Sidebar Sidebar
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

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.
 
Small White Car said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Umm

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
celticpride678 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
rfahey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thought too! Potentially 1/2 the amount of apps Apple has to approve...
 
Doju said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Final Frontier...

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

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

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.
 
As an iPhone developer

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.
 
Mr. Giver '94 said:
Great... No more free apps... :(
Click to expand...

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.
 
Delirium39 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
na1577 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
hexor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Does Apple take a cut?

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)
 
cdomigan said:
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)
Click to expand...

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

arn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back