Paid for Apps??

thegreenknight

Please read my post fully before blowing up at the title.

So I run a company that has built a device that is used specifically for none technical users to be able to scan networks and look for specif traffic exact details are not important. Just know none of this is subscription based, you own what you buy.

So while developing this idea we were looking at many Pine64 products. We decided on the Pinebook Pro for a few reasons.

The device is meant to travel and the Pinebook Pro is a solid laptop.
The software applications can easily be installed on Armbian with a .deb file
As I develop new apps I can sell just the .deb to my pre existing clients.

I am new to UT and I run it on a Pinephone Pro. I really like UT the interface it's great and honestly I think is would be better for my project to be used as the baseline OS (Not super happy with Armbian). Here are some problems I run into though with UT.

I don't think there is a way to sell new applications to customers.
Can't find a tablet that supports UT and has a modem

I think my project could really promote UT to knew levels we are not offically launching the product until Nov2023 so I have time to make changes. I am going to be diving in to UT more to see if I can make things work on there but right now it's a no go. I would love to here feedback.

thegreenknight

Also If I can make UT work for my product I can justify a corporate sponsorship of UT to my partners.

arubislander

@thegreenknight
There currently is no workflow for selling apps on the Open Store. And there won't be any before November 2023.

But I am curious: how were you planning to sell your .deb files? Would not the same procedure also work for .click files (the UT native packaging format)?

Lakotaubp

@thegreenknight As this is not about UT apps or OS directly but a bit of a discussion point I am going to move it to OT.

thegreenknight

@arubislander I don't I haven't created a .click yet. I am in the process of making one though. It depends on how it installs. For the .deb file the client will just go to our website and buy the .deb then just run the program.

kugiigi

@thegreenknight For UT, it'll be similar. Instead of deb, you get click. However, it would be ideal if the app is in the store. So perhaps you can have some kind of an in-app verification. With this, you can also avoid those who sell to just distribute them for free

Keneda

@kugiigi
There is F-call out there on the net wich is sold with IMEI as identification key.
Don't know how it works though.

domubpkm

@Keneda said in Paid for Apps??:

Don't know how it works though.

If you mean functionally speaking, .click works well for me (xenial). no focal port yet i think.

Keneda

@domubpkm said in Paid for Apps??:

If you mean functionally speaking

No I mean how it works "DRM" speaking, using IMEI as a key preventing install on multiple devices.

thegreenknight

@kugiigi That is not a bad idea. Maybe even have a limited version that can be used for free. Hmm now that's an idea.

arubislander

@thegreenknight You should consider, however, that if your app is unconfined (which it sounds like yours might need to be). It can only be uploaded to the Open Store if the source is available to be audited.

So unless the limited version can be run under full confinement, or you are OK with the source being open, you might need to rethink your strategy there.

Keneda

@arubislander
What prevents someone to release an unconfined app outside of the openstore ?

I wish you were right for security reasons, but I doubt that.

arubislander

This post is deleted!

arubislander

@Keneda said in Paid for Apps??:

What prevents someone to release an unconfined app outside of the openstore ?

Nothing at all. But that was not my point.

@thegreenknight said in Paid for Apps??:

Maybe even have a limited version that can be used for free. Hmm now that's an idea.

This is what I was reacting to. OP was considering uploading a free, but limited version of the app to the Open Store. I probably used too many words to say: that would only be possible if it were fully confined. Otherwise if it had to use any special permissions or be unconfined, then it had to be open source.

thegreenknight

@arubislander said in Paid for Apps??:

So unless the limited version can be run under full confinement, or you are OK with the source being open, you might need to rethink your strategy there.

I am okay with the source being open but I am not sure my partners are. I would prefer to have it open source but I have to sell my partners on it.

arubislander

@thegreenknight Just something to consider: If your app would be open source, what's to stop someone from downloading the source, compiling it and distributing it for free?
i.e. Would it make sense to charge for it if it were open source?

thegreenknight

@arubislander You do have a point. I know our customers more than like can't or wouldn't do it but competitors on the other hand might. Thanks I have a lot to consider as I work through this

Lakotaubp

@thegreenknight or develop two versions as I think mentioned before. The free open source version for UT and the OpenStore. Then add to it a process or security feature for commercial purposes. There is normally a way round these things.
Most likely even if you went down the closed route and it was a good product someone would copy itsomehow anyway. That's if similar things are not out there already.

domubpkm

Above all, it is office apps that are lacking for UT and I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable price for high-performance, reliable and maintained office apps.