-
Its depends upon the innovation. But it may not take the too much time to implement, but may be the d8 may charge for his an idea.
If you don't have any innovation then give it to be free. To make an rip of an other application is very easy. Because no need to (use your brain) think of it. And there are so many open sources are available in the market, so it is very easy to write the code.
Don't blame any one. Its top most paid application in appworld. That credits goes to an idea maker. Not for the dvlpr. So i.e you don't have an innovative idea, and your application is a rip of an other application . May be your giving as a free.... That's upto you....
Don't waste your time for writing this kind of stupid things.
So wake up with a good innovation (Like 1 touch torch) and your application as a 1million paid downloads.....
02-12-12 12:04 AM - Hey dont worry.
Stupids(like KermEd) are any were. This thread creator does not have any innovation on his applications. Just making an rip of a browser is $1.99. So dont waste time for thinking for thins people(stupids). So Don't worry.
You no need to say sorry to any one. You are spent on time, so you need to earn. So don't worry.
If you like my answer please like.:
02-12-12 12:35 AM - Sure, I'll bite. Why not.
I <edit:thought> the two of you hang around closely, so I'm going to respond to you at the same time here. Really, no offense intended in this response, so I'll try to keep it concise.
First off, I'm sorry, but your post is extremely incoherent so it will be difficult to give a quantified response. You are wrong - all of my apps have free counter parts. I believe you are referring to Secure Browser? Which has a free version available here for everyone - and has for many months with 6 free service packs. As you are picking on peoples contributions - do you actually do anything here? Are you saying your a millionaire? Are you developing at all? If you can please retype your post in clear thought out sentences we can hopefully have an actual discussion based on the contents.
Lets get one thing straight, Secure Browser takes up ~9600 lines of code across 16 .AS files. It has 11 service packs, 160 hours of development and is tested on 3 different operating systems for 140 test cases with a total of 12 beta testers.Its take may be 2hrs to complete and First make it free and talk.....Dont comment on other apps.
It is for sale for $1.99, which has returned about ~1$ per dev hour (dev time versus sales). This is the same price as this Wikipedia app -which the author has stated only had 12 hours of development time. You don't want to compare this to Secure browser my friend - that is a battle you wont win. I've added more features than this Wikipedia app has add downloads. If you bought Secure Browser and hate it so strongly, contact me via the support channel and you can get your refund.
Secure Browser *does* have a free version, which is still being developed for free for the community. In fact the source code for Secure Browser has been shared now 16 times with other developers to create a better app community. Which contributions did you provide to the community that give you a credible argument and make you a reliable expert on the community here? I'm just seeing a lot of nothing. And as far as I can tell, you have had nothing to do with the PlayBook.
<edit:clarity>Not saying all apps require 360hours dev time to be 1.99 - but shared to nullify your repeat statement about Secure Browser being "2 hours of code". Clearly your not a developer.</edit>
Fair enough, I am not targeting you personally and I apologize if my rant seems that way. I know you worked hard on your app but when you compare 12 hours of work with the 160 odd hours I've put into Secure Browser (plus the 200 odd hours I've put into free applications) you have to understand where the frustration came from. <edit:Albiet I believed it was about 25mins>
You have a right to charge for your app, and you have a right to charge what you feel like. I could have worded my posts better. To be honest - if I knew this was yours I would have taken it easier. But given the description & information - this looks like a pretty bad simple QNXWebStageView redirect to any developer in the community.
For clarity, I ran a test yesterday. I'm a slow coder. It took me exactly 12 minutes to create a locked web-app in 30 lines of code, including error trapping for 404 and custom pages. I assumed this was the extent of the app.
It is dangerous with the community in general to charge for a Wikipedia app, although it sounds like your app does a lot more htan appears. The community would react the same as if someone developed and posted someone elses Open Source app - its generally considered a no-no. But as it sounds like you have done a lot behind the surface, I <edit:will> take some time to try it out and make a final determination. In which case I would recant my statements.
<Edited for clarity>
Absolutely, I'm going to install it, test it and give it a fair shot. If I made an error in judgement - I will update both the front post and add a back-post to this to clarify. I am normal and make mistakes a lot and I'm not embarrassed to say I made a brash decision.
Ed.Last edited by KermEd; 02-12-12 at 01:19 AM.
02-12-12 12:57 AM - Thanks manDon't sweat it mate. There are FAR worse apps in app world than yours - loads of hot air in this thread. Keep it up (and updating).
I didn't think App World would accept a Wikipedia app, so it's fairly bare bones at the moment. Once I finish two papers fatty (one on the Mexico-Drug Cartel conflict, and another on free speech and religion in school) and catch up on some reading, I'll be adding a dropdown menu, and some other features rattling around my brain.
Plain and simple: there was no Wikipedia app, and other platforms have them. I wanted to fill that void. If anyone would like to make a cheaper and/or better Wikipedia app, I in no way shape or form would be even slightly opposes to that.
And thanks to KermEd for being understanding about this.02-12-12 01:19 AM
