4 ms·

> If I see something that is both "free" and "in-app purchases", it already greatly reduces the chance I'll even bother to download If a free app starts out wi

> If I see something that is both "free" and "in-app purchases", it already greatly reduces the chance I'll even bother to download If a free app starts out with limited functionality for trialing, with a (one-time) in-app-purchase to unlock the full features, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Follow-up: if it's a good thing, how should the app developer make it clear that it's not crapware? (asking for a friend)

patmcc 9y ago
That's my personal favourite for apps, but it's impossible to tell from a glance whether the "in-app purchases" label means you just buy it once (like Super Mario Run) or it'll be a constant push to spend more and more (nearly every other app). That's a tough one, especially for small developers.
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Look whether "top in app purchase" is "unlock full game" or "buy gameXYZ coins" etc
  - squeaky-clean 9y ago
    Is this iOS only, or maybe I'm very bad at searching? I don't see anywhere in the Play Store to view the top in-app purchases for an app.
- jclardy 9y ago
  This is the true problem. Apple is pushing in-app subscriptions on developers now...but as a developer you have no way to inform your customer of this. We have a SaaS business, and still get 1 out of 10 reviews complaining that there is a subscription. We state that it requires a sub in the first line of the app subscription, but that is not enough.
Flow 9y ago
Pay to get rid of the ads and get some more functionality seems fine to me. But it goes the other way too. I bought Bad Piggies some years ago. I play it on vacations. And this vacation I started it and just couldn't figure out how to start a level. There were several buttons but they all seemed to start fullscreen unskippable ads for other games instead of the game. I tried several times and gave up. I'm not sure there still is a game in there. I think behavior like this should not be allowed by Apple.
- stronglikedan 9y ago
  I bought a game a few years ago (Batman or Spiderman or something) for an $8 or $10 one time purchase. Then the developer (who I think I remember, but won't mention because I'm not positive) decided it would be a good idea to move to an IAP model. Well, after updating the game one day, I realized that I no longer had the full game that I paid for, and that I would have to pay more via IAP if I wanted to continue playing. That was the day that soured me on IAP forever, and I'm another one that will go very far out of my way to avoid them (even inconveniencing myself solely out of spite).
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    I have to ask how that's the fault of the IAPs? Sounds like the developer screwed you out of something you paid for with an update, which could happen with or without the IAP model. The closest thing I can think of is what Apple did to Final Cut Pro users, or what Sony did to Other OS users on the PS3.
pasbesoin 9y ago
I have hesitated a couple of times at that language, when I'm considering an "open source" app. To find that it's really describing the ability to make a donation to the developers. I wish there was distinct language for this. But at least I've learned to look closer, before making up my mind. P.S. I just checked a couple of apps I was thinking of, and I do not see -- or no longer see -- that language on their app page. One -- Open Camera -- does have the ability to make such a donation by purchasing a separate "donation app". I don't know whether the language has changed, or whether I'm mis-remembering my past experience. About the time Android and smart phones came along, I lost the will to keep my attention focused on and keep up with every last detail. Anyway, I've no problem with making a donation for an app I value. I tend to favor such apps, because I just don't have a lot of trust in closed-source apps. Not that all app developers are bad or evil, but 1) Mistakes get made, particularly around security; 2) Apps get sold, and the new parties are an unknown, then already on my device; 3) Ads -- sooner or later, in distraction and/or malicious behavior, they go bad. I also pay for some commercial, closed-source apps. But I have to have a fair amount of trust in the outfit behind them. Anyway... Play platform language is oriented around "sales" and not "contributions".
- kyle-rb 9y ago
  >One -- Open Camera -- does have the ability to make such a donation by purchasing a separate "donation app". Android has the concept of 'unlock keys', which were basically IAPs for full unlocks. I'm pretty sure you can still make them, as a couple apps I use still have legacy keys in addition to IAPs (added later). The guarantee that you're only paying once is a nice thing, but these days I think users understand IAPs these days and prefer what they know.
LoSboccacc 9y ago
eh it's usually clear by looking if the iap is a feature or a consumable, but there's no search parameter for that, so you're stuck by looking trough each variant of them. oh, and there are those app that started paid for and switched to free+ads, leaving users who bought it prisoner of their sucky ads experience.

patmcc 9y ago

That's my personal favourite for apps, but it's impossible to tell from a glance whether the "in-app purchases" label means you just buy it once (like Super Mario Run) or it'll be a constant push to spend more and more (nearly every other app). That's a tough one, especially for small developers.

ikeboy 9y ago
Look whether "top in app purchase" is "unlock full game" or "buy gameXYZ coins" etc
- squeaky-clean 9y ago
  Is this iOS only, or maybe I'm very bad at searching? I don't see anywhere in the Play Store to view the top in-app purchases for an app.
jclardy 9y ago
This is the true problem. Apple is pushing in-app subscriptions on developers now...but as a developer you have no way to inform your customer of this. We have a SaaS business, and still get 1 out of 10 reviews complaining that there is a subscription. We state that it requires a sub in the first line of the app subscription, but that is not enough.

Flow 9y ago

Pay to get rid of the ads and get some more functionality seems fine to me. But it goes the other way too. I bought Bad Piggies some years ago. I play it on vacations. And this vacation I started it and just couldn't figure out how to start a level. There were several buttons but they all seemed to start fullscreen unskippable ads for other games instead of the game. I tried several times and gave up. I'm not sure there still is a game in there. I think behavior like this should not be allowed by Apple.

stronglikedan 9y ago
I bought a game a few years ago (Batman or Spiderman or something) for an $8 or $10 one time purchase. Then the developer (who I think I remember, but won't mention because I'm not positive) decided it would be a good idea to move to an IAP model. Well, after updating the game one day, I realized that I no longer had the full game that I paid for, and that I would have to pay more via IAP if I wanted to continue playing. That was the day that soured me on IAP forever, and I'm another one that will go very far out of my way to avoid them (even inconveniencing myself solely out of spite).
- Karunamon 9y ago
  I have to ask how that's the fault of the IAPs? Sounds like the developer screwed you out of something you paid for with an update, which could happen with or without the IAP model. The closest thing I can think of is what Apple did to Final Cut Pro users, or what Sony did to Other OS users on the PS3.

pasbesoin 9y ago

I have hesitated a couple of times at that language, when I'm considering an "open source" app. To find that it's really describing the ability to make a donation to the developers. I wish there was distinct language for this. But at least I've learned to look closer, before making up my mind. P.S. I just checked a couple of apps I was thinking of, and I do not see -- or no longer see -- that language on their app page. One -- Open Camera -- does have the ability to make such a donation by purchasing a separate "donation app". I don't know whether the language has changed, or whether I'm mis-remembering my past experience. About the time Android and smart phones came along, I lost the will to keep my attention focused on and keep up with every last detail. Anyway, I've no problem with making a donation for an app I value. I tend to favor such apps, because I just don't have a lot of trust in closed-source apps. Not that all app developers are bad or evil, but 1) Mistakes get made, particularly around security; 2) Apps get sold, and the new parties are an unknown, then already on my device; 3) Ads -- sooner or later, in distraction and/or malicious behavior, they go bad. I also pay for some commercial, closed-source apps. But I have to have a fair amount of trust in the outfit behind them. Anyway... Play platform language is oriented around "sales" and not "contributions".

kyle-rb 9y ago
>One -- Open Camera -- does have the ability to make such a donation by purchasing a separate "donation app". Android has the concept of 'unlock keys', which were basically IAPs for full unlocks. I'm pretty sure you can still make them, as a couple apps I use still have legacy keys in addition to IAPs (added later). The guarantee that you're only paying once is a nice thing, but these days I think users understand IAPs these days and prefer what they know.

LoSboccacc 9y ago

eh it's usually clear by looking if the iap is a feature or a consumable, but there's no search parameter for that, so you're stuck by looking trough each variant of them. oh, and there are those app that started paid for and switched to free+ads, leaving users who bought it prisoner of their sucky ads experience.