Shareware, Demoware left out in 3.0

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by jz1492, Mar 18, 2009.

  1. jz1492 macrumors member

    jz1492

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    #1
    The new in-app purchasing model in OS 3.0 was the perfect opportunity for Apple to introduce support for shareware and demoware, which is what many developers and users were waiting for in the first place --yet, they restricted in-app purchasing to paid apps only, to prevent user confusion.

    But they could decide to introduce them specifically as categories, along with Free and Paid.

    What do you think? Should they?
     
  2. joeshell383 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #2
    I like "free means free", but it does create a problem, a problem that trialware would address: what if I pay for an app, and find out all of the features I want are more money (like the EA games)?

    This is what the "premium" store rumor was referring to and we very well may see $20+ apps by the time all the features get enabled.
     
  3. Menge macrumors 6502a

    Menge

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    #3
    I predict that everyone who's developing Lite versions will make the Lite versions the default, free versions and then ask the user if they want to buy such and such feature to add stuff to the apps. It will be annoying because you won't know when an application is really the full app or just a "gateway" application.

    Shareware and Demoware are old sale models. The new model is Downloadable Content (DLC). Mark my words :p
     
  4. cellocello macrumors 68000

    cellocello

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #4
    Nope. I do not think they should.

    Besides, buying a game for 1.99 (or whatever cheap price), getting 10 levels and being able to buy more levels later IS the shareware model.

    What, you don't remember when Doom came out?
     
  5. aaquib macrumors 65816

    aaquib

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #5
    The book store example seemed perfect, until Scott mentioned that the bookstore would have to be a paid app.

    So, I pay to pay more???
     
  6. NewGenAdam macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    #6
    Luckily not, since paid addons can only be bought from paid apps.
     
  7. plumbingandtech macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #7
    Lite seems to be doing then job well for devs that make a lite version.

    It's up to Devs now to make them IMO.


    You should watch the video for the event. They say you can't do this explicitly.
     
  8. jzuena macrumors 6502a

    jzuena

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2007
    Location:
    Lexington, MA, USA
    #8
    I do remember when Doom came out. The initial levels were free and you paid for the extra levels, something that the Apple app store explicitly won't allow.

    I also thought this would clean out many of the lite apps, but unless Apple loosens the rules, that won't happen.
     
  9. cellocello macrumors 68000

    cellocello

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #9
    I don't remember the first 10 levels in Doom (or Wolf3D, for that matter) being free when they first came out. Maybe years later.

    I remember buying the disk for like 3.99 or something. Same with Quake, which came on a nifty CD with lots of iD stuff on it.

    Either way .... free apps won't the in-app purchase stuff. Not much more else to it.
     
  10. goosnarrggh macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #10
    Software published by Apogee and others, classified as "Shareware", was often sold by distributors for little more than the cost of packaging and media. Apogee received little, if any money from those sales. The low distribution price was caused by downward pressure due to the liberal redistribution rights that end-users enjoyed:

    Once an end-user had received a copy of such a Shareware title, he or she typically was given permission by the copyright holder to personally reproduce and give away copies by any means, including distributing diskettes or publishing it on a BBS, to whomever they wished.

    Apogee (and other Shareware distributors) were willing to do this because they figured they'd get people hooked with their "episode one" trials, and they'd be willing to pay for the ability to play further episodes.
     
  11. cellocello macrumors 68000

    cellocello

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #11
    Yeah, that sounds about right actually. Nicely done.

    You know .... that makes me wonder. Will the City Guide app, for example, be sold for 99 cents, but be totally empty? Since they need to use the in-app purchase API and therefore can't give away the base app. Same with a book store app example they talked about.
     
  12. jz1492 thread starter macrumors member

    jz1492

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    #12
    If you wanted to distribute them as shareware, the City Guide would be a completely functional product with a selection of the most important cities already built-in. Paying the asked fee would add nothing or very little in terms of features, but maybe give you registered user's benefits and removal of any shareware reminders in the app. It is the honor system. Pay for what you actually like and use.

    Demoware or trialware is very similar, except it is time or use-limited. Try for a few days, launches or operations and then pay for it or have it severely limited in functionality.

    After paying the initial fee, you may say it becomes just like any other paid app, with downloadable content or not.
     

Share This Page