Appstore Security

[GizmoTheGreen]

isnt that the way it will work?

the ability to pay is there for the apps that the authours want pay for. i think?

 

[Trip]

isnt that the way it will work?

the ability to pay is there for the apps that the authours want pay for. i think?

Yeah it is.
People are just getting paranoid thinking that just because you can charge money if you want to, you will.
Truth is that people could always charge money if they wanted to, there's no difference

 

[Nova]

isnt that the way it will work?

the ability to pay is there for the apps that the authours want pay for. i think?

Yeah it is.
People are just getting paranoid thinking that just because you can charge money if you want to, you will.
Truth is that people could always charge money if they wanted to, there's no difference

See: ZodTTD's emulators on the iPhone

 

[Trip]

isnt that the way it will work?

the ability to pay is there for the apps that the authours want pay for. i think?

Yeah it is.
People are just getting paranoid thinking that just because you can charge money if you want to, you will.
Truth is that people could always charge money if they wanted to, there's no difference

See: ZodTTD's emulators on the iPhone

Zod has charged for his emulators for years. He just only charged for the newest versions.
What's the iPhone got to do with it?

 

[juniorm33]

Edit: Would OP take 25% of a donation?
Sounds like a lot to me, especially when it's in their interest to get people to use the store. A dev could easily say, OP charges too much do you believe they take a 25% share! Just paypal me directly if you want to send me anything.

Yes they could, and I don't think anyone would mind. The advantage of the appstore for devs is (in theory) more exposure, and a higher buy/donate rate. In return, they help to cover appstore running costs. Devs can operate outside the appstore if they like, but they'll have to generate their own traffic.

I meant they still put it up on app store but want the money direct haha
I don't know what a fair amount is, but 25% sounds like a big chunk, and almost feels like it's going against the spirit of the Pandora. I know OP team probably needs to cover costs and make some money on the side with it, but that kind of percentage just seems very corporate for want of a better word.
And this is more about the donate ones, the ones who doesn't mind if they get much from it. For the ones who really care about the money they would get more simply due to the convenience factor I mentioned before via the app store's donate.

Maybe a percentage of whatever credit we purchase goes to OP is a better alternative in my eyes, then the dev could even get 100%?

Edit:
I would expect it to be:
No donate - Free
Donate - Free but can give some money if you choose
Cost - Costs to download

 

[WizardStan]

Edit: Piracy always comes up. And I never understand why.
--snip--

I am attempting to reduce the commercial investing party's concern. To them, sales lost to piracy is often an issue, even if they only think so. By giving commercial parties a fair solution (as opposed to DRM-ing their content) you can increase their interest, which is exactly what you want to do. I believe that if the app store takes measures that look friendly in the interest of commercial vendors, it could be more successful there. For instance where you'd normally consider sharing such a game with a friend, you might now be tempted not to, but not prevented.

If you are a commercial party who will be more eager to release if such functionality is present, we might win you in with this. And that's what we like to promote with an app store: commercial backing!

Read post #34

There is no DRM, but it does have the ability to track who leaked anything.

Great! Didn't know they already considered watermarking purchases. I hope my other considerations will be listened to, especially the one about having the vendors control watermarking. Though the implementation I proposed may seem to require somewhat excessive effort for what the vendor would get in return when compared to sales volumes...

The "commercial party" is me and you and anyone else that might choose to write software for the Pandora. We're not talking about EA or anything like that (though some of the larger indy groups are a definite possibility) but small time developers with a great idea looking for some extra incentive to keep working on it. It would be really awesome if a major vendor saw the Pandora as a viable platform, but really it's the little guys that are going to be part of the dev scene.
I don't see any reason why anyone other than the appstore itself should control watermarking, other than perhaps having the ability to turn it off if you really don't want it.

 

[jlepley]

I meant they still put it up on app store but want the money direct haha
I don't know what a fair amount is, but 25% sounds like a big chunk, and almost feels like it's going against the spirit of the Pandora. I know OP team probably needs to cover costs and make some money on the side with it, but that kind of percentage just seems very corporate for want of a better word.

It's quite a bit less than the industry standard. For example, Apple charges 30% for iPhone apps, plus about $100 for a development license. Anyways, the OpenPandora Team is making this happen, they have the right to charge whatever percentage they want for their hosting service.

 

[Nova]

isnt that the way it will work?

the ability to pay is there for the apps that the authours want pay for. i think?

Yeah it is.
People are just getting paranoid thinking that just because you can charge money if you want to, you will.
Truth is that people could always charge money if they wanted to, there's no difference

See: ZodTTD's emulators on the iPhone

Zod has charged for his emulators for years. He just only charged for the newest versions.
What's the iPhone got to do with it?

He only began charging once the Cydia App Store (and thus the option to charge for his program) was there. Back in the days where a user had to manually download his emulators from an archive, there was the option to donate but that was it.

What the iPhone has to do with it is that since ZodTTD had the option to charge, he did.

Just sayin'

 

[juniorm33]

I meant they still put it up on app store but want the money direct haha
I don't know what a fair amount is, but 25% sounds like a big chunk, and almost feels like it's going against the spirit of the Pandora. I know OP team probably needs to cover costs and make some money on the side with it, but that kind of percentage just seems very corporate for want of a better word.

It's quite a bit less than the industry standard. For example, Apple charges 30% for iPhone apps, plus about $100 for a development license. Anyways, the OpenPandora Team is making this happen, they have the right to charge whatever percentage they want for their hosting service.

Exactly why I say seems like it goes against the spirit of the Pandora, open environment, no development cost, blah blah, so yea they could charge what they want, but then that's not the spirit of the Pandora. I'm not saying they shouldn't make money, just how much should come from the people who's trying to support our machine. I think it should come more from us users, than out of their pockets.
Should the dev's essencialy be paying OP, or should we pay OP a small amount to use their service....
May amount to the same thing but it's just a/my view.

 

[darien]

It's quite a bit less than the industry standard. For example, Apple charges 30% for iPhone apps, plus about $100 for a development license. Anyways, the OpenPandora Team is making this happen, they have the right to charge whatever percentage they want for their hosting service.

And that license has to be covered yearly.

 

[Kramy]

The problem I see with the appstore is that I don't see a lot of commercial software appearing anytime soon. The hardware hasn't shipped yet and even when the first batch is over it's only 4000 unit. I believe it will be quite difficult to have some interesting commercial software with less 10'000 units out there.

This could be mitigated by allowing software targeted at different platforms. I saw Pandora and Wiz in mockups - but why not PC, Ubuntu, and OSX? If I'm porting to Pandora I might as well port to Ubuntu too! It brings in a larger customer base as well.

It's not allowed to charge extra for Paypal fees. The main problem I see is VAT. If a homebrewer wants to have a few bucks for his app, but isn't liable to pay VAT, because he is below a certain amount of yearly income, OP would still have to pay VAT and so add that amount to the price. In Germany its 19% VAT right now. It depends on how you structurise that app store. Maybe it's possible to do it like eBay, where OP just offers the platform and charges some fees and the deal is made between the software creator and the users directly. OP would have to pay VAT only for their income through fees. The whole matter is too complex and you _need_ a consultant with in-depth knowledge to find the best solution, imo.

Really?

In Canada we have a law that says that for credit cards, but Paypal is neither a bank nor credit institution. They're an online payment processing company. Should be legal on this side of the pond, so long as you keep it at exactly what they charge.

If the price is $2.50, then you have to charge whatever gives you $2.50 after they take out their fees. (In Canada, $3.10?)

Edit: Would OP take 25% of a donation?
Sounds like a lot to me, especially when it's in their interest to get people to use the store. A dev could easily say, OP charges too much do you believe they take a 25% share! Just paypal me directly if you want to send me anything.

You're likely to lose that much to paypal anyway. Most donations are small.

I'm still hoping for points, which can be moved around overhead-free until redeemed.

Exactly why I say seems like it goes against the spirit of the Pandora, open environment, no development cost, blah blah, so yea they could charge what they want, but then that's not the spirit of the Pandora. I'm not saying they shouldn't make money, just how much should come from the people who's trying to support our machine. I think it should come more from us users, than out of their pockets.
Should the dev's essencialy be paying OP, or should we pay OP a small amount to use their service....
May amount to the same thing but it's just a/my view.

I don't see what the problem is. It costs you nothing to start deving. You can release something, and upload it to their webspace for free. They pay for the bandwidth and all costs, and other people get to play it, enjoy it, and send you money if they like it. They take a % of that to cover the costs for the site.

That 25% is community building. Want to save it? Go spend your $10/mo on hosting your own site. Oh wait, between that and Paypal fees, you didn't save anything.

 

[mali]

Really?

In Canada we have a law that says that for credit cards, but Paypal is neither a bank nor credit institution. They're an online payment processing company. Should be legal on this side of the pond, so long as you keep it at exactly what they charge.

If the price is $2.50, then you have to charge whatever gives you $2.50 after they take out their fees. (In Canada, $3.10?)

It's in Paypal's usage terms you have to agree to when you make an account. You aren't allowed to charge the customer for using Paypal.
I use Paypal for my business, but I don't know the current fees, I have to admit :lol: I think it's around 2% or so right now, so it's really not a major thing.

Edit:

Monatsumsatz mit PayPal  	PayPal-Gebühren für Euro-Zahlungen innerhalb der EU und aus Norwegen, Island und Liechtenstein  	PayPal-Gebühren für alle anderen Zahlungen
bis 5.000 Euro 	1,9% + 0,35 Euro 	3,9% + 0,35 Euro

Ihr Umsatz ist höher? Dann können Sie Gebühren sparen, indem Sie bei PayPal günstigere Konditionen für Händler beantragen:
5.001 - 25.000 Euro 	1,7% + 0,35 Euro 	3,7% + 0,35 Euro
25.001 - 50.000 Euro 	1,5% + 0,35 Euro 	3,5% + 0,35 Euro
> 50.000 Euro 	1,2% + 0,35 Euro 	3,2% + 0,35 Euro

 

[juniorm33]

I don't see what the problem is. It costs you nothing to start deving. You can release something, and upload it to their webspace for free. They pay for the bandwidth and all costs, and other people get to play it, enjoy it, and send you money if they like it. They take a % of that to cover the costs for the site.

That 25% is community building. Want to save it? Go spend your $10/mo on hosting your own site. Oh wait, between that and Paypal fees, you didn't save anything.

I prefer the sound of:
Free to develop,
Free to sell,
You get 100%(80%) of what you charge / is donated to you.

Yes Apple charges more, but how much could someone make from that in comparison to the much smaller Pandora community? Their probably not going to be making bucket loads.

Like I said I'm not against OP making money from it (although it was going to be just a file archive to begin with so they wasn't going to make anything) I just think we should be charged to upload credit, that's all. I guess it's just a philosophical point of view that's all.
Not that OP has said, what, how, if they'll be taking a percentage yet. So I know all this discussion is hypothetical.

 

[xpansive]

Anyone know if updates will be free if you already purchased the application? I hate having to pay extra for new versions of programs.

 

[darien]

Like I said I'm not against OP making money from it (although it was going to be just a file archive to begin with so they wasn't going to make anything) I just think we should be charged to upload credit, that's all. I guess it's just a philosophical point of view that's all.
Not that OP has said, what, how, if they'll be taking a percentage yet. So I know all this discussion is hypothetical.

Well technically with the interest generated from holding lots of people's cash, you're kind of already contributing if you have a balance in the first place. If people were charged a fee to deposit cash into their accounts, considering they only wanted to buy one game, it would change the value of that game since they'd be paying more than the advertised price. That would really just complicate things amongst the customers. It's pretty much like adding the cost on top of the dev's chosen cost, which is criminal in the way that they'd be charging extra for the game and potentially hurting sales for the developer because it's not at the ideal cost. I think keeping the relationship between dev and publisher in this manner is already tried and tested.

 

[WizardStan]

Anyone know if updates will be free if you already purchased the application? I hate having to pay extra for new versions of programs.

I don't see any reason why it won't be like all the other software that's out there: some will offer free upgrades; some will offer discounted upgrades; some will charge full price again regardless of whether you owned a previous version or not. I don't believe any of these three should be enforced, though I would hope that the third option never happens, and the second only for major enhancements, with most upgrades falling into the first. Let the developer do whatever they want.

 

[lulzfish]

You ask about passwords and get 6 pages of DRM and whether payment should even be an option. (Well, maybe, I only skimmed this long, long, long, LONGTHREAD IS LOOOONG thread)

I think it's a good idea, it reminds me of sudo. Make it an option, though. Make everything an option.

 

[drunkaus]

Having to enter your password at the final checkout is a good idea but that only protects you from someone else buying something with your account, but what protects your account itself?

I would like to see something like what Valve do with Steam, having to verify your email with your account so anytime you want to change your email or password, it sends a security code to your email address which you have to enter before you can change any details as to be honest, getting someones password is easy enough in todays world, this way the only thing that could screw you is if you use the same password for everything.

Preventing my account from being stolen is more important to me than stopping someone from buying something with my account.

 

[polyroy]

After purchase, they present this fine print:

If you ordered the game within EU, the price included VAT tax of Finland (22%)

I don't know anything about EU law or why they've used Finland (I assume it's the highest?). Thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

It must be because they are located in Finland. If you buy from Europe when you're in Europe, you pay the tax to the country you're buying from.

 

[Jourdy288]

"Have to log in to buy something", wt* is that, why should anyone have an account to buy something?

See here.