More free publicity for Twitter, great.
Get your own #dickbar
41–50 of 65 posts
Re: Get your own #dickbar
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, that isn't possible in the AppStore, afaik. You can sell to everyone, or give away for free, but not to a limited group (beyond the 100 promo codes thing.)
The app is free for everyone, but previous Tweetie owners could have their ads disabled.
The Tweetie app "upgraded" to Twitter for iPhone; they're treated as the same app by the App Store. I don't think it's possible to tell apart upgraders from new users. (I paid for Tweetie)
Re: Get your own #dickbar
#43Twitter's new business model may well be subscriptions to turn off #dickbar.
It seems that no one is interested in the model where subscribers pay for no ads. Look at Hulu. You can buy Hulu Plus and... still get ads. If Hulu Plus was ad free I would sign up immediately. So why is that? There are several potential reasons: 1. Those providing such services like advertising or, rather, they like the relationships they have with advertisers. Consider [1] (second time quoted this today!): > Since…
Spotify . You have a free plan with ads, one without ads, and the premium plan with mobile access and offline play.
Re: Get your own #dickbar
#44it's as if the founding product driving force at Twitter have left.
Most of them are gone.
Re: Get your own #dickbar
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
The app is free for everyone, but previous Tweetie owners could have their ads disabled.
The Tweetie app "upgraded" to Twitter for iPhone; they're treated as the same app by the App Store. I don't think it's possible to tell apart upgraders from new users. (I paid for Tweetie)
I'm sure they have a list of email addresses that have paid for Tweetie (or the ability to acquire it). Given this, it seems possible that they could do something to disable it in the app.
Re: Get your own #dickbar
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
The app is free for everyone, but previous Tweetie owners could have their ads disabled.
The Tweetie app "upgraded" to Twitter for iPhone; they're treated as the same app by the App Store. I don't think it's possible to tell apart upgraders from new users. (I paid for Tweetie)
It could be, all they needed to do was record the first time the user ran the app. That would get most people.
Re: Get your own #dickbar
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Angry Birds is a great example. I would gladly pay the piddly .99c they ask on iOS, if given the choice! The iOS version is paid only and ad free, while the Android version is free only, with intrusive ads.
Which are easy to bypass btw - just turn off data connection while you play it.
from my experience you can only play 1 level before it requires you to be connected to a network
Re: Get your own #dickbar
#48Twitter's new business model may well be subscriptions to turn off #dickbar.
It seems that no one is interested in the model where subscribers pay for no ads. Look at Hulu. You can buy Hulu Plus and... still get ads. If Hulu Plus was ad free I would sign up immediately. So why is that? There are several potential reasons: 1. Those providing such services like advertising or, rather, they like the relationships they have with advertisers. Consider [1] (second time quoted this today!): > Since…
If broadcasters offered an ad-free option, presumably their best audience (from advertisers' view) would choose this. This would make the ad audience much less lucrative for the broadcasters.
Re: Get your own #dickbar
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android sounds like a great experience.
What does this have to do with Android? The issue is the application.
The issue is the market. From what I've seen and read, Android owners are less likely to pay for apps, so devs have to resort to advertising to get their revenues.
Re: Get your own #dickbar
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this have to do with Android? The issue is the application.
The issue is the market. From what I've seen and read, Android owners are less likely to pay for apps, so devs have to resort to advertising to get their revenues.
That's the perception, and I presume that's why Rovio is taking this tactic. Is it true, though, for them? My impression is that they're testing the advertising method. If anyone could sell a ton of Android apps, they could.
Pretty much any Android phone owner interesting in downloading Angry Birds would be willing to pay .99c for it. It's a shame they won't treat Android like iOS in this respect - a must-have app is exactly what the Android Market needs. Get people into the Market with a serious intent to obtain a specific app, and they'll set up their account and payment method, paving the way for future purchases.
Rovio could be priming the marketplace in general and giving it a big boost. Instead, they're giving Android users a 2nd rate user experience, as well as contributing to the perception that you can't sell apps on Android.