- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 25,489
- Reaction score
- 6,865
Android is practically built on the backs of many backyard developers that many people will never know. Themes, custom keyboards, the very notification bar we see on phones now all started with an idea of custom developers. People forget that the old Motorola droid had this ugly notification bar, bland settings screen, standard app drawer, and was basically vanilla (ugly) Android. But a few people came along and found a way to tweak this and then to turn the bland droid into something that looked and felt better. They would then share that with others by copying what they built and allowing people to install it on their phones in the form of a zip file. That very thing is what drove the excitement of Android at a time when Apple clearly had the better software/hardware combination.
Over the years we have seen both Google and phone manufacturers copy similar ideas while locking people out of the ability to modify the software in the way that brought life into the very nature of Android. Ironically over the years Android has continued to get better to a point where the number of people that root and ROM are diminishing as fast as it has become popular.
I use this example to point out a similar trend that can be seen in other areas. In the tech world we continue to see ideas pop up only to see it either killed off or incorporated into another company's (normally a large company) feature to which that company is credited with creating.
When it come to crowd funding ideas, small and open developments, and the unknown engineer they are what spurn innovations into becoming masterpieces. And in this economy the idea of the next big thing provides some of the motivation to make a change, that in the fact no one else is going to solve their problem. But do we shun these people?
If a developer was to charge a yearly fee for them to maintain their app will we look at that developer any different than we do a company like Netflix and Hulu ego charge a monthly fee?
Are we least likely to look at a device on a crowd funding site than what is offered through a manufacturer?
I answer both of those with yes. The cream rises to the top. If your idea is good enough and the developer truly continue to provide a service then people will gladly support them. Pebble, Rovio, these are examples of the cream rising to the top. At times we may not think of it as fair but it is. If the product you create serves a need and the developer continues to serve the customer then people will keep coming back. If an app developer makes something that is hands down better than what the competition offers and they continue keeping it better than the alternative then people with that need will gladly pay. But for a developer to demand money for a product that is not better than the alternative will leave the developer disappointed.
There are many people with ideas, but those that continue to be able to turn those ideas into motion and continue to develop those ideas may find there ideas successful and able to support them financially to continue developing their ideas. Because people want the idea to continue they are willing to pay to see it continue.
So my question, what would it take for you to continue to pay and recommend others to pay for an app, device, idea?
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Over the years we have seen both Google and phone manufacturers copy similar ideas while locking people out of the ability to modify the software in the way that brought life into the very nature of Android. Ironically over the years Android has continued to get better to a point where the number of people that root and ROM are diminishing as fast as it has become popular.
I use this example to point out a similar trend that can be seen in other areas. In the tech world we continue to see ideas pop up only to see it either killed off or incorporated into another company's (normally a large company) feature to which that company is credited with creating.
When it come to crowd funding ideas, small and open developments, and the unknown engineer they are what spurn innovations into becoming masterpieces. And in this economy the idea of the next big thing provides some of the motivation to make a change, that in the fact no one else is going to solve their problem. But do we shun these people?
If a developer was to charge a yearly fee for them to maintain their app will we look at that developer any different than we do a company like Netflix and Hulu ego charge a monthly fee?
Are we least likely to look at a device on a crowd funding site than what is offered through a manufacturer?
I answer both of those with yes. The cream rises to the top. If your idea is good enough and the developer truly continue to provide a service then people will gladly support them. Pebble, Rovio, these are examples of the cream rising to the top. At times we may not think of it as fair but it is. If the product you create serves a need and the developer continues to serve the customer then people will keep coming back. If an app developer makes something that is hands down better than what the competition offers and they continue keeping it better than the alternative then people with that need will gladly pay. But for a developer to demand money for a product that is not better than the alternative will leave the developer disappointed.
There are many people with ideas, but those that continue to be able to turn those ideas into motion and continue to develop those ideas may find there ideas successful and able to support them financially to continue developing their ideas. Because people want the idea to continue they are willing to pay to see it continue.
So my question, what would it take for you to continue to pay and recommend others to pay for an app, device, idea?
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
