There is a Pro upgrade as an IAP. There's also an in-built proxy/vpn service in the browser. This is how I see myself growing Javelin down the road with the browser as the razor, and value-added services as the blade.
I obviously haven't thought about this as long as you have, but offhand I think that model is a mistake. Only a small subset of people (and perhaps a bunch of companies) want things like proxy support or VPNs or other extra services. Most people just want to browse the web, so you're limiting your market a lot.
(I do think you could make value-added browser services a business, but you'd have to go to enterprises to do it.)
I don't see why. Passive income vs profit is not really dichotomy; passive income is a question of how much work you put in, whereas profit is how much you make relative to how much you put in. Regardless of how you structure your commitments, more profit is better than less profit.
You could argue that to be successful at generating a passive income of any magnitude, you'd be better off selling value-added services on top of a free browser rather than just selling a browser. I'd be curious to hear that argument, because the opposite seems true: making freemium work means that you need to invest not just in making a great free product that people will use, but also invest in creating enough additional value to make the sale. Thus I think wanting a lower commitment to the company actually says you should just sell the browser.
I've been working on Javelin since Feb this year and this is the 4th iteration, and on Reddit (r/android), and just a quick interesting byte. Javelin actually started as a "porn" browser! See: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1xblv9/hey_reddit_s...
PS: I'm headed to SF in October, anyone wanna grab a beer/coffee? I'm contactable at hello@javelinbrowser.com
I think that's a little bombastic. So is that a custom ROM or stock Android with no account set? Seems like if you deeply distrust Google you probably wouldn't want to run Android at all.
You misunderstand me. I was simply articulating what I assumed the poster meant by his comment:
Personally, I don't have Google Apps on my phone at all.
If it's not in F-Droid or available as an apk from the
developer, it doesn't get installed.
I personally have a stock Nexus 4 and accept that I'm simply a Google commodity. I accept that by having a Google Account on my phone means that Google are tracking everything I do, who I talk to, who I message, every website I visit and every opinion and iota of information about me, even some that they have extrapolated about me that I personally didn't realise, Google already knows. I accept that if Google knows this, the NSA can also get hold of this information relatively easily.
However, I don't work for any company of NSA interest. I have no threatening political or religious affiliations. I don't pose a threat to the status quo. I am not a wolf. I am a sheep. Therefore, my privacy can be traded for free Google features - slurp...
@niklasni1 though probably does care, which is why he doesn't use Google Play, because then he would need a Google account on his phone, that subsequently would be tracked by Google wherever he goes. Maybe @niklasni1 has a networking job for a European satellite provider that the NSA finds interesting. Maybe he is worried about being tasked. In which case, it isn't bombastic at all.
It should be noted that I'm glued to my laptop most of the time, so I mostly think of my phone as a computer with a small screen and crappy input method.
I think you're making a mistake by offering this for free.
The kind of people who care enough about their web experience to install a new browser are the kind of people who won't mind parting with a few £$€ to do so.
To be profitable, free apps must target the broader market, but this is a relatively niche product. I don't think you'll get enough IAP fast enough to be sustainable.
Apathy is probably your biggest enemy. Look at the struggles Firefox and Opera went to even with the random browser choice stuff in Windows in Europe, which made no significant difference to their market share.
Because the average user doesn't even know what a web browser is, they just open up "the internet" on their phone. They are not going to change something that they're not even aware of. It's also demonstrably true that the average user doesn't know or care about privacy enough to make this choice anyway. You don't have the resources to change either of these things.
So, disregard the average user. Market this as a paid product which offers a superior web browsing experience for the technology connoisseur and the privacy concious. These people, on average, have a lot more money, are easier to sell this product to, and don't mind paying.
Another reason to just charge money for this is that this provides assurances about your income stream which should mean that you are less likely to consider anti-user practises in order to generate income at some point in future.
Yeap, it is already Chromium WebView since 4.4 :) But the performance lags behind bleeding edge Chrome since Google gives its own Chrome a more advanced version of Chromium WebView.
I used it for about 3-4 months when 'Stack' was introduced but went back to Link Bubble + Chrome. I couldn't exactly remember why I went back to LB + Chrome but mostly due to 'Stack' being too rigid to my liking compared to Link Bubble (back button not closing the stack, no easy jumping between stacks, scrolling and stack animations kind of wonky etc.)
All things said, I loved the browser experience. Especially easy access to bookmarks on right edge swipe and always available refresh button. I will definitely try it again. Speed dial looks good.
Edit: Just installed again and wow!! It totally looks different from the version I used some time back. Looks more slick and pretty now. Will definitely try again. Especially the 'Stack' behavior.
I'm on a Nexus 5 and have major memory leak issues with LB (I've reported them) if you keep the "bubble" open for too long. Chrome is very heavy as well in general, so Javelin is a really nice refresher what a fast browser feels like.
I just bought the pro version and I'm going to use it for a while before I comment more on it.
I use a Nexus 5 as well but have not personally encountered the memory leak issue with Link Bubble. But I don't keep the bubbles open very long as well.
I just went ahead and bought the Javelin Pro version as well. I like what developer is doing here.
I've been using your browser for a couple months now (I think I saw it mentioned on Android Police if you're curious) and I've been liking it. It looks slick, and works exactly how I think it should. The one problem I have with it is one I'd like other opinions on, both for my curiosity and your benefit.
Frankly, it's not my daily driver because I don't know who you are and don't trust you. Using a (no offense) no-name browser is somewhat of a risk as the developer could potentially be recording personal info. Of course, I have no guarantee that Mozilla isn't either. However, and yes I'm fully aware of how silly this sounds, I trust Mozilla despite never looking at their code or knowing any of the developers.
I'm guessing privacy is important to you (since you have the option of using a VPN service as IAP) so I'm curious how you would allay my fears of using a random browser from someone other than the big three.
I'm also the developer of http://getgom.com (VPN as a Chrome extension using SPDY SSL proxies), and as a fellow Singaporean when our government openly does surveilance, I __completely__ understand where you are coming from. To be fair, I'm not sure how I can solve his problem though.
Open sourcing could be a plausible answer. But fighting Google Play clones and what-not is really time-consuming and as an indie dev, my time can be better spent.
I don't really have a great answer myself, personally. That's partly why I made my post to begin with.
However, one thing that I think would greatly help is a privacy notice of some sort detailing exactly what is tracked and how it's used. I don't see one on either the Play store page, nor in the app itself (your site seems to be loading slowly at the moment, or I'd look there too). While it may not completely remove my fears, it would at least serve as a good baseline and would make me feel a little better.
EDIT: Tried your site again, and found your privacy policy. I must say, I do like the way it is written as well as the content. Still, I would encourage maybe a link in the app, at least.
The topic of trust deserves a lot of attention, thanks for rallying some attention to it!
An idea: trust is a huge issue when it comes to development of apps (mobile or otherwise) that transacts important data (and what doesn't these days? Even games could be used to create personal metrics on people's IQ/skills/etc.). Some sort of consortium should be formed to work a coherent strategy on this, anything would pretty much be better than the current day situation: a combination of oath/register/proven-track-record-of-company/technical-guide-lines/technical-validation could prove very valuable resource to consumers and businesses alike!
Do a video interview, get on several podcasts. Talk about Material design, about privacy, about android development in general. Have a blog and link to it. Personally talk to your users.
If some known person (open-source contributor or a startup founder) start using your product, ask for cross-promotion or endorsement of any kind.
Just be open. The more people know about you the more they are inclined to trust you.
It doesn't solve the original problem as it is stated, but it still solves the original problem. 99.99999% of Firefox users will never look at its source code, they just trust the Mozilla brand.
People don't trust Mozilla because they read the code, they trust Mozilla because they do exactly what was described above. They do the things that foster trust.
I'm afraid Firefox is so abysmal noone could comprehend the whole project's code. Guess, we could only review a tiny bits of it (I had briefly read sync-related parts of code in hope I could replace them with something saner and simpler, but ditched the idea) and hope others did the same for other parts.
If there's a place for browsers like Opera, there's a place for you; probably your focus is on usability and design, and while security is something in the mind of hackers in general, design and usability are the first thing for non-tech users.
So im sure you can find a place even without making it the first choice for hackers.. but of course you can always take measures to address the concerns of this crowd..
But at first, i think is good to focus on what you are good at; than if you succeed you can grow and address more the security conscious people
Dont try to be everything to everyone else(at least at first), as browser market is crowded you have a very narrow door to pass through, once you find it, use it
(About Trust: it will come slowly with time; It's something you cant get for free anyway.. as in any relationship in life)
Agreed. The only thing that will get me personally to switch browser at this stage is more security/privacy. But I'm not everyone - I have plenty of friends who are fine with spraying their lives all over the webs. Have forwarded your link.
just my 2 cents, but showing the source to a limited amount of people, who are themselves known for other kind of work and certifying that your app isn't badly behaving could be a good start.
That's not a silver bullet idea though, because it requires trusted voluntary (or not) people and there is always a slight risk of source code leak.
What's stopping clones from replicating your UI right now? Are you concerned with loss of IAP revenue to clones?
I would suggest you open source it under a non-commercial license. Also, take a look at how some successful android open source projects are run. In particular, I like XPrivacy (https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy). This is an excellent app. Open source with optional purchase, similar to yours. Personally, I paid the $6 they charge because I'd rather not compile the src myself.
You've already had a lot of downloads and are an established app. Clones can't replicate that.. If you are a recognized dev on xda, with your own thread for discussion, feature requests, bug reports etc, no clones will be able to replace that aspect even if they can clone your app.
You should be able to get more downloads/purchases from privacy-aware users. And you can have donations for feature requests if you want.
I think the main part about being free software is not that the code could be reviewed or whatever, but that the software respects its users' freedoms. And for me, that alone is a good reason to respect the software and its developer.
XPrivacy is a great example. Another one would be "Conversations" XMPP client, that is FLOSS, but is a paid app on Google Play. Even though I wouldn't call it completely mature yet (it's 0.7.x and lacks some polish and minor features), it's a good app that does its job very well and 1-5k users (not bad for non-gratis app, I guess) seem to agree.
People can copy the source, but they cant copy the top download count, or a reputation as a good developer or company. Once you have loyal customers and a reputation there is no point in hiding the source code in my opinion.
They can copy your code, but they don't understand it like you do, and therefore can't provide the same level of support or quality in updates. If they copy your code and make it closed source, people won't trust it, and if they copy your code and make it open, you can just steal changes you like back again.
Hi, I would recommend that you set up an offshore company as the app's main developer, if i remembered correctly, the mda does not approve of such apps. btw, you dont have to worry about open sourcing your app as anyone can simply decompile it with apktool. ;)
I second this. Decompiling java to bytecode is not only easy, but not very hard to read with a bit of experience. It's like reading normal java code but slightly more concise haha. However, I can understand the developer's concern. I think the best way to go about is to put in copyright notices and some sort of license on it. Then, go for the lawsuit if you really need/want to.
Whether/when I have to pay is a little unclear; can you put that front and center? As someone unused to VPN's, I'm a little unsure of what I'm paying for. I'd also suggest changing your payment plans to simply "Monthly, Yearly, and Life". And please, just tell me how much it costs per year in the yearly plan. 1.8*12 isn't hard to plug into a calculator but not something I want to do in my head.
Firefox is open source. You don't have to have personally looked at its source or know anyone who works on it to trust that it's not recording your information, thousands of people have looked at its source, and if even one of them noticed something suspicious, the entire world would know about it.
Javelin isn't open source, so you're right, you have to have some amount of faith in an unknown group of developers.
Personally, that's not what's keeping me from using Javelin, I just need firefox sync support to consider it.
Ever heard of the underhanded C contest? The writing of bugs/features that are well hidden and look like they were not intended is a real thing. Bugs go undiscovered for as much as 20 years, at least from our perspective. And mere suspicion is hardly enough for a call to arms.
Any particular reason it's not compatible with OnePlus One and Nexus 10 on Google Play? I get it if tablets aren't supported. I could get the apk but I was wondering...
If testing is the reason, I can help.
Why would I want to use a browser made by a group that is seemingly mostly preoccupied with design judging from your website? You don't even disclose who is really behind this project. Especially browser security is more important than ever. When using one made by Google or Mozilla I can be sure that they do take security seriously, have the necessary experience, technical know-how and manpower to deal with vulnerabilities in a timely manner.
Agreed! I'd give it a try right now, but Firefox sync is a must-have for me. In fact, I'm considering giving up Dolphin Browser, even though I prefer it to Firefox for Android, because their "Dolphin Connect" Firefox add-on noticeably bogs down the browser, to the point where I often have it disabled.
Just out of curiosity, what are you using to parse the reading view of a webpage. It seems really fast so I doubt you're using Readability; probably some local library?
Looks good. Adblock integration is a nice touch, thats pretty much my first line of defence when it comes to anti-malware on the systems I administrate.
I like it a lot. But I have a tangential question: has anyone found a good writeup on rise of the use of adjectives like gorgeous, stunning, beautiful, amazing to describe apps? Aside from my personal opinion, I'd like to know if anyone else has observed and written about this trend.
What type of write up are you looking for? The rise can simply be attributed to computers being powerful enough to render good-looking design without a hit to performance, so design is now at the forefront of many corporate images. It doesn't hurt that Apple talks about design with these terms, and that's an association many people want their customers to make.
I have not seen a write up on this, but whenever I see it, it seems strange. Calling your own app 'gorgeous' or 'stunning' may come off as conceited. Those are subjective terms. If the UX is positively impacted by the appearance, call that out in the copy. I think it would be better to let your users gush over the appearance of the app using subjective terms in reviews or testimonials.
I disagree. It's an unconventional usage but one that struck me as both deliberate and effective.
BTW almost all people in Singapore grow up speaking English, it's the common language of 4 ethnic groups and is used on all signs, government correspondence and so forth.
I notice that you use www.theverge.com in a number of the screenshots for Javelin. The writers at The Verge, the developers that build the site, the designers that make it beautiful - are all paid through ad revenue. Please consider at least adding the ability to whitelist sites if you are going to bundle ad block.
*Full disclosure - I am a developer at Vox Media, the publisher of The Verge.
This is why I am against including ad-block as a default. People who don't install AdBlock (mostly don't know how, or can't be bothered) play an important role. Adblocking should be an opt-in.
I think the ad delivery method has to change. Facebook and Twitter have noticed this and are trying to overcome it through ads as feeds/posts, which makes it slightly harder for adblocking tools to distinguish between the normal/adverts. And I really mean slightly, because you can still just look for the "Sponsored" label and get rid of that html node from your feed. I can't think of a solution at the moment, but I do acknowledge the needs of companies to sell ads on their pages to keep the content free. However, once your stuff gets transferred over to the client, there's not much you can do about the way they digest your data.
Please stop using ads, which is a sneaky and dishonest way to get at your end users' money. It's a lie that with ads you give your content for free:
1. The advertisers who pay you get their money from us, added to the prices of the things we buy. There is no free lunch.
2. The overhead cost of advertising is huge and we pay for that too.
3. We pay the opportunity cost of a product that cannot put users first because you live or die by giving advertisers what they want (and what we want indirectly and secondarily). This includes both the cost of lost privacy as well as business, editorial and design decisions that optimize for advertising revenue. As has been said, you are using us as products more than treating us as your paying customers. Let me restate to be extra clear: WE are the paying customer, but we don't look like that to your finance department.
4. We pay the social costs. Democracy and the free market assume people make voting and purchasing decisions based on facts and reason. Advertising undermines democracy[1] and the free market[2]. Advertising is predominantly about manipulation and deceit. I believe this is the most expensive cost of content that relies on advertising revenue.
Added together, we readers are paying a lot more for "free" Verge content than if we could just straight up pay you for straight-up ad-free articles. And even we non-readers are paying because of the social costs, and all the link-bait that spams the web because of the perverse incentives of advertising.
[1] Do you really need a link for this one? We all know that money decides who gets to run in an election, plays a big part in who wins, and has a tremendous influence on what legislation they introduce, support or fight.
Yeah, that's kind of a must-have feature.
Even if I wouldn't want to support Vox Media after the recent controversy, there are sites that simply won't work unless you disable (or at least manually fine-tune) your filters.
137 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 199 ms ] thread(I do think you could make value-added browser services a business, but you'd have to go to enterprises to do it.)
You could argue that to be successful at generating a passive income of any magnitude, you'd be better off selling value-added services on top of a free browser rather than just selling a browser. I'd be curious to hear that argument, because the opposite seems true: making freemium work means that you need to invest not just in making a great free product that people will use, but also invest in creating enough additional value to make the sale. Thus I think wanting a lower commitment to the company actually says you should just sell the browser.
I've been working on Javelin since Feb this year and this is the 4th iteration, and on Reddit (r/android), and just a quick interesting byte. Javelin actually started as a "porn" browser! See: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1xblv9/hey_reddit_s...
PS: I'm headed to SF in October, anyone wanna grab a beer/coffee? I'm contactable at hello@javelinbrowser.com
Once you have a Google account on your phone it is privacy game over.
However, I don't work for any company of NSA interest. I have no threatening political or religious affiliations. I don't pose a threat to the status quo. I am not a wolf. I am a sheep. Therefore, my privacy can be traded for free Google features - slurp...
@niklasni1 though probably does care, which is why he doesn't use Google Play, because then he would need a Google account on his phone, that subsequently would be tracked by Google wherever he goes. Maybe @niklasni1 has a networking job for a European satellite provider that the NSA finds interesting. Maybe he is worried about being tasked. In which case, it isn't bombastic at all.
It should be noted that I'm glued to my laptop most of the time, so I mostly think of my phone as a computer with a small screen and crappy input method.
The kind of people who care enough about their web experience to install a new browser are the kind of people who won't mind parting with a few £$€ to do so.
To be profitable, free apps must target the broader market, but this is a relatively niche product. I don't think you'll get enough IAP fast enough to be sustainable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#His...
So, disregard the average user. Market this as a paid product which offers a superior web browsing experience for the technology connoisseur and the privacy concious. These people, on average, have a lot more money, are easier to sell this product to, and don't mind paying.
Another reason to just charge money for this is that this provides assurances about your income stream which should mean that you are less likely to consider anti-user practises in order to generate income at some point in future.
https://community.rapid7.com/community/metasploit/blog/2014/...
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/a/21436901/856702
All things said, I loved the browser experience. Especially easy access to bookmarks on right edge swipe and always available refresh button. I will definitely try it again. Speed dial looks good.
Edit: Just installed again and wow!! It totally looks different from the version I used some time back. Looks more slick and pretty now. Will definitely try again. Especially the 'Stack' behavior.
I just bought the pro version and I'm going to use it for a while before I comment more on it.
I just went ahead and bought the Javelin Pro version as well. I like what developer is doing here.
Frankly, it's not my daily driver because I don't know who you are and don't trust you. Using a (no offense) no-name browser is somewhat of a risk as the developer could potentially be recording personal info. Of course, I have no guarantee that Mozilla isn't either. However, and yes I'm fully aware of how silly this sounds, I trust Mozilla despite never looking at their code or knowing any of the developers.
I'm guessing privacy is important to you (since you have the option of using a VPN service as IAP) so I'm curious how you would allay my fears of using a random browser from someone other than the big three.
Either way, I wish you luck.
Open sourcing could be a plausible answer. But fighting Google Play clones and what-not is really time-consuming and as an indie dev, my time can be better spent.
What do you suggest?
However, one thing that I think would greatly help is a privacy notice of some sort detailing exactly what is tracked and how it's used. I don't see one on either the Play store page, nor in the app itself (your site seems to be loading slowly at the moment, or I'd look there too). While it may not completely remove my fears, it would at least serve as a good baseline and would make me feel a little better.
EDIT: Tried your site again, and found your privacy policy. I must say, I do like the way it is written as well as the content. Still, I would encourage maybe a link in the app, at least.
An idea: trust is a huge issue when it comes to development of apps (mobile or otherwise) that transacts important data (and what doesn't these days? Even games could be used to create personal metrics on people's IQ/skills/etc.). Some sort of consortium should be formed to work a coherent strategy on this, anything would pretty much be better than the current day situation: a combination of oath/register/proven-track-record-of-company/technical-guide-lines/technical-validation could prove very valuable resource to consumers and businesses alike!
If some known person (open-source contributor or a startup founder) start using your product, ask for cross-promotion or endorsement of any kind.
Just be open. The more people know about you the more they are inclined to trust you.
So im sure you can find a place even without making it the first choice for hackers.. but of course you can always take measures to address the concerns of this crowd..
But at first, i think is good to focus on what you are good at; than if you succeed you can grow and address more the security conscious people
Dont try to be everything to everyone else(at least at first), as browser market is crowded you have a very narrow door to pass through, once you find it, use it
(About Trust: it will come slowly with time; It's something you cant get for free anyway.. as in any relationship in life)
Take a look at the Play store, it's right below the product title ;)
That's not a silver bullet idea though, because it requires trusted voluntary (or not) people and there is always a slight risk of source code leak.
I would suggest you open source it under a non-commercial license. Also, take a look at how some successful android open source projects are run. In particular, I like XPrivacy (https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy). This is an excellent app. Open source with optional purchase, similar to yours. Personally, I paid the $6 they charge because I'd rather not compile the src myself.
You've already had a lot of downloads and are an established app. Clones can't replicate that.. If you are a recognized dev on xda, with your own thread for discussion, feature requests, bug reports etc, no clones will be able to replace that aspect even if they can clone your app.
You should be able to get more downloads/purchases from privacy-aware users. And you can have donations for feature requests if you want.
Just some thoughts.. best of luck with the app!
XPrivacy is a great example. Another one would be "Conversations" XMPP client, that is FLOSS, but is a paid app on Google Play. Even though I wouldn't call it completely mature yet (it's 0.7.x and lacks some polish and minor features), it's a good app that does its job very well and 1-5k users (not bad for non-gratis app, I guess) seem to agree.
A non-commercial license is not, in any sane definition of the term, an “open source” license¹.
① http://opensource.org/osd#fields-of-endeavor
They can copy your code, but they don't understand it like you do, and therefore can't provide the same level of support or quality in updates. If they copy your code and make it closed source, people won't trust it, and if they copy your code and make it open, you can just steal changes you like back again.
Whether/when I have to pay is a little unclear; can you put that front and center? As someone unused to VPN's, I'm a little unsure of what I'm paying for. I'd also suggest changing your payment plans to simply "Monthly, Yearly, and Life". And please, just tell me how much it costs per year in the yearly plan. 1.8*12 isn't hard to plug into a calculator but not something I want to do in my head.
Javelin isn't open source, so you're right, you have to have some amount of faith in an unknown group of developers.
Personally, that's not what's keeping me from using Javelin, I just need firefox sync support to consider it.
I wish it was easy to toggle on/off. Mobile chrome is a couple clicks.
BTW almost all people in Singapore grow up speaking English, it's the common language of 4 ethnic groups and is used on all signs, government correspondence and so forth.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.andrewshu....
Is there a way to save pages for offline viewing?
*Full disclosure - I am a developer at Vox Media, the publisher of The Verge.
If large numbers of people were to start using Javelin, it could certainly affect revenue.
If.
1. The advertisers who pay you get their money from us, added to the prices of the things we buy. There is no free lunch.
2. The overhead cost of advertising is huge and we pay for that too.
3. We pay the opportunity cost of a product that cannot put users first because you live or die by giving advertisers what they want (and what we want indirectly and secondarily). This includes both the cost of lost privacy as well as business, editorial and design decisions that optimize for advertising revenue. As has been said, you are using us as products more than treating us as your paying customers. Let me restate to be extra clear: WE are the paying customer, but we don't look like that to your finance department.
4. We pay the social costs. Democracy and the free market assume people make voting and purchasing decisions based on facts and reason. Advertising undermines democracy[1] and the free market[2]. Advertising is predominantly about manipulation and deceit. I believe this is the most expensive cost of content that relies on advertising revenue.
Added together, we readers are paying a lot more for "free" Verge content than if we could just straight up pay you for straight-up ad-free articles. And even we non-readers are paying because of the social costs, and all the link-bait that spams the web because of the perverse incentives of advertising.
-
[This is a condensed version of a more detailed case with reference links that I made here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7485773]
[1] Do you really need a link for this one? We all know that money decides who gets to run in an election, plays a big part in who wins, and has a tremendous influence on what legislation they introduce, support or fight.
[2] http://www.chaosisgood.com/2013/03/how-advertising-undermine...