5 ms·

I actually wish they banned all cross-app promotion, which is the second most annoying thing after the in-app purchase promotions.

by eps 14y ago

rooster117 14y ago
I have personally experimented with TapJoy and even though it worked as a way of bumping my ranking for a small period of time I choose to never use it again and now that I understand those networks I would be pretty happy if they didn't exist anymore. I wouldn't want to get rid of all cross promotion though since if I really liked an app I may want to know more about other apps the developer made.
mmanfrin 14y ago
So you'd ban all the free demo versions of paid apps?
- tehwebguy 14y ago
  No, I think the idea is that there are some full blown apps that seem to serve only to push sales of other apps. Not a big deal for demo + full version apps, but when you pay full price for an app (or download a free, non-demo app) and keep getting pushed to buy other apps it gets pretty annoying. Some apps have done it tastefully, like Temple Run. Others like Scramble (and my assumption is all Zynga apps) just make it a drag.
- jrajav 14y ago
  Arguably, the existence of a full and demo version - along with limits on features or usage period of the demo - will be all the "promotion" you need.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  No need for having two apps clogging up the store - have just the app, and have the paid version unlocked via IAP.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    This is actually really painful for both devs and users - the main thing being that recovery of the paid upgrade will be finicky and unreliable. The UI for recovering an in-app purchase is the same as the buying UI, which leads many users to mistakenly believe they are being double-charged. Who can blame them, the UI blows. Since devs themselves also do not get any user-specific information when an in-app purchase is sold, it becomes pretty much impossible for your support channels to verify someone actually owns what they say they own. Until the API improves (not holding my breath, it's been like this for, what, 3 years now?) IAP-driven upgrades will hurt both users and developers.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      Then maybe people should be putting more effort into this setup than in goosing popularity juice and user-hostile co-promo bs.
    - chucknelson 14y ago
      > "The UI for recovering an in-app purchase is the same as the buying UI, which leads many users to mistakenly believe they are being double-charged." This makes sense for low-price + IAP apps, but not the free + IAP model mentioned in the thread you're replying to. Free + IAP seems fine, and it's probably been the most popular PC/Mac software sales method since the 90s.
      - potatolicious 14y ago
        This impacts free + IAP models also. Here's the classic use case: 1. User gets a shiny new iPhone. 2. User installs my (free) AwesomeApp on new device. 3. User is missing premium AwesomeApp features, is now confused about why. 4. User goes to IAP part of app and tries to recover the IAP/premium features, except Apple's UI here would lead user to believe they are being charged for the IAP again. This is often followed by: 5. User contacts support and is very confused. Support cannot verify whether or not user owns the IAP, because the App Store is a black box and we get no information about purchasers.
- eps 14y ago
  No, I wouldn't. In fact, I think the try-then-buy model was actually the intended primary use of IAP.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    I thought IAP was for hats for your game charaters.
ghshephard 14y ago
Completely agree as a user. I know this would annoy developers to no end, as their scammy "Load this App and will give you 5 jewels" promotions are a pretty common way to get App store "Popularity" juice, but first, it's annoying within the context of an app, and second, it artificially boosts the popularity of a secondary app that might be complete crap. Still waiting for the authoritative metacritic/rotten tomatoes of the app store to develop. I'm happy to spend upwards of a thousands dollars a year on the App Store - but, other than trusting podcasts/trusted bloggers, it's pretty damn hard to find anything useful on it without wasting a lot of time and money.
- jobu 14y ago
  The practice of giving incentives to download apps has been officially banned (by Apple) for over a year, but I don't think the apple reviewers have been enforcing it uniformly.
- __abc 14y ago
  What I wouldn't give for a X day trial period on all apps. Hell, let categorization drive the length of trial period, I don't care. Please just give me a way to "try before I buy".
crikli 14y ago
Agreed. I hate "free" apps that are completely hamstrung until you buy some dumb in-app purchase.
- inthewoods 14y ago
  Yes, and very annoying for my children. And for me.
  - rustynails77 14y ago
    Excellent point. On the iPad, my young kids can do most things easily, except deal with these advertisements. It usually exits the app, brings up Safari and they wonder what's going on. The second most annoying thing is OpenFeint - Can't this be globally turned off?
    - saurik 14y ago
      The way Apple's restrictions work, you can't build global opt outs like that. Services, for the record, would love to be able to do it; in fact, I was once begged by some companies in the analytics space (think Flurry) to build a global opt out for their products on jailbroken devices, and after contacting other companies I found out they all wanted to do it but couldn't (so I built it).
  - aiham 14y ago
    You can block kids from using in app purchases by going to Settings > General > Restrictions > In-App Purchases
    - evilduck 14y ago
      That doesn't stop the app from prompting for the in-app purchases, it just prevents unwanted transactions. Go download Talking Tom (it's "free") and see what parents complain about. Turning off purchasing doesn't stop my 2 year old from hitting one of three or four "upgrade" buttons available on screen at any given moment, bringing up a popup or opening a browser or the app store for cross promotions. I would have actually bought the damn thing because of the entertainment it provides if it weren't for refusing to support the total sleaziness of that monetization method.

I actually wish they banned all cross-app promotion, which is the second most annoying thing after the in-app purchase promotions.

by eps 14y ago

I actually wish they banned all cross-app promotion, which is the second most annoying thing after the in-app purchase promotions.

rooster117 14y ago

I have personally experimented with TapJoy and even though it worked as a way of bumping my ranking for a small period of time I choose to never use it again and now that I understand those networks I would be pretty happy if they didn't exist anymore. I wouldn't want to get rid of all cross promotion though since if I really liked an app I may want to know more about other apps the developer made.

mmanfrin 14y ago

So you'd ban all the free demo versions of paid apps?

tehwebguy 14y ago
No, I think the idea is that there are some full blown apps that seem to serve only to push sales of other apps. Not a big deal for demo + full version apps, but when you pay full price for an app (or download a free, non-demo app) and keep getting pushed to buy other apps it gets pretty annoying. Some apps have done it tastefully, like Temple Run. Others like Scramble (and my assumption is all Zynga apps) just make it a drag.
jrajav 14y ago
Arguably, the existence of a full and demo version - along with limits on features or usage period of the demo - will be all the "promotion" you need.
Karunamon 14y ago
No need for having two apps clogging up the store - have just the app, and have the paid version unlocked via IAP.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  This is actually really painful for both devs and users - the main thing being that recovery of the paid upgrade will be finicky and unreliable. The UI for recovering an in-app purchase is the same as the buying UI, which leads many users to mistakenly believe they are being double-charged. Who can blame them, the UI blows. Since devs themselves also do not get any user-specific information when an in-app purchase is sold, it becomes pretty much impossible for your support channels to verify someone actually owns what they say they own. Until the API improves (not holding my breath, it's been like this for, what, 3 years now?) IAP-driven upgrades will hurt both users and developers.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    Then maybe people should be putting more effort into this setup than in goosing popularity juice and user-hostile co-promo bs.
  - chucknelson 14y ago
    > "The UI for recovering an in-app purchase is the same as the buying UI, which leads many users to mistakenly believe they are being double-charged." This makes sense for low-price + IAP apps, but not the free + IAP model mentioned in the thread you're replying to. Free + IAP seems fine, and it's probably been the most popular PC/Mac software sales method since the 90s.
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      This impacts free + IAP models also. Here's the classic use case: 1. User gets a shiny new iPhone. 2. User installs my (free) AwesomeApp on new device. 3. User is missing premium AwesomeApp features, is now confused about why. 4. User goes to IAP part of app and tries to recover the IAP/premium features, except Apple's UI here would lead user to believe they are being charged for the IAP again. This is often followed by: 5. User contacts support and is very confused. Support cannot verify whether or not user owns the IAP, because the App Store is a black box and we get no information about purchasers.
eps 14y ago
No, I wouldn't. In fact, I think the try-then-buy model was actually the intended primary use of IAP.
- Evbn 14y ago
  I thought IAP was for hats for your game charaters.

ghshephard 14y ago

Completely agree as a user. I know this would annoy developers to no end, as their scammy "Load this App and will give you 5 jewels" promotions are a pretty common way to get App store "Popularity" juice, but first, it's annoying within the context of an app, and second, it artificially boosts the popularity of a secondary app that might be complete crap. Still waiting for the authoritative metacritic/rotten tomatoes of the app store to develop. I'm happy to spend upwards of a thousands dollars a year on the App Store - but, other than trusting podcasts/trusted bloggers, it's pretty damn hard to find anything useful on it without wasting a lot of time and money.

jobu 14y ago
The practice of giving incentives to download apps has been officially banned (by Apple) for over a year, but I don't think the apple reviewers have been enforcing it uniformly.
__abc 14y ago
What I wouldn't give for a X day trial period on all apps. Hell, let categorization drive the length of trial period, I don't care. Please just give me a way to "try before I buy".

crikli 14y ago

Agreed. I hate "free" apps that are completely hamstrung until you buy some dumb in-app purchase.

inthewoods 14y ago
Yes, and very annoying for my children. And for me.
- rustynails77 14y ago
  Excellent point. On the iPad, my young kids can do most things easily, except deal with these advertisements. It usually exits the app, brings up Safari and they wonder what's going on. The second most annoying thing is OpenFeint - Can't this be globally turned off?
  - saurik 14y ago
    The way Apple's restrictions work, you can't build global opt outs like that. Services, for the record, would love to be able to do it; in fact, I was once begged by some companies in the analytics space (think Flurry) to build a global opt out for their products on jailbroken devices, and after contacting other companies I found out they all wanted to do it but couldn't (so I built it).
- aiham 14y ago
  You can block kids from using in app purchases by going to Settings > General > Restrictions > In-App Purchases
  - evilduck 14y ago
    That doesn't stop the app from prompting for the in-app purchases, it just prevents unwanted transactions. Go download Talking Tom (it's "free") and see what parents complain about. Turning off purchasing doesn't stop my 2 year old from hitting one of three or four "upgrade" buttons available on screen at any given moment, bringing up a popup or opening a browser or the app store for cross promotions. I would have actually bought the damn thing because of the entertainment it provides if it weren't for refusing to support the total sleaziness of that monetization method.