14 Responses

  1. Fastlerner
    Fastlerner at |

    Seems like he’d have been better off leaving his initial app alone and publishing a second free version for just the sale period. Of course, that still leaves the problem of everyone who grabbed the free copy not being associated with the main app. :/

  2. Onan the Barbarian
    Onan the Barbarian at |

    I doubt that this clause applies here. The wording says that you can’t sell your app if you INITIALLY allowed to download it for free. This is not what happened in this case: the product was initially sold, only in a second moment it was distributed for free.

  3. Scot McPherson
    Scot McPherson at |

    That’s not quite what the developers agreement says. What it says in paraphrase is, “You can not retroactively charge someone for your app if they downloaded it when offered for free.” You can however start charging for your app any time you want, you simply cannot decide to charge someone after the fact who already owns it for free.

  4. M.R.
    M.R. at |

    I agree with what Scot McPherson says. I think you are misunderstanding what it says.

    If at any point in time you offered it for free, you cannot expect the user to pay for it at a later stage is what it is saying, I think.

  5. Scot McPherson
    Scot McPherson at |

    Right by offering it for free, and the user “bought” the license to use it, you cannot revoke their license to use it. It would be like Pink Floyd increasing hte prices of their albums and expecting everyone to pay up the difference or lose their right to listen.

  6. David
    David at |

    I think the headline is a bit misleading. If you’re suggesting that people not briefly switch to a free app after having a paid app, then that is one thing. The title as it reads suggests that devs shouldn’t make free apps for a short time period, as in no free apps period… This is highly misleading and suggests that there is a big issue with the current system, which there isn’t. As for the article, I think you should perhaps suggest to people to come up with a set business model before releasing apps. To suggest that this a “bug” is exaggerating the circumstances, especially after your understanding of the Dev Agreement has been rightfully questioned.

  7. David
    David at |

    No that is not what your headline is inferring, which is what I was referencing. “Stay away from making your Android app free for a short time” suggests exactly what I said, stay away from making free apps. As an outsider looking at the headline it is very misleading.

  8. Hooloovoo
    Hooloovoo at |

    It looks to me as though the clause is aimed at prohibiting people from offering apps for “free” through the marketplace and charging them directly, avoiding giving Google its cut. Most online auction sites have similar clauses.

    I don’t get the impression that Google is against you doing what you are trying to do, they just haven’t built the feature in. I would file a feature request on: http://code.google.com/p/android/
    And ask for a specific feature to put things on “sale” for cheap or free for a limited period, before they revert to the normal price. Telling them that there is currently no way to do this without deleting and creating a new project, would likely encourage them to fix it.

  9. oiaohm
    oiaohm at |

    I am sorry but most of us are sick of the bate and switch.

    Bate us in with free version when we have to reget it due to some error then find out we have to pay.

    I perfectly agree with google stand that free and paid have to be independent versions. Also I don’t feel sorry any developer caught out. The issue of not reading licenses lead to open source software being used against license as well. Hopefully anyone caught will learn to read fine print.

    Really the app should not be called free if its temporary its either a trial or a sale not free if its only for a short time.

    Maybe a request for a discounted/on special mode. Yes google would be still in there rights to have different fee system for discounted.

    Note 1 cent sale price does not cause app to fall into free. So yes you can discount but you cannot set free. If you cannot sell a product at 1 cent why do you have it.

  10. oiaohm
    oiaohm at |

    By the way a program that is going to increase from 0.00 back up to a price at a later date. I would see inside google right to charge a fee for each download. Since the application provide is advertising.

    True free is a different matter. No planned profit so google does not charge true free fees.

  11. anonymous
    anonymous at |

    Well, next time he’ll read the agreement. Dumbass

  12. macias
    macias at |

    This agreement does not make any sense — if you read it, and want your app free while having a control, simply charge it for $0.01.

    Such limitations which are easily to avoid, are actual a joke and only shows poor mental state of the author(s) mind.

Comments are closed.