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 Replaces 'Free' Purchase Button Labeling With 'Get' in App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So free with ads = "free", but if you have a paid ad disabler, it becomes "get"? This is just going to discourage developers from including ad disablers at all.
Free games with paid expansion DLC will also suffer. IAPs are not necessarily evil.
What would be more useful is to indicate up front whether the app has ads.
Free games with paid expansion DLC will also suffer. IAPs are not necessarily evil.
What would be more useful is to indicate up front whether the app has ads.
It's really about time not to call these so called Freemium games "free" anymore. I prefer apps that I can use as a lite or demo version and pay for the full version.
I prefer free, it makes more sense and is more consistent. It's as if the were to remove the price from paid apps and just show "buy"
Wow, your comment just made things obvious to me.
They should simply label them as either "free," or "freemium."
Go ahead Apple, embrace the term!
Free to play games have ruined the free app market (for me at least). I've completely stopped buying games on the App Store because it's overrun with garbage. 
My bad, I haven't downloaded apps in a while. Then I don't see why there is a need to change it. What normal customer is calling for this change???
Awkward term, but I'm not sure I have a great alternative if "Free" is off-limits. I bet we get used to it.
I know what you mean, but it's a gray area:
- What if a free app decides to have a paid expansion pack the next year? That's an option I'm happy for developers to have. I like expansions!
- What about ads? You're giving your attention and maybe being tracked. Is that fully free?
- It might not be good to encourage ANY apps to go for the "Free" label. It would have a huge effect on downloads, and squeeze small developers even farther. Plus, companies would force themselves into whatever business model allowed that "Free" tag, with results that would probably annoy us all greatly. (More ads, or using tricky loopholes, or whatever.)
(Personally I was happy with "Free" and an added IAP warning. But I know IAP can still be added later--and I wouldn't want to see developers lose that option.)
I know what you mean, but it's a gray area:
- What if a free app decides to have a paid expansion pack the next year? That's an option I'm happy for developers to have. I like expansions!
- What about ads? You're giving your attention and maybe being tracked. Is that fully free?
- It might not be good to encourage ANY apps to go for the "Free" label. It would have a huge effect on downloads, and squeeze small developers even farther. Plus, companies would force themselves into whatever business model allowed that "Free" tag, with results that would probably annoy us all greatly. (More ads, or using tricky loopholes, or whatever.)
(Personally I was happy with "Free" and an added IAP warning. But I know IAP can still be added later--and I wouldn't want to see developers lose that option.)
I would prefer that they would somehow crack down on the games that use virtual coins/trinkets...
Most of the games that are free are impossible to play after a certain point due to needing coins/trinkets to upgrade your characters/vehicles, or unlock other levels with coins.
**** like this has ruined the app store IMO. Games like that are even advertised on TV as "Play for Free".
I don't mind if IAP are used to unlock a demo into a full game/app, or remove advertising.
Most of the games that are free are impossible to play after a certain point due to needing coins/trinkets to upgrade your characters/vehicles, or unlock other levels with coins.
**** like this has ruined the app store IMO. Games like that are even advertised on TV as "Play for Free".
I don't mind if IAP are used to unlock a demo into a full game/app, or remove advertising.
Confusing. Better to get rid of paid apps masquerading as free.
This change simply confuses me about what an app actually costs. Right now I am never confused as to what an app costs or whether it offers in-app purchases after a free download.
A better move would have been to reject apps that are labeled as "FREE" but are essentially useless without in-app purchases since this basically amounts to a shady marketing practice bordering on a scam in my view. I don't know for sure, but this may already be a violation of App Store TOS for developers.
An exception to this would be apps that are mobile front-ends to existing paid services (Salesforce & Basecamp come to mind, but also credit card and banking apps) but those aren't really in-app purchases anyway.
Bottom line: Apple's existing system was (for me) quite clear. Knee-jerk changes like this to please lawyers and politicians are rarely good and usually just end up making things more confusing.
This change simply confuses me about what an app actually costs. Right now I am never confused as to what an app costs or whether it offers in-app purchases after a free download.
A better move would have been to reject apps that are labeled as "FREE" but are essentially useless without in-app purchases since this basically amounts to a shady marketing practice bordering on a scam in my view. I don't know for sure, but this may already be a violation of App Store TOS for developers.
An exception to this would be apps that are mobile front-ends to existing paid services (Salesforce & Basecamp come to mind, but also credit card and banking apps) but those aren't really in-app purchases anyway.
Bottom line: Apple's existing system was (for me) quite clear. Knee-jerk changes like this to please lawyers and politicians are rarely good and usually just end up making things more confusing.
