Selling Extensions: Use Cases

[Joe Marini]

Hello chromium-extensions,

Recently there have been requests for the ability to sell extensions
on the Chrome Web Store, which is not currently supported today. I'd
like to hear some of the use cases that extension developers have in
mind for this kind of scenario: how do you envision the payment
mechanism and licensing working? What kinds of payments are you most
interested in: one-time, subscription based, freemium model, ads-
supported?

We're always looking for ways to improve the Chrome Web Store for our
developers and would be really interested in hearing your feedback on
this.

PLEASE NOTE: this is not an indication that we are actively working on
this feature or have imminent plans to do so. We are just at the stage
of collecting feedback on this issue to see if it makes sense to
proceed.

Thanks!

Joe Marini
Developer Advocate, Google Chrome

[Devin]

I would personally love to be able to charge for extensions! I have
plans to do so outside of the webstore, but with inline installs along
with payment support outside the store, my extension would live very
harmoniously being hosted on the webstore.

If extensions implement an ad supported model, I don't think Google
would have to do anything extra to support this.

I would be most interested in one-time and subscription based
payments. I'm also very interested in being able to run trials.

Beyond this, I think the API could use some love too.

But also very important is being able to secure extensions... it's
really unfortunate that the extension directory can be so easily hi-
jacked, modified, and re-published. It would be huge if the webstore
could tie in with google credentials and perhaps chrome if needed, and
help us secure extensions.

I've also been tossing around the idea of encrypting all my code in a
unicode string, which would then be appended as a script and
immediately removed from the DOM. This makes it a lot harder, and it
can be made harder by plucking out various chars of js code from the
encoded string, and after authentication, pulling down the missing
bytes with socket.io or nowjs.

Even raw and unsecure, it would be huge to just be able to charge
someone $1 for an extension.

[Mohamed Mansour]

I would like to personally see a "Donations" link in the Chrome Web Store like how Firefox Addons gallery has. Many extensions are made as free tools, and many people would like to show support to the developer. But Google Web Store makes it so hard to let the developer to make the donations visible. Firefox made it cleanly and nicely under each Download link.

You can charge for extensions using in app payments,  http://www.google.com/payments/index.html, it is not widely used though.

Kind regards,
Mohamed Mansour

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/?hl=en.

[Devin Rhode]

I think that donations belong and work better separate from the webstore ui. AdBlock is a perfect example, don't see why the webstore should worry about something like this.

-Devin Rhode

[Ben]

A perfect example of what? I failed to find a donation link anywhere in
the path from the webstore. Website Link -> google code page with no
links to donate; HowToContribute link on that page -> no donation info.
Support Link -> google code wiki with no links to donate.

Were you, perhaps, talking about a different AdBlock extension? This one
seems to be the only one with the name being specifically "AdBlock".

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extensions
> +unsub...@chromium.org.

[Devin Rhode]

After you install adblock, they have a page asking for a donation. AdBlock also has a donation option right in the browser menu.

Devin Rhode

(218) 290-8275

Twitter.com/DevinRhode2

LinkedIn.com/in/DevinRhode2

[Ben]

Ah, I see. Would seem like if someone wanted to donate it would be when
they were reviewing the extension though, not just after installing it,
or before performing some action on a random page (although the latter I
can see happening sometimes).

[daPhyre]

For what I understand, subscription, freemium and ads can be
implemented inside the extensions, so there would be no need of the
Chrome Web Store to make implementations for those systems (Although
if done, it would be probably way easier for developers to implement).
Nevertheless, the one-time option I understand is not possible if
publishing inside the Chrome Web Store, and I believe it would be the
best option for general extensions.

Now, a better option, if possible, would be to have a free-trial
before buy. Since many times we can't be sure if an extension is what
we want, trying it before buying it would be a great way to keep
potential clients happy, and for the clients, a way to be sure this is
what we want (And pay to keep using it after n days of use).

Another important point is what Devin says... While the code is
publicly available on these extensions, creating clones will be easy,
making low profitable to try to sell the extensions. I think it would
be good if developer could chose to make the code Open Source or not,
making Chrome able to block the source code of extensions that doesn't
want to be open.

[Łukasz Łoboda]

One time payment will be very nice option, and in my opinion will bring a new class of extension developers - commercial/corporate.

But in fact biggest problem is in ease of cloning extension, there is no way that "piracy" problem can be solved in 100%, but some security procedures can be implemented. It don't need to be some top tier protection methods,  but just so secure to be problem for average user to break.
Simplest methods in my mind: 

- Moving extension from directories to some archive binary format

- Encrypting extension for each user (in fact every user should have account in Gmail to buy extension and chrome already have identity functionality)

Of course public key will be provided for Chrome, but it will be very problematic for average user, and injecting extension will not be so easy.

So for $1 apps it will be effective methods for app protection

Regards

2012/3/7 daPhyre <daph...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.
To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.

[Ben]

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 09:59 +0100, Łukasz Łoboda wrote:
> One time payment will be very nice option, and in my opinion will
> bring a new class of extension developers - commercial/corporate.
> But in fact biggest problem is in ease of cloning extension, there is
> no way that "piracy" problem can be solved in 100%, but some security
> procedures can be implemented. It don't need to be some top tier
> protection methods, but just so secure to be problem for average user
> to break.
> Simplest methods in my mind:
> - Moving extension from directories to some archive binary format
> - Encrypting extension for each user (in fact every user should have
> account in Gmail to buy extension and chrome already have identity
> functionality)
>

I'd much prefer if users were allowed to use an OpenID instead of a
Gmail account. Doesn't necessarily have to be the only option, but I
think it should be one. Some people already have their own email account
at another service, or don't feel like having an extra account just for
extensions/apps. I can't speak for them, but I know I would use it.

The extension would still be limited to one account, so it shouldn't be
entirely unreasonable. Particularly since Google already "supports"
OpenID to some extent.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extensions
> +unsub...@chromium.org.

[Ben]

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 07:25 -0600, Ben wrote:
>
> The extension would still be limited to one account, so it shouldn't be
> entirely unreasonable. Particularly since Google already "supports"
> OpenID to some extent.

Please ignore the quotes; I had removed them, but must have accidentally
re-added them when undoing something else. No offense intended.

[Devin]

Łukasz Łoboda, I really agree with you. This would really strengthen
the Chrome browser for Google too.

On Mar 8, 12:59 am, Łukasz Łoboda <lukasz.w.lob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One time payment will be very nice option, and in my opinion will bring a
> new class of extension developers - commercial/corporate.
> But in fact biggest problem is in ease of cloning extension, there is no
> way that "piracy" problem can be solved in 100%, but some security
> procedures can be implemented. It don't need to be some top tier protection
> methods,  but just so secure to be problem for average user to break.
> Simplest methods in my mind:
> - Moving extension from directories to some archive binary format
> - Encrypting extension for each user (in fact every user should have
> account in Gmail to buy extension and chrome already have identity
> functionality)
>
> Of course public key will be provided for Chrome, but it will be very
> problematic for average user, and injecting extension will not be so easy.
>
> So for $1 apps it will be effective methods for app protection
>
> Regards
>

> 2012/3/7 daPhyre <daphyr...@gmail.com>

> > To post to this group, send email to chromium-extensi...@chromium.org.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > chromium-extensions+unsubscr...@chromium.org.

[Łukasz Łoboda]

Lets be honest Chrome Market is Google product so judging from G+ account requirements those kind of products/features will be also integrated with Gmail. OpenId? So why not facebook. Main reason for making Chrome Market commercial platform is creating new income source and no one can deny it. Chrome already as browser integrate very well with gmail, and i doubt that only reason was syncing. This is bussines and Google shareholders expects higher income, in everything that Google is doing  there is bigger goals - G proved it many times!

W dniu 2012-03-08 04:28 użytkownik "Ben" <benj...@gmail.com> napisał:

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 07:25 -0600, Ben wrote:
>

> The extension would still be limited to one accou...

Please ignore the quotes; I had removed them, but must have accidentally
re-added them when undoing something else. No offense intended.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions"...

[Adi]

Would really like to have an equivalent of in-app purchases for
extensions for a freemium model. Basically, the extension is free but
some features (which generate load on our web servers, hence cost)
would be paid upgrades.

More importantly, strongly support Devin's point of secure extensions
- no point of providing a premium feature extension if it's a child's
play to view, copy, modify the source code. Any one can just buy a
paid extension, dup it into a free one. The paid extension business
model isn't practical unless the extension source is made secure/
encrypted.

Cheers!

[Chris Hughes]

if you are looking to protect the source code, you can get protected code today by making your extension or app NaCL based and brokering the messages between the content script and NaCL code. You will have to undergo a more strict review to get jnto the store but at least you're only showing the code to google.

Point is, it's possible today. Would I love it if google just gave us the ability to sell chrome extensions ala apps? Yes, I would love that.

But rather than look at all of the potential ways this could work... Let's lobby for the ability to at minimum sell an extension. 

Other revenue models can be explored, but without the most basic of transactions this becomes a bit of a circle jerk.

I've been experimenting with ways to potentially sell extensions and have coded some interesting hacks around it.  But with a full store at the users fingertips and googles professed intentions to provide support for extension sales, its hard to justify making users go though a ugly user experience.

So in short, yes, PLEASE build this, we will use it... and even the most minimally viable product would be super welcome.

-chris

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/?hl=en.

Sent from my iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.

[Łukasz Łoboda]

NaCl is good platform only for specific extensions, and there is drastic difference between cost of developing extension in C lang and JavaScript. No to mention that 99% of current extensions are written in JS. Google have to provide for us secure, reliable and comfortable platform - this is the key for success
Lets be honest Google is great in this area. Go Google!

W dniu 2012-03-10 00:51 użytkownik "Chris Hughes" <christoph...@gmail.com> napisał:

if you are looking to protect the source code, you can get protected code today by making your extension or app NaCL based and brokering the messages between the content script and NaCL code. You will have to undergo a more strict review to get jnto the store but at least you're only showing the code to google.

Point is, it's possible today. Would I love it if google just gave us the ability to sell chrome extensions ala apps? Yes, I would love that.

But rather than look at all of the potential ways this could work... Let's lobby for the ability to at minimum sell an extension. 

Other revenue models can be explored, but without the most basic of transactions this becomes a bit of a circle jerk.

I've been experimenting with ways to potentially sell extensions and have coded some interesting hacks around it.  But with a full store at the users fingertips and googles professed intentions to provide support for extension sales, its hard to justify making users go though a ugly user experience.

So in short, yes, PLEASE build this, we will use it... and even the most minimally viable product would be super welcome.

-chris

On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:40 PM, Adi <a...@oorjalabs.com> wrote:

> Would really like to have an equival...

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:40 PM, Adi <a...@oorjalabs.com> wrote:

> Would really like to have an equivale...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" ...

[Joe Marini]

This is really great feedback, guys.

Let me try to summarize what I think I've seen so far:

* Need secure way of writing extension code (obfuscated ZIP file? Other format? Hidden extension directory? Combination of other methods?)

* In-app payment support wanted

* Also want one-time payment support

* Ad-supported not a very good model for extensions (they're not up on screen a lot)

Anything else?

-- 
Joe Marini

Developer Advocate / Chrome

joem...@google.com

2012/3/10 Łukasz Łoboda <lukasz....@gmail.com>

--

[Nilson Freitas]

Joe,

You forgot to add the "trial mechanism" into your list. It will be very good if users can try the application before buy, and please, add support for brazilian (BRL) charges. The google checkout team forgot us.

2012/3/12 Joe Marini <joem...@google.com>

--
--
Nilson Freitas
Engenheiro de Software / Software Engineer
+55 (31) 8558-4686

Esta mensagem, incluindo seus anexos, pode conter informacoes privilegiadas e/ou de caráter confidencial, não podendo ser retransmitida sem autorização do remetente. Se você nao é o destinatário ou pessoa autorizada a recebê-la, informamos que o seu uso, divulgação, cópia ou arquivamento são proibidos. Portanto, se você recebeu esta mensagem por engano, por favor, informe-nos respondendo imediatamente a este e-mail e em seguida apague-a.

[Joe Marini]

Well, but you can do that via in-app payments right? Just provide some features for a limited time and then require that the user activate via in-app -- isn't that the same thing?

[AnimeTime TV]

I think, we don't want this way for extension such as obfuscated ZIP file, hidden extension directory. That is not a Google way :) Because any person who interested in finding way to crack, they can find out later on no matter you hide the file or obfuscated though. I believe we can write as we write extension now, but when we create the extension, and upload to Google Chrome store. There should be strongest way to protect the extension and it should protect the in-app payment option too, such as all file has to be encrypted totally better than hidden extension/obfuscated zip.

[Joe Marini]

So, encrypted ZIP, with a different file extension then?

2012/3/12 AnimeTime TV <animet...@gmail.com>

[AnimeTime TV]

lately,  you can see all files without encrypted at all in installed folder location after you installed the extension. Even though crx file is encrypted. If someone wants to clone that extension, it is very easy to clone.  This is what we have situation in Chrome extension.  On the other hands,  everyone can share the extension file via file sharing website.

Let's say,  someone bought one extension for $0.99 and start sharing the file in web. The extension will work for every chrome browsers, no matter they bought or not, as long as they have extension file to install. So Google has to provide that every extension should have to be assigned with customer ID who bought and installed only. Unless it will not work for Chrome. The customer (us...@gmail.com) should login to run the extension. And all file should be encrypted though even they are in installed folder. So no one can't clone extension at all too. Am I asking too much?

[Joe Marini]

No, I don't think it's too much - right now I'm just trying to figure out what the requirements are. Having some kind of licensing API call makes sense.

2012/3/12 AnimeTime TV <animet...@gmail.com>

[AnimeTime TV]

Yes, I see, you know that everyone paid already $5 for extensions upload on Google Store. I think, Google will not ask more money for licensing API for developer :) Will there will charges or free for selling extensions? i think, I am sure that everyone will like to give 5% or up to 10% to Google for share-profits for merchandise. 

[Joe Marini]

Don't have any details on that - it's all subject to internal discussion at this point.

I'm also interested in hearing about what kinds of extensions people are interested in selling - are these productivity enhancers, developer tools, front-ends to services like cloud storage, etc - what are the user scenarios that people think are attractive markets to be selling into?

Joe

2012/3/12 AnimeTime TV <animet...@gmail.com>

[AnimeTime TV]

Is there any options to communicate customers rather than commenting at reviews, so that will be good for product. Some of my extension user didn't update sometime, some of them are still with old one. I know, some of them may disable the auto-update. But can we communicate with all users? Can we have like push notification to client for any message whether they update or not? So the customers can see messages from developer like program update notification and so on.

[Łukasz Łoboda]

Zip Format (even obfuscated)  is a little insufficient solution - it opens relative easy ways to inject extension with "some program", and when such tool will be developed ( it will be easy for crackers) injecting will be trivial. I think pro developers and companies expect a little more, thats why I mention this bad word: "DRM". Google Chrome have closed source and in this area its advantage. Google have many great engineers so i don't expect that technology will be a big problem. Me, other developers and companies just need to have confidence that their products are properly secured.  Right now we can try to implement some tricky ways to obfuscate our code, but right solutions should be shipped with platform. Lets be honest in JavaScript our capabilities to secure our products are just poor.

Regards

W dniu 2012-03-12 17:21 użytkownik "Joe Marini" <joem...@google.com> napisał:

This is really great feedback, guys.

Let me try to summarize what I think I've seen so far:

* Need secure way of writing extension code (obfuscated ZIP file? Other format? Hidden extension directory? Combination of other methods?)

* In-app payment support wanted

* Also want one-time payment support

* Ad-supported not a very good model for extensions (they're not up on screen a lot)

Anything else?

-- 
Joe Marini

Developer Advocate / Chrome

joem...@google.com

2012/3/10 Łukasz Łoboda <lukasz....@gmail.com>

>
> NaCl is good platform only for specific extensions, and there is drastic difference between cost...

--

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" gr...

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" grou...

[Łukasz Łoboda]

Yes, I see, you know that everyone paid already $5 for extensions upload on Google Store. I think, Google will not ask more money for licensing API for developer :) Will there will charges or free for selling extensions? i think, I am sure that everyone will like to give 5% or up to 10% to Google for share-profits for merchandise. 

I expect that Google will charge at least 30%, and i will be happy to share my income, but just want to have clear rules and good platform.

New Commercial Chrome Market should be also connected with expanding of Google Checkout

[Joe Marini]

The CWS currently only charges 5% for using Google Wallet. We have not announced any plans to change that.

[Devin]

Yeah I think that similar to the iPad, the main way to you rip off
apps is to get a rogue/jailbroken fork of chromium, where the chrome
update server would basically give out on them. Tied with a persons
Google account, I think some pretty solid protection can be created
for a paid ecosystem. If a person isn't authenticated via Google,
installation shouldn't be allowed until they login.

But then this raises a question: "Why not just "load unpacked
extension" developer style?"
I think this is why we need crx files to be of a more binary style.
Without a doubt, *distributed crx files should not unpack to a
directory* they should be burried within chromium in a sort of binary
format or database. The file system should not be used.

You guys will clearly want to start integrating your social layer
into it, and it'll be interesting to see how that continues to play
out.

I think that for sure, comments/review on the webstore should be based
off of a Google/Google+ account, and replying/contacting someone
should be possible, right now it's not possible (correct me if I'm
wrong)


I don't get your question about markets, we're just going to continue
making awesome stuff, but at a higher velocity because we can monetize
them. Fixes and enhancements for websites, even entire overhauls, even
new features. We could start adding new things to Google+, and all
Google properties, and if we're making solid revenue and getting a lot
of traction, Google could take some aspects of the work and integrate
it to the core product. An API that places site data in some JSON at
the top of the page could be interesting, allowing us to entirely play
with the frontend without much hassle.

On Mar 12, 2:30 pm, Joe Marini <joemar...@google.com> wrote:
> Don't have any details on that - it's all subject to internal discussion at
> this point.
>
> I'm also interested in hearing about what kinds of extensions people are
> interested in selling - are these productivity enhancers, developer tools,
> front-ends to services like cloud storage, etc - what are the user
> scenarios that people think are attractive markets to be selling into?
>
> Joe
>

> 2012/3/12 AnimeTime TV <animetime...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, I see, you know that everyone paid already $5 for extensions upload
> > on Google Store. I think, Google will not ask more money for licensing API
> > for developer :) Will there will charges or free for selling extensions? i
> > think, I am sure that everyone will like to give 5% or up to 10% to Google
> > for share-profits for merchandise.
>

> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Joe Marini <joemar...@google.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, I don't think it's too much - right now I'm just trying to figure out
> >> what the requirements are. Having some kind of licensing API call makes
> >> sense.
>

> >> 2012/3/12 AnimeTime TV <animetime...@gmail.com>

>
> >>> lately,  you can see all files without encrypted at all in installed
> >>> folder location after you installed the extension. Even though crx file is
> >>> encrypted. If someone wants to clone that extension, it is very easy to
> >>> clone.  This is what we have situation in Chrome extension.  On the other
> >>> hands,  everyone can share the extension file via file sharing website.
>
> >>> Let's say,  someone bought one extension for $0.99 and start sharing the
> >>> file in web. The extension will work for every chrome browsers, no matter
> >>> they bought or not, as long as they have extension file to install. So
> >>> Google has to provide that every extension should have to be assigned with
> >>> customer ID who bought and installed only. Unless it will not work for

> >>> Chrome. The customer (u...@gmail.com) should login to run the

> >>> extension. And all file should be encrypted though even they are in
> >>> installed folder. So no one can't clone extension at all too. Am I asking
> >>> too much?
>

> >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Joe Marini <joemar...@google.com>wrote:
>
> >>>> So, encrypted ZIP, with a different file extension then?
>

> >>>> 2012/3/12 AnimeTime TV <animetime...@gmail.com>

>
> >>>>> I think, we don't want this way for extension such as obfuscated ZIP
> >>>>> file, hidden extension directory. That is not a Google way :) Because any
> >>>>> person who interested in finding way to crack, they can find out later on
> >>>>> no matter you hide the file or obfuscated though. I believe we can write as
> >>>>> we write extension now, but when we create the extension, and upload to
> >>>>> Google Chrome store. There should be strongest way to protect the extension
> >>>>> and it should protect the in-app payment option too, such as all file has
> >>>>> to be encrypted totally better than hidden extension/obfuscated zip.
>

> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Joe Marini <joemar...@google.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>> This is really great feedback, guys.
>
> >>>>>> Let me try to summarize what I think I've seen so far:
>
> >>>>>> * Need secure way of writing extension code (obfuscated ZIP file?
> >>>>>> Other format? Hidden extension directory? Combination of other methods?)
> >>>>>> * In-app payment support wanted
> >>>>>> * Also want one-time payment support
> >>>>>> * Ad-supported not a very good model for extensions (they're not up
> >>>>>> on screen a lot)
>
> >>>>>> Anything else?
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Joe Marini
> >>>>>> Developer Advocate / Chrome

> >>>>>> joemar...@google.com
>
> >>>>>> 2012/3/10 Łukasz Łoboda <lukasz.w.lob...@gmail.com>

>
> >>>>>>> NaCl is good platform only for specific extensions, and there is
> >>>>>>> drastic difference between cost of developing extension in C lang and
> >>>>>>> JavaScript. No to mention that 99% of current extensions are written in JS.
> >>>>>>> Google have to provide for us secure, reliable and comfortable platform -
> >>>>>>> this is the key for success
> >>>>>>> Lets be honest Google is great in this area. Go Google!
>
> >>>>>>> W dniu 2012-03-10 00:51 użytkownik "Chris Hughes" <

> >>>>>>> christopher.hug...@gmail.com> napisał:

> >>>>>>> chromium-extensi...@chromium.org.

> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>>>> chromium-extensions+unsubscr...@chromium.org.

> >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/?hl=en
> >>>>>>> .
>

> >>>>>>  --
> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>>> Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to chromium-extensi...@chromium.org
> >>>>>> .

> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>>> chromium-extensions+unsubscr...@chromium.org.

> >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>>http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/?hl=en
> >>>>>> .
>

> >>>> --
> >>>> Joe Marini
> >>>> Developer Advocate / Chrome

> >>>> joemar...@google.com

>
> >> --
> >> Joe Marini
> >> Developer Advocate / Chrome

> >> joemar...@google.com

>
> --
> Joe Marini
> Developer Advocate / Chrome

> joemar...@google.com

[Łukasz Łoboda]

Joe I'm not talking about Google Wallet transaction fee but Paid Extension Income Share, in Android Market Google takes 30% and i expect that final percent will be somewhere around this number.

2012/3/13 Joe Marini <joem...@google.com>

[Devin]

I think for current in-extension implementations, http://jscrambler.com/
on top of UglifyJS will do plenty for protection.

On Mar 12, 2:30 pm, Joe Marini <joemar...@google.com> wrote:

> Don't have any details on that - it's all subject to internal discussion at
> this point.
>
> I'm also interested in hearing about what kinds of extensions people are
> interested in selling - are these productivity enhancers, developer tools,
> front-ends to services like cloud storage, etc - what are the user
> scenarios that people think are attractive markets to be selling into?
>
> Joe
>

> 2012/3/12 AnimeTime TV <animetime...@gmail.com>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yes, I see, you know that everyone paid already $5 for extensions upload
> > on Google Store. I think, Google will not ask more money for licensing API
> > for developer :) Will there will charges or free for selling extensions? i
> > think, I am sure that everyone will like to give 5% or up to 10% to Google
> > for share-profits for merchandise.
>

> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Joe Marini <joemar...@google.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, I don't think it's too much - right now I'm just trying to figure out
> >> what the requirements are. Having some kind of licensing API call makes
> >> sense.
>

> >> 2012/3/12 AnimeTime TV <animetime...@gmail.com>

>
> >>> lately,  you can see all files without encrypted at all in installed
> >>> folder location after you installed the extension. Even though crx file is
> >>> encrypted. If someone wants to clone that extension, it is very easy to
> >>> clone.  This is what we have situation in Chrome extension.  On the other
> >>> hands,  everyone can share the extension file via file sharing website.
>
> >>> Let's say,  someone bought one extension for $0.99 and start sharing the
> >>> file in web. The extension will work for every chrome browsers, no matter
> >>> they bought or not, as long as they have extension file to install. So
> >>> Google has to provide that every extension should have to be assigned with
> >>> customer ID who bought and installed only. Unless it will not work for

> >>> Chrome. The customer (u...@gmail.com) should login to run the

> >>> extension. And all file should be encrypted though even they are in
> >>> installed folder. So no one can't clone extension at all too. Am I asking
> >>> too much?
>

> >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Joe Marini <joemar...@google.com>wrote:
>
> >>>> So, encrypted ZIP, with a different file extension then?
>

> >>>> 2012/3/12 AnimeTime TV <animetime...@gmail.com>

>
> >>>>> I think, we don't want this way for extension such as obfuscated ZIP
> >>>>> file, hidden extension directory. That is not a Google way :) Because any
> >>>>> person who interested in finding way to crack, they can find out later on
> >>>>> no matter you hide the file or obfuscated though. I believe we can write as
> >>>>> we write extension now, but when we create the extension, and upload to
> >>>>> Google Chrome store. There should be strongest way to protect the extension
> >>>>> and it should protect the in-app payment option too, such as all file has
> >>>>> to be encrypted totally better than hidden extension/obfuscated zip.
>

> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Joe Marini <joemar...@google.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>> This is really great feedback, guys.
>
> >>>>>> Let me try to summarize what I think I've seen so far:
>
> >>>>>> * Need secure way of writing extension code (obfuscated ZIP file?
> >>>>>> Other format? Hidden extension directory? Combination of other methods?)
> >>>>>> * In-app payment support wanted
> >>>>>> * Also want one-time payment support
> >>>>>> * Ad-supported not a very good model for extensions (they're not up
> >>>>>> on screen a lot)
>
> >>>>>> Anything else?
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Joe Marini
> >>>>>> Developer Advocate / Chrome

> >>>>>> joemar...@google.com
>
> >>>>>> 2012/3/10 Łukasz Łoboda <lukasz.w.lob...@gmail.com>
>

> >>>>>>> NaCl is good platform only for specific extensions, and there is
> >>>>>>> drastic difference between cost of developing extension in C lang and
> >>>>>>> JavaScript. No to mention that 99% of current extensions are written in JS.
> >>>>>>> Google have to provide for us secure, reliable and comfortable platform -
> >>>>>>> this is the key for success
> >>>>>>> Lets be honest Google is great in this area. Go Google!
>
> >>>>>>> W dniu 2012-03-10 00:51 użytkownik "Chris Hughes" <

> >>>>>>> christopher.hug...@gmail.com> napisał:

> >>>>>>> chromium-extensi...@chromium.org.

> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>>>> chromium-extensions+unsubscr...@chromium.org.

> >>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/?hl=en
> >>>>>>> .
>

> >>>>>>  --
> >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>>> Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to chromium-extensi...@chromium.org
> >>>>>> .

> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>>> chromium-extensions+unsubscr...@chromium.org.

> >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>>>http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/?hl=en
> >>>>>> .
>

> >>>> --
> >>>> Joe Marini
> >>>> Developer Advocate / Chrome

> >>>> joemar...@google.com

>
> >> --
> >> Joe Marini
> >> Developer Advocate / Chrome

> >> joemar...@google.com

>
> --
> Joe Marini
> Developer Advocate / Chrome

> joemar...@google.com

[Łukasz Łoboda]

Did you ever reverse those kind of "protection"? With 2 cups of coffee (including my average drinking time)  i can get clean code, not to mention that this don't protect from copying files, and its really hard to debug. I don't want to relay on such software, and probably most guys will think same. Even encrypted compiled code can be reversed in few days with IDA/OllyDbg and decent knowledge of assembly language. 

To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.

[Michael H.]

I'm working on Awesome New Tab Page (
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/%22Awesome%20New%20Tab%20Page%22
), an extension that essentially brings widgets to Google Chrome. I
could see a lot of use-cases for one-time and in-app payments, both
for the core extension (sync and storage of their background and
images for custom shortcuts) and 3rd party widgets (installed as
separate extensions) (premium widgets (very popular on Android), extra
styles for free widgets, extra features or information for free
widgets (like adding a 2nd or 3rd city to a weather widget, for
example), etc.). Just consider any useful widget found on Android
would probably make an excellent fit into Awesome New Tab Page. #3 top
paid app on the Play Store is "Beautiful Widgets", so there's clearly
consumer interest in this area.

I do agree with Chris Hughes, though. The first step should be basic
one-time payments.

I disagree with pretty much everyone here who is concerned with
piracy. Piracy is going to happen regardless of how you try to prevent
it. The only way to win is not to play. There will always be those
that will seek to not pay for paid content. There will always be those
that will pay for it. This issue is not a reason to delay a feature
that is already available for apps on the Chrome Web Store because
there is no solution that will completely stop piracy. The most
effective solution will be circumvented once, documented, then easily
repeated thereafter.

[Łukasz Łoboda]

but there is huge difference between weak securing and not securing ext's at all. We don't want to stop piracy, we want to make it a little harder than directory "copy-and-paste".

2012/3/24 Michael H. <m...@h4r7.me>

[Joe Marini]

Yeah, I think that's the important point. You can't stop a determined person who's focused on piracy, but you can take some relatively simple steps to at least help protect your hard work. I think we can all agree that something is better than nothing.

Joe

[Chris Hughes]

It would be interesting if google were to provide some encrypted
bytecode support for developers to compile their javascript into, but
nevertheless NaCl exists to provide an interesting workaround for
source code occlusion in the meantime.

Please give us simple transactions and the ability to do some sort of
in-app purchase with receipt verification (somehow being tied to their
google account) and we'll be happy campers!

-Chris

p.s.
<obvious bribe>
Announce transaction support for extensions at Google I/O and there's
a giftbasket in it for the CWS team.
Cause' nothing says I love you/thanks more than an Edible Arrangement
or Harry and David Pears ^= Other Seasonal Fruit.
</obvious bribe>

--
sig ver 2.4
twitter: @chews (drunk tweet me)
blog: http://spazout.com
iPhone: 310.933.4533

[RichardS]

Hi,

Is there any update on support for selling Chrome extensions ? We would be interested in such a feature, specifically on a subscription basis, for a browser scripting/automation extension (probably alongside a free version).

thanks

richard

On Tuesday, 6 March 2012 02:10:54 UTC, Joe Marini wrote:

Hello chromium-extensions,

Recently there have been requests for the ability to sell extensions
on the Chrome Web Store, which is not currently supported today. I'd
like to hear some of the use cases that extension developers have in
mind for this kind of scenario: how do you envision the payment
mechanism and licensing working? What kinds of payments are you most
interested in: one-time, subscription based, freemium model, ads-
supported?

We're always looking for ways to improve the Chrome Web Store for our
developers and would be really interested in hearing your feedback on
this.

PLEASE NOTE: this is not an indication that we are actively working on
this feature or have imminent plans to do so. We are just at the stage
of collecting feedback on this issue to see if it makes sense to
proceed.

Thanks!

Joe Marini
Developer Advocate, Google Chrome

[Joe Marini]

Not currently. We're considering various scenarios for monetizing extensions, but haven't made any decisions yet.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-extensions/-/UKweUNe0h14J.

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

I am an author of Tabs Outliner.
My use cases:
I want (actually very soon) to charge one time small payment for some additional "pro" features.
And optionally i want to charge for a subscription, if user will enable sending and storing some data on my services. There will be additional Chrome Application to view the user data on GAE, yet the extension also need to know that it is in “registered mode” to send the data. And initial sale also must be initiated from the extension.

Of course it will be perfect to do this using the Google Wallet or other "native" to Google system - as users will trust this much more.

Unfortunately, my country is not in a list of supported by Google Wallet countries, so i will be unable to do this anyway through Google. Very sad.

The "10 seconds to crack" problem is also very disappointing. Yes, we will never stop the piracy completely, but no "resistance at all" vs "some counteraction" might make all the difference between "dead end" and the "steady development". Actually i am very appreciate some moves that Google do in this regards, like disabling the installations of extensions from third party sites for non developers.

But in comparison to what can really have great effect this is all nuances actually.
Very sad you maybe cannot read on russian, this is the excellent blog post on this topic:
http://maxpastukhov.com/2867
Author is referring to some article that compare  reviews and user satisfaction of the same movies in russian Apple Store and russian Google Play - same movies, same price, same country, same people - russian Apple store - all the positive reviews and thanks; russian Google play - filthy language and “why so high price”, or “i will download this from torrent for free”, along with low stars reviews.
Than author mention own experience: they for 5 years had all the possible Android phones from Archos to Galaxy Note. And bought NOTHING! in Google Play. And for iPad, which they have only for 2 months, they already buy several applications for $40+.
And the reason?
Simple - On the time of registration in the store (or download anything) Apple ask for a credit card number! So all the next purchases is straightforward.

By the way, i see there is mentioned some advises to simplify donations. For all who think that donations is a viable option to support the really serious (or any) work, will show my numbers:
A half a year in the Chrome Web Store, extension really solve really serious problem, 11k VERY satisfied users -> 80$ of donations.

And that's not because I am not ask them busily, or something like this. Next link shows that this is actually typical situation:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sessionbuddy-discuss/gz1N-7mzHaQ/69VpzAwCXk0J
A Session Buddy author (extension with 130k super happy users) mention how much donation they have (250$ per year). Session Buddy extension is actually ask for donations very actively.

So why the extensions authors ask for donations? Just a guess, as this ask often goes before the ask to go in reviews and “rate 5” i think that simple fact that first you ask for a donation (which user not willing to give) actually raise the number of 5 stars reviews.... this is actually well known psychological effect (read the excellent Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). if you want learn more, the example with boy, tickets and chocolate bars, if exactly....). 

Must say that seeing how session buddy ask for donations I was really thought that there is some life in this regards, when I start the development, and I really thought that this will allow to continue it. Yet maybe it's for better, as really the simple sale is much more fairer, if something is really useful and used by many people why only few and the developer, from own pockets, must support it.

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

seems i am posting to a dead thread already : )))
notice it because of updates in digest...

very sad that nothing was done in this regards. Nor seems planed to be done : (

[Joe Marini]

No, it's not a dead issue. All feedback is welcome and always considered.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-extensions/-/TYvNusVS_m8J.

To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/?hl=en.

--
Joe Marini

Developer Advocate / Chrome

joem...@google.com | +Joe Marini | @joemarini

[Łukasz Łoboda]

Well nearly one year passed since you Joe started this topic, and you say that still nothing changed. It's quite disappointing. Google Play is running like a dream, but you have problems to apply nearly same rules and mechanics to WebStore - sounds funny. Am I only person who feel that WebStore is going nowhere? One word. Stagnation. It's not that you (I mean Google) don't have time or resources, its more about your approach as a company - nearly one year ago you started thinking about Selling ext's, one year later you still just think about it. We should assume that you didn't make any decisions or roadmap. To be honest currently its hard to make money on Chrome Extensions, so in effect it's hard to make really good extensions. I've seen a lot of dead, nearly dead extensions or very low quality extensions out there - in general its effect of such decisions. 

Google, Chrome Dev Team, Chrome WebStore Team, Joe or whatever who.. take some actions. Its time. Wake up.

2013/1/8 Joe Marini <joem...@google.com>

[Łukasz Łoboda]

Kim your post is out of topic, if you have review problems please create separate thread. 

2013/1/10 Kim Skorgenes <kimsko...@gmail.com>

I fixed the securety issue, by making some of my source seucre, using this.

http://www.smartgb.com/free_encrypthtml.php 

But that only secures some of my HTML codes, not everything, also the biggest issue, as stated above, is that all the extensions you have installed stays inside a extension folder, on your pc.

And another thing, after i made my newest update, on my extension, it has been going 8 days, and it's still checking, can a store member, check why it's not checked. Name of extension:

The Ultimate Roblox Extension Versjon 1.0.38 (0) Brukertilbakemeldinger

14.12.12

09.01.13

110

Venter på gjennomgang

it's in norwegian, also i have lost 10 users, since it' withdrawn from the store!

please accept or decline the update.

2013/1/8 Joe Marini <joem...@google.com>

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extensions+unsub...@chromium.org.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-extensions/?hl=en.

--
Joe Marini

Developer Advocate / Chrome

joem...@google.com | +Joe Marini | @joemarini

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

To post to this group, send email to chromium-...@chromium.org.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extensions+unsub...@chromium.org.

[Joe Marini]

Hi Lukasz,

We started this topic because we wanted to see if there was strong demand for being able to sell extensions, similar to apps. Now that we are gearing up to release our Packaged Apps platform, we hope to be able to take what we learn there and apply it to extensions. We don't want to just implement something without having some idea of how effective it will be, and we think that our experience with Packaged Apps will be a good proxy for how we are able to help developers monetize their extensions. 

Joe

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

Donations are probably the best bet besides one-time fees, but unless you have a ton of users, I doubt you would see a lot of donations coming through.

some extension with a 150k user base

and 4.8 average rate

generate 250$ of donations in a year.

some other extension with 100k users generate less then 100$ annually.

my own stats are very similar. so i think this is pretty accurate information.

So, be not deluded.

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

And worth to note that this is about extensions with a really rich user interface. Not some fully automatic extension which mostly always sit neatly and do the work and never be able to show themselves (and a donation ask). Like AdBlock for example.

By the way, why don't you use third party services to charge for you work? Chrome Web Store documentation clearly state that this is allowed.

[Alex Cordonnier]

I think I remember that the developer of AdBlock quit his job to focus on AdBlock because of all the donations he was receiving. He got donations through PayPal and used to have a donate button on the options page. My guess is that most users found that donate button because AdBlock's user base has more power users than the average extension, so they are more likely to go to the options page and see the button to donate. Also, his extension is for multiple browsers.

In most cases, the success of a donations button depends on placement. If it's hidden away somewhere, no one will find it, so no one will donate. AdBlock's button was successful because it was placed somewhere that a large percentage of users would visit at some point: the Options page. AdBlock has almost no other UI, which made the Options page the best choice. In contrast, one of my extensions has a very rich, high-traffic UI on the New Tab Page. Adding a Donate button to this page would destroy the flow and continuity of the UI, so it would be a bad idea to put it there. I could put it on the Options page, but unlike Adblock, not many people go there. I could put it in my Page Action, which would probably strike the best balance between generating donations and keeping the flow of the UI. This demonstrates that donations have to be implemented on a case-by-case basis. What works for one extension may not work for another.

While PayPal already provides a solid donations option, I think it would be useful for the Chrome Web Store to include the option to donate when they download, similar to how Firefox does it. Developers could mark their extensions as free, donation requested, or pay-once. The Chrome Web Store listing would include the appropriate buttons for each option. This would provide the greatest visibility to developers and would integrate nicely with the existing Add to Chrome button.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-extensions/-/Nl9OKewSJNkJ.

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

On Monday, February 4, 2013 11:59:59 PM UTC+2, Alex Cordonnier wrote:

I think I remember that the developer of AdBlock quit his job to focus on AdBlock because of all the donations he was receiving. He got donations through PayPal and used to have a donate button on the options page. My guess is that most users found that donate button because AdBlock's user base has more power users than the average extension, so they are more likely to go to the options page and see the button to donate. Also, his extension is for multiple browsers.

First. more than 12 millions is something.

Second, do not delude self 

Do you think they (well, actually a competitor) decide to spent the donations on the office with such a light-box on the floor:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/116243472612414704935/posts/8BrAAxM2x7B

and to hire top notch web developers to pursue other directions?

In most cases, the success of a donations button depends on placement. If it's hidden away somewhere, no one will find it, so no one will donate.

The stats i told you is for an extension with a donate buttons which is in front of the user every time they use the extension.

For most of active users this is daily.

Not only in front, it's flashes, it's actively draw attention. 

But if you want to believe in miracles - it's up to you. Good luck on building the 12 millions user base and to showing them your donate button instead of the another's advertising

 

AdBlock's button was successful because it was placed somewhere that a large percentage of users would visit at some point: the Options page. AdBlock has almost no other UI, which made the Options page the best choice. In contrast, one of my extensions has a very rich, high-traffic UI on the New Tab Page. Adding a Donate button to this page would destroy the flow and continuity of the UI, so it would be a bad idea to put it there. I could put it on the Options page, but unlike Adblock, not many people go there. I could put it in my Page Action, which would probably strike the best balance between generating donations and keeping the flow of the UI. This demonstrates that donations have to be implemented on a case-by-case basis. What works for one extension may not work for another.

 

I recommend you to place the donate button and to try obtain at list some donations, this will tell you a lot.... as by reading all of this i recall myself, and understand you very well....

PS Just try to think about how many donations you might obtain if the number of donators is absolutely obviously will be much lover (on several magnitudes actually) then a number of  5 stars reviewers. Now go count how many 5 star reviews you have.

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

There actually exist other reasons to place the donate button, even if nobody click it. Not only place, but actively promote. And not one reason, but several. 

But i think this is all off topic now - so why don't you simple just not charge users using 2checkout for example, or plimus, or just plain paypal/moneybooker?

Just add some new paid features, set the price, and go on.

(Note that charging for already existed features is a bad idea and can be interpreted by users as false advertising - as they come to you extension by reading the others reviews, who was done them when the reviewed features was free)

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

Speed Dial 2 - example of an extension with Pro mode which cost only 2$.

And they charge using the plain PayPal

On Monday, February 4, 2013 11:59:59 PM UTC+2, Alex Cordonnier wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to chromium-extensions+unsub...@chromium.org.

[Alex Cordonnier]

Look, I'm not saying that donations are the answer to earning money for extensions. I already said that I really want pay-once, and I think that's the real answer. My point is that if implemented correctly, donations can be a viable way to provide some income from an extension. I personally don't prefer to use a donate button, but I'm just pointing out that some developers have used it to varying degrees of success.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-extensions/-/nNx7q6TSqKwJ.

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

Look, I'm not saying that donations are the answer to earning money for extensions. I already said that I really want pay-once, and I think that's the real answer. My point is that if implemented correctly, donations can be a viable way to provide some income from an extension. 

Well, i am perfectly understand this your point and this is why i bothered to comment. 

Because your point is based on illusions and simple wrong. 

Real data shows completely different picture.

Yet not sure about your situation of course.

Maybe for a place where you lives a 10$ per month is 'a viable way to provide some income'. Yet first, for this, of course you need to have an extension with 100k+ users, which be able to shows the donate button on every user interaction - you can count for yourself how many such extensions there.

Saw your extension. With a 560 users in half a year after release, even the pay-once will not make any difference i think. 

But it's you right to be deluded and dream, just want that others will not deceive oneself reading such confident 'points'.

PS Nothing personal. Sorry if I looks harsh. English is not my best so sometimes i cannot select words correctly.

[Vladyslav Volovyk]

Saw your extension. With a 560 users in half a year after release, even the pay-once will not make any difference i think.

 Ah i see you have one more, also around 500 users but released recently, so there is you hope... good luck. You can actually do some research yourself and ask people with similar extensions how many they earn, on donations, or even by selling directly - very often they answer.