4 ms·

The headline is misleading. The base apps are free, but you pay for the full app via In-App Purchases. This isn't a whole lot different than the standard lite

The headline is misleading. The base apps are free, but you pay for the full app via In-App Purchases. This isn't a whole lot different than the standard lite and full versions model. How about the less-sensational: "One Third of Top-Grossing iPhone Apps Profit With In-App Purchases"

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
codypo 16y ago
I think this is quite a bit different than the standard lite and full version model. The reason why is because, through in-app purchases, a developer has the potential to realize a lot more revenue per user. If all you're trying to do is to get someone to upgrade from lite to full, that can only happen once. In-app purchases can happen several times. In Restaurant Story (one of the games mentioned in the article), you buy gems to speed up the process with which you make food. I'd bet that most people who purchase those gems do it more than once, because they're directly tied in to your success at that game. In short, there's the potential here for recurring revenue. Not only that, but the prices on in-app purchases can be startling! Going back to Restaurant Story, I think the smallest batch of gems you can buy is $5 and it goes all the way to $99. That's a lot more revenue per user, potentially, than on an upgrade from lite to full.
newmediaclay 16y ago
It's not misleading, it's just not overly literal. I think it's pretty easy to make the connection that Free Apps who also have revenue are selling things within the app. Also, the article makes clear, it's not just people paying for the "full versions," but for virtual currencies, select features, etc.
SoftwareMaven 16y ago
If you look at several of the games it mentions, they are not "light vs full" versions of the games. They are more like Farmville, where you can buy better stuff and/or progress faster. This is a far more lucrative model than the light/full model because it doesn't end after the first purchase.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

codypo 16y ago

I think this is quite a bit different than the standard lite and full version model. The reason why is because, through in-app purchases, a developer has the potential to realize a lot more revenue per user. If all you're trying to do is to get someone to upgrade from lite to full, that can only happen once. In-app purchases can happen several times. In Restaurant Story (one of the games mentioned in the article), you buy gems to speed up the process with which you make food. I'd bet that most people who purchase those gems do it more than once, because they're directly tied in to your success at that game. In short, there's the potential here for recurring revenue. Not only that, but the prices on in-app purchases can be startling! Going back to Restaurant Story, I think the smallest batch of gems you can buy is $5 and it goes all the way to $99. That's a lot more revenue per user, potentially, than on an upgrade from lite to full.

newmediaclay 16y ago

It's not misleading, it's just not overly literal. I think it's pretty easy to make the connection that Free Apps who also have revenue are selling things within the app. Also, the article makes clear, it's not just people paying for the "full versions," but for virtual currencies, select features, etc.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago

If you look at several of the games it mentions, they are not "light vs full" versions of the games. They are more like Farmville, where you can buy better stuff and/or progress faster. This is a far more lucrative model than the light/full model because it doesn't end after the first purchase.