iOS Developer David Barnard: 'Trying to Make the Boxed Software Model Work at $0.99 is a Fool's Errand'

[Moonjumper]

People would be willing to pay if iOS let you test apps before buying them.

It wouldn't suit all apps, but it would be nice to have the option as long as the developer can set the time (or number of games) period.

If I had the option, my current game would have a try before you buy option, but it would be quite short to match the game. Something like 3 games to make sure you have time to get used to the controls, but if you reach level 10, you know the controls well enough so that is your last free game.

The game I am working has several ways to play, but each game lasts longer. Perhaps 30 minutes in-game (therefore excluding menu and instructional time), but you get to finish a game if you are near the end.

I wouldn't need to tell the player how complex the decisions are to avoid the potential for confusion, but something that allows me to code when the trial ends would be preferential to a fixed time limit.

 

[50548]

I have only one thing to say to this disgruntled developer:

Supply and demand.

 

[firewood]

This! I've been saying this for the longest! I'd be much more willing to pay for apps if I was able to test out the full app for a few days.

Lots of people "say" this, but they turn out to be a microscopic minority (on the order of 1 in 1000). Analytics validates this tiny fraction (the number who pay versus the number who continue to use an app for as long as possible or a long time.) Perhaps a lot of people lie to themselves about this.

Thus app monetization is difficult problem for full-time developers who want to be able to make their rent payments.

 

[mabhatter]

The absolutist statements made by this guy are silly. At any price point, whether it's $0.99 or $99.99 - the successful model is to convince your customers they'll get that amount of value out of the app, whether it's in the short-term or over the long-term.

I do agree it would be beneficial for developers if Apple would allow time-limited free trials of apps.

Look at the boxed model. How many PC software titles are profitable at retailers that sell computers? Maybe 50 titles, including games? The software aisle at most stores is more like 1/2 of one short aisle now.

 

[BC2009]

If an app costs less than a strawberry lemonade at a sit-down restaurant then I am likely to take a risk on it. I just dropped $3.99 on Dark Sky. So far, I have not been terribly impressed since I seem to know its raining before dark sky has told me about it, but that could be related to the threshold I had set for notifications (which I just turned to the minimum). If it does not work out for me it is no worse then getting a lemonade that was just too sweet -- no big deal.

When an app has been guilty of false advertising, I contact iTunes support via email and complain about the app and urge them to pull it from the App Store or at least put the developer on notice. When I do this, I have always gotten a refund from Apple -- no exceptions. This has happened about 3 times in the past 3 years. I also got a refund one other time before the "Buy App" button was replaced with the "Install" button and in an attempt to redownload 1Password Pro, I accidentally tapped on 1Password and found myself purchasing that version. Apple simply refunded the money to me.

I am more than willing to pay $9.99 for a decent app and $29.99 for a great app that is optimized for both iPad and iPhone. I think I paid $59.99 for Navigon and was never disappointed. On the same note, having to upgrade VMWare Fusion for $49.99 on an annual basis with every Mac OS X release got old with the first back-to-back annual release of OS X. I fully expected a free upgraded after owning Fusion 4 for less than a year. I upgraded Fusion last year and I am simply not doing it again with how little I run Windows for anything. The one Windows app my wife uses is now getting a Mac replacement.

 

[Saladinos]

The AppStore business model needs revamping. The developer side was always good, and consumers liked the low prices and free apps, but it's not the best software distribution platform Apple could build.

- Trials. For many apps, free doesn't make sense. They want to make paid apps, but the glut of lower-cost alternatives and poor search makes a race to the top far too difficult. Letting consumers try apps and find the one they're willing to pay for (if they're willing to spend the time) will help reward innovative app developers.

Microsoft has a good framework for this where the developer essentially codes in when the trial should stop. It integrates with the system purchasing framework so users can purchase if they want to and experience no interruption.

Perhaps a refund framework should also be established to increase purchaser confidence.

- Paid upgrades. The need for this is obvious. Mac developers are traditionally really user-friendly about this, offering upgrade pricing to existing customers and free upgrades to those who purchase close to a major new release. Apple could formally codify those sorts of consumer breakthroughs in their AppStore policies and it'd still be counted as a major win for developers.

- Bundles. Another great mac-culture phenomenon. Many of those bundles donate portions of their sales to charity and offer huge discounts for customers, not to mention being great at spreading apps for developers. There's no reason for Apple not to allow developers to organise their own bundles.

If apple made these changes, they'd reestablish iOS as a platform where individual developers can make money for writing great software.

 

[mattraehl]

I just dropped $3.99 on Dark Sky. So far, I have not been terribly impressed since I seem to know its raining before dark sky has told me about it, but that could be related to the threshold I had set for notifications (which I just turned to the minimum). If it does not work out for me it is no worse then getting a lemonade that was just too sweet -- no big deal.

This is kind of a tangent, but I just wanted to say, I love Dark Sky. The notifications are a new thing, I haven't even downloaded that update yet. For me the value of Dark Sky is those times when (as the name implies) the sky is dark, and I can tell it's likely going to rain soon, so I want to know how soon is it going to rain, how heavy will it be, and how long will it last? It's especially valuable for summer thunderstorms, when you just want to know, "How long would I have to wait to avoid getting soaked going to my car?"

 

[eddyg]

Is there a mechanism whereby you can charge $1 (or free) for the app up front which gives the user N days of usage. And an in-app purchase for indefinite usage thereafter? In effect providing a trial period? Yes you could continuously delete and reinstall - but that would be a hassle.

 

[Saladinos]

Is there a mechanism whereby you can charge $1 (or free) for the app up front which gives the user N days of usage. And an in-app purchase for indefinite usage thereafter? In effect providing a trial period? Yes you could continuously delete and reinstall - but that would be a hassle.

No, that is against the AppStore policies. Your app would be rejected.

 

[globality]

This is kind of a tangent, but I just wanted to say, I love Dark Sky. The notifications are a new thing, I haven't even downloaded that update yet. For me the value of Dark Sky is those times when (as the name implies) the sky is dark, and I can tell it's likely going to rain soon, so I want to know how soon is it going to rain, how heavy will it be, and how long will it last? It's especially valuable for summer thunderstorms, when you just want to know, "How long would I have to wait to avoid getting soaked going to my car?"

Is the information accurate? I mean more often the weather forecast is not very accurate at this level (like how the rain will last for a thunderstorm) right?

 

[newdeal]

keep the same store, allow a one day refund policy, allow developers to release free bug fixes but charge upgrade fees that are less than the fee to buy the app over again. let users choose to ignore paid upgrades so the no longer leave a badge on the app

 

[mattraehl]

Is the information accurate? I mean more often the weather forecast is not very accurate at this level (like how the rain will last for a thunderstorm) right?

It has been surprisingly accurate in my experience. It's strength is information for the next 30-60 minutes. It's not really a "forecast" in the traditional sense, it analyzes radar data to track how and where active rainfall is moving, and based on that predicts when the rain will arrive and when it will leave.

Think looking at a moving storm on a radar, seeing how fast it is moving, how large it is, what direction it is moving, and based on that estimating when it will arrive and how long it will last.

It's not perfect, but I can't really see how it could possibly be more accurate.

 

[Sardonick007]

pancake poo

I'd pay for an app that's worth it. Make better apps, get mo money. Let me preview apps, get mo money. There's so many ***** apps on the market that I'm shellshocked and only buy something I KNOW is worth the price to me.

 

[saberahul]

A real insight coming from a developer who has a "mirror" and "timer" app.

I would love to see comments by the devs of Omnifocus and things and other top shelf apps that deserve what they charge.

 

[Technarchy]

I have only one thing to say to this disgruntled developer:

Supply and demand.

This.

The developer just sounds like a whiny ass.

Focus on making a quality product, and succesfully market the product. I paid for Pages and Numbers, both of which are $10 apps. Why? Because my need for those types of tools made the price paid a good value.

Infinity Blade II was an $8 dollar app and sold incredibly well.

So there is nothing wrong with the app store model, and everything wrong with this developer's business model, value or product itself.

 

[bluespark]

People would be willing to pay if iOS let you test apps before buying them.

Exactly. I've been burned once by an expensive app purchase that didn't fulfill my needs and I won't make that mistake again. Without a trial version, 99 cents is now about my limit. With trials, I wouldn't hesitate to pay $100 or more for something truly useful.

 

[a0me]

One of the problems I personally see with lite apps is that they are completely separated from the full ones. The consumer is forced to look for it, assuming they are even aware that one exists for that particular app. The app store should take a page from the iBooks store (no pun intended) and provide a demo/try button right underneath the buy button.

I've seen a couple of apps (mostly games maybe) that are basically free demos until you pay a couple of $ via IAP which unlock all features.

This is basically the same things as shareware.

 

[1239689]

People would be willing to pay if iOS let you test apps before buying them.

I've often passed over apps because of this. No test not buy.

----------

We should be getting people more used to be paying recurring fees, like $0.35 per month for something.

Another idea is take advantage of the fact that out of 100 people who use your app, 99 might be willing to pay you $0, but 1 person will be willing to pay $30 over the course of a year. So instead of charging $0.99 for the app, sell it for $0 and get the 1 person's $30 somehow. Instead of getting only 1 $0.99 from that person.

And that app gets passed over by people like me. I can't stand the idea of rentals.

 

[garylapointe]

No, that is against the AppStore policies. Your app would be rejected.

Make it free with ads and 99 cents a year to opt out of the ads.

And make it no ads for the first 60 days, so they get used to it.

If it's a good product people will pay the 99 cents. IF I USED IT ALL THE TIME, I'm not going to look at ads in my e-mail or word processing software, I'm going to pay.

Also, offer a $4.99 life time upgrade or something like that. After a few years of paying for it, I'll think I should just pay for that...

I'm sure there are a lot of great $5 or $10 pieces of software that I've never tried since there wasn't a free version.

My 2 cents,
Gary

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

I don't want to rent an application. I'll gladly pay a one time fee to have the full rights to use the application, though. And if your profit margins aren't good enough come out with an additional product.

 

[JoshBoy]

I must leave this forum quick!!! I just found an app that farts when you hit a button... Only 99c!!! Bargin!!!
On a serious note this little girl has to stop crying and develop an app that is useful. I have spent a lot on apps mainly when I get to try it out first or it has good reviews externally to the app store. I also disagree with the chart showing a news paper as holding its value consistently vs food demimishing in value. I can freeze a steak for 3 months and it's all good, I hold no value in a 3 month old news paper, it has lost its value after one day.

 

[BornAgainApple]

I really hope the iOS folks at Apple are following this thread. Lots of good posts so far.

 

[charlituna]

The issue with lite apps are that developers block you from using major parts of the app. Apple should allow fifteen minute trials where you can use all parts of the app.

Apple would never force such a thing because developers would just leave the store. And no developer is going to go for such a plan if they weren't willing to make a lite version, which most non games aren't.

 

[Flitzy]

I'm getting seriously tired of these constant stories about whining developers.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Is there a mechanism whereby you can charge $1 (or free) for the app up front which gives the user N days of usage. And an in-app purchase for indefinite usage thereafter? In effect providing a trial period? Yes you could continuously delete and reinstall - but that would be a hassle.

If Apple uses encryption (certificates) and online validation via SSL/TLS, then they can:
a) Forbid that one Apple-ID user can redownload a time limited trial (App Store app tells Apples servers, that the first download was successful-checksum matches).
b) They can send a code over the secure connection to the App Store application, which converts the time limited, compressed and encrypted trial version in a compressed, not encrypted and unlimited full version.