View Single Post
Posts: 337 | Thanked: 891 times | Joined on Jul 2012 @ Royaume Uni.
#176
Originally Posted by nodevel View Post
Dual monetizing model

On a related note, one big advantage of systems like SailfishOS is how apps adhere to the design guidelines and make use of the default components. This could be leveraged not only with the 'user stats' and 'cache', but also by monetizing apps.

I am also not a fan of ads, but let's think of it this way: what if there was a switch that would add an ad to a Header {} element of Silica and when releasing it through the store, there would be three business models:
  1. free apps (no ads)
  2. an option between paying or seeing ads
  3. paid apps (no ads)

Let's look closely at the 2nd option - you as a developer release an app for $4. If a customer buys it, you get $3 and $1 goes to the Store owner (the developer of the OS). But if the customer decides to go for free version with ads, you get $3 from Store owner and the Store owner then gets all the revenue from ads in that application. At any point of time, the customer can decide to pay his way out of the ads by paying $4, which would then go to the Store owner.

This model would resolve the problem with buying an app without trying it - customers could try it with ads first and then buy it to get rid of them. There would be no model that would force ads onto the user without having the option to pay for the app instead.
When I talk about monetization, I am talking about the OS itself. Right now Jolla simply cannot monetize apps in any meaningful way because for the most part apps do not exist and secondly, there simply aren't enough SailfishOS installations in place to make developing apps worth while.

I think Jolla are going around licencing in the completely wrong way. It seems like they are trying to get an manufacturer (Intex) to take Sailfish while paying them a royalty on a device sail. This presents so many problems. The problem here is that you're going to get your Sailfish OS - but it's going to be running on a sh1tty device. Secondly, you are completely beholden to a third party to actually make the device and not screw things up. Finally, you're basically going to be deny users a choice in what that might want to spend/use. I much prefer the approach where I can buy a device (China are flooding the market with ultra cheap, high performance devices) and install Sailfish on it. I do not want to spend €530 on a fairphone, but equally I am not interested in buying a landfill Intex device for €100. Would it not be better for Sailfish to release ROM's for 3-4 of the most popular devices, test and certify the ROM's, and then charge a yearly subscription fee to receive OS updates and patches?

As for an ad/services supported version of Sailfish, I really don't understand the hostility. If you want to buy a vanilla version of Sailfish, you would be able to do that in my model. If you want a free version, then you're going to have to pay for it through the bundling of services (whether it's through Google, Microsoft, Amazon) and adverts.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to NokiaFanatic For This Useful Post: