Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Consumers Less Willing to Pay for Content as Free Apps Surge

I don't know if "consumers are less willing to pay for content" is exactly the right thing to take from the report.

It's easy to download a free app, doesn't cost you anything, uses little space; plus you have it 'forever' on all your devices, even if it becomes a paid app later. I've downloaded a hell of a lot, and most of them are junk.

But I'm still more than willing to pay for good apps/games. I don't think you could really infer anything about my preference simply from comparing how many free and paid apps I've downloaded.
 
Depends on the app!

I think this story completely misinterprets the data.

For my most frequently used apps (e.g., WeatherBug Elite, NYT), I'm happy to a pay few bucks -- or even subscribe -- to avoid annoying ads over the lifetime of the app. For free apps that I seldom use, fine, incorporate ads.

But then, I'm not a Walmart shopper. Maybe many people are motivated solely by price.
 
I don't mind parting with cash for good Apps. They way my logic works:

£0.59 - £0.99 = my "junk, gimmick" app type.
£0.99 - £4.99 = good, well reviewed apps and games.
£4.99+ = specialist apps, AAA games: something that does a job well. (Numbers, Keynote, Diet Coda)

I have spent money on bigger apps, like Coda 2, Purple, Pixelmator and Aperture. In a year I probably spend around about £30-£50 on "normal" apps. Whereas, I probably spend around about £100-£120 on music, movies and rentals.

To me, as long as developers write good apps, people will part with cash for them. The so-called "freemium" strategy works now, but when consumers work out they're being ripped off in the long term, it will lose popularity. *looks at EA.
 
I was looking up a total cost calculation if you gemmed Clash of Clans from start to finish and it was between $11,000-$14,000.

I don't understand how a company can think that this is alright. It's a game for a phone/mobile device...
 
ValSalva said:
This is just what Apple wants. Free or very cheap apps make buying an iOS device that much more attractive. Unless income can be made via advertising or some other sort of way it kind of stinks for developers.
Click to expand...

Great point. It's allowed Apple to announce millions then billions of app's "sold", using marketing techniques to award prizes to the buyer of the 1 millionth or billionth app. It's smart, (free) app purchases skyrocket towards the required goal, yet it's also slightly misleading.

----------
JackieInCo said:
it did, voice dictation.... enough said.
Click to expand...

I was gonna write, "I like naps too". Couldn't resist ;)
 
friedmud said:
I don't think the conclusion is correct. Many apps are going to a model where the App itself is "free" but you pay for content within the App.
Click to expand...

It's the 25-year-old old "shareware" model reborn. Get the initial content for free, pay for more.

Methinks the article isn't recognizing obvious market segmentation. "Freemium" is one segment, ad driven is another, and pay-once-no-ads a third. Personally I'm strongly leaning toward the last one, willing to pay a decent price up front for decent content and no further hassling; don't lump me in with pay-as-you-go or ad-tolerant customers.
 
I have no problem with free app + IAP if the IAP makes sense, such as unlocking additional content (expansions, etc.), which makes the free app a "lite" or "demo" version allowing me to try it out and see if I like it before plopping down money on it.

Where IAP sucks is "paywall" games, where you get to play for free, but at some point, to progress any further (at least before you've upgraded your phone 3 times), you need to plop down a whole bunch of money for "crystals", "gems", or the like. Same thing for "pay to win" games, where you compete with other players online, but have to settle for second-class citizen status if you aren't willing to pony up hundreds of dollars for in-game content that provides a serious edge over other players.

I'd much rather pay a flat fee for the game and compete on a more level field. Of course, as things like World of Warcraft show, even that can get lopsided and very frequently favors early players vs. those who come later.
 
ValSalva said:
This is just what Apple wants. Free or very cheap apps make buying an iOS device that much more attractive. Unless income can be made via advertising or some other sort of way it kind of stinks for developers.
Click to expand...

But Apple wouldn't want it to stink for developers. Nobody works for free and once creating apps stops being a profitable business developers will move to another platform.
 
It's because that is how much those mobile apps are worth. Low tier apps like Angry birds and the countless fart apps... The hardwares are pushing forward fast, while software is lagging behind in quality compared to desktop offerings.
 
I can't stand ads in apps, no matter how unobtrusive. I don't mind a free with ads app as long as there's a 99¢ remove ads option.
As for games, I HATE freemiums. I would much rather pay $5+ for a good quality video game.
 
As an app developer, working on specialty apps, this is quite scary. Our latest app, priced $14.99 is selling well in a market without competition.

When I mean well, I mean well enough to recoup our development investment and a little (very little) profit.

What most developers don't realize is that by making your app cheaper, you open yourself to a lot more support functions as you answer email after email of users who bought it for less, without doing proper research (is the app for me? Do I really need this? Does it do what I think it does?).

We tried lowering our price and it was a mess. In our latest update, we actually raised our price from $9.99 to $14.99 and didn't see a drop in revenue. However, we have less support to do!
 
As is being seen throughout the tech industry, freemium models are becoming more popular, I would presume the trend illustrated by this study points to the same thing in apps.

I wonder why the only conclusion they draw is advertising-related.
 
I am happy to admit it, the recent trend towards in-app purchases has all but killed my interest in gaming, or gaming of that type.

How are the going to balance a game that fun and not stupidly hard to play for the price you pay as opposed to feeling the need to cheat? and buy extra's

If you had say a car, and wanted to buy a custom paintwork, then OK, I can accept that. But it's gone far far past that stage.
 
"Free can get very expensive". I heard that somewhere and it is completely true.

I too hate ads in apps and delete all of them except for the Speedtest app. I don't want to do a in-app purchase because the app can be pulled and I will be out a dollar which brings up my other topic of in-app purchases and freemium games which I try to avoid. The first thing I do when downloading a app is to check if it has in-app purchases then I avoid it.
 
I do like free apps over paid. As long as they are free. Freemium is a cancer that needs to be stamped out of the world ASAP.
 
tonyr6 said:
I too hate ads in apps and delete all of them except for the Speedtest app. I don't want to do a in-app purchase because the app can be pulled and I will be out a dollar which brings up my other topic of in-app purchases and freemium games which I try to avoid. The first thing I do when downloading a app is to check if it has in-app purchases then I avoid it.
Click to expand...

There are two types of in-app purchases:
- Consumables (Buckets of Gems / Bags of Stars / Mountains of Coins) which you'll lose eventually
- Feature unlock (Remove ads / Access advanced features / etc.) which you always get to keep

I agree about avoiding Consumables but Feature unlocks are OK, in my book.
 
anthony11 said:
It would be more useful perhaps to see the percentages of app *downloads* rather than just what apps exist. Maybe a zillion free apps that nobody uses hit the store.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Journalism 101 basically says "cherry-pick the stats that back up the story you want to write".
 
I refuse to pay for in app purchases. So I played Tetris Blitz for about a day before I realized I'd have to spend about $1000 if I really wanted to advance in the game. Free? I think not.
 
While this is interesting, it doesn't address the growth in free apps with significant in-app purchases. Lots of games that are popular (especially with kids whose parents don't monitor the budget) are into games like Clash of Clans. Free, but if you want to get a leg up on your neighbor, why not drop $20 on some gems? It would be interesting to see a sticker price vs total cost analysis.
 
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