Qt Ad Platform for SailfishOS?

Platform Development
#1

Is there any plan to support Qt Advertisement Platform on SailfishOS?

I happen to know it works with anything Qt 5.6 and above thus can be made available for SFOS, too - just some willingness is needed from Jolla’s side…

@vige @martyone could you, please, connect me to someone from Jolla whom can be connected to Qt people in charge?

I pilot using it on other platforms and they were interested in supporting SailfishOS if there is the will on Jolla side, too…

that would help solving age old monetization problem for app developers, not to mention in fully cross platform way, independently from Google&co…

3 Likes
#2

Looks like one more API to add to our offering. Unfortunately just willingness is not enough, adding any API requires also work. The documentation says that it comes with Qt 5.15+, so to me that sounds like something better done after Qt upgrade.

#3

I’m in talk wit the developers and manger in charge. They said it can be made working with anything 5.6+…

So, if you give me name/email, I can make the direct contaction and you can sort out technicalities…

I can offer piloting it with my Gooble Invasion SailfishOS game, if that helps…

#4

As a user I must say, please Jolla, don’t ruin the Sailfish experience with sh*t like this. Paid apps are a hugely better way to go.
I will probably go back and pick up my dumb phone if this will ever be common.

18 Likes
#5

That uncurated ads ever became accepted is probably the biggest plague of our time.

7 Likes
#6

No one, not a single one of 1000+ user of.my app made any donation there - regardless of positive reviews. So no, paid apps is not working. Never ever worked on any (mobile) platform…

ads can be done in non-intrusive ways. E.g. our apps (on Android) have either a single ad at app startup or associated with some in-game reward…

so, of course, it is an option that there is no monetization optiin for develppers but there will be no.devwlopers here. Except the ‘maniac’ ones who develops for.common wealths of the community… :wink:

not.to mention it would.open up new possibilities for SFOS being used in ad kiosks, ‘smart’ coffee machines, dring automats, car infotainment syatems, etc…

#7

I’m not talking about voluntary donations. I’m talking about paid apps as in pay if you want to use it. I think people would pay for the good ones that they need. I know I would.

5 Likes
#8

I would think even built-in donations, or “pay what you want” would go a long way.
And i’m not entirely against ads… just the current state of them.
Since the click-rate is abysmally low, they need the profit margin to be high, preferably close to 100%.
So what is advertised gets lower and lower in quality, with a high percentage of straight-up scams. Click-rates get even lower, need more ads per space, more scammy crap and downward it goes.

One interesting model is what YouTube does - you actually get to choose either or, and if you pay the creators get several times more revenue per impression. Probably way too complicated for our small market, but one can dream…

1 Like
#9

no, people do not pay for apps. I’m sorry to say this is fact from my app developer experience since 2012. invisible minority of people paid for apps, even from huge-huge volumes of people of Nokia era.

We had published all of our apps back then as paid and free (ads) versions - millions of downloads for free and a handful (almost literally) people bought them…

there might be 1-2 (literally!) people here who would pay for some apps but nothing in such volumes that makes app developer near economically viable…

I’ve ported Gooble Invasion to SFOS back then because I’m fan of this OS but all other members of our hobbyist team refused to move a bit because of no return.

It is just an illusion that “people would pay for the good ones that they need” - first of all only a few SFOS user remained, invisible minority of them might be willing to pay for some apps - it is zero motives for app developers, I have to say…

Not to mention they should buy it before they can decide whether they like it or not. See Pipermatz - if anything that should back your view.

It was free then got moved for paid model but put back to free because developer has not seen any visible payment coming in and he has just given it up…

#10

this is the spiral that goes to nowhere! according to my experience less is more.

and our users on other platform tend to think the same. E.g. I mentioned the model: single ad at app startup, nothing more, all functionality available. One and then no more but hen next one at next startup. one form of “pay per use”.

It seems our users tend to like it because this model gives us 30-40% reward rate and that is completely enough for us. it generates that revenue that backs up our hobbyist development activities.

do not tell them but full functionality is available even if they do not see the ad long enough… :wink:

paid apps/donations never worked for me and they will not result in AAA category native (entertainment) software here in case of SFOS.

imagine why on earth Viber would come out with native SFOS client right now?
but having this solution available (and having Viber written in Qt) they would just “compile it” for this platform because why not and good to go…

similar case for us hobbyists: developing for Android mainly but why not create a build for SFOS, too - if no extra effort and still some ROI…

#11

Well, my girls buy apps from apple app store all the time, and I do not believe they are the only ones. :wink:

1 Like
#12

Since Google has a virtual monopoly with DoubleClick and co., I’m curious how the QT offering works? Is it just a DoubleClick reseller?

In a sense, I think one should allow developers to choose. Users who, like most of us, dislike the model will avoid the apps. But that’s not necessarily relevant. Currently, people install MicroG and do Google stuff anyway, if I understand correctly? I no longer use any of that crap, but I belong to the fringe minority.

I wouldn’t do it with my apps since I hate the ‘always’ on the internet nature of ad supported apps. I hate wasted bandwidth as much as I dislike wasting water or electricity. But there may be ways that it’s not the evil hole it appears in Google land. I have no idea what it looks like in IOs land.

All in all, I think making it available might draw more developers who already use QT to make ports available. That would be a good thing. On the other hand, most of that will probably be ‘closed source’. That would be a less good thing. Why can’t I have all my good things!!!

4 Likes
#13

This is false. In gaming, in App currencies, loot and co. are king. Not ads. I’m not sure what the breakdown is, but giving it away without ads solution seems to work quite well for fortnite. Or Roblox for that matter. Which is, of course, evil (I have to supervise a boy who shouldn’t be playing so much). And other models, like Adobe’s usurious subscription models also seem to be very profitable.

So, I’m not sure which branch of software you mean? There are an awful LOT of clone games targeted at the low attention span segment of the population. And they don’t have a chance without ads.

Still, not against ads per se. Whose the gatekeeper :slight_smile:

1 Like
#14

we all believe stats we made up by ourselves… :wink:

#15

Afaik they have nothing to do with Google but some other companies are behind…

#16

Ok, you are.right in this.sense.

In app purchase is tue.king, I bet, for such apps where microtransactions make sense.

but this model is not that suitable for utilities, etc. where ads could come in.

I think all towers paid apps.

so, having IAP for SFOS? Of course! But that would require hell of a backend.infra.that Jolla will not make in foreseable future. This solution would be “free” for them and would provide some monetization option…

#17

Like I said, not against options, per se. Infrastructure for micro transactions and, obviously, monetization in the Harbour Store should be on the road map. I can’t imagine that they are not! Looking at the ridiculous profits that Apple and co. make by taking a cut?

1 Like
#18

Yep, monetization infra is on the roadmap - or not any more…

having a system that works worldwide is far from trivial or cheap.

Apple makes that enormous profit on billions of users. SailfishOS has - a couple of thousands left, maybe… :frowning:

#19

I would like to add some point to this discussion. Sailfish OS promoted as “The mobile OS with built-in privacy”. Maybe indifferent users might prefer Android over SFOS.
Just two random links to think about:

1 Like
#20

While sympathizing zlutor’s monetization view to an extent, the devs need to make living if they are to be developing. Yet, if ads were to be introduced into sfos, why would anyone bother with it any more? To have a sailfish phone, first you are limited to very few device choices, so few that sometimes the number has been zero if you want a new device. Then you need to bother with flashing, and in the end you have given away some functionality (drivers, some banking apps, etc.). All this I see as a cost of ad-free, tracking-free, shit-free mobile experience. If this is taken away, it is all the same to go with google. Why bother, if I end up the same?

Unfortunately, I do not have a good suggestion for monetizing the dev effort, but I doubt that pestering users with ads will be the answer. Perhaps some sort of sfos subscription, which is then divvied between jolla and devs based on app downloads from shop, or such.