Tapatalk forum app for Android $0.99

Quote from phonic : AFAIK, Tapatalk charges a flat rate to bring a site into it's app. Last time I looked, like a year ago, it wasn't a whole lot. Maybe a bunch of SD members could get together and pay for it. If 1000 of us all chipped in $1, that might cover the "consulting" cost. As long as the Tapatalk devs didn't need source or admin access to the site, it could be a viable option.... And yes, the admins were very "curt" about saying no, because they claim to be developing their own in-house app. That was like 2-3 years ago. Anyone see it yet? Didn't think so.

I'd totally put up a buck to get the ball rolling. With all the money this place has saved me I might even do a buck fitty!

Yeah still waiting on that in-house app, but for now iSlick gets the job done for browsing on my iPad, but my goal obviously is to consolidate all my browsing on Tapatalk.

Quote from BrokenVisage : I'd totally put up a buck to get the ball rolling. With all the money this place has saved me I might even do a buck fitty! Yeah still waiting on that in-house app, but for now iSlick gets the job done for browsing on my iPad, but my goal obviously is to consolidate all my browsing on Tapatalk.

Just to see how it works, I just enabled Tapatalk support for one of my websites (that has a phpBB3 forum). I have to say, installation and integration is very easy. Took all of about five minutes from start to finish, and half of that was creating a 'site account' on their website. It got listed on their app instantly as an available site.

However, it does require you to add a plugin/module to your forum (and in my case adding a javascript line to one of my html files), which can't be done without admin access. So while the SD admins could give its userbase what it's been asking for (for the past few years now) in a couple of minutes, I doubt we will be seeing it anytime soon, nor can we just 'add' them manually.

Got it! Thanks!

Thanks, in for 1. Not sure when SD would be ON it though.

Quote from phonic : AFAIK, Tapatalk charges a flat rate to bring a site into it's app. Last time I looked, like a year ago, it wasn't a whole lot. Maybe a bunch of SD members could get together and pay for it. If 1000 of us all chipped in $1, that might cover the "consulting" cost. As long as the Tapatalk devs didn't need source or admin access to the site, it could be a viable option.... And yes, the admins were very "curt" about saying no, because they claim to be developing their own in-house app. That was like 2-3 years ago. Anyone see it yet? Didn't think so.

Slickdeals doesn't need your $$$, I am willing to bet my $1 that Slickdeals grosses over $1000 A DAY from advertising and all the affiliate links on the site. An active shopping forum with user contributed content? An internet marketer's wet dream, and bankroll.

If they wanted to be onTapatalk, they would. Period. Lack of money is not the issue.

Quote from wheresmytuna : Slickdeals doesn't need your $$$, I am willing to bet my $1 that Slickdeals grosses over $1000 A DAY from advertising and all the affiliate links on the site. An active shopping forum with user contributed content? An internet marketer's wet dream, and bankroll. If they wanted to be onTapatalk, they would. Period. Lack of money is not the issue.

You seem to have misunderstood my earlier comment(s).

I wasn't saying that SD needed us to contribute for the App integration. I was saying that SD is actively refusing to provide Tapatalk integration (which is free for a non-branded app), and that it would be cool if we could all chip in and pay for the branded app ourselves so we could use it. Obviously this was more of a joke then a real suggestion, especially since it requires a modification (albeit a minor one) to the site itself.

And yes, I'm sure they make a ton of revenue from ads. I don't know if $1000/day is accurate, but that's irrelevant. I'm sure part of their hesitation to provide us with a nice mobile app is because it could limit this revenue. Anything they develop inhouse (if that ever actually happens), would almost certainly require either sponsored ads, or cost money.

My problem with this is that it goes in the face of what the userbase wants. Unlike a news/information/etc. site like CNN, Consumerist, Engadget, etc. where the majority of the content comes from employees (who get paid), Slickdeals is basically entirely dependent on it's users to keep it alive and sustainable. The only reason why people come here is to see the content that other people who come here post.

If it wasn't for the extreme minority who post new deals and actually make comments about them, this site (and their revenue) would cease to be. They should go out of their way to provide their user base with the resources they need/want, not put up roadblocks just to keep as much money as possible rolling in. If you look at similar companies who stifled innovation in the interest of short-term profits, they all failed.