That really depends on the type of app you are talking about. For games, this does solve the problem of having a "lite" version because it allows you to deliver the first level of the game for free and offer purchase of additional levels in the game.
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
That all apps (even free teaser apps) must provide some functionality is an Apple policy for accepting apps in the App Store. It is a sensible policy to weed out the most blatant "bait-and-switch" sorts of apps.
Having apps that open up to a "Pay Now or Quit" page doesn't seem like a good thing to me. I'm glad Apple agrees.
The only reason apple are doing this is about their bottom line.
Your more likely going to download a free app and the shell out a couple off bucks to unlock it if you're happy rather than taking a gamble and forking out the cash to start with.
I would like the concept of a tirial period then needing to pay.
There are a number of +50 dollar apps i'd consider, but a couple of screen shots don't really give a compleate picture of functionality.
Your more likely going to download a free app and the shell out a couple off bucks to unlock it if you're happy rather than taking a gamble and forking out the cash to start with.
I would like the concept of a tirial period then needing to pay.
There are a number of +50 dollar apps i'd consider, but a couple of screen shots don't really give a compleate picture of functionality.
It seems to me that understanding the answers to these questions might be useful before deciding if this new option is a good thing or not. Apparently there is such a thing as "consumable" DLC that can only be used once. If developers mark their DLC as "consumable", then you won't be able to re-download it, since you already "ate" it.
Perhaps Apple will prevent abusive use of the consumable flag. But they seem to have already given in on abuse of the word "free".
Will be interesting to see what it does to all the little games like the Storm8 games where they introduce new versions of their existing games with different free point values then give bonuses in all the other games to get people to download them.
Obviously this would seem to allow them to do this differently, the question is will Apple force developers to stop releasing duplicate apps or will they not care?
Obviously this would seem to allow them to do this differently, the question is will Apple force developers to stop releasing duplicate apps or will they not care?
Yeah, no consequences of doing that, right? Like all those paid apps who suddenly get crowded out of their "top paid" positions to some $0 app that gets downloaded 10x more? I guess if the rankings are based on $ amount (they aren't that's why the "top grossing" category was created) then it might be fair.
It seems like the only "fair" alternative is to have a 3rd category, but as the developer of a "paid app" with currently no free apps, I personally don't think that leaving them in the free category is going to change much in terms of ranking, reviews, etc. but maybe that's just my bias...
I know.. I just don't want to be scammed into a purchase. For example, a free app that has a "continue" button after each level... The first 5 levels are free, but you aren't told that the 5th "continue" button will buy the next 5 levels, etc. Stuff like that. It needs to be extra clear what button, or event, will cause your free app to become an app you throw money at. Or, they the App Store should note what apps use in-app purchase.
I don't mind it, but my only issues from my experience with downloadable content is that developers tend to hold back content from the initial product, and then claim it was made later, releasing it as DLC.
Also, in some cases, such as Halo 3 on the xbox 360, I recall DLC actually screwing up the game, restricting parts of it unless you purchased further DLC. I don't want either of the two happening here, but it seems inevitable.
Also, in some cases, such as Halo 3 on the xbox 360, I recall DLC actually screwing up the game, restricting parts of it unless you purchased further DLC. I don't want either of the two happening here, but it seems inevitable.
You're right of course - moving these "not quite free" apps to the paid list would be even worse than leaving them categorized as "free". IMO, a third category is a "fix" for something that wasn't broken in the first place.
I still think this reversal was a bad one (from Apple's previous position that "free means free") but time will tell. From my perspective as an App Store consumer, it seems like a step backward. And if this move makes it harder to share my apps between the four iPod touches in the household, it will definitely impact my willingness to purchase apps in the future.