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.
Consumers Less Willing to Pay for Content as Free Apps Surge
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Screw everyone else, I hate ads and will consistently complain or just not use if an app is only ad supported. I will always buy my way out of those when given the option. There better still be an option for this market.
I have a few comments/questions on the subject:
It's stated that 90% of apps are free. Are 90% of downloads free? It seems to me that among all the crappy apps with 5 downloads most of them would be free. If a developer seeks to build a quality app, or a consumer is looking for a quality app, the statistic would be how many of the quality apps direct-pay supported vs ad-supported.
Are all apps on the store listed as "Free" being grouped into the "ad supported" group? Because In App Purchases (IAP) are becoming quite common, are represent a good chunk of money directly out of a consumers pocket, as opposed to truly ad supported which is a chunk of consumer time.
I'm Okay with IAP that take the shareware approach to software. Let me try a high quality $10 app with a few important things removed, and allow me to "unlock" the full version. Done deal.
Software that requires continual IAP to continue to use is terrible. This mostly happens among game apps.
It's stated that 90% of apps are free. Are 90% of downloads free? It seems to me that among all the crappy apps with 5 downloads most of them would be free. If a developer seeks to build a quality app, or a consumer is looking for a quality app, the statistic would be how many of the quality apps direct-pay supported vs ad-supported.
Are all apps on the store listed as "Free" being grouped into the "ad supported" group? Because In App Purchases (IAP) are becoming quite common, are represent a good chunk of money directly out of a consumers pocket, as opposed to truly ad supported which is a chunk of consumer time.
I'm Okay with IAP that take the shareware approach to software. Let me try a high quality $10 app with a few important things removed, and allow me to "unlock" the full version. Done deal.
Software that requires continual IAP to continue to use is terrible. This mostly happens among game apps.
Given that some of the Apps I paid for still have advertising I don't see the value of paid over free on those. However, if I can be guaranteed of no advertising for a small fee I'll pay the small fee.
Agreed. It has to be a balance. Software can't become so devalued that developers no longer find developing for iOS a wise business decision.
I guess it's controversial and purely depends on your disposable income. I'm not very willing to pay for an app and I will usually only pay if I know it's an app I will get good use out of. Like, I wouldn't pay for a game I'd never played and didn't know anything about. I also don't think apps should ever cost more than £5. Things like the TomTom app being like £40 is totally outrageous, regardless of whether it's practically a fully working TomTom or not. People just don't want to pay that much for an app...I'd rather buy a TomTom.
The one thing I guess is bad about the App Store is that they don't offer any type of trail for most of the high paid apps, if I had the chance to test an app and I liked it then chances are I'd pay for it. I know there are free versions of lots of apps but it's usually that the more expensive apps don't offer a free or lite version. I also envy Android's refund system whereby you don't have to pay for an app within a certain amount of time to see if you like it or not. But I guess that brings its own issues - not even sure if Android still offers that since becoming the Google Play store but I know that was the case with my GS1 like 3 years ago.
The one thing I guess is bad about the App Store is that they don't offer any type of trail for most of the high paid apps, if I had the chance to test an app and I liked it then chances are I'd pay for it. I know there are free versions of lots of apps but it's usually that the more expensive apps don't offer a free or lite version. I also envy Android's refund system whereby you don't have to pay for an app within a certain amount of time to see if you like it or not. But I guess that brings its own issues - not even sure if Android still offers that since becoming the Google Play store but I know that was the case with my GS1 like 3 years ago.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of giving an app away for free with an in-app to unlock it. It's arguably how software was prior to the App Store. Customers could download a free trial then pay to unlock the full software.
The problem with this model is many game developers abuse it. Developers are the problem with "freemium" not the model and not the customers.
The problem with this model is many game developers abuse it. Developers are the problem with "freemium" not the model and not the customers.
This will just lead to more freemium apps. I don't see why people are so cheap though. 99¢ has it's audience for short, repetitive games...but I think $2.99 apps are a fair price.
I usually won't pay more than £1.49. At the same time I don't have a problem with spending £0.69 on something ad free or even just to 'help' the developer.
I think this is pretty misleading-- as best I can tell from their website, Flurry makes their money from advertising services. They have an "analytics" product that is free-- basically they'll tell you the best way to advertise using their services.
That might bias their perspective.
Personally I refuse to use ad supported apps, especially on iPhone. The ads take up too much precious real estate.
I don't think the data shows a consumer preference, but reflects quirks in the sales model. In particular, I think it shows a bias towards marketing towards kids. Kids can download free apps without needing their parents to type a password to use a credit card.
It also doesn't distinguish between "ad supported" free apps and "in-app purchase" supported free apps. It looks to me like there's a rise of the later, which I also greatly dislike.
And it doesn't track how many free apps are downloaded because there's no real cost, and then abandoned-- also a common pattern among bored teens.
I hate recurring payments, and I hate ads. Let me pay upfront and then get out of my way.
Also, get off of my lawn.
The problem is that this creates a difficult environment for indie developers, who have to think a lot more about what their business model is going to be, rather than just being about to work on their game, release it for $5 and see some reward for their efforts.
Instead $5 is practically pricing yourself out of the market entirely, meaning you instead have to find ways to release for free with micro-payments or put limits on an app that need to be unlocked, come up with a subscription model etc. etc.
It means a lot of hard work that can more often detract from the end experience of the app, particularly games, all so that people can enjoy stuff for free.
What Apple really needs to do is provide more support for try-before-you-buy, without the need for us to come up with our feature limitations, timing, in-app purchase mechanism etc.
Instead $5 is practically pricing yourself out of the market entirely, meaning you instead have to find ways to release for free with micro-payments or put limits on an app that need to be unlocked, come up with a subscription model etc. etc.
It means a lot of hard work that can more often detract from the end experience of the app, particularly games, all so that people can enjoy stuff for free.
What Apple really needs to do is provide more support for try-before-you-buy, without the need for us to come up with our feature limitations, timing, in-app purchase mechanism etc.
I don't have a single free app on my iDevices. I think the developers need our support and Making mediocre apps just for push ads is a way of self-destruct a business and it's credibility.
----------
Mistery Solved.... NEXT!
----------
Mistery Solved.... NEXT!
I'm happy to pay for an app if it works well and provides value. Apple's iLife apps, for example.
What I want is a way to try before you buy. That's the real issue here. I get pissed off if I spend $2.99 on an app and discover it's crap or not what I expected.
So I like the concept of either (a) free-to-try, one-time in-app purchase to unlock everything, or (b) free "demo" version, and additional paid version.
Or, you know, implement a refund mechanism like Google has, so I can buy an app, try it, and refund it within 15 minutes if it's not what I wanted.
What I want is a way to try before you buy. That's the real issue here. I get pissed off if I spend $2.99 on an app and discover it's crap or not what I expected.
So I like the concept of either (a) free-to-try, one-time in-app purchase to unlock everything, or (b) free "demo" version, and additional paid version.
Or, you know, implement a refund mechanism like Google has, so I can buy an app, try it, and refund it within 15 minutes if it's not what I wanted.
I hate this new ecosystem.
Free-to-play (more like pay-to-win) games and subscription based apps... I hate having to shell out money every time I want to continue, or pay yet another bill every month. I honestly wonder if the "free app" world is a bubble getting ready to burst. How long will it be before people realize that most of the free apps out there are just glorified Facebook games making a comeback?
Have you seen Plants vs Zombies 2? Ridiculous:
![Zd09sxL.jpg]()
I'll gladly pay a higher price for a quality application. I want to buy it and be done, not nickeled and dimed. But in the world of DLC, free-to-play, subscriptions, online passes and always-online, I just don't have the interest in purchasing something I can't own and keep forever.
But alas, we are the minority. And they are the sheep.
That is a pretty sure fired way to make me not want to get an App. Sounds like PvZ2 is a failure out of the gate.
I'm clearly not in the majority.
I would much rather pay for an app upfront than having my experience using said app affected by advertisements or in app purchases. Let's not forget those apps that charge and still shove ads at you (I'm looking at you EA, I won't be buying anything from you again!).
That said, ad supported trial versions are fine.
I would much rather pay for an app upfront than having my experience using said app affected by advertisements or in app purchases. Let's not forget those apps that charge and still shove ads at you (I'm looking at you EA, I won't be buying anything from you again!).
That said, ad supported trial versions are fine.
Their conclusion, that it's time to embrace ads in apps, isn't supported by the data they present.
Their data shows that the apps people are using are increasingly free or cheaper to buy. But how can they conclude ads are a good way to drive revenue from apps? IAP could be *raising* the average amount of money a user spends per app for all I know... or at least raising the total revenue a well executed app makes (which is all developers care about when the development costs are the primary expense).
There're right in concluding that developers have to find ways to make money, since it certainly costs money to develop apps. But why ads over IAP? Another way to go is to connect a free app to something else that does cost money, like the Kindle app.
It makes me wonder what their revenue model is. How does Flurry make money when they give this report away for free... Maybe they make their money from app ads?
edit:
Thinking a little more about this.
The title of this thread is "Consumers Less Willing to Pay for Content as Free Apps Surge"
I wonder if there's an independent way to verify this claim?
Does Apple release the overall amount of money the iOS app store and can we find estimates of the total number of active iOS users that correspond? Then we can divide the first number by the second and watch that over time. Is it going down? Or up?
Their data shows that the apps people are using are increasingly free or cheaper to buy. But how can they conclude ads are a good way to drive revenue from apps? IAP could be *raising* the average amount of money a user spends per app for all I know... or at least raising the total revenue a well executed app makes (which is all developers care about when the development costs are the primary expense).
There're right in concluding that developers have to find ways to make money, since it certainly costs money to develop apps. But why ads over IAP? Another way to go is to connect a free app to something else that does cost money, like the Kindle app.
It makes me wonder what their revenue model is. How does Flurry make money when they give this report away for free... Maybe they make their money from app ads?
edit:
Thinking a little more about this.
The title of this thread is "Consumers Less Willing to Pay for Content as Free Apps Surge"
I wonder if there's an independent way to verify this claim?
Does Apple release the overall amount of money the iOS app store and can we find estimates of the total number of active iOS users that correspond? Then we can divide the first number by the second and watch that over time. Is it going down? Or up?
Last edited:
The bar chart doesn't mean a lot without knowing revenues.
What percentage of the 90% make no money and have very few downloads? If you could cut that out of the chart the paid apps would start looking a lot more competitive.
What percentage of the 90% make no money and have very few downloads? If you could cut that out of the chart the paid apps would start looking a lot more competitive.
Amen. The best apps, the ones I use on a daily basis, are ones I paid for and have zero ads or limitations. And they're like 5 bucks. That's a pittance. I will happily pay so that I don't need to see ads.
I don't think it's quite this price sensitive. I paid $5 for a rather roughly executed port of Military Madness just because I like the game so much. The ancient 8-bit graphics didn't make me demand it be free or $0.99.
The problem is the hypothetical indie studio you describe would have about the same success at $5 as they would at $0.99 - meaning, close to none.
Discoverability is the biggest problem with the App Store. They don't serve the long tail of the market, and with iOS that's a REALLY long tail. Amazon handles this by making suggestions a first-class citizen in the search results - you don't have to turn on "Amazon Genius", the suggestions are just in your face at every step.
Apple instead acts like the App Store is comprised of retail shelf space that can hold no more than 100 or 200 apps, and everything else is locked in boxes in the storeroom where no one can see them.
Yeah, exactly. All it is really saying is that there are thousands of developers out there who have flooded the market with free apps. Anybody could do that. Nobody's downloading them, but they are there, skewing the numbers. And the longer the App Store is open, the more newbie developers show up, of course the average price is going to go down.
Correspondingly, I could start submitting tons of apps priced at $1000 (remember that I'm Rich app?) and skew the numbers back up. Nobody would buy the app, of course, but it would impact across-the-board averages like this one.
Most of these FREE apps are crap. I don't mind paying for one that is GOOD, but i do NOT want to have to be required to BUY IT to see that i did not buy another crap app again! 