Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd. - Support Forums and Community

Full Version: How should additional CQC-related iOS functionality be presented?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
As we develop more iOS CQC-related functionality, there are a couple different ways it could go...
How does the cost affect you

My understanding is that with in-app purhases, 30% goes to apple. How much do they get from a new app? 30%?
To me, pretty much all of your ideas in the other thread seem to be more logically done as a separate app or apps.
apple gets 30% of everything either way
Insane. And people wonder how they have $75B in the bank during such an economy. You guys should form an iOS App Writer's Guild or something and force them down.
If I understand what you are proposing correctly, I voted separate as I dont think the average user would need more than the Riva client. Depending on how you access it, it may create confusion for them.

But either way, it will be great to see the additions

I voted for Separate Apps. From a useability point of view I would prefer to open a separate app to look at a template or see events etc... Keep the current RIVA app nice and simple would be my vote.
Not sure I understand the difference between in-app purchases and separate apps. What I want is an integrated, seamless, WAF UI machine. Things are getting closer, both with the current RIVA product, and RDP options. But, there are still shortcomings in both. My leaning right now is more towards RDP, especially with the nice little hacks that exist to make RDP more flexible on the various Windows versions. I remain, however, a RIVA purchaser, and intend to maintain my commitment, hoping that the IOS RIVA client can continue to improve, and eventually be the winner.
Note my earlier inputs on sluggish performance in writing the cover art in media repo, and the lack of web browser widget. Both of these appear to be rational limitations in the RIVA architecture, but if they could be addressed with the iPhone/iPad app, I don't see the difference between 'in-app' and 'separate app'. However, if 'separate app' results in having to launch different apps to accomplish different tasks, I vote strongly against that. For example, having to leave the RIVA client to launch the web browser just breaks the whole concept of user friendliness, and of course, craters the WAF.
The overall goal must be to present a nicely integrated, intuitive, snappy performing, human interface. I know a lot of this depends on the designer of the UI, but there are also significant challenges in dealing with the underlying platforms. Overall, I think this vote may be too much weighted to technology instead of towards ease of use.
On the other hand, I might be missing the whole point.....
Dean Roddey Wrote:Insane. And people wonder how they have $75B in the bank during such an economy. You guys should form an iOS App Writer's Guild or something and force them down.
It's too late by now, Apple has already paid back billions to developers, so people have learned to live with it... The situation is similar on the Android front, though that 30% goes to the carriers and not Google.
Not sure how to vote here, but my kids have iTouch'es with the CQC template viewer app on them. If you do a scheduled events viewer, I wouldn't dream of putting that capability on their devices.

If "in-app" is equivalent to "one CQC app can go either to templates or events", then that is a bad thing for me. I would prefer separate apps.

I'd buy the "scheduled events viewer" app in a heartbeat and put on both me/wife's iPhones so we could adjust light & irrigation timers from the iPhone.
Pages: 1 2