Does this mean that soon there will be far fewer applications in the App Store that Apple can brag about in their ads? I mean, if this means developers can get rid of their "lite" versions and stuff?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Opens Up In-App Purchasing for Free iPhone Applications
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This could lead to a lot of pain for devs. Customers will want everything to be listed as free, thus devs will vacate the paid lists. Everyone will be competing in the free lists, which cuts visibility in half. Having trouble being seen now? Just wait.
I'm glad they thought better of it. The idea didn't really work (free apps are ALREADY often just teasers for something paid) and it gave up some nice advantages which are now unlocked.
What Apple will hopefully crack down on is if developers REMOVE features from their former free apps, and then start asking for money for them. Then again, that too was already happening occasionally.
Reading reviews is your best defense. (And it will be interesting to see how ratings/reviews will be handled. Free apps tend to get low ratings because people try them who have little interest in them. Will we now see two ratings side by side? One for people have bought "some" or "any" DLC/features in the app? Or will all app ratings just trend lower? Star ratings are already not to be taken TOO seriously.)
And they will stay free. You'll just the added option of paying money for additional functionality. But, the choice to spend money will still be your choice.
far more important to developers.. not so much to the people using them. I don't need bs trial apps at the cost of all the bait and switch free apps that no doubt will come out.
If the screen shot is enough you'd be buying the full version anyway (just like you do now).
So what, exactly, are you expecting to be "constantly nagged" about? Buy this app you just bought! What?
Where have you been living? MOST of the free apps out there now are bait-and-switch crummy little single-level things that just show ads for the full app.
So if free programs ALREADY suck, why are you afraid that they might suck after the change?
I agree that paid-only apps will probably become more rare. Maybe people will offer them just for that reason: easier top ranking! But if almost all apps become free-with-upgrades (a system I like!) then there's an easy answer to visibility: show 20 top apps instead of 10
DLC doesn't mean being nagged, any more than a free Lite version means being nagged. That's up to the dev, same as always. No change.
And some of us DO get good value from trying things before we buy. That was possible before, and now it's a bit easier.
Devs can still do it the old way if they want, but if they use the new method, your end result will be the SAME: you'll have the full app, with the same functionality, for whatever price the dev has decided and you have agreed to.
I don't understand, why are people rejoicing over this?
Free apps remain free, that was Apple's reasoning and it made perfect sense. Now we have to deal with incomplete applications with developers charging for more material that should have been there in the first place. It's different with normal In-App purchases. With those, we were paying for additional content to enhance the experience. Yes, developers like Tapulous will use this the way it should be used. (Free app, pay for add-ons) But there's too much opportunity for abuse here.
I hope that Apple categorizes these "free" apps with apps that are paid for through upfront costs.
And how does that work exactly? You buy a lite version then buy an In-App purchase to get the full version? That's how it works now, except you have two separate apps, until you delete the free one. So what's the point?
Free apps remain free, that was Apple's reasoning and it made perfect sense. Now we have to deal with incomplete applications with developers charging for more material that should have been there in the first place. It's different with normal In-App purchases. With those, we were paying for additional content to enhance the experience. Yes, developers like Tapulous will use this the way it should be used. (Free app, pay for add-ons) But there's too much opportunity for abuse here.
I hope that Apple categorizes these "free" apps with apps that are paid for through upfront costs.
And how does that work exactly? You buy a lite version then buy an In-App purchase to get the full version? That's how it works now, except you have two separate apps, until you delete the free one. So what's the point?
You don't like it because it will be different.
You don't like it because it will be the same.
Maybe you should figure out which you believe, then we can respond to your questions.
This is a big one. Right now, the in-app purchase only applies to that one device. So at the moment it looks like "buy once for all your phones" will soon vanish.
BUT, I don't know how Apple sees the multiple-device policy they currently have for paid apps. If they see it as a consumer feature then in-app purchasing may soon change so that it syncs back to the account and affects all devices.
On the other hand, if Apple always saw it as an un-avoidable flaw then they won't change anything and that will be a shame for us.
I honestly don't know how Apple views it, so I couldn't guess what they'll do about this.
I don't get the complaints about how apps will now be crippled somehow.
You already have "lite" versions which are "crippled." The only difference now will be that you have the option of paying to upgrade the full version within the "lite" version.
What's the difference? You'll just have to download the app once now instead of redownloading the full version after you've tried it out.
You already have "lite" versions which are "crippled." The only difference now will be that you have the option of paying to upgrade the full version within the "lite" version.
What's the difference? You'll just have to download the app once now instead of redownloading the full version after you've tried it out.
Good news... would be good to include "flag"
I think this is good news. It eliminates a lot of problems, and, as people have said, there's nagging and ads in "free" versions today.
I think it'd be good to have some flag or tag to let consumers know they're download an app with in-app purchases. Many don't want to bother with an app if they have to pay every time they want to do something useful or fun. (Yes, I know some will gladly pay $2.99 to download that really cool tractor to plow their fantasy farm.)
I think this is good news. It eliminates a lot of problems, and, as people have said, there's nagging and ads in "free" versions today.
I think it'd be good to have some flag or tag to let consumers know they're download an app with in-app purchases. Many don't want to bother with an app if they have to pay every time they want to do something useful or fun. (Yes, I know some will gladly pay $2.99 to download that really cool tractor to plow their fantasy farm.)
It blurs the line between a freeware app and a lite app. Before it was very obvious. Its also going to mess up the charting system. You wont know which apps are freeware until you download them.
Of course, Apple could fix this easily by introducing a few new categories to the App Store.
I think Apple should specifically label "trial apps" as such, and separate them from "free" apps. That would probably solve the problem.
THis part could stink. Big time. Because no way will i be buying 2 copies of something - one for me and one for the kids.....
App descriptions now tell you what is the top "in app purchase" for something, so you should be able to see it before you buy.
Tap Tap Revenge 2 has it (because it's open in iTunes), as does Flight Update
I don't know - I think apple regarded it as a feature. Look at home sharing - it is meant to allow you to grab apps from your family members' computers. Being able to only buy one app and share it is a great feature. If they change this ... we can hope to vote with our dollars.
Two main issues :
1) Can a developer sell for free a full version of an app and after a few days ask for in-app purchase to continue using it ?
Reading the guides it seems this can't be done.
2) If 1 is true, suppose I make my app ABContacts free for 10 days and later ask its cost to continue using it; what about my existing user base ? If I upgrade the app with the new "logic" will I be able to distinguish users that had already paid for the app from the new users that got it for free and are in the "try" period ?
Reading the guides again it seems this can't be done.
So it seems to me this can't be used REALLY for try before you buy, at least for existing apps.
1) Can a developer sell for free a full version of an app and after a few days ask for in-app purchase to continue using it ?
Reading the guides it seems this can't be done.
2) If 1 is true, suppose I make my app ABContacts free for 10 days and later ask its cost to continue using it; what about my existing user base ? If I upgrade the app with the new "logic" will I be able to distinguish users that had already paid for the app from the new users that got it for free and are in the "try" period ?
Reading the guides again it seems this can't be done.
So it seems to me this can't be used REALLY for try before you buy, at least for existing apps.
Specifications says that in-app purchased content should be available to ALL devices of the buyer.
What? All the developers making fun of Windows tiered system will now make their free>lite>pro>ultimate versions of their apps?
I welcome In App Purchase for subscriptions, episodes, and content; but not for features. And, as I more or less said before, I welcome In App Purchase if it will allow for free trial of fully functional apps for a limited time, with cost being disclosed upfront, so they will not be listed as free application... and good riddance of al those lite apps.
I welcome In App Purchase for subscriptions, episodes, and content; but not for features. And, as I more or less said before, I welcome In App Purchase if it will allow for free trial of fully functional apps for a limited time, with cost being disclosed upfront, so they will not be listed as free application... and good riddance of al those lite apps.