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

If this is not possible, is there a reason why?

When Apple built the app store they already had experience with iTunes with having a cloud based store that handled billing and royalties, so selling apps was a logical next step. Google had years of being an web advertising company that could be used to help create the Android Store. Amazon - well, Amazon. Garmin is pretty new to being a platform company, and I mean just-started-in-January new at it, so a monetization platform is a big step for us.

CIQ has been more successful than anyone's expectations, including my own, and this means we're having meetings about "next steps" like the cool kids. Among those are conversations about what our incentivation and monetization roadmap will be. In my opinion there is a critical mass point where monetization is inevitable, and I only hope we will have a monetization platform ready when that time comes. In between then and now we hope to add new CIQ features to make it easier to tie into other monetization mechanisms, as well as find new ways to incentivize our developers.

Hello,

I would like to refresh this subject a bit. Does anybody know when Garmin will offer pay per download service for our apps? It would be great if we could monetize this way, because some apps like watch faces are really inconvenient for in-app integration.

Thanks.

Hello,
I would like to refresh this subject a bit. Does anybody know when Garmin will offer pay per download service for our apps?
Thanks.

I kind of doubt Garmin will ever provide what you suggest. I don't think Garmin wants to get involved with any kind of "pay for a download" thing....

Since this thread started, I see a few variations on monetizing in the store that fit the Garmin rules:

• Don't charge in any way (this is where I am right now)
  
• Have a "if you like it, buy me a beer" paypal link in the app store (I may move some things to this model, as testing does make me thirsty! :) )
  
• Offer a "pro" version of something, where the money side is conducted outside of Garmin, and unlocks features for folks that pay (maybe a "magic key" used to unlock the app?)
  
• Use a website that allows a subscription with advanced features if you pay
  
• Use your app to sell a specific piece of HW that the app uses (a sensor, for example)
  

Let's say you do a watchface and could charge $1US to download/install it. First of all, no one would download it when there are tons of free ones people would try first. And if someone thinks it's a neat idea, they might just develop their own "clone" of it, put it in the store and give it away for free for people that don't want to spend the $1.

I kind of doubt Garmin will ever provide what you suggest. I don't think Garmin wants to get involved with any kind of "pay for a download" thing....

Since this thread started, I see a few variations on monetizing in the store that fit the Garmin rules:

• Don't charge in any way (this is where I am right now)
  
• Have a "if you like it, buy me a beer" paypal link in the app store (I may move some things to this model, as testing does make me thirsty! :) )
  
• Offer a "pro" version of something, where the money side is conducted outside of Garmin, and unlocks features for folks that pay (maybe a "magic key" used to unlock the app?)
  
• Use a website that allows a subscription with advanced features if you pay
  
• Use your app to sell a specific piece of HW that the app uses (a sensor, for example)
  

Let's say you do a watchface and could charge $1US to download/install it. First of all, no one would download it when there are tons of free ones people would try first. And if someone thinks it's a neat idea, they might just develop their own "clone" of it, put it in the store and give it away for free for people that don't want to spend the $1.

Hi Jim,

Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation. I have a wider image of monetizing in Garmin store now.

Just a bit of feedback before I leave

I just wanted to leave a bit of feedback for Garmin in hopes it might help other developers in the future. I'm a software developer that has a Garmin Edge device. I wanted to have a look at the SDK in hopes of building an app to make a bit of money and maybe solve a problem. I started about a week ago and decided to build a simple proof of concept app first so that I could see what the SDK is all about and determine if it would be worth it for me to build a more "full featured" or useful app. Here's my thoughts:

1. The fact that there is no built in way to charge for apps is a buzzkill. I don't want to work for free and I think a lot of experienced software developers are in my camp. Until there is a way to charge for apps, I think you'll continue to see only a few big companies building apps and a few very simple apps that don't do much. Looking through the app store now, pretty much confirms this (I include my POC in this group).

2. The SDK is pretty frustrating to use. It's buggy, debugging is clunky, some stuff can only be debugged after uploading, the docs are limited, etc... Because the pain threshold is pretty high for a new developer, I think it's even more important that a developer feels like he/she will be able to be paid for their pain and suffering.

I wanted to keep this focused on payment so it's related to this thread, so I'll forgo my other thoughts.

Rob

"I think a lot of experienced software developers are in my camp."

As the guy that started this thread almost 16 months ago, and as someone that started professionally developing SW in 1980 (devices drivers), I'm not in your camp!

I do this because I enjoy doing it and don't expect to make a dime. I know others that have a paypal link for a "buy me a beer if you like this app" in the app store, and I may do that (I like beer!)

For me, I'll think of something I could use, work on it until I'm happy, and sometimes publish it for other folks that might find it useful.

Maybe not for the Edge devices, but if you look at the things available for the various watches, there are a number of really neat things done by us 3rd party folks for them. And they are free (or "buy me a beer" :) )

Debugging can be a pain - I agree, but with time you learn some techniques (and also know how do to many things where you don't do as much debugging!)

Unique device UNIT ID

We already have something planned that will allow apps to get a device's Unit ID, which is a unique ID. I expect to see this available later this year.

Just wondering if there's been any movement on giving developers a way to read a unique device Unit ID (since it's now already "next year". :-) Or have I just missed it?

As the guy that started this thread almost 16 months ago, and as someone that started professionally developing SW in 1980 (devices drivers), I'm not in your camp!

Jim,

There's probably more awesome devs like yourself than I know or give credit to. You've been very helpful from the very first time I posted in in these forums. I appreciate all your help and I'm really in awe at how much you help around here. I get what you're saying. I'm a tinkerer myself. That's what got me into computer science in the first place. At the end of the day though, I just think that even my tinkering time would be better spent on something like Android wear. It seems to be more fleshed out and it's only a matter of time before someone makes a bit of hardware that's as good as a Garmin device, so I think that's what I'm going to focus on.

Just wondering if there's been any movement on giving developers a way to read a unique device Unit ID (since it's now already "next year". :-) Or have I just missed it?

I was wondering about this also. I was hoping to reward people who've donated with "extra" features or something.

Cheers,
Douglas

While Garmin sleeps, the giant slowly awakes...

I was wondering about this also. I was hoping to reward people who've donated with "extra" features or something.

Cheers,
Douglas

Don't hold your breath! Garmin's management seems to have a preference for introducing new devices (with new bugs) over completing the firmware and API implementations for existing devices. Arguably, the greatest benefit (to users, developers, and the product manufacturer) in creating programmable devices and providing an SDK to the public developer community is that it creates the opportunity for innovation - allowing a very large number of developers to be creative and add functionality to devices that even the original manufacturer didn't think of. Apple is one example of a company that does this really well. And me thinks that in the wearable athletic device market, they are the sleeping giant. The just-released Apple Watch 2 isn't quite there yet, but with a few more additions (ANT+, barometric altimeter, longer battery life or perhaps a different/power-passive display technology) it could and probably will be. Once that happens our discussions in this forum - at least about wearables - will probably become moot.

To me, Garmin's omission of something as basic as access to a unique device identifier (and any number of other things such as user-defined heart rate zones, activity accent color, lap data, navigation data, etc......) is emblematic of Garmin's lack of faith in their own products. I feel confident that Garmin's development staff is not the architect of such omissions. Most likely these decisions are driven by management and marketing, and people who don't really appreciate the power that's waiting to be unleashed in their own products. It's unfortunate, because I really think most of the Garmin wearables rock! But without 110% support from Garmin itself, I don't think they will be rolling so well another year or two down the road...

It's not all that uncommon that products aren't as successful in the marketplace as those who create them hope and expect them to be. But I think it's a real tragedy when otherwise well-designed products that obviously require significant up-front investments in R&D and tooling to get to market are held back from reaching their full potential simply because the manufacturer doesn't believe in their own products strongly enough to finish what they started. :-(

I'll be curious to see what the giant has in store for us next fall... ;-)