5 ms·

I'm fine with this. Instead of a gold-rush, maybe people will only build things of value since they won't be motivated only by a pot of gold. Anyone remember h

by tibbon 14y ago

I'm fine with this. Instead of a gold-rush, maybe people will only build things of value since they won't be motivated only by a pot of gold. Anyone remember how bad many of the first iOS games were, because companies were clearly just shoveling together stuff in hopes of making bucketloads of cash? Actually, this is still what most iOS games are... I personally still want to make software for it. At no point in my mind was I thinking about ads I could display or the money I could make. I just want to make software that assists me while I'm motorcycling. Looking to integrate that with an enhanced datalogger I'm building for my bikes that will just relay information via the REST api.

samstave 14y ago
I came to post the same sentiment. His approach will hopefully force developers to focus on useful utility rather than trivial novelty with the goal of extracting money from the first waves of users. This should be upheld for two generations of the product. Figure out where glass can augment rather than distract and make those augmentation offerings so compelling that people will want to adopt glass.
- dualogy 14y ago
  > His approach will hopefully force developers to focus on useful utility rather than trivial novelty with the goal of extracting money from the first waves of users. Rephrased: "this approach forcefully prevents developers from making what people (sadly but quite apparently seem to) want". Aren't we here all about "making something people want" -- even if it turns out that the majority of people just end up "wanting" Angry Birds?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - samstave 14y ago
    Why not try and see what you can develop within the boundaries of the constraints first. If you can't make anything useful within the constraints other than an attempt to copy angry birds or as a vector for ad displays, maybe your ideas just aren't that good.
    - cinquemb 14y ago
      I think they were getting at that "what(most) people want" is usually on the low end of the spectrum… in the same league of honey boo boo and reality tv, which aren't very useful if you ask me… Also I don't really see this as a short coming if the glassess have access to the internet where a user wants to spend money on something. Sure its a website, but most apps anyways require the use of the internet (at least the data driven ones).
      - samstave 14y ago
        Maybe people who would develop on glass should attempt to build within these initial constraints first, then complain. Both glass and FB home are first iteration products, by their Nth generations they will be likely be much different than they are now.
        tibbon 14y ago
        I think the constraints are great and make sense, given the philosophy of Glass that it should stay out of the way, and just be there when you want it. Everything about it should enhance your life, not get in the way. Simplicity is the key here. This isn't a desktop computer, or a smart phone. :)
        cinquemb 14y ago
        The difference being FB home is software (which FB is clearly trying to monetize on), and glass is hardware that google profits from its sale and cba about 3-party devs livelihoods. I don't think people won't develop for glass, I just think that start ups and the like probably won't come out in full force because the lack of business incentives. TBH, I feel like trying to build anything on glass now (that isn't a hobby for devs) is pretty much a phishing expedition for google to pick up in an acquisition at this point.
        samstave 14y ago
        Great point. They will likely be looking to acquire small teams quickly and cheaply.
- kybernetyk 14y ago
  > His approach will hopefully force developers to focus on useful utility rather than trivial novelty with the goal of extracting money from the first waves of users. Please explain to me how "you are not allowed to make money" will force me to create anything of real value to the end user? In the best case you would end up with software that is the state of the linux desktop.
  - nmcfarl 14y ago
    And that's a really optimistic best case scenario. When developing Linux software you feel like you're giving something back to the community - here you are just working for Google for free.
dualogy 14y ago
That's all fine and dandy until Apple's iGoggles come along, generously allowing you to deploy commercial apps (perhaps for an initial "outrageous" profit-sharing of 50/50?) and bam, these iGoggles within a few months offer zillions of uses to the consumer at a similar price-point as Google's say "only" 100s of uses. Right now, from the current state of our knowledge, Glass initially seems to cost upwards of a good laptop, with a severely limited-in-capabilities developer API and no way to charge for potentially highly valuable apps. If the above parameters don't change, Glass may well be the first in this new market but maybe not the one to blow up a completely new mass consumer gadget market from scratch, like the iPhone did..
- GhotiFish 14y ago
  Yah but actually choosing to USE apples iGoggles instead of a platform where you're not constantly baited and taunted by disingenuous assholes trying to exploit you for a buck, is frankly, insane. This was the best move Google could of possibly made, I assumed Google glass was just gonna be another orgy of bait and switches like everything else right now in smartphones and tablets and the hilariously useless walled gardens people find themselves in. This actually has a chance of being a useful tool now. A useful tool! Take money out and the only thing left is pragmatism. I am very happy.
  - EthanHeilman 14y ago
    They should add this as an option for the Google Play store, Free-NotFreeium.
    - derekp7 14y ago
      The F-Droid app is about as close as your probably going to get to this. Everything in there is Free (as in OSI / RMS free), no ads, etc.
      - chimeracoder 14y ago
        > Everything in there is Free (as in OSI / RMS free), no ads, etc. I should point out that you're conflating free (as in freedom) with free-as-in-beer (ie, gratis). Free (as in freedom) software absolutely may have ads, or charge for the software. F-Droid may be 'all of the above' (free as in freedom, no ads, no charge), but that's not necessarily implied by "Free (as in OSI/RMS free).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- kybernetyk 14y ago
  > whereas when iOS launched most of the developers hadn't even tried their apps out on physical devices (since they weren't available). The SDK launched one year after the first iPhone (and iPod touch) hit the stores.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
arrrg 14y ago
Allowing people to not charge for apps is preposterous. People who invested their time into making staff deserve to be able to charge for it. It’s awesome when people give something away for free but it’s also awesome when they dare to charge money for mobile software. I really don’t understand this attitude of yours and others here that view charging money for apps as something negative. That’s just so absurd and counterproductive to me. We should, whenever we can, encourage people to charge for their apps what they deserve to be paid or else we will be buried under a mountain of freemium crap (and ads).

by tibbon 14y ago

samstave 14y ago

I came to post the same sentiment. His approach will hopefully force developers to focus on useful utility rather than trivial novelty with the goal of extracting money from the first waves of users. This should be upheld for two generations of the product. Figure out where glass can augment rather than distract and make those augmentation offerings so compelling that people will want to adopt glass.

dualogy 14y ago
> His approach will hopefully force developers to focus on useful utility rather than trivial novelty with the goal of extracting money from the first waves of users. Rephrased: "this approach forcefully prevents developers from making what people (sadly but quite apparently seem to) want". Aren't we here all about "making something people want" -- even if it turns out that the majority of people just end up "wanting" Angry Birds?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- samstave 14y ago
  Why not try and see what you can develop within the boundaries of the constraints first. If you can't make anything useful within the constraints other than an attempt to copy angry birds or as a vector for ad displays, maybe your ideas just aren't that good.
  - cinquemb 14y ago
    I think they were getting at that "what(most) people want" is usually on the low end of the spectrum… in the same league of honey boo boo and reality tv, which aren't very useful if you ask me… Also I don't really see this as a short coming if the glassess have access to the internet where a user wants to spend money on something. Sure its a website, but most apps anyways require the use of the internet (at least the data driven ones).
    - samstave 14y ago
      Maybe people who would develop on glass should attempt to build within these initial constraints first, then complain. Both glass and FB home are first iteration products, by their Nth generations they will be likely be much different than they are now.
      - tibbon 14y ago
        I think the constraints are great and make sense, given the philosophy of Glass that it should stay out of the way, and just be there when you want it. Everything about it should enhance your life, not get in the way. Simplicity is the key here. This isn't a desktop computer, or a smart phone. :)
      - cinquemb 14y ago
        The difference being FB home is software (which FB is clearly trying to monetize on), and glass is hardware that google profits from its sale and cba about 3-party devs livelihoods. I don't think people won't develop for glass, I just think that start ups and the like probably won't come out in full force because the lack of business incentives. TBH, I feel like trying to build anything on glass now (that isn't a hobby for devs) is pretty much a phishing expedition for google to pick up in an acquisition at this point.
        samstave 14y ago
        Great point. They will likely be looking to acquire small teams quickly and cheaply.
kybernetyk 14y ago
> His approach will hopefully force developers to focus on useful utility rather than trivial novelty with the goal of extracting money from the first waves of users. Please explain to me how "you are not allowed to make money" will force me to create anything of real value to the end user? In the best case you would end up with software that is the state of the linux desktop.
- nmcfarl 14y ago
  And that's a really optimistic best case scenario. When developing Linux software you feel like you're giving something back to the community - here you are just working for Google for free.

dualogy 14y ago

That's all fine and dandy until Apple's iGoggles come along, generously allowing you to deploy commercial apps (perhaps for an initial "outrageous" profit-sharing of 50/50?) and bam, these iGoggles within a few months offer zillions of uses to the consumer at a similar price-point as Google's say "only" 100s of uses. Right now, from the current state of our knowledge, Glass initially seems to cost upwards of a good laptop, with a severely limited-in-capabilities developer API and no way to charge for potentially highly valuable apps. If the above parameters don't change, Glass may well be the first in this new market but maybe not the one to blow up a completely new mass consumer gadget market from scratch, like the iPhone did..

GhotiFish 14y ago
Yah but actually choosing to USE apples iGoggles instead of a platform where you're not constantly baited and taunted by disingenuous assholes trying to exploit you for a buck, is frankly, insane. This was the best move Google could of possibly made, I assumed Google glass was just gonna be another orgy of bait and switches like everything else right now in smartphones and tablets and the hilariously useless walled gardens people find themselves in. This actually has a chance of being a useful tool now. A useful tool! Take money out and the only thing left is pragmatism. I am very happy.
- EthanHeilman 14y ago
  They should add this as an option for the Google Play store, Free-NotFreeium.
  - derekp7 14y ago
    The F-Droid app is about as close as your probably going to get to this. Everything in there is Free (as in OSI / RMS free), no ads, etc.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      > Everything in there is Free (as in OSI / RMS free), no ads, etc. I should point out that you're conflating free (as in freedom) with free-as-in-beer (ie, gratis). Free (as in freedom) software absolutely may have ads, or charge for the software. F-Droid may be 'all of the above' (free as in freedom, no ads, no charge), but that's not necessarily implied by "Free (as in OSI/RMS free).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

kybernetyk 14y ago
> whereas when iOS launched most of the developers hadn't even tried their apps out on physical devices (since they weren't available). The SDK launched one year after the first iPhone (and iPod touch) hit the stores.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

arrrg 14y ago

Allowing people to not charge for apps is preposterous. People who invested their time into making staff deserve to be able to charge for it. It’s awesome when people give something away for free but it’s also awesome when they dare to charge money for mobile software. I really don’t understand this attitude of yours and others here that view charging money for apps as something negative. That’s just so absurd and counterproductive to me. We should, whenever we can, encourage people to charge for their apps what they deserve to be paid or else we will be buried under a mountain of freemium crap (and ads).