6 ms·

Both of the proposed solutions are against the goals of the a store so I suspect it's highly unlikely they'd ever be considered. #1 lowers the amount of downloa

Both of the proposed solutions are against the goals of the a store so I suspect it's highly unlikely they'd ever be considered. #1 lowers the amount of downloads of a free app simply because it contains in-app purchases and #2 lowers revenue by reminding consumers how much they've spent and convincing them not to spend. Absolutely ridiculous. Edit: I just wanted to add that I think the two proposed solutions target in-app purchases in general, rather than just hidden or dishonest in-app purchases. A good solution would be one that doesn't affect positive uses of in-app purchases but does combat negative uses.

voltagex_ 13y ago
It's not ridiculous if your motivations aren't purely business-driven.
- droopyEyelids 13y ago
  Or, like the point I believe the author was trying to make, it's not ridiculous if it aids in your long term business goals. The quality of Apple's App Store is one of the key differentiators in the smartphone/tablet market. In-app purchase based software can reasonably be seen to reduce the quality of an app-store for a couple reasons. 1) The low barrier to entry puts f2p software at an initial advantage. This hurts the market for complete software. 2) Competition for profits then becomes based on extracting the most money from users in hard to quantify ways, leading to insidious tricks. 3) Consumers become disenfranchised with the idea of an app, after they become burned a couple times, and trying to look for quality complete software, but finding that it has failed to thrive in the face of free+ alternatives. Remember that old Columbia Records CD-by-mail thing? It made money because it offered a low initial cost that a kid could sign up for. Then CDs were sent monthly, and eventually a big bill would follow. Can you imagine a quality music discovery service competing with the free one that spammed kids and then left their parents to foot the bill? I suggest no. First, the up-front, honest service would require a reasoned commitment, while Columbia's appealed directly to people's instincts. Second, Columbia poisoned the water. No one could trust the technology of the day (catalogues and mail) to be beneficial after they were hit with a huge surprise bill from the big name in the industry. I'm not saying that is a perfect analogy, but I think it reasonably fits. The difference here is that Apple is in full control of their destiny- and they can't afford to let things go to shit.
  - proexploit 13y ago
    Yeah absolutely. It's got to be important to find a way to control quality with in-app purchases, I just think the two proposed solutions target in-app purchases in general, not poor experiences.
  - je42 13y ago
    Why would a paid app be in a better place ? I personally refrain from paying upfront for any app. When there is a paid app I usually need to find reviews and watch video before I buy the app. That's a lot of effort. If it is free I can simply download and most importantly play it, no need to find reviews, and then decide myself if I want to buy some InApp items.
- mbesto 13y ago
  Apple iTunes Store...
cubicle67 13y ago
Your assumptions here are - #1 the user won't download an alternate game, and #2 the user won't spend their money elsewhere in the app store
interpol_p 13y ago
"Both of the proposed solutions are against the goals of the app store" I don't think they are. The App Store's goals should be about bringing the best apps to the most people. Not about making money by selling apps — even though it does make a little bit of money for Apple. By having a long term goal based on App quality they encourage more device sales and more consumer trust in the App Store. Those two things lead to more people being willing to pay more up-front for apps in the long term. Better for developers, and much better for Apple. A good app could still sell expensive in-app purchases. This article in particular targets consumables. If a game told me I was spending $10 a month on consumables I would be happy to know that — and would continue doing it if I felt it was worth it. It would also let me better understand how those scammy purchases add up in cost, if I were one to go for those sorts of things.
xerophtye 13y ago
The author's point was that your game/business should not rely on tricking the user out of their money. The user should be well aware of how much money he/she is spending and the app should be awesome enough that the user feels "it's worth it!" This is better for the market because its not a competition for who's the best trickster, but who can make the best apps on which people WANT to spend money.

voltagex_ 13y ago

It's not ridiculous if your motivations aren't purely business-driven.

droopyEyelids 13y ago
Or, like the point I believe the author was trying to make, it's not ridiculous if it aids in your long term business goals. The quality of Apple's App Store is one of the key differentiators in the smartphone/tablet market. In-app purchase based software can reasonably be seen to reduce the quality of an app-store for a couple reasons. 1) The low barrier to entry puts f2p software at an initial advantage. This hurts the market for complete software. 2) Competition for profits then becomes based on extracting the most money from users in hard to quantify ways, leading to insidious tricks. 3) Consumers become disenfranchised with the idea of an app, after they become burned a couple times, and trying to look for quality complete software, but finding that it has failed to thrive in the face of free+ alternatives. Remember that old Columbia Records CD-by-mail thing? It made money because it offered a low initial cost that a kid could sign up for. Then CDs were sent monthly, and eventually a big bill would follow. Can you imagine a quality music discovery service competing with the free one that spammed kids and then left their parents to foot the bill? I suggest no. First, the up-front, honest service would require a reasoned commitment, while Columbia's appealed directly to people's instincts. Second, Columbia poisoned the water. No one could trust the technology of the day (catalogues and mail) to be beneficial after they were hit with a huge surprise bill from the big name in the industry. I'm not saying that is a perfect analogy, but I think it reasonably fits. The difference here is that Apple is in full control of their destiny- and they can't afford to let things go to shit.
- proexploit 13y ago
  Yeah absolutely. It's got to be important to find a way to control quality with in-app purchases, I just think the two proposed solutions target in-app purchases in general, not poor experiences.
- je42 13y ago
  Why would a paid app be in a better place ? I personally refrain from paying upfront for any app. When there is a paid app I usually need to find reviews and watch video before I buy the app. That's a lot of effort. If it is free I can simply download and most importantly play it, no need to find reviews, and then decide myself if I want to buy some InApp items.
mbesto 13y ago
Apple iTunes Store...

cubicle67 13y ago

Your assumptions here are - #1 the user won't download an alternate game, and #2 the user won't spend their money elsewhere in the app store

interpol_p 13y ago

"Both of the proposed solutions are against the goals of the app store" I don't think they are. The App Store's goals should be about bringing the best apps to the most people. Not about making money by selling apps — even though it does make a little bit of money for Apple. By having a long term goal based on App quality they encourage more device sales and more consumer trust in the App Store. Those two things lead to more people being willing to pay more up-front for apps in the long term. Better for developers, and much better for Apple. A good app could still sell expensive in-app purchases. This article in particular targets consumables. If a game told me I was spending $10 a month on consumables I would be happy to know that — and would continue doing it if I felt it was worth it. It would also let me better understand how those scammy purchases add up in cost, if I were one to go for those sorts of things.

xerophtye 13y ago

The author's point was that your game/business should not rely on tricking the user out of their money. The user should be well aware of how much money he/she is spending and the app should be awesome enough that the user feels "it's worth it!" This is better for the market because its not a competition for who's the best trickster, but who can make the best apps on which people WANT to spend money.