asked 2013-12-30 11:45:57 +0200
Paid apps support in the Sailfish.
commented below:
Hi there, we are actively working on something but we don't have anything to announce at this point. I know this is not what you want to hear exactly, but that's the best "some words" I can offer right now... cybette (Apr 9 '15)edit
answered 2015-10-15 23:18:08 +0200
I was quite shocked that a platform that advanced would not support paid apps (I consider this as a very basic part of the system). Without paid apps, we will never see apps like TomTom/Navigon (turn-by-turn navigation), Plex and so on in a native form. We cannot expect companies to give away their software for free.
In my opinion, mobile platform growth is enormously influenced by the available apps. As Jolla wants to concentrate on software and outsource hardware development to effectively push the platform, I clearly see support for paid apps as a high priority thing.
A comment from the devs would be nice. Maybe I will contact support about this issue soon.
answered 2016-04-28 16:27:26 +0200
This is the biggest reason for Jolla not succeeding with SFOS. Developers, private or companies will never develop any apps or games if they can't make any money out of them. I am not talking about Ad's, that's not the same thing. For trial versions software can be crippled with limited functionality or expiration date.
Why doesn't Jolla see this? The only real thing that could bring SFOS into competion is the one that Jolla does nothing about.
And no, like some comment here said, there is nothing that says the apps should be free for the customer with SFOS, only the OS is.
So come on Jolla, save yourselves, bring in paid-apps support now.
answered 2015-11-21 01:40:25 +0200
This post is a wiki. Anyone with karma >75 is welcome to improve it.
(@casanunda: Here. Have an upvote.)
Jolla, if you really desperately need money, why do you still refuse to take it[+]?
[+] Revenue generated by paid app support in Jolla app shop.
answered 2014-11-23 19:16:36 +0200
I would like to add, that if privacy is a design goal for sailfish 2.0 harbour should support FLOSS. This doesn't mean nobody has to work for no money, but might encourage only for donations / bounties. So support for flattr, paypal, bitcoin, ... might be wise to push ports of existing open source applicatopms.
Would be nice for who? Surely not for the best developers out there whom we'd like to see developing for this platform. Tell makers of the world's most wanted applications to come to Sailfish OS and start developing for it in hope for a few donations. Then see them coming.... in your sweet dreams.
P.S. From my long experience, all those who always talk about donations are usually those who don't give them. They grab everything for free and expect others ("richer than them") to donate. That's why applications with tens of thousands of users usually get a few dozen donations.
Don't be a commie, let the market decide. Allow developers make paid apps, donation-based apps, free apps, cheap apps, expensive apps, whatever they want. And then let users vote with their wallets. This was meant to be a FREE (as in "freedom") platform, wasn't it.
Segfault ( 2015-01-06 04:55:14 +0200 )editA donation system would be nice IN ADDITION to a regular payment system, not instead of it. Why do some people want to have (and want others to have) less choice rather than more choice? If your concern is payment security and privacy then demand a secure payment system, and not no payment system at all. It's amazing how some people want this platform to be a GHETTO isolated from the world.
Blackberry 10 has been supporting paid apps since its launch - and that's why TENS OF THOUSANDS of native apps were made for it by now. Both free and paid. And I haven't heard of any security or privacy concerns or issues.
Lastly, I can't see how support for paid apps could force to buy any apps (or submit any private/sensitive data to the store) those who don't want to use it and do not want to buy any apps, and therefore affect their privacy in any way.
my-jolla ( 2015-01-06 15:38:52 +0200 )editanswered 2017-11-16 17:08:25 +0200
I brought up this question again on SailfishOS, open source, collaboration meeting planning held on November 16th 2017, 9:00 UTC.
You can find the log here: http://merproject.org/meetings/mer-meeting/2017/mer-meeting.2017-11-16-09.00.log.html
The topic was discussed from 09:32:25 until 09:49:13.
Jaymzz said: "Alright naytsyrhc I'm gonna go ahead and give you the answer you want: Short answer is yes. But it might not be implemented as you and I are used to. I can't comment much more at the moment because this still has a while on it and quite a way to go. But getting to the app ecosystem is very important for us indeed and we will get to it when it's time."
They said they will blockchain all the suggested ideas and then see what comes out.
answered 2015-04-14 20:16:17 +0200
Jolla is in the market of making operating systems. More specifically (or so they claim) a secure operating system. The only thing i can complain about on their side, is that they are slow. The younited thing got shut down cause f secure sold it to some us company. No point in keeping it and claim to be a secure system , is there? For the payment apps, it is not so easy. Especially without an ecosystem. Consider they had a store. You pay for an app, that you can also download for free as the software is supposed to be free? Do you see the paradox? Not going to happen. I can tell you, n9 sales of my apps got cannibalized by "free" / re-retailed downloads. The solution? To lock things down. But wait a moment. We were talking about FREE software, right? FREE, and NOT apple style. Lesson? A store does not make developers richer. In free / open source, that is. A store in the classic sense, at least. Not in this free/opensource universe.
So whats left; advertisement. Guess what, jolla target audience HATES ads. No chance there either.
The stella oth, was released afaik. If they are to be after the money (and only after that, as you claim) , why dont they sell all other halves online then? So you see, all I can really complain about - and I do - is that they are slow. Be it intentionally or not, who cares? I still thank them for making a phone i can frigging relate to, for gods sake. If you want to mke money, go with iOS, for the few thousands of eur tops that you will make (unless its a killer app, in which case ill take my hat off to you).
The community could come up with a store option. Its all about community here, right? But guess what, the community cant come up with a store option, because noone knows how to and what type of store it should be in order to be profitable as for example iOS store is.
So you see. The problem here is not jolla. The problem is that noone has yet cracked the way of being profitable in the universe of free sw, with ordinary tools at least. Jolla is trying, and I am amazed - amazed, really, and also proud, even tho I have nothing to do with the company, that they seem to manage. It means they are doing something right, whatever it is.
Come on! free is not open, and viceversa. Even Sailfish OS is not completely open... but anyway, you can offer an open platform at a cost. Why not... Are Jolla selling the phone or the tablet or are distributing for free? inconsistency is what happens... they don't understand that you can be open, secure, whatever, and ask for a fee... the job, work, knowledge must be paid... of course! The promise that Jolla told us, has flaws... and it's because of their executives, that could be very good developers, but they don't know what customers want... and customers want solutions... Jolla does not offer any single solution to a smartphone developer, imagine for the end user!
darius ( 2015-04-14 22:07:31 +0200 )editI definitely agree on the necessity for the payment to happen - I albeit am not quite sure on the way this should happen?
tortoisedoc ( 2015-04-14 22:44:37 +0200 )editPS. Sorry, I can feel your frustration in your post and it is echoing with mines about this paid apps empasse :). My sympathy!
tortoisedoc ( 2015-04-15 00:10:21 +0200 )editI'm sorry too. Jolla promised what can't deliver. And does not understand, that they need developers, challenge, and seduce with a platform, were can have a profit, or at least a compensation. Will Jolla agree to give for free the phone and tablet? Or the TOH? Can you tell me how many of the promises they made, came true? Come on! I bet you whatever you want , if the 10% of jolla phone customers uses it as a primary phone? How many use as sailfish os pure? Because if you buy a Jolla to install android apps, that can not even use google services in a easy way... Come on! You then should buy android alternatives with much better hardware and better price... I did not bought a jolla to install android, I bought because once I trusted that an ecosystem will be made, appealing to developers, content creators, blablabla... But... What do we have? I'll give you am example, apple and google did not know nothing about mobile, they started from scratch, in e days when symbian os, was much more open source than sailfish is today, and when symbian had a 90% market share... The problem is execution, and jolla executives are truly amateurs. Maybe they will knpw how to code, but... Nothing else...
darius ( 2015-04-15 14:08:59 +0200 )editanswered 2015-01-05 22:15:46 +0200
I think if there's a possibility to make money with native Jolla apps, then there will be published no more opensource apps.. welcome closedsource, advertising and so on. see what's happening in the ios store. every free app is totaly crap.
There will always be both. But people need to be given the opportunity to make a living. I'd rather take paid apps than no apps. Software development is among the most expensive professions in the world. Good things coming with paid apps will outweigh the bad.
lkraav ( 2015-01-05 22:22:32 +0200 )editI disagree. The situation on the Nokia N9 was quite pleasant, IYAM. Lots of open source apps, either free or using the app store as an easy way to donate. And I have no problem paying for good apps, even if those are closed source. The "entry fee" for the N9 market was a one time fee of €1, with an absolutely free, cross platform SDK. On iOS, a $100/year subscription is required AFAIK, and development on anything but a Mac is constricted and/or will cost extra. So I'm not surprised the situation on iOS is crap, but that doesn't mean it has to be on Jolla.
Fuzzillogic ( 2015-01-06 00:02:06 +0200 )editSo you are hoping to force people to make good apps for free? The current situation with the Jolla store is it is a year old everything is ether crap or non-existent. If you have deluded yourself into thinking the world can survive on open source alone then obliviously nothing nothing we will say will convince you other wise, but this is a prime example of that system not working. People need to have there skills valued. "every free app is totaly crap." that's Jollas problem right now. Also what you say about ios store is pretty rubbish since there are lot of apps that are free and do there basic function very well and look good that only ask for money for add-ons.
CaptFantastic ( 2015-01-06 03:46:55 +0200 )editWhat an unbelievable RUBBISH you're saying, man. Did support for paid apps in the Ovi store for the Nokia N900 in any way affect open source development? No. An overwhelming majority of projects for the N900 were free and open source. Did support for paid apps on the Nokia N9 in any way restrict development of open source projects? No, there were hundreds of them. Does availability of an app store with paid apps on desktop Ubuntu in any way harm the development of open source projects for desktop Linux/Ubuntu? Obviously not. And so on.
iOS has absolutely nothing to do with it and it can't be used as a comparison. It is a closed platform where majority of people do not even know how to (and often can't unless they jailbreak) download and install stuff from outside of the official app store, hence almost no such projects, about which hardly any iOS user cares, anyway. They are simply a completely different kind of user than of the Jolla.
It is amusing to say that once support for paid apps will be enabled all open source developers will suddenly become greedy and hungry for money and will instantly drop all their free projects and start charging money for them. If their goal really was to earn money, they would be simply developing for a different platform, which has been supporting paid apps and allowing to make money on them for years, like e.g. BB10 (or soon Ubuntu, which many developers will eventually switch to if Jolla still doesn't give a flying ** about them).
Sailfish OS needs BOTH free and paid apps, for every user to freely choose. Just like ANY OTHER platform on this planet. Not just freeware, not just donationware, but ALL kinds of them like everywhere else. To have a choice is ALWAYS BETTER than not to have a choice. That you are alergic to paid apps does not mean that everyone else suffers from the same disease. I for one have absolutely no problem with paying for really good paid apps, whose quality is well worth their price, much more than in case of majority of those ever-beta free projects, permanently unfinished and not properly supported.
No one forces you to buy any apps if you don't want to. Keep being satisfied with those pitiful 200-300 native projects available for Sailfish OS after 14 months since its launch. This number will never substantially grow if there is no support for paid apps, as without it there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to attract new developers to this platform. They won't come just to make you happy, they need an incentive.
And even if support for paid apps would mostly attract commercial developers, it does not mean that only paid apps would be made by them. Many developers make both free and paid apps. But even if they were only making paid apps, I can't see how commercial developers could kill free/open source development. Would they use up all oxygen from the air and make open source developers suffocate? Come on, be serious.
An open source project of GOOD quality cannot be killed by a commercial app of NOT BETTER quality. No one will pay for a worse app instead of downloading a better one for free. So if there are open source projects of really decent quality, support for paid apps will have ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on them.
P.S. Look, this is the SEVENTEENTH most voted for topic (out of 9072) on this site. A topic created by Jolla themselves, 13 months ago. A topic which Jolla has NEVER responded to with a single word since they created it in December 2013.
Stunnning.
Segfault ( 2015-01-06 04:18:11 +0200 )editAsked: 2013-12-30 11:45:57 +0200
Seen: 13,236 times
Last updated: Nov 16 '17
I consider it important that pure Sailfish applications can be chargeable. Otherwise there does not arise new ecosystem. Pay compensation produce the quality and the motivation to do more native Sailfish applications.
Tuokki ( 2014-01-02 23:06:39 +0200 )editi hope they do not implement in app purchases!!! i tend to stay away from these applications as i feel being taken hostage for some silly feature!
skrokhmal ( 2014-01-03 22:58:27 +0200 )edit@shrokhmal Hmm, on the contrary I think in-app purchases are even more important than supporting paid apps. I don't generally install apps that want money before I can even try them, but I'd gladly upgrade to become a paying user using an in-app purchase when I enjoy using a certain app.
Thorbjørn ( 2014-01-03 23:27:16 +0200 )editdeveloper releases an upgrade to an application with some little addition and requires to pay for this addition, and then again and then again? he already got my support by me paying for an app, why would i want to pay for updates? just being greedy. we all have our opinions!
skrokhmal ( 2014-01-04 01:03:04 +0200 )edit@skrokhmal you should develop an app or two, put them on a marketplace (any), and then write a blog post about your feelings once you've been to the other side. The market will sort out the so called "overly greedy" in time. No need to get mad at anybody trying to earn a living with a useful app.
lkraav ( 2014-01-04 01:09:08 +0200 )edit