3 ms·

Android phones look to expand app offerings

7 points by gibsonf1 16y ago

ryandvm 16y ago
> Trip Hawkins, the founder of Electronic Arts Inc., who now runs mobile-gaming company Digital Chocolate. He calls Google's policy of letting people use paid apps for as long as 24 hours and return them for a full refund "senseless and lazy." I think this is interesting. There is a definite divide between game programmers and "utility" programmers on this issue. As a developer of a utility app, I am in favor of the 24 hour policy. It means people will try my app, see that it does what they need and decide to keep it. Of course this only works because it offers ongoing utility. (Shameless plug: http://www.appidio.com/apps/gas-oil-mix/ http://www.appidio.com/apps/gas-oil-mix/) Given the typical quality of mobile apps in general, I know I would personally be much less inclined to buy one without the possibility of a refund. Nobody likes being ripped off. However, games are typically a fleeting distraction. You download a game, play it for a half hour and may very well never use it again. I'm quite sure the 24 hour refund policy hurts game sales. Perhaps what Google needs to do is allow developers to choose whether or not they allow refunds. I do not mind at all if someone returns my app. It obviously wasn't worth their $0.99 - that's my fault. But there are plenty of apps that have a very short anticipated lifespan or single plausible use event. Making them subject to the 24 hour return policy really hurts those product categories.
- ydant 16y ago
  I think a better solution might be more along the lines of system-supported (as in linked to the full app) trial applications that can be upgraded in place, along with the application provider being able to specify if refund is allowed or not. Maybe not shareware style where the license server unlocks the app since that's usually pretty easy to crack open, but two different apps that the system treats the same. It's frustrating trying to find the free vs. paid application and then having to upgrade and potentially lose settings defined in the free one. This was the case when I had an iPhone and is now the case with Android. But an ability for trying an app is essential. On the iPad I find it incredibly frustrating how many apps I am interested in that don't seem to have a trial program. So I'm being asked to spend $6-10 for an application that I have absolutely no clue if it's good or not. At $1 I can justify that, but $10 is a meal and isn't so easily just tossed aside.

7 points by gibsonf1 16y ago

> Trip Hawkins, the founder of Electronic Arts Inc., who now runs mobile-gaming company Digital Chocolate. He calls Google's policy of letting people use paid apps for as long as 24 hours and return them for a full refund "senseless and lazy." I think this is interesting. There is a definite divide between game programmers and "utility" programmers on this issue. As a developer of a utility app, I am in favor of the 24 hour policy. It means people will try my app, see that it does what they need and decide to keep it. Of course this only works because it offers ongoing utility. (Shameless plug: http://www.appidio.com/apps/gas-oil-mix/ http://www.appidio.com/apps/gas-oil-mix/) Given the typical quality of mobile apps in general, I know I would personally be much less inclined to buy one without the possibility of a refund. Nobody likes being ripped off. However, games are typically a fleeting distraction. You download a game, play it for a half hour and may very well never use it again. I'm quite sure the 24 hour refund policy hurts game sales. Perhaps what Google needs to do is allow developers to choose whether or not they allow refunds. I do not mind at all if someone returns my app. It obviously wasn't worth their $0.99 - that's my fault. But there are plenty of apps that have a very short anticipated lifespan or single plausible use event. Making them subject to the 24 hour return policy really hurts those product categories.

ydant 16y ago
I think a better solution might be more along the lines of system-supported (as in linked to the full app) trial applications that can be upgraded in place, along with the application provider being able to specify if refund is allowed or not. Maybe not shareware style where the license server unlocks the app since that's usually pretty easy to crack open, but two different apps that the system treats the same. It's frustrating trying to find the free vs. paid application and then having to upgrade and potentially lose settings defined in the free one. This was the case when I had an iPhone and is now the case with Android. But an ability for trying an app is essential. On the iPad I find it incredibly frustrating how many apps I am interested in that don't seem to have a trial program. So I'm being asked to spend $6-10 for an application that I have absolutely no clue if it's good or not. At $1 I can justify that, but $10 is a meal and isn't so easily just tossed aside.