Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 124
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Blubble View Post
    Relying on donations from a tiny fraction of users is not an acceptable solution.
    This is so true. My app QST has been downloaded 20k times. I gave it away for free, no ADs. I have only received about $40 in donations. I have spent at least 200hours+ in coding.. this included updates after each OS update.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by crogs571 View Post
    yes, your device. your option to PAY for an app one way or the other. Have the little bar for an add or not supersizing your happy meal for a couple days. Amazing how little respect people have to devs who put in the time and effort to create apps people want to use. It's usually the same people that b*tch and moan when the app has a flaw or two and they expect the dev to fix it yesterday.
    Funny how all of these awesome developers are running their stuff on top of an OS that is only possible because of the much harder work done by the open source community out of love, not money. But I digress.

    Charge for it if you feel you need compensation for your work. If it's good work, you'll make money. Don't whine, however, when users don't let your application run rampant on their devices contacting third party servers that they don't want anything to do with.
    : (){:|:&};:
  3. #23  
    You subtly imply that it's somehow less noble to want to make money from the software we develop. Do you give away your security services away to anyone and everyone "out of love"?

    Despite your hyperbole, an app serving a tiny ad every few minutes is hardly "running rampant". If you don't want an app to serve a few kb of data, then simply don't use it.
  4. #24  
    I installed this to block ads on the web, not realizing it blocked ads in the apps too. I have to tell you, I don't really even pay any attention to them.

    I have never clicked a banner ad in an app before. If they have to get clicked to get paid, you are losing money.

    I agree with the statement before, if your app is good, end-users will pay for it. Along with that you should set an appropriate price point. Sometimes hours does not = price. Good, quality, polished apps deserve high price points, within reason (Example of a poor app= Palm USA | Palm webOS Applications | Mobile apps that go further.). IMO

    Sprint Pre- Meta-Doctor 2.1.0 w/Flash

    Everything is Amazing & Nobody is Happy, "People with their mobile phones, "uh... oh... it won't..."... GIVE IT A SECOND... IT'S GOING TO SPACE!" Louis C.K.
  5. DrSuSE's Avatar
    Posts
    483 Posts
    Global Posts
    560 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by knobbysideup View Post
    Funny how all of these awesome developers are running their stuff on top of an OS that is only possible because of the much harder work done by the open source community out of love, not money. But I digress.

    Charge for it if you feel you need compensation for your work. If it's good work, you'll make money. Don't whine, however, when users don't let your application run rampant on their devices contacting third party servers that they don't want anything to do with.
    Your post is sort of... I don't know, frustrating? Not really the post itself, actually, but what it talks about.

    A message that many in the linux community have tried to get across (for a long long time) is that closed source/proprietary/paid development is ok on linux... and that the thought that linux users will only use something if it is free and/or open source is wrong.

    To me, your post sort of acknowledges that people will buy apps if they are good... but at the same time mocks developers for wanting to profit from their work.

    *shrug*

    Personally speaking, regarding ad blockers... I see validity on both sides of the argument. If I had to take a stance, though, I'd probably say that if you don't want to use an app the way it is meant to be used... don't use it.

    I don't know.
  6. #26  
    didn't now about add blocker I'm gonna download thanks..
    Last edited by gangland; 04/23/2010 at 11:51 AM.
  7. #27  
    Developers deserve to be compensated for their hard work. Especially when their work product is free to the community minus a few annoying ads.
    I agree with this entirely and will further say that if a developer EXPECTS to be compensated, then they should charge for their app. Ads are NOT an acceptable source of expected income for software, you will always have people who circumvent ads, or ignore them entirely.

    Personally I do not like ads that contact a central Ad agency, the privacy concerns are too large to avoid, and so I typically will do everything in my power to block those. I also suggest that if you use software, then you should buy it or contribute back to it (for open-source stuff).
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Blubble View Post
    If you don't want to view ads in a free app, then don't use it or pay for the full version. Otherwise, you are robbing devs of the only way they have to make money for their work. It is basically a form of theft.

    Look at the following. Is it really so bad to have to look at a tiny banner ad for a few seconds?

    Quit being selfish babies and think of the people that bust their ***** to make the apps you use. If devs can't make any money, they won't develop the apps you want, so you're just hurting yourselves.

    I've purchased a lot of apps. Seriously, I'm now having to delete older paid apps to make room for newer ones. I'll pay for an ad free version. If the developer does not offer me that option, I will block the ads myself. If it comes down to that, I'll try and find a donation link for that particular developer.... Give me options so i can give you guys $$$!
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  9. djmcgee's Avatar
    Posts
    626 Posts
    Global Posts
    627 Global Posts
    #29  
    I agree in that an app should generate it's own revenue. Certainly developers have the right to use adds for free apps and if the app is free then we have the right to block the adds.

    I think the better solution is a good quality app that costs an appropriate amount of money and a free "trial" version that expires in a few days or lacks some key functionality. I don't think developers should resort to advertising to support trial versions.
    Dan
  10. #30  
    I don't really care about the admob ads. They're pretty tiny and don't get in the way that much, although I hate when they pop in and out or when they look out of place. Like on Pandora, they are gray and they look really out of place with the blue, plus they pop in and out.

    But most of these apps that I see with ads (I don't have many) connect to the internet regularly in some way (it's actual weird to see that they may be in NaNplayer, but I assume we would be able to buy a version hopefully...), so if you don't have enough data to run the app's ads, you shouldn't have enough to run the app in the first place. The reality is, people are far too cheap to pay or rather, they have that "why should I pay for something I can get for free?" mentality. If you offer them a free option, they'll take it. Take a look at any of the comments for an app like Grooveshark, it's riddled with complaints from people who want it to be "ad-supported" (read: free!) because they don't want to pay $3 a month or $30 a year. It's not like your money is going to a record label instead of an artist, it's going directly to developers to provide incentive to make the apps that the Pre sorely needs, which already aren't getting made because big companies don't feel the Pre has a large enough userbase to justify the real life cost of a developer/programmer who knows what they're doing and can make a good, nice-looking, and efficient app.

    I agree in that an app should generate it's own revenue. Certainly developers have the right to use adds for free apps and if the app is free then we have the right to block the adds.

    THE APP IS NOT FREE, IT IS AD-SUPPORTED.
  11. #31  
    You actually don't have the right to block ads in a free app. You do have the right to simply not use the app. That is the only ethical solution.


    For some of us, selling our apps is not an option at this time due to Palm's App Catalog restrictions. What would you have us do, just give away our work? I don't think so.

    This kind of thing is precisely the reason I have been hesitant to release a homebrew version of my app. As a result, I don't make any money and the user community doesn't get an app they want to use.

    On the other hand, users could simply accept a tiny banner ad that only gets served occasionally. I make a few(very few) bucks and the user community gets a free app that they love. That's the only way the situation works out fairly.

    You can bet that when I publish a free homebrew version, it will have ads and will have ways to disable the app if you block the ads. You of course, always have the option to simply not use it.


    When Palm allows me to release my app, there will certainly be an inexpensive, completely ad-free version, but in the meantime, it will serve a little ad a few times an hour.

    BTW, Let me be very clear in that I would never condone putting ads in a paid app.
    Last edited by Blubble; 04/23/2010 at 12:08 PM.
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Blubble View Post
    BTW, Let me be very clear in that I would never condone putting ads in a paid app.
    Plus one there. I totally agree.
  13. #33  
    BTW, Let me be very clear in that I would never condone putting ads in a paid app.
    Thank you. That is wonderfully appreciated.

    I think one of the problems is that TV and Magazines are overflowing with advertisements these days. So much so, that out of a 1 hour show, approximately 20 minutes (30%!!!) of it is advertising, and yet we STILL pay lots of money each month just for access to this trash. I believe that it is this abuse of advertising that has desensitized people to the possible effectiveness of advertising.

    I know that doesn't translate to software development directly, but most mobile advertising generally doesn't fit into the layout/design/look/feel of many applications and it makes for an unpleasant viewing experience. I will gladly pay for software when it is an option over any advertising. Further, I honestly don't mind advertisements when they are subtle and non-attention grabbing, but when they assault my eyes is when I notice ... and it's not a good notice, it's a frustrated, non-appreciative, non-clicking notice.

    Beyond the visual, I am still against a single big ad agency tracking me. Totally and entirely.
    Last edited by webfellow; 04/23/2010 at 12:47 PM. Reason: grammar fail
  14. tonyb81's Avatar
    Posts
    48 Posts
    Global Posts
    96 Global Posts
    #34  
    To all that appose this patch for blocking ads on apps, how do you feel about it blocking ads on websites?
  15. #35  
    I personally use NoScript on my PCs. I only block sites that might be malicious. Banner ads and the like don't bother me as long as they aren't popovers or have annoying sound effects.

    I also use AdblockPlus, but I only do use to filter out images of themes that bug me. For example, I have a filter for *gaga* so I avoid any images with that ugly freak's name in the filename.

    When I support a site, I will click on their ads from time to time. They provide me with a free service that I value, so I do my very easy part by clicking on their ads. When it comes to a site like PreCentral, I occasionally buy things from their store to help support the site.
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyb81 View Post
    To all that appose this patch for blocking ads on apps, how do you feel about it blocking ads on websites?
    IMO, I think that if it's a site you regularly visit, you should not block their ads. Each time you visit their site, your costing them money. They don't get to pay $10.95/m for hosting and bandwidth for them is not free and unlimited. For some users blocking Ads on a PC is a good safety practice, but I would say that does not generally apply to reputable website.

    Do you block Precentral.net ADs? How do you help them pay their bills?
  17. tonyb81's Avatar
    Posts
    48 Posts
    Global Posts
    96 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by gobanjoboy View Post
    IMO, I think that if it's a site you regularly visit, you should not block their ads. Each time you visit their site, your costing them money. They don't get to pay $10.95/m for hosting and bandwidth for them is not free and unlimited. For some users blocking Ads on a PC is a good safety practice, but I would say that does not generally apply to reputable website.

    Do you block Precentral.net ADs? How do you help them pay their bills?
    So its ok to block ads from other websites you may not frequent. I do not have a single ad block program on my pc or cellphone. The whole "safety practice" line is pure bullcrap. If you are going to websites that seem fishy and have unsafe ads, you shouldn't be there anyway. It's not a good reason to justify removing ads altogether.
  18.    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by tonyb81 View Post
    So its ok to block ads from other websites you may not frequent.
    "not frequent" meaning...casually surfing.. sites one never been to before or hit once every two months or whatever.

    I do think that if a site bombards you with ads and keeps you from getting to the content or tries to trick you, then that is a different matter. Users should not be abused and the other way around applies also.

    Quote Originally Posted by tonyb81 View Post
    I do not have a single ad block program on my pc or cellphone.
    I don't either. I don't even use script blockers.


    Quote Originally Posted by tonyb81 View Post
    The whole "safety practice" line is pure bullcrap.
    It's not bullcrap. There are many Ad Servers out there that serve up bad stuff. As I tell every non techie; nothing on the internet is really free. People download "free apps" containing malware all the time. They see this free apps from ads.

    Quote Originally Posted by tonyb81 View Post
    If you are going to websites that seem fishy and have unsafe ads, you shouldn't be there anyway. It's not a good reason to justify removing ads altogether.
    I agree. Aside from pron websites, anyone surfing warez site is going to steal your apps anyways.
  19. #39  
    Safety Practices are hardly bullcrap. Legitimate sites get hacked all the time. It's not just **** and warez sites that have malicious code.

    The company where I work hosts a lot of sites for clients. Several years back, one of those sites for a major country music artist got hacked thanks to an ***** that no longer works here leaving some things open where he shouldn't have.

    Luckily, I had NoScript on my PC and when I viewed the site, it blocked and alerted me to a bunch of code being served from a .ru domain and I fixed the site and the vulnerability. If I hadn't had NoScript, who knows what kind of malicious code would have downloaded. Unfortunately, a lot of visitors to the site didn't have a script blocker and got infected.
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Blubble View Post
    Safety Practices are hardly bullcrap. Legitimate sites get hacked all the time. It's not just **** and warez sites that have malicious code.
    Good point.
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions