5 ms·

This is extremely smart on googles part. * Why not ads? Everyone is worried that glass will just be a billboard held half an inch from your eye. Most of the jo

This is extremely smart on googles part. * Why not ads? Everyone is worried that glass will just be a billboard held half an inch from your eye. Most of the jokes and AR gone wrong videos are exactly this. No one wants to pay 1500 for a device that shoots ads directly into your eye. * Why make all the software free? First, you get people that are building software for fun rather than as a business. There is a long track record of this producing great software (hobbyist is not a dirty word in the world of software). Second, with a new device people are often unwilling to risk buying new software (or lots of new software) for something that might not pan out. Free is a great way to encourage people to explore and google glass is about exploring the space of AR rather than defining it. Third, it avoids the whole freeium crap that is chocking the android market. I was looking at pushup apps and it took me half an hour to find one that didn't require that I pay, look at ads or sign up with facebook despite there being a large number of "free" apps (free as in expensive). If I could find a version of the google play store in which the software didn't have ads and didn't have an absurd number of "pay 2.99 for the non-crippled version" I would use that store exclusively. App development as get rich quick scheme is not a sustainable software development ecosystem. It sets all the wrong expectations. It may seem counterintuitive but I trust free, ad free software (free as in beer) more than software that has a monetization strategy. Part of it is that software with a business angle tends to be SAAS since they have money for servers to store and compute on my data, whereas free/ad-free software tends to be a local app (it appears that Google glasses is not allowing local apps).

workbench 14y ago
> Why not ads? Because Google will be controlling and profiting off them presumably
- EthanHeilman 14y ago
  No one is paying 1500 USD for a monocle that displays ads directly into their eye. Maybe 100 USD, maybe free. My android phone doesn't display ads outside of the apps, why would glass be any different?
yasth 14y ago
It doesn't avoid freemium it just means that the points/memberships have to be externally purchased. You just can't charge for the app. Anyways I'd be shocked if there weren't quite a few freemium apps. The limitations of the API and the device mean that there will be a lot more work done serverside. That costs money. App development as a paid endeavor is a very sustainable ecosystem. I doubt anyone is going to target a pool of a few thousand potential users and plan on getting rich, but there are bills that have to be paid. Especially in the world of local services one often has to pay for datasets (say a database of ATM locations and the fees they charge for an app that showed you what your options were).
- EthanHeilman 14y ago
  >It doesn't avoid freemium it just means that the points/memberships have to be externally purchased. You just can't charge for the app Yes, this is a good point. I wonder if google would consider this a violation of the ToS since someone could offer an app that does not work at all except if you pay for a membership somewhere else. This would be equivalent as charging for an app but doesn't violate the letter of the law. I imagine google would probably decide on a case by case basis. >App development as a paid endeavor is a very sustainable ecosystem. It is a sustainable ecosystem for companies that have funding and know what they are doing but at the moment there is no doubt that a gold rush is happening is the mobile space. I think this gold rush has helped these platforms significantly, but I don't think developers are thinking rationally about their chances of actually producing a successful business(supply > demand). Once this correction takes place I expect that many app stores will suffer from a lack of new development which will hurt the public's expectations.
  - roc 14y ago
    > "I wonder if google would consider this a violation of the ToS since someone could offer an app that does not work at all except if you pay for a membership somewhere else." Isn't one of their go-to app examples a headline feed from the NYTimes? Don't they still have a pay-wall?
DominikR 14y ago
What exactly is the problem with charging 2.99? You make it sound as if it was unethical to charge money for a product that someone has spent months to develop/advertise.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  It's not unethical, but allowing paid apps can attract people only interested in making money, not making good apps.
  - Poyeyo 14y ago
    In that case, I would wait for Ubuntu glasses. Google has to make money or kill the project. They are not afraid of killing projects. However, I would wait for Ubuntu glasses BECAUSE people can also sell good apps there. You sound like RMS, and that's not rational anymore.
    - EthanHeilman 14y ago
      >You sound like RMS, and that's not rational anymore. I'm arguing for "free as in beer" not "free as in software", not that I am opposed to "free as in software" in fact I'm a big fan, but we are pretty clear of RMS territory at the moment. >Google has to make money or kill the project. They are not afraid of killing projects. Google does not care about the direct value of projects, the thinking that I've heard from Googler's is that if more people use the internet google makes more money. Thus anything that encourages or integrates the internet into peoples lives more is a money maker. Google kills projects when people don't use them, not when they don't generate direct income (think all the years that youtube was in the red). >However, I would wait for Ubuntu glasses BECAUSE people can also sell good apps there. I doubt we will see Ubuntu glasses, Ubuntu isn't in the hardware market. Don't get me wrong, people can sell and do sell good apps on Google Play and at some point I expect they will sell good apps for Google glass, but Google has to be very careful about managing expectations (Google is excellent at expectation management for example gmail being in beta this is just another example) and first experiences if they want the technology to take off. A bad expensive app that lots of people can buy will do serious harm to the project's reputation.
pc86 14y ago
WRT your second point, are you implying that people will be more likely to spend $1500 on Glass because there are not paid applications available for it?
- EthanHeilman 14y ago
  They will spend $1500.00 on glass because there are good applications developed for it that they get out of the box (glass with no apps is useless, glass with good free apps is better value than glass with good for-purchase apps). The $1500.00 should be a package deal which includes software and hardware. * Would people be as likely to buy an ipod if itunes cost an additional $2.99? *What about if you had to buy an OS with your computer even if it was only $29.99? Packaging is a powerful marketing concept. I would expect that google is probably paying some developers to create useful apps.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  > WRT your second point, are you implying that people will be more likely to spend $1500 on Glass because there are not paid applications available for it? They are more likely to buy Glass if the cost of apps for it are already bundled into the costs of paid web services, so that buying glass gets you the benefits glass provides for those web services with no additional hassle.

workbench 14y ago

> Why not ads? Because Google will be controlling and profiting off them presumably

EthanHeilman 14y ago
No one is paying 1500 USD for a monocle that displays ads directly into their eye. Maybe 100 USD, maybe free. My android phone doesn't display ads outside of the apps, why would glass be any different?

yasth 14y ago

It doesn't avoid freemium it just means that the points/memberships have to be externally purchased. You just can't charge for the app. Anyways I'd be shocked if there weren't quite a few freemium apps. The limitations of the API and the device mean that there will be a lot more work done serverside. That costs money. App development as a paid endeavor is a very sustainable ecosystem. I doubt anyone is going to target a pool of a few thousand potential users and plan on getting rich, but there are bills that have to be paid. Especially in the world of local services one often has to pay for datasets (say a database of ATM locations and the fees they charge for an app that showed you what your options were).

EthanHeilman 14y ago
>It doesn't avoid freemium it just means that the points/memberships have to be externally purchased. You just can't charge for the app Yes, this is a good point. I wonder if google would consider this a violation of the ToS since someone could offer an app that does not work at all except if you pay for a membership somewhere else. This would be equivalent as charging for an app but doesn't violate the letter of the law. I imagine google would probably decide on a case by case basis. >App development as a paid endeavor is a very sustainable ecosystem. It is a sustainable ecosystem for companies that have funding and know what they are doing but at the moment there is no doubt that a gold rush is happening is the mobile space. I think this gold rush has helped these platforms significantly, but I don't think developers are thinking rationally about their chances of actually producing a successful business(supply > demand). Once this correction takes place I expect that many app stores will suffer from a lack of new development which will hurt the public's expectations.
- roc 14y ago
  > "I wonder if google would consider this a violation of the ToS since someone could offer an app that does not work at all except if you pay for a membership somewhere else." Isn't one of their go-to app examples a headline feed from the NYTimes? Don't they still have a pay-wall?

DominikR 14y ago

What exactly is the problem with charging 2.99? You make it sound as if it was unethical to charge money for a product that someone has spent months to develop/advertise.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
It's not unethical, but allowing paid apps can attract people only interested in making money, not making good apps.
- Poyeyo 14y ago
  In that case, I would wait for Ubuntu glasses. Google has to make money or kill the project. They are not afraid of killing projects. However, I would wait for Ubuntu glasses BECAUSE people can also sell good apps there. You sound like RMS, and that's not rational anymore.
  - EthanHeilman 14y ago
    >You sound like RMS, and that's not rational anymore. I'm arguing for "free as in beer" not "free as in software", not that I am opposed to "free as in software" in fact I'm a big fan, but we are pretty clear of RMS territory at the moment. >Google has to make money or kill the project. They are not afraid of killing projects. Google does not care about the direct value of projects, the thinking that I've heard from Googler's is that if more people use the internet google makes more money. Thus anything that encourages or integrates the internet into peoples lives more is a money maker. Google kills projects when people don't use them, not when they don't generate direct income (think all the years that youtube was in the red). >However, I would wait for Ubuntu glasses BECAUSE people can also sell good apps there. I doubt we will see Ubuntu glasses, Ubuntu isn't in the hardware market. Don't get me wrong, people can sell and do sell good apps on Google Play and at some point I expect they will sell good apps for Google glass, but Google has to be very careful about managing expectations (Google is excellent at expectation management for example gmail being in beta this is just another example) and first experiences if they want the technology to take off. A bad expensive app that lots of people can buy will do serious harm to the project's reputation.

pc86 14y ago

WRT your second point, are you implying that people will be more likely to spend $1500 on Glass because there are not paid applications available for it?

EthanHeilman 14y ago
They will spend $1500.00 on glass because there are good applications developed for it that they get out of the box (glass with no apps is useless, glass with good free apps is better value than glass with good for-purchase apps). The $1500.00 should be a package deal which includes software and hardware. * Would people be as likely to buy an ipod if itunes cost an additional $2.99? *What about if you had to buy an OS with your computer even if it was only $29.99? Packaging is a powerful marketing concept. I would expect that google is probably paying some developers to create useful apps.
dragonwriter 14y ago
> WRT your second point, are you implying that people will be more likely to spend $1500 on Glass because there are not paid applications available for it? They are more likely to buy Glass if the cost of apps for it are already bundled into the costs of paid web services, so that buying glass gets you the benefits glass provides for those web services with no additional hassle.