Paid for Apps??

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.