User and Developer feedback requested, please …
Posted February 12th, 2008 at 1:54 am by Ste
Filed in: Nullriver, Site News
As you may know, I now have sponsors who are paying for the servers and bandwidth needed to keep the site running. Without them, the site would go away. They are paying a lot of money to provide this service to you, and they have requested acknowledgment of this, which I think is fair.
What I have done to accommodate that request, works, but not optimally. If you open your Installer.app, and go into any category, you will see that I added mention of the bandwidth sponsor to the start of every package’s description. In Category view, it kinda ruins any chance of seeing the first part of the package’s actual description. You may wonder why I didn’t add it to the end of the description. If I had, it would have been cut off, as the Description field is fixed length. Unfortunately, the way I have done it not only doesn’t work, in Category view, but it also robs the developers of precious space in the Description field.
I have proposed, to Nullriver, that they add another field to the package detail page. It would be called Sponsor and be located just under the Contact field and before the Description field. It would be a static display field, just like the Name field - pressing it would do nothing. Here’s a mock up of what it would look like:
This is meant to provide an unobtrusive acknowledgment of the folks who are paying the bills and a way to get their URL in front of you, in hopes that you’ll check them out. However, Nullriver has objected to this. It’s their position that this is nothing but advertising SPAM, and has no business in Installer.app. I tried to point out to them that without acknowledgment, there will be no sponsors. With no sponsors, there will be no big sites. No big sites makes it harder for people to get packages. No packages means no Installer.app. So, I suggested that I blog about it and see what you, the users and developers, think of this idea. Nullriver thought that would be an excellent idea.
Please leave your thoughts in the comments section. We look forward to hearing what you think of this.
-ste
UPDATE (2008-02-12 7:24 PM): I forgot to mention that this proposed field would be optional, in the XML file, like the “More Info” field is. If a site didn’t need to use it, they could omit it. Additionally, since it’s another point of view worth considering, I’d like to point out that two developers have told me that they object to any sponsor tag on their applications. They said, and I’m paraphrasing, here, “We donated to you and we don’t think it’s fair to have another company’s name on our package’s detail page.” My response, thus far, has been that developers who donate to me are donating for the work *I* do. Things like: cleaning up what they send me and making packages out of it; writing the XML plist files; setting up and maintaining the servers; setting up and maintaining the repository; setting up and maintaining this blog, etc. You get the idea. They are paying for my time and effort, in my opinion. The sponsors, on the other hand, are paying for the servers and the bandwidth required for the users to get access to, and download, the developer’s packages. The developers aren’t paying them to do that - no one is paying them to do that. Therefore, I think it *is* fair that they be afforded recognition on the detail pages of the apps that their hard-earned dollars are making available to everyone. -ste
UPDATE (2008-02-13 12:20 PM): Keep those comments coming in - they are all interesting and food for thought. Some people have suggested that “Sponsor” might be confusing, regarding just what it is that is being sponsored and suggested changes might be “Bandwidth” or “Hosting”. Personally, I like that idea, as it’s much clearer what is being provided. Someone suggested moving it to the “Source” section. I’m not sure if they meant the “Source” section at the bottom of every package detail page (did you even know that if you scroll that page up, that there is a “Source” section there?), or if they meant adding it to each source’s detail page found by going to Installer.app’s “Sources” page and pressing on a source’s entry. In any case, I don’t think either is the right place, for a couple of reasons: 1) no one will see them there - it’s that simple, and 2) while the argument can be, and has been, made that they are sponsoring the repository, not the developers, I think that is not entirely correct. They *are* sponsoring the developers, in that they are directly providing the servers and bandwidth those developer’s need for their users to get access to and to download their packages. The truth is, they are providing the service to both the repository *and* the developer’s. -ste
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Having a small sponsor spot on package info pages isnt going to bother anyone, and if it helps to support repositories like Stes, then the people at nullriver should stop being big [expletive deleted by Ste] and just do it.
Repositories like Ste Packaging are what make installer so great.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:21 am
I don’t really mind that.. One thing for sure is it is 10000 times better then having it in the description. Having it in the description is horrible as it makes it so you cant see what something is without going into it.
So if we have to have one or the other I would say this way
February 12th, 2008 at 6:29 am
I’m absolutly agree with Ste. Even more I don’t mind if the line will be clickable.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Definitely better to have the the bandwidth sponsor separated from the description - I wouldn’t mind seeing it on a separate line.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:36 am
That would be the best way to include sponsor info.
Very good idea.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I dont really see it as much different than having contact info or anything of that sort.
It is very nice to acknowledge those who contribute to this great project.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:55 am
NullRiver please listen. This is not SPAM, this is sponsoring there is a difference. Without these sponsors the Ste repository might not even be here. This seems so unobtrusive. Maybe have it so that if there is no string for sponsor in the plist it doesn’t even show. That way only people who want to use the sponsor section will see it. This is much better than us losing a huge chunk of the description.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:58 am
To me, it sounds like a great way to do it.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Since the description field looks the same on all iPods and iPhones, couldn’t you just move the bandwidth sponsor string a little bit further in the description, resulting in the overview page still describing the basic functionality while the detailed page gets the sponsor info?
Example on overview: “Fix BSD subsystem 2.1 issue…”
Example on detailed page: “Fix BSD subsystem 2.1 issue (BW sponsor: polarbearfarm.com) with terms where backspace just acts like spacebar.”
Downside: it may seem like the bandwidth sponsor has something to do with the application. But then again, that’s exactly what happens in the current situation as well.
Ideally a sponsor field should be added to Installer.app, or rather a custom field that each repository could tweak for their own use, but that’s up to Nullriver.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
A small sponsor tab never hurt anyone. And it’s not intrusive marketing. Nullriver has to get it’s priorities right - end of the day, money’s what makes the world go round….. Not misplaced ideals on spam.
If a sponsor tab means the repository works better, I’m all for it…..
February 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I don’t understand what’s the big deal about a Sponsor field. A little innocuous field that brings the user attention to who’s paying the big bucks for hosting won’t hurt anyone.
But it will help, for everyone. The sponsor gets recognition, and the user gets free apps. Everybody wins!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I think this is the best way to do it. I’d also be all for it being clickable. This isn’t spam IMO.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I agree this is a good idea. A custom, optional, field as suggested above probably makes the most sense.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
the sponsor tab would be much better than the way it is now i think, it wouldnt botther at all.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
As my username suggests, I’m from Freeit4Less, so I’m not exactly a disinterested party. However, as a user of Ste packaging myself, it is really annoying that the sponsor links make the category view for packages pretty much useless. Also, description is fixed-length so you get cut-off problems by placing the sponsor link at the end etc. Just as a regular iPhone user, a regular sponsor “line item” on package info would be great. As a sponsor, it’d be great too. I for one believe in unobtrusive advertising, and at the moment that’s not being done. I respect Nullriver’s “commitment” to keeping the installer “spam free” however offering a totally free service to tens of thousands of users isn’t quite possible, as we’ve seen. If they want no spnsorship notes on the packages, they would by extension be obligated to pick up the $1200 per month in dedicated server charges that Polar Bear Farm and ourselves pick up.
I think everyone is in agreement here: having a sponsor field is better than having a sponsorship note in the description field. In this case, having sponsors is better than having no sponsors.
Oh, and just a shout out to everyone in the iphone developer community, not to mention Ste: y’all are awesome!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Just a little clarification: we didn’t contact Ste asking him to put this through, though we’re 100% in support of it. We’re not “forcing our hand” trying to get this up, though it’s a great idea. We’re sponsors, not dictators. Just for any doubters out there, after seeing my previous comment.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Absolutely include it in the Installer. It’s completely understandable that the sponsors would like recognition for their contribution.
I’m actually not understanding the spam argument at all. It’s not spammy to put it there. It’s very spammy the way you are (understandably) having to do it now.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Nullriver, please look at this as a good comprise between acknowledging sponsors and non-obtrusive. As stated above, it is not spam, but support of us, the iPhone developer community.
Thanks
February 12th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I have no problem with the addition of a new section, it’s much cleaner than having the sponsor name in the description!
Nullriver, please understand this is a necessary compromise to keep things going in the direction we all want.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I believe a Sponsor tab would be very beneficial. And if that’s an absolute no, then allow bigger descriptions and place the sponsor at the end.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:51 am
I think Ste does a great job maintaining the packaging and appreciate what Freeit4less and Polar Bear Farm has contributed to keep the site up and running. I do see one problem though. The sponsorship is towards the site and bandwidth, not the developers.
It seems to me that there would be some confusion to the development of software. Some might think that the Freeit4less and Polar Bear Farm is sponsoring the developers when they are not. This may result in less credit towards developers and perhaps less chance people will donate to their hard work and efforts.
I think it would be better if the word “Sponsor” is changed to avoid confusion and also if it were to have a place, it would be under Source section. That would create a seperation that people would undstand as sponsor towards the source rather than the developer.
Keep up the good work.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:34 am
I have no problem with having a bar for sponsers, if its gonna help there be more repos with more apps n’ stuff, then they should add this box, or pay our bills for hosting, personally i have a dedicated server, which cost $750.00 a month, and if i could get a sponser for that and add ther name there it’ll be great, so just please let us do that
February 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
how about using “bandwidth” or “hosting” instead of “sponsor”? that way there is no confusion…
I must say that as a developer myself (dropcopy, crosswalk) I am very appreciative of not having to think about the packaging and hosting so I can focus on writing apps! STE and the hosting sponsors play a crucial role here and we don’t want to minimize their importance or shy from giving credit where due.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
the bandwidth sponsor string is making it very hard to read the description of the download.
i highly reocmmend fixing that as people cant see what it is the program does, the description must come first, always.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
This discussion is about how to fix it. In the meantime, you do still have the ability to see the description by entering the package’s detail page.
-ste
February 14th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I propose this:
Add to the beginning of the install scripts “Bandwidth donated by “, and make it optional for the developers to agree to display popup.
Many of the developers are appreciative of everything STE and it’s sponsers are doing at the moment, and would gladly allow a popup on install that tells people where the files are being hosted. Those who are less than enthusiastic about the free services they are provided can opt out (at which time I will likely opt out of using their application, for I think that nothing free should go without thanks).
February 14th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Nullriver has expressly forbidden popup notices like this. Much to “in your face.”
-ste
February 14th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I would think if it’s at the developer’s descretion then it would be out of nullriver’s realm of regulations. If the developer says I want a popup, then what’s nullriver’s involvement?