virtually non-existent, due to the number of returns > that will likely occur.
> I would rather earn a few dollars for a fun app on the iPhone, instead > of having most of my money returned on android. Besides, how many > people really call their credit card company over and over wanting > refunds for $1 software titles on the iPhone? I could be wrong, but > it's probably rare.
> For those of you who think this will make the android software of > better quality - you may be right. But be prepared to see far fewer > developers stay with android, who ultimately could produce larger, > better apps with money made from the smaller apps.
> Only time will tell...
> On Feb 13, 10:13 am, Evil Mushroom Lord <evilmushrooml...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> I agree, Al--- I found this TOS to be overtly harsh.
> I'm extremely skeptical. I will release one paid app and observe. If > there is abuse, I will develop on other mobile platforms.
> 48 hours refund is already pretty ridiculous. -$10 fee for a > challenged account is just stupid.
> On Feb 11, 9:32 am, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
> As I understand charge backs you can contest them, but with the Google > T&Cs developers don't get the chance.
> I can see this and the 48 hour refund rule potentially doing a lot of > damage to developers who want to release simple fun apps in the sub $10 > price range, which, in the end, will do more harm to Android adoption > than good.
> Al.
> Shane Isbell wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com > <mailto:a...@funkyandroid.com>> wrote:
> "...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products > sold for > less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in > addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..."
> I'd be interested in what the handling fees are. If the user calls > Google support (or whoever handles this), and they issue a refund, > likely the fees will be less than $1. If the user calls their credit > card company and does a charge back, it will be $10 according to the > T&C. The difficultly here is that if a developer get's $1 for their > app, then a chargeback, they owe $9+ dollars. If they get a lot of > these, the developer is going to take a big hit. I'd also be > interested in whether Google's 30% transaction fee is also refunded or > kept in pocket
> I'm not sure of Google's policy. At SlideME we have the same problem, > and will pass back these costs to the developer, but we also have > policies in place to limit this type of abuse, as well as general > fraud detection.
> Shane
> -- > ====== > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > subsidiaries.
-- ====== Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's subsidiaries.
Well-- there are a lot of obnoxious users for sure.
I have just about 50,000 downloads and 945 reviews for a pretty simple
little game I coded in a couple evenings while learning how Android
works.
Of my 945 reviews-- and hundreds of emails--- the vast majority has
been positive, and those with criticism the vast majority had
constructive comments. "The board is too small." etc Which is true--
it was a simple game for me to learn the API with--- which is why it
was free. (I was very surprised by how many people really love the
game.)
I don't feel the majority of g1 users are dishonest or bad people at
all--- this ratio of good/bad feedback has given me hope despite these
harsh TOS. If I had these TOS without the userinput I've had I would
have already ditched android.
I have spent the weeks since then on a much more detailed game (arcade
shooter/strategy)-- much much better than Mushroom Wars:Wrath of the
Fungi. (Although I am also planning to make a more full version of the
original Mushroom Wars too-- with a larger board, smarter ai, items at
some point in the future--)
Hundreds of hours spent on this other new game coding, and working out
sprite animations + special FX (I'm paying an artist.)--- following
iPhone pricing I'm going for a .99 price. (1/4 a latte for pete's
sake.)
If you pay .99 for a game that entertains you for several hours or
something cool you want to show your friends---- is that not worth it?
If people play it for 4-5 hours then uninstall within the 48 hours...
how is that fair to developers?
If, due to these TOS, it's a huge debacle--- or not worth my while,
the advanced version of the original Mushroom Wars and future games
will be on the iPhone.
Like I said-- the only thing that's given me hope is all the positive
and constructive feedback I've gotten from users-- I don't think the
majority are dishonest.
We shall see.
-- Evil Mushroom Lord
On Feb 13, 10:10 am, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
> (The Market comments gave as idea of some of the types of people that
> have G1s).
> Incognito wrote:
> > Testing
> > On Feb 13, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
> > My main concern is that this affects apps right up to $10. Whether we
> > like it or not, the iPhone app store has set the market expectations for
> > pricing, and, given that a vast majority (around 90+%) of pay-for iPhone
> > apps are priced between $0.99 and $10 it looks like the Android Market
> > TOS are being hardest on the very price points where most apps would be
> > sold.
> > Al.
> > madcoder wrote:
> > I've invested a lot of time on this single platform. I'm currently
> > branching out to other mobile devices and sadly, I may drop android
> > entirely based on the TOS. I'm not too worried about the $1 apps
> > getting calls to credit card companies - that's just a pain in the
> > butt for anyone to do. But I can see the potential for many small,
> > fun apps to be virtually non-existent, due to the number of returns
> > that will likely occur.
> > I would rather earn a few dollars for a fun app on the iPhone, instead
> > of having most of my money returned on android. Besides, how many
> > people really call their credit card company over and over wanting
> > refunds for $1 software titles on the iPhone? I could be wrong, but
> > it's probably rare.
> > For those of you who think this will make the android software of
> > better quality - you may be right. But be prepared to see far fewer
> > developers stay with android, who ultimately could produce larger,
> > better apps with money made from the smaller apps.
> > Only time will tell...
> > On Feb 13, 10:13 am, Evil Mushroom Lord <evilmushrooml...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > I agree, Al--- I found this TOS to be overtly harsh.
> > I'm extremely skeptical. I will release one paid app and observe. If
> > there is abuse, I will develop on other mobile platforms.
> > 48 hours refund is already pretty ridiculous. -$10 fee for a
> > challenged account is just stupid.
> > On Feb 11, 9:32 am, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com> wrote:
> > As I understand charge backs you can contest them, but with the Google
> > T&Cs developers don't get the chance.
> > I can see this and the 48 hour refund rule potentially doing a lot of
> > damage to developers who want to release simple fun apps in the sub $10
> > price range, which, in the end, will do more harm to Android adoption
> > than good.
> > Al.
> > Shane Isbell wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Al Sutton <a...@funkyandroid.com
> > <mailto:a...@funkyandroid.com>> wrote:
> > "...billing disputes received by Payment Processor for Products
> > sold for
> > less than $10 may be automatically charged back to the Developer, in
> > addition to any handling fees charged by the Payment Processor..."
> > I'd be interested in what the handling fees are. If the user calls
> > Google support (or whoever handles this), and they issue a refund,
> > likely the fees will be less than $1. If the user calls their credit
> > card company and does a charge back, it will be $10 according to the
> > T&C. The difficultly here is that if a developer get's $1 for their
> > app, then a chargeback, they owe $9+ dollars. If they get a lot of
> > these, the developer is going to take a big hit. I'd also be
> > interested in whether Google's 30% transaction fee is also refunded or
> > kept in pocket
> > I'm not sure of Google's policy. At SlideME we have the same problem,
> > and will pass back these costs to the developer, but we also have
> > policies in place to limit this type of abuse, as well as general
> > fraud detection.
> > Shane
> > --
> > ======
> > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
> > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
> > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
> > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
> > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
> > subsidiaries.
> --
> ======
> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the
> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House,
> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK.
> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not
> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's
> subsidiaries.
> I have spent the weeks since then on a much more detailed game (arcade
> shooter/strategy)-- much much better than Mushroom Wars:Wrath of the
> Fungi. (Although I am also planning to make a more full version of the
> original Mushroom Wars too-- with a larger board, smarter ai, items at
> some point in the future--)
Having my G1 since late 08, and having downloaded dozens of 'free'
apps, or better said, most of the ones I've found; as a user, I am
hoping that non-free apps will be CLEARLY MARKED WITH THEIR PRICE,
viewable before contract. Otherwise, I don't care if it it costs $10
to get my dollar back for a deceptive sales method. Commercial apps
must be OBVIOUSLY Commercial or you will alienate potential customers.
The other bit of false advertising out there is when apps are DEMOs
and NOT free. Calling a DEMO free, is bullshit. If you as a programmer
expect customers to fairly evaluate your products, we need to know the
price up front, not on our bill at the end of the month. It good for
us customers and it's good for you programmers who want to get paid. I
hope Google and service providerss makes fair and OBVIOUS billing part
of the grand scheme.
On Feb 13, 4:34 pm, mathiastck <mathias...@gmail.com> wrote
> Please do, the game was good. Bigger board and less suicidal "hard"
> AI would be appreciated. I might even pay a $1 given the option
> On Feb 13, 8:49 am, Evil Mushroom Lord <evilmushrooml...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I have spent the weeks since then on a much more detailed game (arcade
> > shooter/strategy)-- much much better than Mushroom Wars:Wrath of the
> > Fungi. (Although I am also planning to make a more full version of the
> > original Mushroom Wars too-- with a larger board, smarter ai, items at
> > some point in the future--)
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM, tekrytor <steve.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having my G1 since late 08, and having downloaded dozens of 'free'
> apps, or better said, most of the ones I've found; as a user, I am
> hoping that non-free apps will be CLEARLY MARKED WITH THEIR PRICE,
> viewable before contract. Otherwise, I don't care if it it costs $10
> to get my dollar back for a deceptive sales method. Commercial apps
> must be OBVIOUSLY Commercial or you will alienate potential customers.
> The other bit of false advertising out there is when apps are DEMOs
> and NOT free. Calling a DEMO free, is bullshit. If you as a programmer
> expect customers to fairly evaluate your products, we need to know the
> price up front, not on our bill at the end of the month. It good for
> us customers and it's good for you programmers who want to get paid. I
> hope Google and service providerss makes fair and OBVIOUS billing part
> of the grand scheme.
> On Feb 13, 4:34 pm, mathiastck <mathias...@gmail.com> wrote
> > Please do, the game was good. Bigger board and less suicidal "hard"
> > AI would be appreciated. I might even pay a $1 given the option
> > On Feb 13, 8:49 am, Evil Mushroom Lord <evilmushrooml...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I have spent the weeks since then on a much more detailed game (arcade
> > > shooter/strategy)-- much much better than Mushroom Wars:Wrath of the
> > > Fungi. (Although I am also planning to make a more full version of the
> > > original Mushroom Wars too-- with a larger board, smarter ai, items at
> > > some point in the future--)
I agree with both of you. I'll still release very simple games as free
from time to time for kicks.. to experiment if people like the idea.
Free releases from me will always be free.
Ones that I charge for will clearly say they're for .99 or w/e---
which from my perspective.. if something takes me a couple hundred
hours to make and people enjoy it... something needs to make it
worthwhile for me to continue to make them. ;)
I will never use tricks or misleading information.
If someone tricks you into being charged--- you have every right to
demand a refund *AND* complain about it on the offending app. I
encourage that--- it will make the developers that don't use tricks
look better.
On Feb 14, 2:21 am, Muthu Ramadoss <muthu.ramad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:39 PM, tekrytor <steve.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Having my G1 since late 08, and having downloaded dozens of 'free'
> > apps, or better said, most of the ones I've found; as a user, I am
> > hoping that non-free apps will be CLEARLY MARKED WITH THEIR PRICE,
> > viewable before contract. Otherwise, I don't care if it it costs $10
> > to get my dollar back for a deceptive sales method. Commercial apps
> > must be OBVIOUSLY Commercial or you will alienate potential customers.
> > The other bit of false advertising out there is when apps are DEMOs
> > and NOT free. Calling a DEMO free, is bullshit. If you as a programmer
> > expect customers to fairly evaluate your products, we need to know the
> > price up front, not on our bill at the end of the month. It good for
> > us customers and it's good for you programmers who want to get paid. I
> > hope Google and service providerss makes fair and OBVIOUS billing part
> > of the grand scheme.
> > On Feb 13, 4:34 pm, mathiastck <mathias...@gmail.com> wrote
> > > Please do, the game was good. Bigger board and less suicidal "hard"
> > > AI would be appreciated. I might even pay a $1 given the option
> > > On Feb 13, 8:49 am, Evil Mushroom Lord <evilmushrooml...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I have spent the weeks since then on a much more detailed game (arcade
> > > > shooter/strategy)-- much much better than Mushroom Wars:Wrath of the
> > > > Fungi. (Although I am also planning to make a more full version of the
> > > > original Mushroom Wars too-- with a larger board, smarter ai, items at
> > > > some point in the future--)
|
