This topic contains 26 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
@Team Black-Cat wrote:
@lostby7 wrote:
…no App unless it does my laundry or washes my dishes is worth over $5.
Because developers shouldn’t be allowed to make a living? This is exactly why 99% of phone apps are absolute crap.
I have to concur with TBC on this one. There could be a lot of great apps out there if people would get over the “free / cheap” syndrome. As a developer I’m appalled at the crap that is popular online. The challenge with the current model is that it’s a one time cost to download the application and then the developer is saddled with upgrades / fixes free of charge. I’d much prefer a base price + usage model. If this were the case it would open options for many more developers to actually make a living developing good apps. The better the app, the more it gets used, the more money they make (i.e. micropayments). Is C:GEO (or any other application) “good enough” that you’d be willing to pay $0.25 / month (choose a $$ amount) to have the developer continue to support it and enhance it?
@codejunkie wrote:
@Team Black-Cat wrote:
@lostby7 wrote:
…no App unless it does my laundry or washes my dishes is worth over $5.
Because developers shouldn’t be allowed to make a living? This is exactly why 99% of phone apps are absolute crap.
I have to concur with TBC on this one. There could be a lot of great apps out there if people would get over the “free / cheap” syndrome. As a developer I’m appalled at the crap that is popular online. The challenge with the current model is that it’s a one time cost to download the application and then the developer is saddled with upgrades / fixes free of charge. I’d much prefer a base price + usage model. If this were the case it would open options for many more developers to actually make a living developing good apps. The better the app, the more it gets used, the more money they make (i.e. micropayments). Is C:GEO (or any other application) “good enough” that you’d be willing to pay $0.25 / month (choose a $$ amount) to have the developer continue to support it and enhance it?
I see and agree with many of your points and if the same held true for my juggling career, there would be no more free displays of aerial madness (darn hacks giving it away) and I would be handsomely paid for my appearance with a small payment for each ball (or ring…I don’t do clubs) thrown. Oh if only the world worked the way we wanted it to.
@lostby7 wrote:
Just like any other job, if there is no money in it move to a job where the pay is better. Just because I can juggle doesn’t mean the world must pay me enough to make a good living at it. The market determines what something is worth. To me a geocaching App is not worth over $5.
You missed the point.
Or maybe not… It’s a chicken/egg thing. The reason there are so many crap apps is because there are a lot of crappy programmers. Everyone uses these crap apps and thinks that this is what apps are supposed to be like. (analogous to geocaches in a way…)
And since all of the crap apps are free, then all apps should be free. So, nobody wants to pay a reasonable amount for a good app.
In my opinion, there isn’t a single phone app available that even comes close to meeting the potential that the platforms (iPhone, Android, etc.) are capable of. Why would anyone spend the $$ on development? So, our smart phones are doomed to be saddled with stupid apps.
Cudos to the new c:geo guys. We’ll see how much their enthusiasm fades over the next few months when they find out how much work they have to do for free.@codejunkie wrote:
@Team Black-Cat wrote:
@lostby7 wrote:
…no App unless it does my laundry or washes my dishes is worth over $5.
Because developers shouldn’t be allowed to make a living? This is exactly why 99% of phone apps are absolute crap.
I have to concur with TBC on this one. There could be a lot of great apps out there if people would get over the “free / cheap” syndrome. As a developer I’m appalled at the crap that is popular online. The challenge with the current model is that it’s a one time cost to download the application and then the developer is saddled with upgrades / fixes free of charge. I’d much prefer a base price + usage model. If this were the case it would open options for many more developers to actually make a living developing good apps. The better the app, the more it gets used, the more money they make (i.e. micropayments). Is C:GEO (or any other application) “good enough” that you’d be willing to pay $0.25 / month (choose a $$ amount) to have the developer continue to support it and enhance it?
now that I have used c:geo for free, I would pay for it if required. Honestly, I have not even tried the gc.com app, so cannot compare them. But I have used C:geo multiple times, and as an adjunct to my Garmin for the occasional FTF hunt it is wonderful.
z
@lostby7 wrote:
@codejunkie wrote:
@Team Black-Cat wrote:
@lostby7 wrote:
…no App unless it does my laundry or washes my dishes is worth over $5.
Because developers shouldn’t be allowed to make a living? This is exactly why 99% of phone apps are absolute crap.
I have to concur with TBC on this one. There could be a lot of great apps out there if people would get over the “free / cheap” syndrome. As a developer I’m appalled at the crap that is popular online. The challenge with the current model is that it’s a one time cost to download the application and then the developer is saddled with upgrades / fixes free of charge. I’d much prefer a base price + usage model. If this were the case it would open options for many more developers to actually make a living developing good apps. The better the app, the more it gets used, the more money they make (i.e. micropayments). Is C:GEO (or any other application) “good enough” that you’d be willing to pay $0.25 / month (choose a $$ amount) to have the developer continue to support it and enhance it?
I see and agree with many of your points and if the same held true for my juggling career, there would be no more free displays of aerial madness (darn hacks giving it away) and I would be handsomely paid for my appearance with a small payment for each ball (or ring…I don’t do clubs) thrown. Oh if only the world worked the way we wanted it to.
With all due respect I think the analogy is slightly flawed. Here are 2 more “real” scenarios:
1) You do a show for free at the WGA Picnic. People like it a lot (because you’re good) and ask you to perform. The problem is they want you to travel all over the state on your dime and perform for free because that’s what you did for the WGA. And there organization is a non-profit also, so that’s the same thing in their eyes.
2) You do a show and get paid for it (a stipend really) at the local library. You’re good and they ask you to come back for repeat performances, but don’t see the need to pay for the service because they’ve already paid once. After all – why would you pay more than once to see the same show?@codejunkie wrote:
@lostby7 wrote:
@codejunkie wrote:
@Team Black-Cat wrote:
@lostby7 wrote:
…no App unless it does my laundry or washes my dishes is worth over $5.
Because developers shouldn’t be allowed to make a living? This is exactly why 99% of phone apps are absolute crap.
I have to concur with TBC on this one. There could be a lot of great apps out there if people would get over the “free / cheap” syndrome. As a developer I’m appalled at the crap that is popular online. The challenge with the current model is that it’s a one time cost to download the application and then the developer is saddled with upgrades / fixes free of charge. I’d much prefer a base price + usage model. If this were the case it would open options for many more developers to actually make a living developing good apps. The better the app, the more it gets used, the more money they make (i.e. micropayments). Is C:GEO (or any other application) “good enough” that you’d be willing to pay $0.25 / month (choose a $$ amount) to have the developer continue to support it and enhance it?
I see and agree with many of your points and if the same held true for my juggling career, there would be no more free displays of aerial madness (darn hacks giving it away) and I would be handsomely paid for my appearance with a small payment for each ball (or ring…I don’t do clubs) thrown. Oh if only the world worked the way we wanted it to.
With all due respect I think the analogy is slightly flawed. Here are 2 more “real” scenarios:
1) You do a show for free at the WGA Picnic. People like it a lot (because you’re good) and ask you to perform. The problem is they want you to travel all over the state on your dime and perform for free because that’s what you did for the WGA. And there organization is a non-profit also, so that’s the same thing in their eyes.
2) You do a show and get paid for it (a stipend really) at the local library. You’re good and they ask you to come back for repeat performances, but don’t see the need to pay for the service because they’ve already paid once. After all – why would you pay more than once to see the same show?LOL…I think I got lost somewhere in there. I do think the chicken/egg statement made earlier is a fair point…people have gotten so used to paying little or none for Apps. To be honest the first App I bought was a game for my Ipod. I paid $4.95 for it….because that is what games cost…and I was willing to pay it. Now I see more and more “free” Apps and expect to pay less to get the same quality. Somewhere in there supply and demand balance out…just not always well enough to make everyone happy.
For what it’s worth – the entry point for iPod related apps is somewhat high. I looked into it and it’s $1000 investment up front just to get into the game. Too rich for my blood, but then again you have the “Moron Game” which is $0.99 and has sold over a million copies (the developer of this was a genius).
And I’m not picking on anyone, just trying to state the opinion from a developer perspective. I truly think many of these so-called-developers are hoping to either get bought out or get a job. I commend their efforts, but freeware has a history of not being sustainable. Just look at most corporate software – it requires licensing and yearly maintenance costs to cover the ongoing support.
Used C:geo tonight for 3 finds and it still works great. For whatever reason, the cache names are not appearing on the list until clicked, and that is an issue that I have seen come and go countless times as Groundspeak mucks up the works for C:geo.
z
@zuma wrote:
as Groundspeak mucks up the works for C:geo.
Who’s the data provider and who’s the data consumer here? 😉
In all honesty, I think Groundspeak could do themselves a lot of favors by encouraging the consumption of their data via a well defined programming interface. This would make their data way more valuable. Look what’s happened with the “marketing” surrounding google maps, what about UPS / FedEx allowing you to check the status of your order from the storefront you bought from in a seamless environment, etc. By providing a “defined” interface, other 3rd party applications would just work and if they didn’t GS could easily blame the 3rd party (i.e. all the other vendor apps are working just fine and our “interface” hasn’t changed).
Opencaching.com has a great start to making the data accessible to everyone through a defined interface. GC.com better take some lessons.
@codejunkie wrote:
@zuma wrote:
as Groundspeak mucks up the works for C:geo.
Who’s the data provider and who’s the data consumer here? 😉
.
Nearly all of the data on Groundspeak is user supplied data, data that cache owners research and submit for free. I have not yet received a check from Groundspeak for any of the data related to the caches that I have placed and uploaded coordinates to their website.
Jeremy Irish should consider Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.”
(And I am only half joking.)
z
The problem with the programming-juggling analogy here is the ability to see what you are getting before you pay for it. Having used c:geo, I would pay for it. But the key is I have used it first.
If you juggle, I can probably get to see what you do before I decide to hire you.
In contrast, there are tons of apps I won’t consider for my iPad because I don’t know if I will like them and if I buy them I am stuck with them. I have only the reviews to go by. Most do not have a “use for free for a while” option.
Regarding quality, yeah there are crappy apps and crappy programmers out there. Same is true in any industry. In my industry there are copywriters who will write for pennies a word because they suck, and they end up leaving the business bemoaning how no one appreciates their talents. But the truth is that if you are good at what you do you can make a good living at it, and I’m not even in a union! 😛
On the Left Side of the Road...Not sure about the Android Market, but in the Apple App store, you can get a refund if the program doesn’t meet expectations.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.