Better to also show average $ people spend on in-app purchases, to see how much those "free" apps REALLY cost.
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 Adds 'Offers In-App Purchases' Disclosure for App Store Apps [Update: Now on iOS Stores]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think it's a shame that race-to-the-bottom prices for terrific creative work, coupled with shameless and greedy abuse of IAP by some developers, has given a bad name to what can be the best system for all:
- Get the app for free. It's limited (demo/lite).
- If you want to buy, you don't need to download a second app! Nor lose your progress. Just upgrade.
- Developer only has one app to maintain.
- Even with a paid game, IAP is a great and fair way to compensate developers for adding level packs or further content.
I despise consumable IAP (and also pay-to-win), but one-time purchases of things that have real value and took talent to make? Like full games and major add-on content? Things we've always paid for even before iOS existed? For them it just seems like a convenient option: do it in-app instead of buying a second app. But a game that uses this convenience will be stigmatized by people not paying attention and saying "all IAP is bad."
And even some games with consumable IAP are great fun: they're balanced so that you don't need the consumables. Jetpack Joyride etc. (Nor do I necessarily always object to a subscription model for a game: it does give me pause, but I realize that some games have ongoing server and moderation costs.)
(As for kids, the only way to truly stop parents from handing their credit card to kids is to not let adults buy anything either! Mistakes will always be made.)
I like that idea. Make some distinction between a crazy IAP money-grab and simply using IAP as a convenient way to foster conventional and optional transactions.
- Get the app for free. It's limited (demo/lite).
- If you want to buy, you don't need to download a second app! Nor lose your progress. Just upgrade.
- Developer only has one app to maintain.
- Even with a paid game, IAP is a great and fair way to compensate developers for adding level packs or further content.
I despise consumable IAP (and also pay-to-win), but one-time purchases of things that have real value and took talent to make? Like full games and major add-on content? Things we've always paid for even before iOS existed? For them it just seems like a convenient option: do it in-app instead of buying a second app. But a game that uses this convenience will be stigmatized by people not paying attention and saying "all IAP is bad."
And even some games with consumable IAP are great fun: they're balanced so that you don't need the consumables. Jetpack Joyride etc. (Nor do I necessarily always object to a subscription model for a game: it does give me pause, but I realize that some games have ongoing server and moderation costs.)
(As for kids, the only way to truly stop parents from handing their credit card to kids is to not let adults buy anything either! Mistakes will always be made.)
I like that idea. Make some distinction between a crazy IAP money-grab and simply using IAP as a convenient way to foster conventional and optional transactions.
This will save a few people from downloading apps and then see that it requires in app purchases -> then delete the app.
Myself I prefer to buy the app one time.
Myself I prefer to buy the app one time.
That takes too much effort.
Then again it won't solve the issue cause the kids just ask for the password and the parents don't look to see that the app they are getting for their 3 year old is for 12+
And then they scream about all the violence in 'kids games'
Again, that's what they do now. It is not what they did when the lawsuits (which they settled btw) started years ago.
Not the same thing. Anyway, I am STILL waiting for search functionality that enables me to exclude ALL in-app purchase apps from search results.
I would love there to be a filter for apps with IAP. Frequently, my daughter comes to me with her iPod asking if she can download some game. "It's free", she says. Yeah, right. I don't allow her to buy any IAP anyway, but I'd prefer these games to not even show up. They are consistent in their poor design.
I'd also like to think that a developer would hesitate to design around IAP if they knew a large part of their potential buyers aren't even seeing the game due to the filter.
I'd also like to think that a developer would hesitate to design around IAP if they knew a large part of their potential buyers aren't even seeing the game due to the filter.
I welcome this addition. As someone who dislikes in-app purchases generally, I like to know immediately what to expect with a paid or free app. The Google Play Store is ridiculously bad about this, as most free or even paid apps do not explicitly disclose the nature of their in-app purchases and whether or not these are essentially required to get full (practical) use out of the application. Apple's store was in danger of going down the same route, and I think this is a very nice visual cue to let the customer know what they might be getting themselves in for. You can then scroll down a little further to see a more detailed list of all in-app purchases. Nice one.
I highly approve of the move. That + icon was anything but obvious before. Wait, what did the + icon mean?
Now let us filter those apps and you're done, Apple.
I hate this business model. I much prefer paying $20 up front for an awesome game rather than multiple $1 in-app purchases to get anything beyond a tutorial. I know I'm probably in minority because this business model seems so successful, but that doesn't make me dislike it any less.
I hate this business model. I much prefer paying $20 up front for an awesome game rather than multiple $1 in-app purchases to get anything beyond a tutorial. I know I'm probably in minority because this business model seems so successful, but that doesn't make me dislike it any less.
Good to see Apple attempting to deal with the recent issues of kids racking up massive bills on their parents' iPads - although don't get me started on why the kids had the password in the first place!
Even if this is just a way of Apple saying "We're not giving you a refund because there's clear warnings that there are opportunities to spend money within the app and it's not our fault."
Even if this is just a way of Apple saying "We're not giving you a refund because there's clear warnings that there are opportunities to spend money within the app and it's not our fault."
Pretty sure that simply refers to the app being a universal one (applying to iPhone and iPad).
Don't apps with in-app purchases have the "plus" sign next to them anyway?
Parents, how about you DON'T give your little kid who is stupid enough to buy fake money with real money an expensive device with your credit card number on its account? Or just give him the iPod but install IAPCracker on it so the IAPs are free. I've stolen thousands of Temple Run and Real Racing 3 dollars.
Parents, how about you DON'T give your little kid who is stupid enough to buy fake money with real money an expensive device with your credit card number on its account? Or just give him the iPod but install IAPCracker on it so the IAPs are free. I've stolen thousands of Temple Run and Real Racing 3 dollars.
Of course it's not Apple's fault. Except that doesn't matter. When a child makes a purchase, that is a voidable contract that can be voided by the parents at any time, and any money paid must be refunded. Whether it's Apple's fault or not. If Apple refused to refund, they would be in huge legal trouble. On the other hand, no harm is done; when I child buys smurfberries for $2,000 (as has happened) and Apple refunds the money, all the really happened is a few trillions of electrons moving through a few cables; nobody has actually lost any money.
Can you give any examples of someone complaining and not getting a refund, or are you just making it up?
I generally ignore these apps. I see in app purchases as greedy.
----------
Hit the nail on the head.
----------
Hit the nail on the head.
Thats a bit unfair, if a parent inputs the password to buy an in app purchase
the kid can then keep on purchasing for the next 15 minutes and most parents probably don't know this.
What happened to reading reviews of the apps to see what you are getting in for before you buy it?
It was noted earlier here btw:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1560022/
It's just an additional line, not more. And it doesn't solve the problem that you only get the message (the new line and the little table) IF some user has bought at least one IAP in the App Store of a country. If nobody bought IAPs no information about IAPs is visible, that is evident especially for new apps in small countries (like Austria).
My solution would be that devs have to give detailled explanations about IAPs in the main app description.
