Apple Rejecting Apps With Pricing Info Like 'Free' in App Title

[Chupa Chupa]

Not sure why people are getting so hot under the collar on this one, except that it's MR and I guess that's what some here enjoy. The move is really a CYA and truth in advertising because the "free" apps really are not anymore. The vast majority of "free" apps can be downloaded at no cost, but hardly free if they are to be functional.

Also with paid in-app upgrades being embraced by consumers (not all -- I hate them myself, but the vast majority) the "free" apps really create redundancy and confusion. Better for devs to make one version with certain features or levels available to try out before you use in-app to get the full version.

What if you want to advertise your app being free as in freedom, not as in beer?

The rule clearly bans the word "free" when describing the app's price, not any other use of the word in the title. So your example would be permissible under current Apple guidelines:

Your app's name, icons, screenshots, or previews to be displayed on the App Store include references to your app's price, which is not considered a part of these metadata items.

 

[recoil80]

This is yet another consequence of Apple bizarrely not offering a "demo" download, necessitating two store entries for a single app.

That would be a good idea for the future. Download an app and use it for one day, then you have to buy it otherwise it will be deleted.
But the app itself should know when it is in trial mode or purchased for real.
A free app with in app purchase works this way. The developer gives you an hint of what the app can do and if you want the pro version you pay the price and you unlock the pro features.
App store is full of free and pro versions of the same app, but the right model is in app purchase, not free and pro version.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple should start allowing FOSS apps to be showcased on its app store.

Apple has no problem at all with FOSS apps on the app store.

Apple has a problem if some FOSS developer turns up and says "This app uses my code, without a valid license, and I don't want it on the app store". Well, not really a problem for Apple, they just tell the submitter of the app what happened and ask them to sort it out. And the app will be removed until that happens.

Apart from that, because of the wording of GPL license and Apple's app store license, you can't sell GPL licensed applications for money on the app store: GPL allows you to charge for the application, but not for the license. Apple's license says that you pay for the license, not for the app itself.

[doublepost=1490791280][/doublepost]

This is bad for the customer and apple makes more money. An app that you paid for with options unlocked can be shared with family members for free, but the in-app purchases won't be shared.

If Apple makes more money, then the developer makes even more money. That's good, isn't it?

 

[mazz0]

That would be a good idea for the future. Download an app and use it for one day, then you have to buy it otherwise it will be deleted.
But the app itself should know when it is in trial mode or purchased for real.
A free app with in app purchase works this way. The developer gives you an hint of what the app can do and if you want the pro version you pay the price and you unlock the pro features.
App store is full of free and pro versions of the same app, but the right model is in app purchase, not free and pro version.

IAP is a bad solution too, because the sticker price says "Free" (well, "Get") and it takes digging to know how much it will actually cost. What you want is the full price shown on the store page, with a prominent note saying a free demo is available.
[doublepost=1490792037][/doublepost]

Not sure I agree with this oft repeated complaint, I've had at least one app that functioned for a set period before wanting IAP/subscription to keep it working, so it appears it can be done.

If I remember a specific example I will post it.

Similar with the 'cannot charge for updates' complaint, If update really worth charging for, make it an IAP surely???

Yes, that's another workaround devs use, see my criticism above.

 

[recoil80]

IAP is a bad solution too, because the sticker price says "Free" (well, "Get") and it takes digging to know how much it will actually cost. What you want is the full price shown on the store page, with a prominent note saying a free demo is available.

It depends on the app.
Some of them just have the free version and the pro, so you have one purchase and it is like buying the pro version.
Some other offer different set of features with different purchases, and that's the model I like, since you only pay for what you need.

A demo version of the app, i.e. the ability to download the full version and use it for a limited amount of time, would be great for users but not for developers.
Many apps can be useful for one single task you have to perform, you can use the app once, maybe twice then you don't need it anymore.
Take a Mac app for converting videos as an example, you get the demo version of the app, convert all the videos you need in a few hours and you're done. You pay for the app only if you need it in the future, but it may not be the case.
That's why I said the developer should know the app is in demo mode, so it can disable a few feature or limit the usage, but then we go to the in app purchase again.

 

[0924487]

The metadata app should be approved. Apple is just self-censoring the store. This is the United States. There is no legitimate reason for rejecting it.

 

[1bcoolrob]

Better late than never

 

[Radu D.]

If Apple makes more money, then the developer makes even more money. That's good, isn't it?

It's good, but some developers might want to give this option to their customers while having a free/lite version of their app for testing. I don't see the point of Family sharing of the app purchases if you can only get the full app through an in-app purchase. For some apps the developer might want to ask for more money for good reasons but in other cases it will just throw customers off.

For example you have a app that you offer for free and have an in-app purchase to get the full version; a parent with two kids will avoid buying the full game in-app for each of their kids and look to buy a similar app priced directly in the app store and install on both kids devices. When you buy a game for PlayStation for your kids you don't buy each kid a copy of the game.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Not a fan, but everyone pull out your dictionaries and brains to find non-banned synonyms for the word "Free" in this context:

- Entry
- Intro
- Trial*
- Sample*
- Lite*
- TBYB (Try before you buy)
- TV (Trial version)
- FV (Free version)
- Zero
- ZC (Zero cost)

* Already banned word?

 

[bennyf]

Downside of IAP for full app functionality is that the purchase cannot be shared with family. If there are Free and Full versions of same app, I can buy once and wife can also use after testing the free version. IAP's cannot be shared with family ever. Might be added later, but doubtful.

Also of note is that a lot of apps have their cake and eat it too: their free version has IAP to enable full functionality and they have a normal Full version app with an upfront price.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

I really wish Apple had a better way to search apps. I mean, the process of searching for apps could be improved SO easily it is just baffling to me that they have not implemented any improvements to searching for apps. So much junk and app pollution it's almost like spam these days.

Years ago the Mac had a good "search" function, then they had "Sherlock" and now "Spotlight", and it's like the idea of searching for files has become a totally lost art - it's incredibly dumb how poorly Apple has implemented "find" and "search" functions in iOS, Apple OS, and the App Store, and even the friggin music store! I mean dang it's stupid how poorly ANY apple search function works. I mean finding stuff DOES NOT work with Apple these days - nobody has noticed? Anyone out there remember Eudora for Email? It was awesome and it had a search function that worked. With Apple Mail app and Spotlight I cannot find anything anymore (for the last 10 years).

Sorry to rant, but I just got to thinking how much better search functions were back in the 1990's. The world has gotten dumber in some ways. Or maybe I am just old?

I think this idea of "top 40" music, or the "top grossing movies" is stupid. Who cares what music or movie is making the most money? Same for apps. I mean I will glance at what is trending popular, but if I come to look for a calculator app that has some spreadsheet type functions in it, I want to get some relevant results from the App Store - instead I get crap. Meta data that is searchable would be nice. I think Apple collects meta data for apps, but then their stupidly designed search engine misses the point entirely. Just a gut feeling. Hope I'm not wasting your time with my rant.

Some developers use keywords that are not related to their App, just to get into your search.
That's why when we search for something, we get a lot of irrelevant entries.

Moderating the keywords would greatly help improve the search process.

Another problem is duplicated apps with different names.
Also, games made using templates. All are the same with a different 'skin'.

 

[Rainshadow]

But what if you are able to go through all the content of said app, and utilise it for your purposes, within a few hours, let alone 24-48 hours - you'd get it all for free.

I may need to just edit a PDF, or spreadsheet, or just pass some time while on a flight. I just download the app freely, use it, discard it. Doesn't seem fair.
[doublepost=1490774989][/doublepost]

You're right... if that were true.

I have had instances like that, but if I need to edit a PDF today, I will likely need to do it in the future. You could jump from app to app, or you could just suck it up and pay .99 or a couple bucks to have it ready.

There would be leeches that did that but they would eventually run out of usable apps to "try". I still think it would provide more purchases with folks feeling more confident in the app.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

That would be a good idea for the future. Download an app and use it for one day, then you have to buy it otherwise it will be deleted.
But the app itself should know when it is in trial mode or purchased for real.
A free app with in app purchase works this way. The developer gives you an hint of what the app can do and if you want the pro version you pay the price and you unlock the pro features.
App store is full of free and pro versions of the same app, but the right model is in app purchase, not free and pro version.

How about showing the user two buttons for apps requiring this feature?: [Try] and [Buy]

The problem with IAP is that if the developer decides to drop out of the App Store and you happen to need to reinstall the App (or upgraded to a new iOS device), you may be able to install the App using iCloud, but may get rejected when trying to Restore your IAP.
[doublepost=1490799240][/doublepost]

You're right... if that were true.

I have had instances like that, but if I need to edit a PDF today, I will likely need to do it in the future. You could jump from app to app, or you could just suck it up and pay .99 or a couple bucks to have it ready.

There would be leeches that did that but they would eventually run out of usable apps to "try". I still think it would provide more purchases with folks feeling more confident in the app.

Many people would spend $5.00 for a cup of Starbuck's that lasts 30 minutes tops, but not $ 0.99 for an App that would last for a very long time.

 

[calzon65]

Yeah, right.
Build your own store and allow freedom of choice, so anyone can come and piss all over it as they wish!
Didn't think so!
Guys like you are here just to bash everything Apple does, regardless if that is good or bad. It has always been like this here, since I remember it. By the way tittle should reflect what the App is about and not how much it will cost. So good move Apple.

Well at least I have the FREEdom to express my opinion ... unless Apple finds a way to suppress that too ... oops my bad, sorry everyone, I used the root word Free again ... guess I just cant get away from Free

 

[ackmondual]

Good Job!

Next Up: Put a hard cap on in app purchases per month. For example, no app should require you to pay more than $100 per month. In addition to this, they should not allow developers to sell the same in-app purchase more than once, unless it is a subscription. Games like Clash of Clans use casino like tactics to exploit kids or even adults into spending thousands of dollars. Most SuperCell games have over $20,000 USD of IAPs, which is required to compete with other "Max Level" members. These micro transaction games are cancer, and Apple would do the right thing here by putting a hard cap to protect its customers.

That'd be a nice gesture, but...

1) I'm on the fence of whether Apple will actually do this. On one hand, you do have this sort of news. OTOH, whenever a "whale", or otherwise large amounts of IAP are purchased, Apple gets a 30% cut of that. They don't have to lift any additional fingers and they get all that free money. It's hard for Apple, and any other corporation to say no to that

2) Putting hard caps on how much users can spend is a big "no no" if they want to stay in business. Never mind that some of these can be half decent (although TBF, I've only played 2 freemium games for extended times... Castlestorm: Free To Siege (which contains the word "free"!), and Plants Vs. Zombies 2: It's About Time, and I quit both after about 5 months and a few years respectively), but if #1 is something that Apple would like to keep around, then they want these devs to stay in business so they get revenue from that.

3) Apps like Facebook should also be under the same scrutiny then. You mention "casino like tactics"... According a TED Talks video, social media companies like Facebook have hired actual people who created slot machines for the casinos. They most certainly know a thing or two about luring in users and keeping them hooked. The speaker for that person even compared apps like the Facebook one to having a slot machine in your phone.

 

[BvizioN]

Well at least I have the FREEdom to express my opinion ... unless Apple finds a way to suppress that too ... oops my bad, sorry everyone, I used the root word Free again ... guess I just cant get away from Free

In the business stores everywhere in the world there are rules and policies to fallow, and people who don't like them can just. f /off and use different store. It is really quite simple! Actually even here you are limited to what you can say and write so your freedom of expression is just an illusion, but what can I say, enjoy it.

 

[ackmondual]

I also think Apple needs to limit in app purchases to 3, some apps have 8 or more and only buying all gives you full functionality. That's getting criminal in my opinion.

Absolutely DISAGREE. My favorite game on iOS.... Ascension: Deck Building Game, has had 14 IAP thus far. It's based on the physical card game....
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/69789/ascension-deckbuilding-game

The base game costs money to buy. Each expansion/promo costs additional money to buy, as you'd expect with any similar, physical product. They don't do any "premium currencies"/"gems", "fill up time meters", or "bag of coins". Pay once, the expansion, set is yours to play with as many times as you'd like. Implementing a limit on IAP would seriously disrupt that.

Many people would spend $5.00 for a cup of Starbuck's that lasts 30 minutes tops, but not $ 0.99 for an App that would last for a very long time.

I can objectively say that $5 for a cup of Starbuck's has been faar better than many 99 cent apps. It's been over a year since I did either (go to Starbucks or buy apps), but when I spent $5 for a cup of Starbucks, it's also to chat with friends, and be at social events. If I just wanted the coffee, I'd buy their premade stuff at a fraction of the price from a grocer, or just make my own coffee for even cheaper.

 

[calzon65]

In the business stores everywhere in the world there are rules and policies to fallow, and people who don't like them can just. f /off and use different store. It is really quite simple! Actually even here you are limited to what you can say and write so your freedom of expression is just an illusion, but what can I say, enjoy it.

Since you just can't seem go without making yet another angry (hate speech) comment, you are welcome to have the FREEdom to have the last word ... enjoy LOL.

 

[Goatllama]

If they could also limit the length of app titles that would be great. Looks ugly on your home screen when it's [App name]: [Here's what the app does in an overly long description that just ends up as '...' anyway].

 

[glisglis]

Fascist leftist Apple. I am so glad I no longer support them.

 

[steve333]

If Apple wasn't such a pain in the ass to developers we'd still have clicktoplugin
Jerks

 

[ackmondual]

Do you think Apple's reviewers are brainless idiots, or intelligent individuals?

And an app that shows the nearest place where you can get free beer would easily be accepted.

From what I've heard of them, they seem to be on the level. The odd cases have been the exception than the norm, like when an app got pulled because it had Confederate flags... but was for a Civil War game.

 

[dantroline]

Apple has no problem at all with FOSS apps on the app store.

Apple has a problem if some FOSS developer turns up and says "This app uses my code, without a valid license, and I don't want it on the app store". Well, not really a problem for Apple, they just tell the submitter of the app what happened and ask them to sort it out. And the app will be removed until that happens.

Apart from that, because of the wording of GPL license and Apple's app store license, you can't sell GPL licensed applications for money on the app store: GPL allows you to charge for the application, but not for the license. Apple's license says that you pay for the license, not for the app itself.

[doublepost=1490791280][/doublepost]
If Apple makes more money, then the developer makes even more money. That's good, isn't it?

Apple has a problem because FOSS upsets its business model, as you just explained.

 

[mazz0]

It depends on the app.
Some of them just have the free version and the pro, so you have one purchase and it is like buying the pro version.
Some other offer different set of features with different purchases, and that's the model I like, since you only pay for what you need.

A demo version of the app, i.e. the ability to download the full version and use it for a limited amount of time, would be great for users but not for developers.
Many apps can be useful for one single task you have to perform, you can use the app once, maybe twice then you don't need it anymore.
Take a Mac app for converting videos as an example, you get the demo version of the app, convert all the videos you need in a few hours and you're done. You pay for the app only if you need it in the future, but it may not be the case.
That's why I said the developer should know the app is in demo mode, so it can disable a few feature or limit the usage, but then we go to the in app purchase again.

Absolutely, the developer should have complete control over whether a demo is even offered, and if it is what restrictions ar imposed.

I like the idea of buying individual features too, so long as it's clear from the first store page that that's how it works. I think often though people will just want to test for free then maybe bu the full version, in which case I'd like to see the full price before I download the demo.

Fortunately we have hassle free refunds these days (though in the U.K. we may lose that right when we leave the EU) so that's almost like getting a demo on every app!

 

[SkimPappa]

How about showing the user two buttons for apps requiring this feature?: [Try] and [Buy]

I like this idea a lot. App/game appears once, each version linked from same listing.