CHARGING for something in the App store? Isn't this forbidden?

Now this i am very interested to hear what Garmin has to say.
The monetization page from Garmin

http://developer.garmin.com/connect-iq/monetization/

does not explicitly state that one is not allowed to charge for the apps, but am able to build and complement Garmin's hardware with whatever other hardware / software that in-the-end does utilise Garmin's hardware.

We built the Connect IQ platform so that you can use your existing business models to monetize your Connect IQ apps. There are 3 potential paths to monetization. The best part about using your existing business model is that we won’t be adding one more place to share your money.

Neither does anywhere do I see (honestly, I've not been able to locate the Garmin App store's TOS - all I can find is this TOS which does not directly relate to the Garmin App Store - http://www.garmin.com/terms) that donations is OK. (explicitly)

w/o a suitable / better monetization policy for so called indie developers, I fear that the CIQ app store will just remain a scant skeleton of apps.

http://developer.garmin.com/connect-iq/sdk/

The SDK license also does not state about charging for apps.

Hence, I would like to get clarifications. Indie developers can develop good quality CIQ programs, invest time and resources into it and "hopefully" get a donation (which I do not see explicitly that it is acceptable) or being able to charge for it.

I am thinking that we are not able to charge for the apps (directly) from Garmin App store is largely because there is no payment infrastructure built into CIQ App store.

https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?268565-Widget-Note2Watch





Based on what I understand, this is against the Garmin TOS for the store.... Just a newbe that doesn't understand the environment, I guess...

Copying my response from the other thread:

Just to clarify, the app itself is, and will always be, completely free.

The app, however, is complemented by a hosted service which handles sync'ing and storage of notes. This uses a freemium subscription model inline with what's mentioned on the Monetization page[1]. This makes sense: there are all sorts of costs associated with running a service like this: bandwidth, electricity, gear, SSL certs, etc, etc. It makes sense for Garmin to provide a way for more complex services to recoup some of their costs. We can't charge for an app itself, but we can (and of course should be), able to charge for resources consumed so that we can keep the service running.

To emphasize the separateness of the Garmin app from the hosted service, plans are underway to bring additional apps to other kinds of watches (think Pebble, Android Wear, etc). Garmin will be one of the many supported devices. The coolest of course (that's why I bought one!), but we'd like to make sync'ing notes onto wearables as easy as possible for as many people as possible.

But before any of that can happen, the first step is to make the Garmin app as good as it can possibly be. So we're looking forward to people playing around with the free version of the service, collecting some great feedback, and if people like it and want to support the site -- and keep the lights on -- we'd appreciate anyone who'd like to upgrade to the PRO plan.

When I read the TOS I interpreted as such... I could not actively engage the user they should purchase, donate, etc.... I therefor included a donate link, which I viewed as a factual link, but did not add additional suggestion or request, eg please purchase/donate if you find this useful. Borderline? Yup, but I felt the TOS did not specifically forbid it.

I view this as advertising the benefits of the PRO version, which I view as a breach.

It's available in two flavors, a FREE version which is still very useful, and a PRO version ($4.99/year) with all of the bells-and-whistles. I'm hoping to add even more down the road!

I would view the following as factual, and acceptable. If the user decides they want to research the PRO version they may, but there is very little indication they should. I do consider that names like FREE & DELUXE & PRO should be acceptable, despite perhaps indicating comparison.

It's available in two flavors, a FREE version, and a PRO version. I'm hoping to add even more down the road!

In my interpretation, you can talk up the free version all you like, as long as you don't make comparison to another version.

Please show link to the TOS. I Would really like to read it.
Also, clarification from Garmin is best.

Things is "I interpret it as the TOS didn't forbade donations or to ask for donations" is well.. Interpretation. I much prefer simple layman English.

Bottom of CONNECT IQ page, Terms of Use http://www.garmin.com/en-GB/legal/terms-of-use

mainly

[FONT=Helvetica Neue]Rules of Conduct: you agree that you will not submit any User Submission on any Garmin Site that:[/FONT]

• is defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, or an invasion of a right of privacy of another person;
  
• is bigoted, hateful, or racially or otherwise offensive;
  
• is violent, vulgar, obscene, pornographic or otherwise sexually explicit, or otherwise harms or can reasonably be expected to harm any person or entity;
  
• is illegal or encourages or advocates illegal activity or the discussion of illegal activities with the intent to commit them, including a User Submission that is, or represents an attempt to engage in, child pornography, stalking, sexual assault, fraud, trafficking in obscene or stolen material, drug dealing and/or drug abuse, harassment, theft, or conspiracy to commit any criminal activity;
  
• infringes or violates any right of a third party including: (a) copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other proprietary or contractual rights; (b) right of privacy (specifically, you must not distribute another person's personal information of any kind without their express permission) or publicity; or (c) any confidentiality obligation;
  
• is commercial, business-related or advertises or offers to sell any products, services or otherwise (whether or not for profit), or solicits others (including solicitations for contributions or donations);
  
• contains a virus or other harmful component, or otherwise tampers with, impairs or damages the Garmin Sites or any connected network, or otherwise interferes with any person or entity's use or enjoyment of the Garmin Sites;
  
  • (a) does not generally pertain to the designated topic or theme of the relevant Public Forum; (b) violates any specific restrictions applicable to a Public Forum, including its age restrictions and procedures; or (c) is antisocial, disruptive, or destructive, including "flaming," "spamming," "flooding," "trolling," and "griefing" as those terms are commonly understood and used on the Internet; or
    
  • is false or misleading.
    
  
  

So for me it came down to the interpretation of "solicits" & "solicitations"

• is commercial, business-related or advertises or offers to sell any products, services or otherwise (whether or not for profit), or solicits others (including solicitations for contributions or donations);
  

I found no pertinent reference to solicit in a legal dictionary. Other references were entreaty, & petition.

Also, clarification from Garmin is best.

True, but that would only indicate if they would be likely to prosecute. The interpretation is a legal matter, else Garmin would be judge and jury.

I personally think it would be good if the IQ store can attract "serious" developers and powerful apps with a backend server or smartphone app. And of course these developers deserve to get paid. Everyone is free to decide whether or now they want tp pay for a product. I can't see anything wrong with this. In the case of note2watch, the app is free. Users would have to pay a charge for a service. Again, I can't see anything wrong with this.

Attacking the note2watch developer could lead to two "solutions":
1) The app is being removed from the IQ store. Who would profit from this? Why would we want it to disappear?
2) The app AND the underlying backend service are offered for free. Why should the developer spend his/her time for free, and how should developers make for their living?

So, again: I'm more than happy to pay for a good service, and would be unhappy if the IQ ecosystem is left to hobbyists...(like myself).

I am too willing to pay For apps and good service.
What I am unwilling to do is create apps that I am not allowed to get reimbursements back from the efforts I put in.

If all garmin wants is big name developers (like how they shut out 3rd party developers by implementing a USD5000 tag on connect API, then, it's more than likely that a percentage of users will migrate away from Garmin.)

If all garmin wants is big name developers (like how they shut out 3rd party developers by implementing a USD5000 tag on connect API, then, it's more than likely that a percentage of users will migrate away from Garmin.)

No promises, but a suggestion has been be made. Read here

Suggestion 2 is likely going to deaf ears.