Apple Opens Up In-App Purchasing for Free iPhone Applications

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/15/apple-opens-up-in-app-purchasing-for-free-iphone-applications/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/10/15/171402-in-app_purchasing.png

Apple has just sent out an e-mail to registered iPhone developers informing them that in-app purchasing, previously restricted to paid applications, is now also permitted in free applications. The change also permits developers to create a single version of an application to be sold for free with limited accessibility that can then be unlocked for full functionality via in-app purchases, eliminating the need for developers to create separate free "lite" versions of paid apps if they wish to offer such products.In App Purchase is being rapidly adopted by developers in their paid apps. Now you can use In App Purchase in your free apps to sell content, subscriptions, and digital services.

You can also simplify your development by creating a single version of your app that uses In App Purchase to unlock additional functionality, eliminating the need to create Lite versions of your app. Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases.

Visit the App Store Resource Center for more details about how you can add In App Purchases to your free apps.

Article Link: Apple Opens Up In-App Purchasing for Free iPhone Applications (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/15/apple-opens-up-in-app-purchasing-for-free-iphone-applications/)

[xDYLANx]

Makes sense that they would eventually do it.

[zombitronic]

The change also permits developers to create a single version of an application to be sold for free with limited accessibility that can then be unlocked for full functionality via in-app purchases, eliminating the need for developers to create separate free "lite" versions of paid apps if they wish to offer such products.

This is great, but I wonder how it will affect the Top Free and Top Paid app listings.

[mspy]

This is great! Free trial versions can now be upgraded to a full paid version. No more need for "lite" versions.

[dr34mc4st3r]

"Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases."

great that apple is acknowledging the problem and at least providing a form of solution for now

[starcrossed]

Just got the email and thought, there was probably a few $0.99 I could've saved if Apple had allowed this in the first place. I think Tap Tap Revenge 3 wanted to be free but had no choice because they want to have in-app additional song purchases.

[Bevz]

Great news :)

[outphase]

This is great! Only bad thing I see now is there will be a bunch more "free" apps that aren't really free.
That's a slippery slope argument... One that I can get behind. I wonder how many devs will release an incomplete app just to follow it up with paid DLC.
"Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases."

great that apple is acknowledging the problem and at least providing a form of solution for now
I wonder if TTR3 will become free now. That would be pretty cool :P

[countrydweller]

I womder if limited accessibility could be a two week trial, then it could be unlocked for full functionality.

[mspy]

This is great, but I wonder how it will affect the Top Free and Top Paid app listings.

I can see it hurting the rankings of truly free apps.

[mspy]

"Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases."

great that apple is acknowledging the problem and at least providing a form of solution for now

As a developer this is probably the best part of the whole thing. Verifiable purchases.

[jessica.]

Maybe this is a good way to try before you buy free apps. I know there are a few I've bought that after all the glow wears off, they suck.

[shk718]

This will also allow users to get used to purchasing "stuff" within the app. something that will benefit developers and apple greatly in the long run. I think its still a very new and foreign concept. Bravo we finally get free trial versions!

[twoodcc]

well i was hoping that free apps would stay free

[ouimetnick]

Yes! I've wondered why this was a no go when it was announced. But they have listened.

[ArtOfWarfare]

Is Apple smart enough to distinguish between the truly free apps and the apps with no upfront fee that later charge you to unlock the full thing?

[nagromme]

This is a good evolution to simplify the whole process. There are actually a lot of Lites I have not tried because of the added clutter I'd then have to delete in my iTunes library. Plus, what if you store some useful data or game progress in a Lite version, and then delete it and have to start over with the full version? And there's just the store clutter of having two versions of everything. I hope many developers take advantage of this.

It also helps devs make enough money to keep bringing us great games: it's a gateway for people to finally "try out" DLC, and can make piracy that much harder.

(Question: what happens if you buy an app, buy DLC, and then delete the app from your device. When you put it back on the device later, is the DLC gone? Can you re-download the DLC without paying again?)

[fifthworld]

What I really want is a way to try, for a limited time, fully functional apps before buying them. I'm wondering if In App Purchase can eventually evolve into that.

[crees!]

About damn time.

[bacharss]

This is good for eliminating duplicate apps, less to go through but it's going to turn the rankings upside down and hurt the truly free apps which is too bad.

[MvdM]

well i was hoping that free apps would stay free

That's what they promised in a keynote: Free apps stay free.

[Small White Car]

FANTASTIC.

Yes, there are lots of little problems people are mentioning here. But those all pale compared to the fact that now a developer can make a free trial of their program.

No more need for crippled "lite" versions! (Try the full version before you buy!)

No more 'Tweetie 2' controversies! (Paid upgrades!)

These things are all far, far more important than all the little problems it raises!

[nagromme]

Is Apple smart enough to distinguish between the truly free apps and the apps with no upfront fee that later charge you to unlock the full thing?

You mean in the front page store rankings? That's a good question, but my guess is "eventually yes." Apple does KNOW which apps support DLC, since the DLC comes through Apple--so automatically sorting out two types of free should be doable. And Apple continues to refine the Top Apps display to make it work better. So I'm betting something will change about that--but maybe not right away.

If nothing changes, though, we still have more or less the same situation as now: a lot of the free apps are ALREADY just teasers for paid apps.

[beppeabresh]

What happens to existing PAID apps that will be converted to free with in app-purchases? How can the developer exclude existing customers from paying the in app-purchase?

[smearedblue]

isn't this exactly what apple promised they wouldn't allow a while ago. I don't need a free trial for an app.. screen shots are plenty. And I'd much prefer it then being constantly nagged by apps that I expect to be fast.

gotta say, I'm against it.

[The General]

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?

[Delirium39]

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.

[nagromme]

That's what they promised in a keynote: Free apps stay free.

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.)

[kas23]

well i was hoping that free apps would stay free

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.

[smearedblue]

These things are all far, far more important than all the little problems it raises!

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.

[Small White Car]

isn't this exactly what apple promised they wouldn't allow a while ago. I don't need a free trial for an app.. screen shots are plenty. And I'd much prefer it then being constantly nagged by apps that I expect to be fast.

gotta say, I'm against it.

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?

I don't need bs trial apps at the cost of all the bait and switch free apps that no doubt will come out.


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?

[nagromme]

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 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 :)

isn't this exactly what apple promised they wouldn't allow a while ago. I don't need a free trial for an app.. screen shots are plenty. And I'd much prefer it then being constantly nagged by apps that I expect to be fast.

gotta say, I'm against it.

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.

[na1577]

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.

Maybe this is a good way to try before you buy free apps. I know there are a few I've bought that after all the glow wears off, they suck.

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?

[Small White Car]

I don't understand, why are people rejoicing over this?

Now we have to deal with incomplete applications with developers charging for more material that should have been there in the first place.

You don't like it because it will be different.


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 the same.

Maybe you should figure out which you believe, then we can respond to your questions.

[jamus]

So how does in-app purchases work for multiple devices on one account? Would that now be multiple purchases instead of one?

[Small White Car]

So how does in-app purchases work for multiple devices on one account? Would that now be multiple purchases instead of one?

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.

[rorschach]

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.

[TigerCliff]

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.)

[jaw04005]

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.

It blurs the line between a “freeware” app and a “lite” app. Before it was very obvious. It’s also going to mess up the charting system. You won’t 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.

[pmjoe]

Ugh. Unless Apple has some additional plans in place, this is going to be a mess. Look for a tidal wave of "free" apps that aren't really free to show up in the free section of the App Store. :mad:

[rorschach]

It blurs the line between a “freeware” app and a “lite” app. Before it was very obvious. It’s also going to mess up the charting system. You won’t 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.

[TraceyS/FL]

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.
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.....

[GeekAtBirth]

I really dislike this idea. I am liking it now when there are "lite" or "free" versions.

[ruinfx]

this is good news for apple and developers, and terrible news for regular iphone/ipod touch customers.

[rfahey]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on how this might improve the app approval process? Since devs won't be submitting duplicate apps (full version & lite version) that's half the apps that have to be sifted through right there.

[TraceyS/FL]

It blurs the line between a “freeware” app and a “lite” app. Before it was very obvious. It’s also going to mess up the charting system. You won’t 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.

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 (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=295446978&mt=8)

[yargok]

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.....

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.

[vettori]

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.

[vettori]

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.



Specifications says that in-app purchased content should be available to ALL devices of the buyer.

[fifthworld]

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.

[fifthworld]

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 for 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.

[ghayenga]

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.

No, in-app purchases apply to all devices on an account. To download/unlock the feature you simply attempt to purchase it on device #2 and Apple will say you have already purchased this and not charge you a second time.

[andy721]

Hasn't this already been done? Or are they enforcing a rule upon uploading a Paid app to iTunes?
Let the rules get thicker, thank you Apple.:apple: (sarcasm) but free is good but being limited isn't

[celticpride678]

I feel that this could be an amazing thing. No more “lite” apps, a lot more choices and a lot easier for developers. But, I wonder what is going to happen with the Top Free section in the App Store now.

[iVoid]

Apple really needs to have three categories for 'free' apps now:

'Free' - A free app that will stay free
'Ad Sponsored' - An app that doesn';t cost the user upfront,but uses in app advertising
'Trial' - A app that requires in app purchase to go beyond a trial period or to unlock full functionality.

[str1f3]

I feel that this could be an amazing thing. No more “lite” apps, a lot more choices and a lot easier for developers. But, I wonder what is going to happen with the Top Free section in the App Store now.

It's not really going to change things. The ones that will be in the top 25 will still be popular "lite" apps and stuff that is truly free. If developers act shady, it will show in the reviews and eventually disappear into what is now the App Store void. The cream always rises to the top. If I was Apple I would ask the developer to make it very clear in the app description as to whether there is a paid upgrade option though I'm sure that this is already now a pre-requisite.

[Doju]

I'm really confused as to how this will change Paid vs. Free top app listings. Assassin's Creed may be top in free even though its in-app purchases make it top for all apps, while Hero of Sparta doesn't have in app purchases and just sells a lot of the paid version and becomes "top" for paid, even though Assassin's Creed sells more.

I'm sure Apple will work this out somehow. I don't really care, I got free trials through pirating anyway.

[aristobrat]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on how this might improve the app approval process? Since devs won't be submitting duplicate apps (full version & lite version) that's half the apps that have to be sifted through right there.
Exactly my thought too! Potentially 1/2 the amount of apps Apple has to approve...

[VenusianSky]

I'm really confused as to how this will change Paid vs. Free top app listings. Assassin's Creed may be top in free even though its in-app purchases make it top for all apps, while Hero of Sparta doesn't have in app purchases and just sells a lot of the paid version and becomes "top" for paid, even though Assassin's Creed sells more.

I'm sure Apple will work this out somehow. I don't really care, I got free trials through pirating anyway.

Also, if you download the trial and then convert it to full, will the App Store display the trial app as "Installed" or the full version as "Installed" or both?

I too am sure Apple will have it worked out.

[Thex1138]

Radio is probably about the last hardware tweak that will be done, aside from software additions, before the new 4G phone arrives...

[hexor]

Why would so many people be rating this as a negative development? People are not understanding how this works. This is a good thing. You ALREADY HAVE lite/free versions of many of the paid apps. This just allows the developer to provide a SINGLE version instead of polluting the app store with seperate lite and paid versions.

[Darkroom]

finally!

i'm curious how this will work with ratings. might not be such a great thing for developers to produce a trail since ratings for the app will surely plummet.

[Delirium39]

This just allows the developer to provide a SINGLE version instead of polluting the app store with seperate lite and paid versions.

A single version that happens to live in the free list, when it really isn't a free app at all. If everything is listed as free, you will see half as many apps visible on the store.

[PlutoPrime]

As an iPhone developer, I would have to say this doesn't necessarily excite me at all. It really depends how Apple has thought out the impact on ranks. Why you may ask?

Many applications have Paid versions that are more successful than free versions, so rankings do not necessarily remain in sync. In other words, I would not remove the paid version AND the lite version of my successful paid app, and replace it with a free app that has in app purchases. Doing so not only has potentially negative psychological impacts on the customers (depends on your brand power & your brand recognition), but the free app ecosystem is quite different than the paid arena. The free section tends to be filled with more "shovel-ware" apps than you could shake a donkeys tail at (Such as this wonderful shovelware free app: "Top 10 Crazy Sex Laws"). I don't want my product mixing with the same garbage.

So in the end, I would have to release two versions anyway, one paid, and one free with the ability to become full version from within the app. The benefits of such a scenario is only marginal.

There are benefitial use cases with subscription and media distribution (such as creating a free magazine app with paid extra issues). But you have to be in the market to benefit. In the end this update was not meant as a game changer for all but for those who need it.

My 2 cents.

[Minimoose 360]

Finally. No more "Lite" versions cluttering up the App Store.

[Mr. Giver '94]

Great... No more free apps... :(

[nagromme]

Great... No more free apps... :(

This has nothing to do with that. We will still have TWO kinds of free apps--the same two kinds we always had before:

1. Free apps that are great in their own right.

2. Free apps that are limited teasers to let you try before you pay.

All that has changed for users is that #2 has gotten easier for you.

[hexor]

A single version that happens to live in the free list, when it really isn't a free app at all. If everything is listed as free, you will see half as many apps visible on the store.

How is this different from a paid app that is crap that you wish you didn't pay for? Any review of the app would call this out and people would avoid it. The lite version is already listed in the "free" section as well.

[Thex1138]

Great... No more free apps... :(
I think it's more to do with reducing duplication... developers put out 2 apps, one free demo and another fully paid app... They just want to reduce the churn... strain on their app servers...

[MattInOz]

The interseting thing for the developers of more complex app's could be modules for related function sets. You'd then get a report of how and when the users find the extra function useful.

[McBeats]

not too shabby...

[kallisti]

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.

Are you really saying that you are owed a certain level of functionality in a free application? I mean it's free. You aren't paying anything for someone else's hard work. How can you complain about this with a straight face?

[Delirium39]

How is this different from a paid app that is crap that you wish you didn't pay for? Any review of the app would call this out and people would avoid it. The lite version is already listed in the "free" section as well.

Lite versions of paid apps ALWAYS have lower ratings than the paid version. The download rate on free versions is massive, because people get it just because it is free and on a top list, and not necessarily because they're interested in it. They play it for a minute, and decide it's not for them, and give it a 1 star rating. Fair to the dev? No. A paid version does not have this problem, thus higher ratings as a rule. But going with this new model, the single app is free, so everyone will download it, and it gets the bad reviews, deserved or not. And with only one category instead of two, visibility is cut in half. Quite a few negatives for devs, which is why this may never catch on.

[cdomigan]

Does Apple take a slice of in-app purchases?

If not, doesn't this mean everybody can now sell their apps for "free" on App Store, then use in-app payment to activate them, thereby bypassing Apple's cut and making themselves more money? (or making app prices cheaper)

[arn]

Does Apple take a slice of in-app purchases?

If not, doesn't this mean everybody can now sell their apps for "free" on App Store, then use in-app payment to activate them, thereby bypassing Apple's cut and making themselves more money? (or making app prices cheaper)

Apple takes a 30% cut of in-app purchases also.

arn

[Singin Hobo]

I'm not sure which situation is worse... the fact is neither is perfect, though I think ultimately allowing in-app purchasing in free apps will eventually prove to be a great way to rip-off the end-user--Apple will probably have to end up regulating this somehow.

[Shaderboy]

In-App purchases only work for iPhone OS 3.x, don't they? You wouldn't be able to completely do away with lite versions of your apps if you want to support the broadest user base.

[Detlev]

Wait, do in app purchases require sharing PII with yet another party? Who processes the payment? How does the enduser know payment processing is secure. How many accounts will the enduser need to establish if they have 100+ applications. Will iTunes gift certificates be a useable form of payment?

One of the attractions to places like the iTunes store and Amazon is that the purchase process is kept simple and PII is assumed to be kept safe. If the enduser has to deal separately with each developer then this is in fact a step backward in the realm of online retail.

[DipDog3]

Probably won't help getting into the Top 100.

[DUSTmurph]

Kinda defeats the meaning of "free", doesn't it?

[Delirium39]

Wait, do in app purchases require sharing PII with yet another party? Who processes the payment? How does the enduser know payment processing is secure. How many accounts will the enduser need to establish if they have 100+ applications. Will iTunes gift certificates be a useable form of payment?

One of the attractions to places like the iTunes store and Amazon is that the purchase process is kept simple and PII is assumed to be kept safe. If the enduser has to deal separately with each developer then this is in fact a step backward in the realm of online retail.

The payment is entirely through Apple. You're contacting, and paying, Apple to unlock something in the app. It is charged to your iTunes account.

[iVoid]

In-App purchases only work for iPhone OS 3.x, don't they? You wouldn't be able to completely do away with lite versions of your apps if you want to support the broadest user base.

I believe that all apps in the App store today have to work with 3.0, so theoretically those with 2.x are going to find less and less apps to get from the app store regardless.

[fleshman03]

As a developer this is probably the best part of the whole thing. Verifiable purchases.

"Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases."

great that apple is acknowledging the problem and at least providing a form of solution for now

Righhhhhhhhht, keep thinking there won't be a work around out in a few weeks...

Pirates will pirate. Devs will complain. The trick is to find a way to make money regardless.

[kresh]

The in-app purchase was already starting to get crazy, now it is going to be nuts.

Imagine if the Mac was all in-app purchase. Click on "File -> Save" the program prompts you to click here to buy that feature for $4.00, want to print - that will be $4.00, ah you want access to the interweb - that will be $10.00!

In-app purchase should be restricted to content, not features. If Apple allows developers to use in-app purchases for features then the appstore will quickly become a nickel and dime fest for developers screwing people!

[na1577]

Are you really saying that you are owed a certain level of functionality in a free application? I mean it's free. You aren't paying anything for someone else's hard work. How can you complain about this with a straight face?

Listen to what I'm saying, because you clearly don't understand.

If you download a free app, it should have some functionality. But this allows developers to sell us an empty application with a big "Buy Now" button in it. Why would someone download something like that?

[djalice]

I hope there will be rules that mean we won't be mislead into downloading apps without knowing the 'upgrade' path. I can see every game in the app store becoming 'Free' and very annoying.

[Zedder the Dog!]

Does anyone know of any good tutorials on coding in app purchases.
I have a couple of simple apps that might well take to in app purchases for simple additional content. however from what i can see its not the easiest of things to do. my apps are specialist - selling reasonably well in their niche and my coding is good enough for them at moment but keen to see some examples/tutorials. apple dont seem to have an example source code to download

[kresh]

Does anyone know of any good tutorials on coding in app purchases.
I have a couple of simple apps that might well take to in app purchases for simple additional content. however from what i can see its not the easiest of things to do. my apps are specialist - selling reasonably well in their niche and my coding is good enough for them at moment but keen to see some examples/tutorials. apple dont seem to have an example source code to download

comment deleted, I apologize

[The Phazer]

Apple really needs to have three categories for 'free' apps now:

'Free' - A free app that will stay free
'Ad Sponsored' - An app that doesn';t cost the user upfront,but uses in app advertising
'Trial' - A app that requires in app purchase to go beyond a trial period or to unlock full functionality.

Agreed, that's a good common sense solution.

Phazer

[gospel9]

The in-app purchase was already starting to get crazy, now it is going to be nuts.

Imagine if the Mac was all in-app purchase. Click on "File -> Save" the program prompts you to click here to buy that feature for $4.00, want to print - that will be $4.00, ah you want access to the interweb - that will be $10.00!

In-app purchase should be restricted to content, not features. If Apple allows developers to use in-app purchases for features then the appstore will quickly become a nickel and dime fest for developers screwing people!


If the app was built like that, people will simply not buy it. This is good for both the developer and the consumer. As the consumer we have a choice, and now making the choice of purchasing the right application would be easier.

[darwen]

What happens to existing PAID apps that will be converted to free with in app-purchases? How can the developer exclude existing customers from paying the in app-purchase?

As a developer, I wonder the same thing. How do I turn a paid app into a free app without frustrating customers.

[joesixgig]

..

[kallisti]

Listen to what I'm saying, because you clearly don't understand.

If you download a free app, it should have some functionality. But this allows developers to sell us an empty application with a big "Buy Now" button in it. Why would someone download something like that?

You answered your own question. People won't download "empty applications" that do nothing (aside from the fact that an app with zero functionality would likely not be approved by Apple in the first place). Reviewers and raters will rapidly make such apps and developers anathema. To be honest, such developers could do something similar but worse right now with paid apps: charge you for a barely functional app and then direct you to buy the "full" version as an in-app purchase.

The only thing I really see changing is that the rankings will potentially get really screwed up (which could have a large impact on sales for some developers). This isn't the end of "truly" free apps. Apple isn't forcing developers to charge for their apps. It will just hopefully rid the store of all the clutter of "every app needs 2 versions--lite and full."

[Jeffrosproto]

I think this will turn out to screw the end user in the end. Devs better not update my paid apps that I already bought to a free version that I have to unlock with an In-App Purchase.

[Sense Field]

It blurs the line between a “freeware” app and a “lite” app. Before it was very obvious. It’s also going to mess up the charting system. You won’t 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.

You would know that the app had downloadable content because it would have a list of the top DLC in the description. You do read descriptions, don't you?

[Lightbrazer]

I hope there will be rules that mean we won't be mislead into downloading apps without knowing the 'upgrade' path. I can see every game in the app store becoming 'Free' and very annoying.


If you look at an app that has in app purchases they are listed right up top and usually labeled to tell you what they are. So for example if you see a game with one galaxy and the top in app purchases are galaxy #2 for 2.99 and galaxy #3 for 2.99 and galaxy # 4 for 2.99 and galaxy #2,3,4 multipack for 5.99

then you know right up front what you're getting and what it will cost you.

Look up some of the subscription navigation apps like motionx to see how this looks in itunes either on your phone or computer and you see exactly what I mean.

[Luke Redpath]

Something that a lot of people here have overlooked is that the iPhone app submission terms and guidelines have not really changed here.

Before this development, users creating "lite" apps still had to ensure that these apps were self-contained functional apps in their own right and not obviously feature or time-limited demos that require the full paid-for app to work.

This has not changed. This requirement is still in place. Those talking about developers submitting "empty apps" that require in-app purchases to unlock are worrying about nothing. These apps will not even make it through the submission process.

Unfortunately, I think this also precludes the ability to produce time-limited demos that require an in-app purchase to "unlock". As the app submission guidelines currently stand, this simply wouldn't be acceptable and would unlikely to be accepted.

Apple ought to and probably will clarify this matter in due course.

[iOrlando]

Listen to what I'm saying, because you clearly don't understand.

If you download a free app, it should have some functionality. But this allows developers to sell us an empty application with a big "Buy Now" button in it. Why would someone download something like that?

I think it ultimately is reinforcing the concept of developer quality and reputation shining through. I can see it happening already. Well-known developers wont do some cheesy thing like have an empty application only to have a "buy now" feature. Instead, they can utilize the in-app purchase app to try to maximize the number of people who will actually pay for the game.

I don't know about you, but I am more willing to pay $4 for a game, if I can play even a little bit of 1 level, versus just going off of reviews, or screenshots. Imagine, if every single app let you play/use it for 2-4 minutes. I think that will spur more sales than anything else. The problem Apple has seen is people are very stingy and cheap when it comes to paying for Apps. Maybe this move will help change that cheapness.

[drober30]

isn't this exactly what apple promised they wouldn't allow a while ago. I don't need a free trial for an app.. screen shots are plenty. And I'd much prefer it then being constantly nagged by apps that I expect to be fast.

gotta say, I'm against it.

I agree with the messages about upgrading would be annoying. However if it's just a message every time you tart the app stating how many days you have left or that you could upgrade then that would be fine.

A trial run is way better than just screen shots IMHO.

Also think of the number of duplicate apps that wont be in the app store now!

[dr34mc4st3r]

Listen to what I'm saying, because you clearly don't understand.

If you download a free app, it should have some functionality. But this allows developers to sell us an empty application with a big "Buy Now" button in it. Why would someone download something like that?

let the app reviews be a judge of the apps. those fishy apps might get on top of the charts initially, but won't be sustainable. over the long run, things will equalise out

[226896]

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?

I thought I was the only one who thought this. I think this is a really bad idea. It will get abused, we'll see nothing but a load of crappy free apps that have everything locked out until you buy it. Gone will be the days of downloading a full app for free.

[Luke Redpath]

I thought I was the only one who thought this. I think this is a really bad idea. It will get abused, we'll see nothing but a load of crappy free apps that have everything locked out until you buy it. Gone will be the days of downloading a full app for free.

See my post above. This will not happen as it is not allowed as per the Apple app submission guidelines, as is the case now with lite apps.

[TraceyS/FL]

I think it ultimately is reinforcing the concept of developer quality and reputation shining through. I can see it happening already. Well-known developers wont do some cheesy thing like have an empty application only to have a "buy now" feature. Instead, they can utilize the in-app purchase app to try to maximize the number of people who will actually pay for the game.

I don't know about you, but I am more willing to pay $4 for a game, if I can play even a little bit of 1 level, versus just going off of reviews, or screenshots. Imagine, if every single app let you play/use it for 2-4 minutes. I think that will spur more sales than anything else. The problem Apple has seen is people are very stingy and cheap when it comes to paying for Apps. Maybe this move will help change that cheapness.

This happened yesterday already!

http://toucharcade.com/2009/10/15/rolando-2-chapter-1-now-available-for-free-dlc/

Ngmoco is wasting absolutely no time in taking advantage of the new policy allowing developers to release free apps with in-app purchases. Aside from announcing that their Eliminate game will be free, they have also released Rolando 2: Chapter 1 into the App Store for free.

The free version of the game offers the entire first chapter of the game and offers the remaining chapters as paid in-app purchases. So you can buy them as you need them.

The game serves as a Lite version for the game, but the Full game dropped from $5.99 to $4.99 [App Store], bringing it in line with the total cost of buying all add-on packs.

[asrai]

What I really want is a way to try, for a limited time, fully functional apps before buying them. I'm wondering if In App Purchase can eventually evolve into that.

I would certainly think and HOPE so. I know I've purchased some apps that after using them, wished I hadn't. Granted it was only $1, but still. If I'm going to purchase something; I want try prior to buy -- just like 'most' software.

I don't buy computer software I can't try first, so I hope to see this in the app store.

[drober30]

Lots of good points are being made!

I wonder if there will be a distinction between a fully featured free app verse a trial or lite app with the ability to upgrade?

[Unspoken Demise]

As a developer, I embrace this with open arms. My company has already come up with a few ideas using this functionality.

[skate71290]

I womder if limited accessibility could be a two week trial, then it could be unlocked for full functionality.

good idea :D i would prefer this to having a half functional app... thats what annoys me about demos on the PS3 lol but i hope this doesnt mean that it won't be possible to distinguish between a fully free app and one that you need to pay for... if that makes any sense :eek:

[sirenum]

As a developer (and as a customer) I'd love to see time limited trials. Unfortunately Apple does not allow time limited applications at the moment. So they basically force us to make "crippled" lite applications if we want to provide a try-before-you-buy option for our customers.
In app purchases does not really solve the problem imho.

[Unspoken Demise]

As a developer (and as a customer) I'd love to see time limited trials. Unfortunately Apple does not allow time limited applications at the moment. So they basically force us to make "crippled" lite applications if we want to provide a try-before-you-buy option for our customers.
In app purchases does not really solve the problem imho.

There are more applications to this other than crippled free versions.
However I understand what you are saying.

[pmjoe]

Something that a lot of people here have overlooked is that the iPhone app submission terms and guidelines have not really changed here.

Before this development, users creating "lite" apps still had to ensure that these apps were self-contained functional apps in their own right and not obviously feature or time-limited demos that require the full paid-for app to work.

This has not changed. This requirement is still in place. Those talking about developers submitting "empty apps" that require in-app purchases to unlock are worrying about nothing. These apps will not even make it through the submission process.
IMHO, the submission terms and guidelines must have changed.

You are suggesting a "degree of freeness" measure that would be difficult to quantify in an actual review process.

What would prevent a magazine company from releasing a "free" Reader app that would do nothing but display In-App paid subscriptions to their magazines? Just how much demo play is required in a "free" game until it's OK to In-App charge for additional levels?

[pmjoe]

this is good news for apple and developers, and terrible news for regular iphone/ipod touch customers.
It's a real slap in the face of developers who produce truly free apps.

[slamshut]

This way you will know aleast if thats what you want. Free apps should just be free. So the dev wont abuse the add ons after the trail.

[nagromme]

This happened yesterday already!

http://toucharcade.com/2009/10/15/rolando-2-chapter-1-now-available-for-free-dlc/

I like it! Play one level for free, forever, with no need to delete a Lite version and re-install the real thing, and no loss of your first-level progress! Then buy just as many levels as you want after that: if you never get around to finishing the game, you never pay the full price. And if you DO buy all the levels, you've paid the same amount as someone who buys the full game to start with :) Which you can still do, if you prefer to get it all in one swoop. Very flexible. Good for the devs, good for us.

It's a real slap in the face of developers who produce truly free apps.

Why? People will ALWAYS want those, and reviews will help lead you to the good ones.

You could just as easily say that limited Lite apps were a slap in the face of truly free apps. But nothing has changed: some apps are full and free, while others are free only as demos of something more. That's how it was always, and that's how it still will be.

There's no slap in the face here, just more options--for devs AND for us.

[fifthworld]

I womder if limited accessibility could be a two week trial, then it could be unlocked for full functionality.

I would much prefer to let the developers decide the trial period and format. For example it could be 60 minutes of gaming, 2 calendar weeks of navigation, or simply a watermark on top of photos.

As an iPhone user I really hope the try first will became a reality, but I'm afraid it will happen much down the road. The iPhone ecosystem is still in his infancy for Apple to introduce a so radical game changer, one that could lead to the virtual disappearance of sales for many useless or badly designed apps.

For now Apple wants to attract as many developers as possible and heavily use the number of apps in the store for marketing purpose. Eventually we will see the average quality of apps rising–already happening–and the try first will became an improvement welcome by developers–confident in their products; users–not afraid of loosing money and hence willing to spend more for some good apps than little for many; Apple–solid at the center of the ecosystem.

[fifthworld]

This happened yesterday already!

http://toucharcade.com/2009/10/15/rolando-2-chapter-1-now-available-for-free-dlc/

And yes, this is exactly screwing up the free category in the way many have express concern here. And no, we are not tell upfront what will be the final cost of ownership.

[JGowan]

isn't this exactly what apple promised they wouldn't allow a while ago. I don't need a free trial for an app.. screen shots are plenty. And I'd much prefer it then being constantly nagged by apps that I expect to be fast.

gotta say, I'm against it.Screen shots are plenty?! How about a game that'll perform? That idea blows my mind that all you want it to look at a pretty screenshot and you're sold. I guess Vista would be cool with you too -- it's so pretty.

[pmjoe]

Why? People will ALWAYS want those, and reviews will help lead you to the good ones.
You will have to do significant reading of reviews to determine if an app is truly free. Developers of free apps should not be forced to compete with paid apps in what is supposed to be a "free" app space.
You could just as easily say that limited Lite apps were a slap in the face of truly free apps. But nothing has changed: some apps are full and free, while others are free only as demos of something more. That's how it was always, and that's how it still will be.
I do not get the vitriol about "lite" apps in this thread. There are a number of lite apps that I use. They are truly free, they just provide less functionality than the full version. If they provide functionality that I use, I could care less if they are called "lite". I just use them. Lite apps are great!

If anything this will result in fewer free "lite" apps. And no, that isn't good.
There's no slap in the face here, just more options--for devs AND for us.
This is very clearly a slap in the face of developers who want to develop and provide truly free apps.

The only benefit to users is for the few posters here who are too lazy to uninstall a lite app and install the full version. This just opens "free" up to nickel and diming users, who in the end will actually pay more.

[pmjoe]

And yes, this is exactly screwing up the free category in the way many have express concern here. And no, we are not tell upfront what will be the final cost of ownership.

http://toucharcade.com/2009/10/15/ngmocos-eliminate-will-be-free/

Game will be "free" but, "carry in-app purchases for energy that allows players to earn additional credits".

I wish we could go back to the days of arcades in the mall.

[jimglidewell]

Count me among those who are less than thrilled about this decision.

I have a question - if I download one of these "crippleware" apps, then decide to buy it "in app" on my iPod touch, how do I move the "activated" app to other iPhone/touch devices in my household?

Can I simply drag the app from one iTunes to the other and then sync the second device? Or does such a copy end up delivering a re-crippled app?

If the second iPod touch tries to buy the same content, do I get charged twice?

This "household sharing" of apps is explicitly allowed by Apple policies today, and is one of the reasons that I am willing to buy as many games as I do on the app store. If this "innovation" means that sharing apps between my devices becomes more of a hassle (or simply impossible) I will simply avoid any app that uses an in-game purchase.

I personally never found the "try the lite version, then buy the real game" a significant hassle, but unless purchased content follows the app itself, this will be a mess for consumers with multiple devices.

[pdjudd]

This "household sharing" of apps is explicitly allowed by Apple policies today, and is one of the reasons that I am willing to buy as many games as I do on the app store. If this "innovation" means that sharing apps between my devices becomes more of a hassle (or simply impossible) I will simply avoid any app that uses an in-game purchase.

From what I understand - in app purchasing has always been transferrable to other authorized devices.

[jimglidewell]

You will have to do significant reading of reviews to determine if an app is truly free. Developers of free apps should not be forced to compete with paid apps in what is supposed to be a "free" app space.

The only benefit to users is for the few posters here who are too lazy to uninstall a lite app and install the full version. This just opens "free" up to nickel and diming users, who in the end will actually pay more.

There is a pretty simple solution to this - if the app allows purchase of in-app content (or activation) it should not get listed as a free app. Period. Instead it is a paid app with an initial price of $0.

I think that the developers who think this is a great idea are going to be in for a shock when they use this great new option and lots of folks download their "apparently free" app and then hit the "pay wall" - even though those users have paid nothing, they still have the right to review your app. This guts the policy that says that only those who bought your app can review it. Early developer adopters are going to see their ratings plummet due to folks annoyed by the "bait-and-switch" vibe (unjustified though it may be). This will be especially true if these apps are included in the "free" listings.

And as I stated in another posting, unless Apple has cleanly handled the sharing of apps with downloaded content within a household, this sort of app is going to get a very bad reaction among households with multiple devices - a demographic that developers (and Apple) should be very concerned about not alienating.

[robodude666]

Not sure if this was mentioned, but didn't Apple say "free apps will remain free" when announcing in-app purchase? Totally against this, but what the hay.

Hopefully they make it VERY clear when your "free app" requests money.

[TraceyS/FL]

And yes, this is exactly screwing up the free category in the way many have express concern here. And no, we are not tell upfront what will be the final cost of ownership.

Well, we don't share the same opinion....

There will need to be some sort of new category, but having been a palm user (still am for my phone), i miss the full demo's we had there. THis is a step to help that.

Free is nice, but there aren't many free apps i use day in or day out - the kids have a few games they play the lite versions of, but really, most of my stuff i've paid something for.

But the prices are in iTunes, if someone takes the time to read the full sidebar.

[pdjudd]

Not sure if this was mentioned, but didn't Apple say "free apps will remain free" when announcing in-app purchase? Totally against this, but what the hay.

Hopefully they make it VERY clear when your "free app" requests money.


How? In app purchasing is a completely optional process. You cannot have shell apps that do nothing but require in app purchasing. They have to have some purpose that has some need in which purchasing enhances it.

[Luke Redpath]

IMHO, the submission terms and guidelines must have changed.

They haven't, I've already spent time reading through them before agreeing to the changes in the Developer portal.


You are suggesting a "degree of freeness" measure that would be difficult to quantify in an actual review process.

No different to what was already there. It is entirely up to Apple to interpret as you say.


What would prevent a magazine company from releasing a "free" Reader app that would do nothing but display In-App paid subscriptions to their magazines?

Nothing, insofar as the purpose of the app is to read magazines supplied by Company X, but makes no promises of content (though I would expect it to come with at least some kind of free content so users can see what it would be like).

[aristotle]

As a developer (and as a customer) I'd love to see time limited trials. Unfortunately Apple does not allow time limited applications at the moment. So they basically force us to make "crippled" lite applications if we want to provide a try-before-you-buy option for our customers.
In app purchases does not really solve the problem imho.
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.

[jimglidewell]

Are you really saying that you are owed a certain level of functionality in a free application? I mean it's free. You aren't paying anything for someone else's hard work. How can you complain about this with a straight face?

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.

[wackymacky]

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.

[jimglidewell]

(Question: what happens if you buy an app, buy DLC, and then delete the app from your device. When you put it back on the device later, is the DLC gone? Can you re-download the DLC without paying again?)

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".

[marksman]

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?

[wooo]

There is a pretty simple solution to this - if the app allows purchase of in-app content (or activation) it should not get listed as a free app. Period. Instead it is a paid app with an initial price of $0.

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...

[robodude666]

How? In app purchasing is a completely optional process. You cannot have shell apps that do nothing but require in app purchasing. They have to have some purpose that has some need in which purchasing enhances it.

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.

[Ubuntu]

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.

[craigspr]

That was great news...thank your for posting.


http://www.craigspr.org

[jimglidewell]

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...

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.