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.
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 Opens Up In-App Purchasing for Free iPhone Applications
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
This happened yesterday already!
http://toucharcade.com/2009/10/15/rolando-2-chapter-1-now-available-for-free-dlc/
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.
As a developer, I embrace this with open arms. My company has already come up with a few ideas using this functionality.
good idea
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 Time Trials
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sharing DLC Apps?
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.
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.
From what I understand - in app purchasing has always been transferrable to other authorized devices.
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.
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.
Hopefully they make it VERY clear when your "free app" requests money.
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.
Attachments
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.
They haven't, I've already spent time reading through them before agreeing to the changes in the Developer portal.
No different to what was already there. It is entirely up to Apple to interpret as you say.
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).