updating free apps - becoming trial apps?

[jzerocsk]

you can coninue to compare stealing tangible objects to copying software, it will still make very little sense.

That's only because you choose to believe the comparison makes no sense. That's actually why in my post I carefully avoided using any analogies beyond the dead-generic term "widget" - nothing to nitpick.

Previously you stated:

If the market will freely allow developers to steal from their users, user will continue to steal from developers regardless of whatever phony, irrelevant laws are in place that act only as a bandaid and not an actual solution to the problems inherrent with this system.

But the truth is, users will continue to steal from developers. Full stop.

However despicable, the "developer sneaking a time-bomb into the update" excuse is just that - an excuse. In fact it's not even a very good excuse because while it certainly justifies retaining a backup copy of the original .apk, it does not justify sneaking a copy of the updated .apk

If I recall correctly, hawtseks actually flat-out said the same thing so his personal beliefs in favor of software piracy being "no big deal" really don't matter right here.

But while we're here, it's important to recognize that the "problems inherent with this system" are people problems, not technical problems. People will always come up with excuses to steal intangibles. You can come up with bigger and more complex anti-piracy measures, they simply result in bigger and more complex circumventions....and they often make trouble for the honest users.

In short...it's a problem that cannot be fixed with technical solutions. Of course fixing the people problem is a no-win situation but still many of us will walk along the beach throwing those starfish back into the surf hoping that maybe just one of them will not wash back ashore.

[ickyfehmleh]

...
However despicable, the "developer sneaking a time-bomb into the update" excuse is just that - an excuse. In fact it's not even a very good excuse because while it certainly justifies retaining a backup copy of the original .apk, it does not justify sneaking a copy of the updated .apk
...

I'd argue that a developer has every right to "sneak" a time-bomb into the update. For instance, my application relies on a backend server that fetches data from roughly four different places, three of which charge me a fee to get the data. If that fee goes up, I'm losing money. If the server fees go up, I lose more money. If I go over my bandwidth allotment because there are more users using the application than I had counted on, I lose even more money. If I find that I cannot continue to provide the service without some sort of additional income, I need to sneak a time-bomb into the app, discontinue the application altogether, or remove the free version from the Market and introduce a commercial version. I cannot rely on users donating money to cover my costs because, as this thread has shown, users cannot be counted on for goodwill; apparently I am slave labor to some.

[jzerocsk]

You have every right (IMO) to End-Of-Life the app, but I think it's important to be up-front about it and not be underhanded and "sneak" it in...Keyword for me is sneak...I believe this thread was precipitated by the idea (don't know if it's actually happened) that there's an update to a free app that ostensibly offers improved functionality in the description but does not mention the fact that in two weeks it's going to self-destruct altogether.

Of course in your situation if the user keeps using the old .apk that's not going to help you...nonetheless I don't think being dishonest to convince your users to download a "poison pill" update is the best course of action. I have no idea what your app is or how you've architected it, but I would say your best bet is to start planning for these contingencies and have a way to cut it off on your end without having to try to convince/force the user to "put down" the app on their end. And of course make it clear somewhere that the app might not always be free.

There's really no good solution for someone in your position...someone's going to be pissed off at you, but I feel like at least you come away with the moral high ground if you don't have to deceive people...for whatever that's worth. Heh...

[f4phantomii]

I'd argue that a developer has every right to "sneak" a time-bomb into the update. For instance, my application relies on a backend server that fetches data from roughly four different places, three of which charge me a fee to get the data. If that fee goes up, I'm losing money. If the server fees go up, I lose more money. If I go over my bandwidth allotment because there are more users using the application than I had counted on, I lose even more money. If I find that I cannot continue to provide the service without some sort of additional income, I need to sneak a time-bomb into the app, discontinue the application altogether, or remove the free version from the Market and introduce a commercial version. I cannot rely on users donating money to cover my costs because, as this thread has shown, users cannot be counted on for goodwill; apparently I am slave labor to some.

In this instance, I'd say you'd be better off just cutting off access to the servers/services and removing the app from the Market. Nobody expects you to provide a free app that continues to cost you money.

Yes, there will be people who are upset they no longer have the service your app provided. But I think as long as the dev is honest and up-front about the reason(s), everyone will understand.

I know I have a *lot* more sympathy for a dev who gets put in a position of not being able to financially sustain support for their own app due to the costs involved. Such situations tend to elicit more offers of assistance from the user community. Usually people will be in a more helpful mood, either offering donations of funding or bandwidth/hardware, or even both. I've seen this happen numerous times on all sorts of projects.

A good example is AndNav2....they've raised a fair amount of cash for a product that doesn't even work in the US yet. They've made it very clear that they (two guys!) are bearing the brunt of the costs of supporting the app with hardware and bandwidth entirely on their own. They've had numerous offers from various users who want to donate server space or bandwidth. In that particular instance they've had to turn such offers down to protect intellectual property and assure continuity of service to the users they *do* have. But my point is the people who are offering to help are "true believers".

However, if time bombs are engineered into the app (either initially or in an update) it tends to make users feel as if they've been cheated or duped, even if the expiration of the app was stated very clearly up front.

I know the difference is subtle....the end result is the same for either situation....the user is left with an app that doesn't work. But one way comes off as solicitation, while the other tends to go over as a plea for voluntary assistance.