iPhone -vs- Android: apps & customer service..?

Nine_Lives

Just wanting to draw this one back in slightly as the question has actually been answered now.

I just want to know one thing - thegoodman ....... your approach to this thread. You're refusing to answer me time & time again. WHAT ARE YOU HOPING TO ACHIEVE HERE???

At least answer that!

Guys_Dad

thegoodman wrote: »

It seem you do not have a car or never done driving. The speeding is not a criminal offence theft is.

Try telling Neil Purves that

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15421284

thegoodman

K_P83 wrote: »

Just wanting to draw this one back in slightly as the question has actually been answered now.

I just want to know one thing - thegoodman ....... your approach to this thread. You're refusing to answer me time & time again. WHAT ARE YOU HOPING TO ACHIEVE HERE???

At least answer that!

To stop theft of apps regardless of what os one is using.
Either buy the app or don't use the app if policy is wrong move on to other brand. Copying is wrong. Not all developer are rich.

Nine_Lives

thegoodman wrote: »

To stop theft of apps regardless of what os one is using.
Either buy the app or don't use the app if policy is wrong move on to other brand. Copying is wrong. Not all developer are rich.

1) Did i say all developers are rich?

2) Take note of this one ... YOU will not stop me doing what i am doing, therefore you are wasting your time. Move on.

If you don't like that, then go ahead & waste more of your time. It wont change anything.

Biglad_3

God that muppet doesn't half spoil most threads that he posts in doesn't he ? One day he will post something helpful and that he is knowledgable about !

DevCoder

The alternative to combatting the installous people is that developers write code to detect unencrypted and/or re-signed code and then perform one or numerous measures ranging from preventing the app to run to reporting "home" with device specific information (which is not a contravention of DPA) to more renegade methods.

The trouble is the more the developer has to protect against the un-encryption or deobfuscation routines the more likely it is that innocent people will get caught in the crossfire.

I allow my code and check it works on jailbroken devices, however I do have quite a few checks (and not just a simple test for the existence of cydia which has legitimate purposes imo (or the check for installous which doesnt)) but also using one time hashes to ensure the code and its signing has not been tampered with.

I support the paying public in the appstore and their rights to refunds if for some reason my app doesn't work and if they email me I cannot help them personally, I support the free community in Cydia. I don't support pirates or people using an excuse of using installous to try apps before buying, because once you have the app then even if the app works to satisfaction then why go to the extra effort of purchasing it through appstore. I track my apps and their download usage in installous and if I take a very rough figure of expecting 50% of installous downloads to go on to buy the app then I'd be happy.

The reality is , it's less than 5%.

I'd rather someone who has issues with my app to communicate with me where I will then do my upmost to resolve. They can then go to Apple to get a refund (as long as they follow due process then this works (in my experience as developer sometimes having to do refunds) 80-90% of the time). I of course then ask Apple why they didn't pick up on this during their checking and approval process.

But don't kid yourself that Android/RIM will be better, the almost militant regime of the approval process that Apple put a developer through removes virtually all the dross. Android/RIM don't have this and whilst they check for any serious security compromise in an app, anything else from HIG to accepted data protection is left to the developer.

DevCoder

Sorry if I sound like an Apple fanboy btw I'm not I'm just a very OCD developer that likes Apples method of app checking/approval. I don't like them for certain other things when developing (certain things like turning Wifi On.Off is not allowed as its protected API and therefore you have to take the user to the settings screen so they turn Wifi on/off from there even if my app is obvious it needs (or doesn't) wifi access.

But on merit, Apple win (£60 per annum developer fee) over RIM (£12 per year) and Android (free) in my experience.

Nine_Lives

krisdorey wrote: »

because once you have the app then even if the app works to satisfaction then why go to the extra effort of purchasing it through appstore.

because i do.

If apple had a reasonable refund policy then i wouldn't even have installous on my phone. It'd still be jailbroken to do the other things that jailbreaking does, but i wouldn't need installous.

The other side of it is that if you download via the iStore, then updates are much easier to manage. Your app may need an update, but it's not available via installous, or that it is, but the download keeps failing. It's just so much easier through the iStore.

Though i am aware that i am in the minority. Most who have installous i'm fully aware will not bother to pay for an app. I have no problems paying - but i do have problems when i'm not entitled to a refund.

DevCoder

I can raise your concerns with the Apple iConnect team if you wish although it sounds like you have experienced poor developer support and as the developer will then not liaise with Apple (and admit that any remediation has not worked and therefore the user is due a refund) that you have come out worse.

Unfortunately the worse thing you can do from a developer (and there are many of us out there) who are willing to stand or fall by our product is to use Installous where we have no idea what changes have been made to un-encrypted and resigned code and therefore will not risk our reputation with it and actively discourage it.

As previously mentioned, jailbreak cydia apps will attract the same developer support (generally) as appstore apps. We just like to be in control of our code and reputation

Cash-Strapped.T32

krisdorey wrote: »

Sorry if I sound like an Apple fanboy btw I'm not I'm just a very OCD developer that likes Apples method of app checking/approval. I don't like them for certain other things when developing (certain things like turning Wifi On.Off is not allowed as its protected API and therefore you have to take the user to the settings screen so they turn Wifi on/off from there even if my app is obvious it needs (or doesn't) wifi access.

But on merit, Apple win (£60 per annum developer fee) over RIM (£12 per year) and Android (free) in my experience.

Not at all, I appreciate hearing from you. All too often users (me included) will harp on about what we want, and what we don't want, and rarely do the devs who actually put this stuff out get a look-in.

I take it from your posts then that Apple are slightly more restrictive in the API calls & various other lower levels of the OS that they'll let devs get their hands on, but at the same time you have a better infrastructure around you provided by Apple in order to put your stuff out in a controlled way, the sort of infrastructure that normally you'd need be part of a small programming company in order to enjoy. (albeit for a small fee)

You know, I can work with that.
Personally I don't like the idea of having to factor into a program I was writing that I'd have to take the user on a magical-mystery tour of various settings screens in order to configure the phone in prep to do whatever my app did, but I can see the logic in it under some circumstances; MS had a similar idea with Vista's endless confirmation dialogues after all - And there is a part of me that likes the idea of forcing the user into taking responsibility for his phone and ensuring that his settings are correctly set.

I personally do keep all my phone's additional functions such as wifi, gps etc.. always turned off unless I'm specifically using them at that moment so it's not such a silly idea, but I'd still find it annoying..