Apple Opens Up In-App Purchasing for Free iPhone Applications

[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]

What about OS < 3.x?

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]

Thankfully the Mac did not evolve this way

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.

 

[358547]

..

 

[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