13 ms·

Apple begins rejecting apps that offer rewards for video views, social sharing

225 points by jasonpbecker 12y ago

gergles 12y ago
Good riddance. Let's go even further and have them ban consumable IAPs. There's almost no legitimate use case for them other than creating pretend currencies that make people hit the skinner box lever harder and spend more money.
- xienze 12y ago
  I doubt that'll happen as Apple gets a cut of IAP.
  - soup10 12y ago
    OP is not suggesting they ban all IAP, just consumable ones, which tend to be the most abusive. It would be a bold move and lead to an increase in quality for sure. It would also gut companies like zynga who design their games around them.
    - huhtenberg 12y ago
      Looking at Candy Crash and how Apple incessantly pimps it in every way possible, I think it's bloody obvious that they are getting A TON of money from consumable IAP commissions.
      - jamesaguilar 12y ago
        I don't think anyone is questioning whether Apple makes money from consumable IAPs. What we're questioning is whether that factor dominates all others, which it observably does not. As far as Apple promoting Candy Crush, there's a question about whether this is a cause or effect of its popularity.
        huhtenberg 12y ago
        It needs not be dominant, it just needs to be significant, which, observably, it is. Just look at the Featured Games list in AppStore.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    There are plenty of precedents for Apple banning things that, not banned, would earn them money. One example is the, "I am rich" app.
- dangero 12y ago
  Large media catalogs need consumables. Every in app purchase item has to be approved by apple individually making it extremely impractical to list an IAP for every single item.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    You mean large media catalogs that don't have flat subscription pricing. Netflix does fine without IAP. Do you have a counter example?
    - axelf 12y ago
      The inkling app lets you buy ebooks. https://www.inkling.com/ https://www.inkling.com/
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      I can think of one - ever heard of TouchTunes? They have internet-streaming jukeboxes in many bars and restaurants. You can sign into them with your phone using their app, buy credit with an IAP, and then you spend the credit on the jukebox, selecting songs to play IRL with your phone. It's technically IAP consumables, but it doesn't seem skeevy like the clash of clans / candy crushes of the world.
      - shasta 12y ago
        How are you going to define "consumable"? A game like clash of clans or candy crush could just restructure things so that you get to permanently "keep" your purchase, but it is still practically consumed. So for example, you could "have" an item that only worked for 15 minutes after purchase. If that's too transparent, consider some kind of level scheme where those level 3 units you bought last week are basically worthless against the level 5 unis you're up against this week. How are you going to forbid that?
        wmf 12y ago
        We're talking about the Apple App Store, home of "we know evil when we see it" policies. They see lack of specificity as a feature. Basically, people are criticizing games where it is possible to spend a ridiculously large (or inifinte) amount of money. Any loopholes should be obvious enough that they're not a problem.
- chollida1 12y ago
  Could you please define IAP? Google is of no use here and wikipedia links to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAP None of which look right:)
  - nivloc 12y ago
    In-App Purchase
  - asolove 12y ago
    I assume "in-app purchase"
  - sergiotapia 12y ago
    "Your house will finish building in 12 hours - or spend 2 golden donuts ($4.99) to have it finish building right now!" And the bad thing is, there is no filter in the store for these junk applications. Gameloft has a really fun game called Rival Knights, but I stopped playing because after 10 levels of making me like the game, they started asking me to wait more and more to keep playing - or guess guess: Buy some "Royal Ribbons" (play tokens) for real money. What a crock! I have a kickass ipad but I can't find honest games that don't nickel and dime me.
    - 13throwaway 12y ago
      I couldn't agree more. IAP have destroyed sandbox games. I love the old Sim Tower and Moon Tycoon games. I would love a port of them to mobile. Sandbox games nowadays are all about trying to squeeze every last penny out of the customer.
      - gagaga 12y ago
        Sim Tower on iPad https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yoot-tower/id379197311?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yoot-tower/id379197311?mt=8
        LandoCalrissian 12y ago
- freemanios 12y ago
  What about iOS apps like Viggle that have the same model but for music and tv? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/viggle/id487066871?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/viggle/id487066871?mt=8 These ads pushers are already circumventing the app store. FreeMyApps uses a website and iOS device profile instead. Will Apple revoke their certificates? http://welcome.freemyapps.com/howitworks-ios.html http://welcome.freemyapps.com/howitworks-ios.html
  - duskwuff 12y ago
    I suspect Apple will end up making changes to ad-hoc provisioning which prevent sites like FreeMyApps from operating. This is very clearly not the way that ad-hoc provisioning was intended to be used.
- dmalik 12y ago
  Free-to-play games aren't going away anytime soon and neither are IAPs. Consumers just don't pay for games anymore and a developer has to make money somehow. I like what Apple is doing by forcing developers to make more ethical games. This Gamasutra article on ethical free-to-play gaming comes to mind and foreshadowed Apples move - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.php?page=1 http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetop... Edit: I'm referring to mobile - "New research shows free-to-play on mobile isn't slowing down" http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/211333/New_research_shows_freetoplay_on_mobile_isnt_slowing_down.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/211333/New_research_shows...
  - wmf 12y ago
    There are good IAPs (like permanent unlocks) and bad IAPs (like consumables).
    - gearoidoc 12y ago
      It's not cut and dry like that.
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        Why isn't it? It certainly sounds simple.
        gearoidoc 12y ago
        Perhaps I misunderstood you but not all consumables are bad IAPs.
    - nasalgoat 12y ago
      There's apps that offers "credits" to access features on an ad-hoc basis that would otherwise require a full subscription. That's actually cheaper for some people and allows them to try it out without committing to a full subscription. You can't be so black and white about IAP.
  - 12y ago
- tomelders 12y ago
  I'm hoping that the Family Sharing features that require the person with the credit card to approve purchases will be the death knell for games that require IAPs. But I agree with everyone else, IAP's are the meth in the AppStore ghetto.
  - MBCook 12y ago
    Tricking kids is one thing but I expect a large portion of the sales are just adults who are willing to pay.
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  If people want to waste their money on consumable IAPs, I don't see why Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) should prevent it.
  - bentcorner 12y ago
    Personally, my problem is not with consumable IAPs, it's spending talented developer effort on games I will never play.
  - sergiotapia 12y ago
    I consider those games spam, and luckily so does Apple. It's a consumer win.
    - guiambros 12y ago
      (EDIT: I guess I should have clarified better: I'm not defending the crapware, social share-driven apps mentioned by the OP. There's good IAPs, and bad IAPs, and the latter should indeed be banned. I'm just against the widespread sentiment that all IAP is bad. I have no problem with Candy Crush making millions of dollars thru IAP, provided they deliver value to users) "Consumer win" is giving them choice. Users spend millions of dollars on IAPs, because it was relevant to them. This created an entire industry of game developers, artists, story writers, that rely on IAPs to keep their apps free. Without IAP, they would have to charge upfront for the app. While it is certainly an option, I'd prefer to let developers and customers figure out the model they want, rather than having Apple or Google enforcing it. Anyway, IAP is one of the most important pillars of Apple's mobile strategy, so it obviously isn't going away anytime soon.
      - jkrems 12y ago
        There's a difference between short- and long-term interest. People are bad at the latter. Yes, there's demand for a free game - duh, of course people want free games. And when they have to pay a euro to get the game to really progress. Sure, why not? And then they need to pay a bit more. And they are still fine with it. But they are less and less satisfied. They try the next game - and the same thing happens. For me the end result is: I stopped looking at games for my iPhone because I have a deep mistrust for apps. Most things that look high quality turn out to be terribly designed (from a game design POV) and are just employing one dark pattern after the other to get people to make more IAPs. So, yes, short-term there's demand. There's a market signal that says "this is totally what people want". But mid- and long-term it's bad for the platform because it leads to shitty customer/user experience. It will still make companies money for a while - but the consumers are burning away. And it's really hard to recover from that.
- fidotron 12y ago
  The flipside is the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them. The dominance of IAPs is not something engineered by the game makers, it's just that it is so much more lucrative it is what enables the production values of modern mobile titles to be what they are. Many game makers would prefer it if you could charge somewhere around $5 per title and make a decent amount from honest players, but unless you have some uberbrand crossover from console land that's not going to work.
  - gtirloni 12y ago
    It would prevent the tsunami of stupid titles from showing up. Companies would get into the game (pun intended) only if sure they had a decent product. Just as always. The amount of trickery I have seen in IAPs is disgusting.
    - fidotron 12y ago
      This is like arguing that Walmart should be banned. You might think the products are stupid, but there are enough people that don't spending money on their preferences to create the current situation. If there is a problem it is with consumers. Admittedly this does poison the well for many other game developers, but the reality is getting attention in the current mobile market is close to impossible without an enormous spend, so conservatism of business model is going to rule the roost now. It also doesn't help that self professed hardcore gamers undervalue mobile titles enormously, and that touch controls just aren't good enough for many purposes either.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        Could you imagine a Walmart that had fast checkout lanes that charged a few dollars extra, and regular checkout lanes that didn't have baggers and deliberately went slowly, even if there wasn't anyone ahead of you in the line?
        hsod 12y ago
        I could imagine that, and it would be a bit silly and (I'd guess) not too successful, but I certainly wouldn't find it offensive or somehow morally wrong.
- trollingineer 12y ago
  Not even going to spend time trying to help you see how much of an idiot you are.
- hackerboos 12y ago
  >Let's go even further and have them ban consumable IAPs. No chance whilst Apple gets a 30% cut.
- gearoidoc 12y ago
  The legitimate use case is that it creates a viable business model: http://themodernprogrammer.com/post/app-store-dollars-dont-go-further/ http://themodernprogrammer.com/post/app-store-dollars-dont-g...
- adamio 12y ago
  The best example is casino apps. They are selling screen taps to users on their own phones.
- ataggart 12y ago
  I am reminded of a quote: "Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." Sure, Apple can do with its platform what it wishes, but the arguments I see being put forth here are troubling. "The ignorant masses are making the 'wrong' choices for themselves, and we in our benevolent wisdom should substitute our preferences for theirs." Where does that sort of thinking end?
  - arg01 12y ago
    The problem is that when you're talking about a free market benefiting all its actors you're talking about those actors being rational. Psychological tricks like skinner boxing really lower any credibility in that assumption. Too look at the freedom thing another way, I may have no right to stop someone from trying to fly away off a cliff but if it looks like they are just about to jump to their doom I feel I should step in. Though I agree it's a dangerous line that could be drawn anywhere between requirements to go to church, prohibition, scams, and the ability to sell yourself into slavery.
  - rmrfrmrf 12y ago
    It will probably never end, since putting a stop to app shenanigans is very much a cat-and-mouse game, and I'm very happy that Apple isn't afraid to put devs in check. People who want to view ads for in-app currency are more than welcome to do so on the Android Marketplace.
    - voltagex_ 12y ago
      I wish they'd go away there, too. Same with "please rate us" popups.
  - siglesias 12y ago
    I think if you ask most people battling health issues or have eating problems whether they could force their future selves for the next month to be not allowed to order dessert, they would choose to. They wouldn't trust themselves in the heat of the moment. There's a fundamental disconnect we have between our short term and long term interests, and it manifests in all kinds of problems people end up with, including their health, finances, and relationships. There's an overwhelming body of psychological evidence that suggests that these issues are real, prevalent, exploitable and exploited. To give an example, there's evidence that shows that we're more likely to succumb to temptation when we're mentally exhausted. If that's not bad enough, actively resisting temptation is exhausting! [1] That's why putting a snack bar full of M&Ms, Snickers, and apples near a bunch of stressed out engineers leads to a more unhealthy workplace (guess which snack is always left over). You can say that the engineers are free to not partake, and I say there's more freedom to focus on other things in their absence. To bring it back to this topic, I think computers need mechanisms to help people with self-control, and a great first step is to curtail software that exists to exploit people with poor impulse control. There's a saying that I am reminded of: "The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master." 1) http://danariely.com/2012/08/15/understanding-ego-depletion/ http://danariely.com/2012/08/15/understanding-ego-depletion/
- chrisBob 12y ago
  Two of my favorite games at the moment use consumable IAPs, and I think it they have a good model. Real Racing 3, and Trials Frontier both offer consumable IAPs that mostly remove waiting, or a boring portion of the gameplay. One can compete in game to earn the same money, and wait for repairs... or they can spend money and keep playing. So far I have not spent any money on these games (I am not a good target market for much of anything, so don't read too much into me playing free games), but I enjoy them a lot, and the developers are making a decent business out of it. Consumable IPAs give developers a chance to get as much money as possible from each person playing. From me that might be $0, but many people are likely to spend more than the $4.99 that would otherwise be the target app price. This seems like the ideal business model to me.
ashbrahma 12y ago
I feel bad for all the developers who are going to see a substantial drop in revenues from incentivized video ads. But as a user, I am happy to see this change. Developers have been very abusive with in-game credits.
coldcode 12y ago
It's about time. It's not only games that do this, even brand name companies pay for positioning via incentivized downloads from these marketing companies.
minikites 12y ago
> [W]here a confused developer wonders, “so we can’t encourage users to share stuffs [sic] on social networks anymore? This is one of the oldest tricks in the book and even Candy Crush uses it.” "Even Candy Crush uses it" is not the best argument for this developer's point. It is the best argument for Apple's shift in enforcement.
- jbigelow76 12y ago
  Step 1, eliminate all marketing channels outside of the official App store. Step 2, charge developers for "sponsored" placement in the App store.
  - superuser2 12y ago
    >marketing channels When your "marketing channel" is my Facebook news feed, then yes, this is absolutely what should happen.
    - hsod 12y ago
      Even if it only posts to your FB news feed with explicit permission?
      - superuser2 12y ago
        If "explicit permission" to post to my news feed is necessary to proceed through your game in a reasonable way, access features I want, etc... then yes.
    - randyrand 12y ago
      Don't be silly. Are you really suggesting that Apple is doing this to clean up your news feed? They don't care whatsoever. Facebook does, you do, Apple doesn't. What OP said is right. This is about Apple having tighter control over the app marketplace, not your news feed.
      - superuser2 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
justplay 12y ago
Thats very good move, i guess.
seanalltogether 12y ago
So where do you draw the line between viewing advertisements to play the game, and viewing advertisements to enhance the game? What makes a video view for gold coins different from an ad view to proceed to the next screen? I don't fully understand the distinction here?
- exodust 12y ago
  Perhaps the concern for Apple is that one of those methods circumvents Apple's ad network, the other cannot? Would this be a fair guess? I'm not fully understanding Apple's motivation here either unless it was about bringing Apple back in as a dependency on ad revenue rather than sidelined.
lhnz 12y ago
Great but as many have pointed out the biggest problem with the App Store is that IAP has made pricing completely opaque. The whole experience is completely untrustworthy as an app which requires an average spend of £20+ to use properly is considered more "Free" than an app which costs £2.99. It's made a complete mockery of prices. Fixed prices are popular for a reason and I hope Apple learns this and starts properly surfacing information as well as categorising based on the reality of an App's "price."
- redler 12y ago
  It would be interesting if the app store displayed the median total expenditure for any application that includes IAP. How would buying behavior be affected when suddenly that "free" game includes a note like "$59 median total spent"? [Edit: clarity]
  - avalaunch 12y ago
    I think the median for "free" apps with IAPs would almost always be 0. My guess is that the vast majority of people don't pay anything with a small minority making up the bulk of the app's profits. What you really need is a value that represents that amount you need to pay to actually enjoy the app which would be a lot harder to quantify.
    - redler 12y ago
      That's a good point. So, perhaps two numbers: percentage who pay, then median for those who do.
    - aikah 12y ago
      That's absolutely what our stats say.A tiny portion of players will spend a crazy amount of money in IAP,while the great majority will never pay anything.The "free" app is kinda subsidized. Doesnt excuse dirty IAP tricks,you can choose the IAP model and still let most users have a great experience even without paying.
      - 12y ago
sprite 12y ago
What I find annoying is that they did this with no warning. I got an app rejected a few days ago. I have a coin model in my apps. The users can a) Complete actions within the apps to earn coins b) Purchase coins through IAPs c) Watch video ads for coins d) Complete offers for coins. Many users have expressed that they were happy with the system, especially the video ads, with reviews such as "I wish there was more videos to watch for coins". With only around 2% of users spending money on IAPs, offers and videos are a good way to monetize at least a portion of the remaining 98%.
- sergiotapia 12y ago
  Your type of app is the reason why the App store is full of spammy garbage. Good riddance! I hope Apple actually encourage better apps without these skeevy practices.
  - sprite 12y ago
    The app has a 5 star rating in the app store. No users have complained in any way.
    - dan1234 12y ago
      Do you have a link to it?
  - wsidell 12y ago
    I don't understand the problem. There is a percentage of users that will never spend money on your app. Generally, those users do like being able to earn app functionality by completing tasks such as watching a video. I see it as a win as a consumer and a win as a developer.
    - eridius 12y ago
      If your app requires earning coins through non-gameplay mechanisms to be a good game, then it's not a good game. If it doesn't require that, then you can get rid of the coins entirely and still have a good game. At which point your only question is monetization. May I suggest you simply add a banner ad to the game, and then provide a single IAP to remove the banner ad, for players who don't like them? I hate banner ads, so if it's a good game I'll gladly pay a few dollars to kill the ads (and if it's bad game, well, I won't be playing anyway so it doesn't matter what you do). Don't forget that the only players you're getting feedback from are the ones that currently are engaged with your system. You aren't getting feedback from any of the players that skipped your app in the first place due to the IAP/incentivized coin system. Personally, if I know a game has that sort of system, I will be far less likely to even give it a chance first. --- Edit: Another suggestion, which I've seen used in games before, is to keep the coin system, but remove all the incentivized coin stuff (no videos, etc). Then provide a way to earn coins through gameplay. And finally, provide an IAP to increase the rate at which you earn coins in-game. If you tune it correctly, the base "free" game could drop coins at a low-enough rate to still encourage players to seek alternate ways to gain coins, but the coin-booster IAP would then increase the rate to a level at which most players are comfortable playing without buying any more coins through IAP. Then finally, you can still offer coins through IAP for those few players that want them anyway. Of course, you have to be careful with this approach, because if you don't calibrate it right and people who bought the coin-booster still feel like they aren't getting enough coins to reasonably play the game, then they'll be angry. And if you give too many coins, there will be no incentive at all for anyone to buy IAP. But this just means you have to put enough thought into it to design it correctly As an example of this approach, Ski Safari Adventure Time uses it (and I assume the original Ski Safari as well but I never played that). Coins are used to purchase in-game upgrades, and they're collected through gameplay, but you can buy a one-time coin booster that doubles the coins you get through gameplay. Personally, I like this approach because it means I can feel like I paid for the game, and it makes the game playable without having to resort to non-gameplay mechanisms to acquire the needed coins. It's also better than the ad approach because not only does it mean you don't have to uglify your UI with ad banners (and don't have to design a UI that can afford to give up that screen space), but buying a coin-booster like this also feels like the user is gaining a reward, as opposed to getting rid of ads which feels like the user is paying a tax, if you will.
jarsj 12y ago
IAP Ranters. Here is a story. A real one. I take a coffee break and fire the addictive social game "Boom Beach". My troops are ready and I am ready to attack the neighbors. I buy a 5 USD tea + 3 USD water bottle (both I can get free at my office). The attack doesn't go well. One little error. My break is about to end, but I want to try one more time. Just that, it will take 2 hours to train my troops. Or Wait, 1.99 USD to speed that up. Hours of planning, that went for the attack and just 2 USD to find out if I was right or wrong. Is it worth it ? I look at my coffee and water, the time, the ending break, the distractions till this is resolved. It's worth it. And while I am putting in 2USD, might as well take the 10USD deal for next 20 battles. Better spent than "expensive-than-movie" popcorn. Ban that first.
- Steko 12y ago
  I've been playing boom beach for several months and haven't spent a penny. In the same time I've spent over $100 on two lackluster blizzard expansion packs for d3 and sc2. Given the amount of time I've spent and enjoyed the game I don't begrudge people in my position that do spend money. And no it doesn't 2 hours to train troops and there are plenty of free gems.
  - Greenisus 12y ago
    I haven't spent any money on Boom Beach either, but it can take over 2 hours to train troops if you're at max level using all tanks (4 per boat at 36 minutes each = 144 minutes).
    - Steko 12y ago
      You can only get 3 per boat at max size. Level 20 landing craft have 24 seats, tanks take 8 slots. 3 tanks does take a long time but every other unit trains in a fraction of the time tanks do. Tanks take longer because you will often take no casualties with them.
      - Greenisus 12y ago
        Ah you're right. I'm not that far (and honestly I'm starting to get bored with it).
pjc50 12y ago
Interesting how the normally libertarian HN is very much against a "free market" in apps, preferring that Apple get to dictate who earns money instead.
- bigdubs 12y ago
  Libertarianism is fun and games until that freedom bites you.
- iand 12y ago
  HN is not one homogeneous mass of people. There are libertarians who write pro-free market comments and there are authoritarians who write the opposite.
- threeseed 12y ago
  Exactly and Google is also disgraceful. How dare Google filter spam when the "free market" should decide what emails are received.
  - ojanik 12y ago
    Your example makes no sense. Market has decided and wants to use a tool like spam filter.
    - pjc50 12y ago
      Crucially the market for email providers is really broad, easy to enter, doesn't have explicit lock-in (although it's a potentially huge job to change your email address, this can be made easier by having your own mail domain), and doesn't have one or two big players making the rules. Most systems including gmail will let you whitelist senders. You can't whitelist apps onto an iPhone without jailbreaking it.
curmudgeon224 12y ago
Random thoughts: They are supposedly now banning keywords in titles so you won't be seeing more title like Floopy Bird - incredibly fun additive threes 2048 game. Good. As for banning incentivized social actions: that really sucks if you aren't one of the companies (like King, Zynga, etc) that have really benefited from the growth of using those incentivized actions. Developers that came before you won't be punished and you are now going to have to spend your way to the top. Good luck with that. One rumor is that they are banning some incentivized video ad networks because ads were coming up with Google Play logos. Oops. Anyways - the long and short of it is, while the policies are probably net positive for the consumer, the people that gamed the system early still win.
DigitalSea 12y ago
This is a change I wholeheartedly agree with. The prompts in games to make you watch advertisements or download other apps for game credits was always to me a bit iffy. I am glad to see Apple officially forbidding these kind of moves. Developers of free-to-play games will just find other clever ways of making money off of free users, whether that be prompting you to spend real money on in-app purchases or even forcing you too at some point: who knows what will happen.
- jfoster 12y ago
  Interestingly, Google seems headed in the opposite direction. They've even released an app that lets users complete surveys in exchange for Google Play credit. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.paidtasks https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
jasonkostempski 12y ago
Good. Start with Angry Birds Star Wars telepods and don't let them back in if they remove it. Rovio really ruined the good thing they had going by getting way too greedy.
mikeash 12y ago
If Apple would just open up sideloading, all of the controversy could just go away.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  In exchange for the "malware on iOS!" controversy? No thanks.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Malware is kept at bay by the sandbox. App review does jack squat to stop malware. Sideloaded apps could still be sandboxed. Downvoters: please explain yourself. Is what I said incorrect?
finalight 12y ago
does this mean hay day is gone?
pratyushag 12y ago
The clause of being able to promote apps that are made by the same publisher will have a very significant impact on the industry and could even lead to more consolidation and a significant disadvantage for independent developers. In fact, I think this could lead to a business opportunity for publishing as a service whereby a developer can host their app with a partner and get paid based on the number of ads clicked, impressions, etc. Overall, an unfriendly move for developers. I think it might be time to buy some Zynga ;-).

225 points by jasonpbecker 12y ago

Good riddance. Let's go even further and have them ban consumable IAPs. There's almost no legitimate use case for them other than creating pretend currencies that make people hit the skinner box lever harder and spend more money.

xienze 12y ago
I doubt that'll happen as Apple gets a cut of IAP.
- soup10 12y ago
  OP is not suggesting they ban all IAP, just consumable ones, which tend to be the most abusive. It would be a bold move and lead to an increase in quality for sure. It would also gut companies like zynga who design their games around them.
  - huhtenberg 12y ago
    Looking at Candy Crash and how Apple incessantly pimps it in every way possible, I think it's bloody obvious that they are getting A TON of money from consumable IAP commissions.
    - jamesaguilar 12y ago
      I don't think anyone is questioning whether Apple makes money from consumable IAPs. What we're questioning is whether that factor dominates all others, which it observably does not. As far as Apple promoting Candy Crush, there's a question about whether this is a cause or effect of its popularity.
      - huhtenberg 12y ago
        It needs not be dominant, it just needs to be significant, which, observably, it is. Just look at the Featured Games list in AppStore.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  There are plenty of precedents for Apple banning things that, not banned, would earn them money. One example is the, "I am rich" app.
dangero 12y ago
Large media catalogs need consumables. Every in app purchase item has to be approved by apple individually making it extremely impractical to list an IAP for every single item.
- r00fus 12y ago
  You mean large media catalogs that don't have flat subscription pricing. Netflix does fine without IAP. Do you have a counter example?
  - axelf 12y ago
    The inkling app lets you buy ebooks. https://www.inkling.com/ https://www.inkling.com/
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    I can think of one - ever heard of TouchTunes? They have internet-streaming jukeboxes in many bars and restaurants. You can sign into them with your phone using their app, buy credit with an IAP, and then you spend the credit on the jukebox, selecting songs to play IRL with your phone. It's technically IAP consumables, but it doesn't seem skeevy like the clash of clans / candy crushes of the world.
    - shasta 12y ago
      How are you going to define "consumable"? A game like clash of clans or candy crush could just restructure things so that you get to permanently "keep" your purchase, but it is still practically consumed. So for example, you could "have" an item that only worked for 15 minutes after purchase. If that's too transparent, consider some kind of level scheme where those level 3 units you bought last week are basically worthless against the level 5 unis you're up against this week. How are you going to forbid that?
      - wmf 12y ago
        We're talking about the Apple App Store, home of "we know evil when we see it" policies. They see lack of specificity as a feature. Basically, people are criticizing games where it is possible to spend a ridiculously large (or inifinte) amount of money. Any loopholes should be obvious enough that they're not a problem.
chollida1 12y ago
Could you please define IAP? Google is of no use here and wikipedia links to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAP None of which look right:)
- nivloc 12y ago
  In-App Purchase
- asolove 12y ago
  I assume "in-app purchase"
- sergiotapia 12y ago
  "Your house will finish building in 12 hours - or spend 2 golden donuts ($4.99) to have it finish building right now!" And the bad thing is, there is no filter in the store for these junk applications. Gameloft has a really fun game called Rival Knights, but I stopped playing because after 10 levels of making me like the game, they started asking me to wait more and more to keep playing - or guess guess: Buy some "Royal Ribbons" (play tokens) for real money. What a crock! I have a kickass ipad but I can't find honest games that don't nickel and dime me.
  - 13throwaway 12y ago
    I couldn't agree more. IAP have destroyed sandbox games. I love the old Sim Tower and Moon Tycoon games. I would love a port of them to mobile. Sandbox games nowadays are all about trying to squeeze every last penny out of the customer.
    - gagaga 12y ago
      Sim Tower on iPad https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yoot-tower/id379197311?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/yoot-tower/id379197311?mt=8
      - LandoCalrissian 12y ago
freemanios 12y ago
What about iOS apps like Viggle that have the same model but for music and tv? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/viggle/id487066871?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/viggle/id487066871?mt=8 These ads pushers are already circumventing the app store. FreeMyApps uses a website and iOS device profile instead. Will Apple revoke their certificates? http://welcome.freemyapps.com/howitworks-ios.html http://welcome.freemyapps.com/howitworks-ios.html
- duskwuff 12y ago
  I suspect Apple will end up making changes to ad-hoc provisioning which prevent sites like FreeMyApps from operating. This is very clearly not the way that ad-hoc provisioning was intended to be used.
dmalik 12y ago
Free-to-play games aren't going away anytime soon and neither are IAPs. Consumers just don't pay for games anymore and a developer has to make money somehow. I like what Apple is doing by forcing developers to make more ethical games. This Gamasutra article on ethical free-to-play gaming comes to mind and foreshadowed Apples move - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.php?page=1 http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetop... Edit: I'm referring to mobile - "New research shows free-to-play on mobile isn't slowing down" http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/211333/New_research_shows_freetoplay_on_mobile_isnt_slowing_down.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/211333/New_research_shows...
- wmf 12y ago
  There are good IAPs (like permanent unlocks) and bad IAPs (like consumables).
  - gearoidoc 12y ago
    It's not cut and dry like that.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      Why isn't it? It certainly sounds simple.
      - gearoidoc 12y ago
        Perhaps I misunderstood you but not all consumables are bad IAPs.
  - nasalgoat 12y ago
    There's apps that offers "credits" to access features on an ad-hoc basis that would otherwise require a full subscription. That's actually cheaper for some people and allows them to try it out without committing to a full subscription. You can't be so black and white about IAP.
- 12y ago
tomelders 12y ago
I'm hoping that the Family Sharing features that require the person with the credit card to approve purchases will be the death knell for games that require IAPs. But I agree with everyone else, IAP's are the meth in the AppStore ghetto.
- MBCook 12y ago
  Tricking kids is one thing but I expect a large portion of the sales are just adults who are willing to pay.
w1ntermute 12y ago
If people want to waste their money on consumable IAPs, I don't see why Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) should prevent it.
- bentcorner 12y ago
  Personally, my problem is not with consumable IAPs, it's spending talented developer effort on games I will never play.
- sergiotapia 12y ago
  I consider those games spam, and luckily so does Apple. It's a consumer win.
  - guiambros 12y ago
    (EDIT: I guess I should have clarified better: I'm not defending the crapware, social share-driven apps mentioned by the OP. There's good IAPs, and bad IAPs, and the latter should indeed be banned. I'm just against the widespread sentiment that all IAP is bad. I have no problem with Candy Crush making millions of dollars thru IAP, provided they deliver value to users) "Consumer win" is giving them choice. Users spend millions of dollars on IAPs, because it was relevant to them. This created an entire industry of game developers, artists, story writers, that rely on IAPs to keep their apps free. Without IAP, they would have to charge upfront for the app. While it is certainly an option, I'd prefer to let developers and customers figure out the model they want, rather than having Apple or Google enforcing it. Anyway, IAP is one of the most important pillars of Apple's mobile strategy, so it obviously isn't going away anytime soon.
    - jkrems 12y ago
      There's a difference between short- and long-term interest. People are bad at the latter. Yes, there's demand for a free game - duh, of course people want free games. And when they have to pay a euro to get the game to really progress. Sure, why not? And then they need to pay a bit more. And they are still fine with it. But they are less and less satisfied. They try the next game - and the same thing happens. For me the end result is: I stopped looking at games for my iPhone because I have a deep mistrust for apps. Most things that look high quality turn out to be terribly designed (from a game design POV) and are just employing one dark pattern after the other to get people to make more IAPs. So, yes, short-term there's demand. There's a market signal that says "this is totally what people want". But mid- and long-term it's bad for the platform because it leads to shitty customer/user experience. It will still make companies money for a while - but the consumers are burning away. And it's really hard to recover from that.
fidotron 12y ago
The flipside is the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them. The dominance of IAPs is not something engineered by the game makers, it's just that it is so much more lucrative it is what enables the production values of modern mobile titles to be what they are. Many game makers would prefer it if you could charge somewhere around $5 per title and make a decent amount from honest players, but unless you have some uberbrand crossover from console land that's not going to work.
- gtirloni 12y ago
  It would prevent the tsunami of stupid titles from showing up. Companies would get into the game (pun intended) only if sure they had a decent product. Just as always. The amount of trickery I have seen in IAPs is disgusting.
  - fidotron 12y ago
    This is like arguing that Walmart should be banned. You might think the products are stupid, but there are enough people that don't spending money on their preferences to create the current situation. If there is a problem it is with consumers. Admittedly this does poison the well for many other game developers, but the reality is getting attention in the current mobile market is close to impossible without an enormous spend, so conservatism of business model is going to rule the roost now. It also doesn't help that self professed hardcore gamers undervalue mobile titles enormously, and that touch controls just aren't good enough for many purposes either.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Could you imagine a Walmart that had fast checkout lanes that charged a few dollars extra, and regular checkout lanes that didn't have baggers and deliberately went slowly, even if there wasn't anyone ahead of you in the line?
      - hsod 12y ago
        I could imagine that, and it would be a bit silly and (I'd guess) not too successful, but I certainly wouldn't find it offensive or somehow morally wrong.
trollingineer 12y ago
Not even going to spend time trying to help you see how much of an idiot you are.
hackerboos 12y ago
>Let's go even further and have them ban consumable IAPs. No chance whilst Apple gets a 30% cut.
gearoidoc 12y ago
The legitimate use case is that it creates a viable business model: http://themodernprogrammer.com/post/app-store-dollars-dont-go-further/ http://themodernprogrammer.com/post/app-store-dollars-dont-g...
adamio 12y ago
The best example is casino apps. They are selling screen taps to users on their own phones.
ataggart 12y ago
I am reminded of a quote: "Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." Sure, Apple can do with its platform what it wishes, but the arguments I see being put forth here are troubling. "The ignorant masses are making the 'wrong' choices for themselves, and we in our benevolent wisdom should substitute our preferences for theirs." Where does that sort of thinking end?
- arg01 12y ago
  The problem is that when you're talking about a free market benefiting all its actors you're talking about those actors being rational. Psychological tricks like skinner boxing really lower any credibility in that assumption. Too look at the freedom thing another way, I may have no right to stop someone from trying to fly away off a cliff but if it looks like they are just about to jump to their doom I feel I should step in. Though I agree it's a dangerous line that could be drawn anywhere between requirements to go to church, prohibition, scams, and the ability to sell yourself into slavery.
- rmrfrmrf 12y ago
  It will probably never end, since putting a stop to app shenanigans is very much a cat-and-mouse game, and I'm very happy that Apple isn't afraid to put devs in check. People who want to view ads for in-app currency are more than welcome to do so on the Android Marketplace.
  - voltagex_ 12y ago
    I wish they'd go away there, too. Same with "please rate us" popups.
- siglesias 12y ago
  I think if you ask most people battling health issues or have eating problems whether they could force their future selves for the next month to be not allowed to order dessert, they would choose to. They wouldn't trust themselves in the heat of the moment. There's a fundamental disconnect we have between our short term and long term interests, and it manifests in all kinds of problems people end up with, including their health, finances, and relationships. There's an overwhelming body of psychological evidence that suggests that these issues are real, prevalent, exploitable and exploited. To give an example, there's evidence that shows that we're more likely to succumb to temptation when we're mentally exhausted. If that's not bad enough, actively resisting temptation is exhausting! [1] That's why putting a snack bar full of M&Ms, Snickers, and apples near a bunch of stressed out engineers leads to a more unhealthy workplace (guess which snack is always left over). You can say that the engineers are free to not partake, and I say there's more freedom to focus on other things in their absence. To bring it back to this topic, I think computers need mechanisms to help people with self-control, and a great first step is to curtail software that exists to exploit people with poor impulse control. There's a saying that I am reminded of: "The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master." 1) http://danariely.com/2012/08/15/understanding-ego-depletion/ http://danariely.com/2012/08/15/understanding-ego-depletion/
chrisBob 12y ago
Two of my favorite games at the moment use consumable IAPs, and I think it they have a good model. Real Racing 3, and Trials Frontier both offer consumable IAPs that mostly remove waiting, or a boring portion of the gameplay. One can compete in game to earn the same money, and wait for repairs... or they can spend money and keep playing. So far I have not spent any money on these games (I am not a good target market for much of anything, so don't read too much into me playing free games), but I enjoy them a lot, and the developers are making a decent business out of it. Consumable IPAs give developers a chance to get as much money as possible from each person playing. From me that might be $0, but many people are likely to spend more than the $4.99 that would otherwise be the target app price. This seems like the ideal business model to me.

ashbrahma 12y ago

I feel bad for all the developers who are going to see a substantial drop in revenues from incentivized video ads. But as a user, I am happy to see this change. Developers have been very abusive with in-game credits.

coldcode 12y ago

It's about time. It's not only games that do this, even brand name companies pay for positioning via incentivized downloads from these marketing companies.

minikites 12y ago

> [W]here a confused developer wonders, “so we can’t encourage users to share stuffs [sic] on social networks anymore? This is one of the oldest tricks in the book and even Candy Crush uses it.” "Even Candy Crush uses it" is not the best argument for this developer's point. It is the best argument for Apple's shift in enforcement.

jbigelow76 12y ago
Step 1, eliminate all marketing channels outside of the official App store. Step 2, charge developers for "sponsored" placement in the App store.
- superuser2 12y ago
  >marketing channels When your "marketing channel" is my Facebook news feed, then yes, this is absolutely what should happen.
  - hsod 12y ago
    Even if it only posts to your FB news feed with explicit permission?
    - superuser2 12y ago
      If "explicit permission" to post to my news feed is necessary to proceed through your game in a reasonable way, access features I want, etc... then yes.
  - randyrand 12y ago
    Don't be silly. Are you really suggesting that Apple is doing this to clean up your news feed? They don't care whatsoever. Facebook does, you do, Apple doesn't. What OP said is right. This is about Apple having tighter control over the app marketplace, not your news feed.
    - superuser2 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

justplay 12y ago

Thats very good move, i guess.

seanalltogether 12y ago

So where do you draw the line between viewing advertisements to play the game, and viewing advertisements to enhance the game? What makes a video view for gold coins different from an ad view to proceed to the next screen? I don't fully understand the distinction here?

exodust 12y ago
Perhaps the concern for Apple is that one of those methods circumvents Apple's ad network, the other cannot? Would this be a fair guess? I'm not fully understanding Apple's motivation here either unless it was about bringing Apple back in as a dependency on ad revenue rather than sidelined.

lhnz 12y ago

Great but as many have pointed out the biggest problem with the App Store is that IAP has made pricing completely opaque. The whole experience is completely untrustworthy as an app which requires an average spend of £20+ to use properly is considered more "Free" than an app which costs £2.99. It's made a complete mockery of prices. Fixed prices are popular for a reason and I hope Apple learns this and starts properly surfacing information as well as categorising based on the reality of an App's "price."

redler 12y ago
It would be interesting if the app store displayed the median total expenditure for any application that includes IAP. How would buying behavior be affected when suddenly that "free" game includes a note like "$59 median total spent"? [Edit: clarity]
- avalaunch 12y ago
  I think the median for "free" apps with IAPs would almost always be 0. My guess is that the vast majority of people don't pay anything with a small minority making up the bulk of the app's profits. What you really need is a value that represents that amount you need to pay to actually enjoy the app which would be a lot harder to quantify.
  - redler 12y ago
    That's a good point. So, perhaps two numbers: percentage who pay, then median for those who do.
  - aikah 12y ago
    That's absolutely what our stats say.A tiny portion of players will spend a crazy amount of money in IAP,while the great majority will never pay anything.The "free" app is kinda subsidized. Doesnt excuse dirty IAP tricks,you can choose the IAP model and still let most users have a great experience even without paying.
    - 12y ago

sprite 12y ago

What I find annoying is that they did this with no warning. I got an app rejected a few days ago. I have a coin model in my apps. The users can a) Complete actions within the apps to earn coins b) Purchase coins through IAPs c) Watch video ads for coins d) Complete offers for coins. Many users have expressed that they were happy with the system, especially the video ads, with reviews such as "I wish there was more videos to watch for coins". With only around 2% of users spending money on IAPs, offers and videos are a good way to monetize at least a portion of the remaining 98%.

sergiotapia 12y ago
Your type of app is the reason why the App store is full of spammy garbage. Good riddance! I hope Apple actually encourage better apps without these skeevy practices.
- sprite 12y ago
  The app has a 5 star rating in the app store. No users have complained in any way.
  - dan1234 12y ago
    Do you have a link to it?
- wsidell 12y ago
  I don't understand the problem. There is a percentage of users that will never spend money on your app. Generally, those users do like being able to earn app functionality by completing tasks such as watching a video. I see it as a win as a consumer and a win as a developer.
  - eridius 12y ago
    If your app requires earning coins through non-gameplay mechanisms to be a good game, then it's not a good game. If it doesn't require that, then you can get rid of the coins entirely and still have a good game. At which point your only question is monetization. May I suggest you simply add a banner ad to the game, and then provide a single IAP to remove the banner ad, for players who don't like them? I hate banner ads, so if it's a good game I'll gladly pay a few dollars to kill the ads (and if it's bad game, well, I won't be playing anyway so it doesn't matter what you do). Don't forget that the only players you're getting feedback from are the ones that currently are engaged with your system. You aren't getting feedback from any of the players that skipped your app in the first place due to the IAP/incentivized coin system. Personally, if I know a game has that sort of system, I will be far less likely to even give it a chance first. --- Edit: Another suggestion, which I've seen used in games before, is to keep the coin system, but remove all the incentivized coin stuff (no videos, etc). Then provide a way to earn coins through gameplay. And finally, provide an IAP to increase the rate at which you earn coins in-game. If you tune it correctly, the base "free" game could drop coins at a low-enough rate to still encourage players to seek alternate ways to gain coins, but the coin-booster IAP would then increase the rate to a level at which most players are comfortable playing without buying any more coins through IAP. Then finally, you can still offer coins through IAP for those few players that want them anyway. Of course, you have to be careful with this approach, because if you don't calibrate it right and people who bought the coin-booster still feel like they aren't getting enough coins to reasonably play the game, then they'll be angry. And if you give too many coins, there will be no incentive at all for anyone to buy IAP. But this just means you have to put enough thought into it to design it correctly As an example of this approach, Ski Safari Adventure Time uses it (and I assume the original Ski Safari as well but I never played that). Coins are used to purchase in-game upgrades, and they're collected through gameplay, but you can buy a one-time coin booster that doubles the coins you get through gameplay. Personally, I like this approach because it means I can feel like I paid for the game, and it makes the game playable without having to resort to non-gameplay mechanisms to acquire the needed coins. It's also better than the ad approach because not only does it mean you don't have to uglify your UI with ad banners (and don't have to design a UI that can afford to give up that screen space), but buying a coin-booster like this also feels like the user is gaining a reward, as opposed to getting rid of ads which feels like the user is paying a tax, if you will.

jarsj 12y ago

IAP Ranters. Here is a story. A real one. I take a coffee break and fire the addictive social game "Boom Beach". My troops are ready and I am ready to attack the neighbors. I buy a 5 USD tea + 3 USD water bottle (both I can get free at my office). The attack doesn't go well. One little error. My break is about to end, but I want to try one more time. Just that, it will take 2 hours to train my troops. Or Wait, 1.99 USD to speed that up. Hours of planning, that went for the attack and just 2 USD to find out if I was right or wrong. Is it worth it ? I look at my coffee and water, the time, the ending break, the distractions till this is resolved. It's worth it. And while I am putting in 2USD, might as well take the 10USD deal for next 20 battles. Better spent than "expensive-than-movie" popcorn. Ban that first.

Steko 12y ago
I've been playing boom beach for several months and haven't spent a penny. In the same time I've spent over $100 on two lackluster blizzard expansion packs for d3 and sc2. Given the amount of time I've spent and enjoyed the game I don't begrudge people in my position that do spend money. And no it doesn't 2 hours to train troops and there are plenty of free gems.
- Greenisus 12y ago
  I haven't spent any money on Boom Beach either, but it can take over 2 hours to train troops if you're at max level using all tanks (4 per boat at 36 minutes each = 144 minutes).
  - Steko 12y ago
    You can only get 3 per boat at max size. Level 20 landing craft have 24 seats, tanks take 8 slots. 3 tanks does take a long time but every other unit trains in a fraction of the time tanks do. Tanks take longer because you will often take no casualties with them.
    - Greenisus 12y ago
      Ah you're right. I'm not that far (and honestly I'm starting to get bored with it).

pjc50 12y ago

Interesting how the normally libertarian HN is very much against a "free market" in apps, preferring that Apple get to dictate who earns money instead.

bigdubs 12y ago
Libertarianism is fun and games until that freedom bites you.
iand 12y ago
HN is not one homogeneous mass of people. There are libertarians who write pro-free market comments and there are authoritarians who write the opposite.
threeseed 12y ago
Exactly and Google is also disgraceful. How dare Google filter spam when the "free market" should decide what emails are received.
- ojanik 12y ago
  Your example makes no sense. Market has decided and wants to use a tool like spam filter.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Crucially the market for email providers is really broad, easy to enter, doesn't have explicit lock-in (although it's a potentially huge job to change your email address, this can be made easier by having your own mail domain), and doesn't have one or two big players making the rules. Most systems including gmail will let you whitelist senders. You can't whitelist apps onto an iPhone without jailbreaking it.

curmudgeon224 12y ago

Random thoughts: They are supposedly now banning keywords in titles so you won't be seeing more title like Floopy Bird - incredibly fun additive threes 2048 game. Good. As for banning incentivized social actions: that really sucks if you aren't one of the companies (like King, Zynga, etc) that have really benefited from the growth of using those incentivized actions. Developers that came before you won't be punished and you are now going to have to spend your way to the top. Good luck with that. One rumor is that they are banning some incentivized video ad networks because ads were coming up with Google Play logos. Oops. Anyways - the long and short of it is, while the policies are probably net positive for the consumer, the people that gamed the system early still win.

DigitalSea 12y ago

This is a change I wholeheartedly agree with. The prompts in games to make you watch advertisements or download other apps for game credits was always to me a bit iffy. I am glad to see Apple officially forbidding these kind of moves. Developers of free-to-play games will just find other clever ways of making money off of free users, whether that be prompting you to spend real money on in-app purchases or even forcing you too at some point: who knows what will happen.

jfoster 12y ago
Interestingly, Google seems headed in the opposite direction. They've even released an app that lets users complete surveys in exchange for Google Play credit. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.paidtasks https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...

jasonkostempski 12y ago

Good. Start with Angry Birds Star Wars telepods and don't let them back in if they remove it. Rovio really ruined the good thing they had going by getting way too greedy.

mikeash 12y ago

If Apple would just open up sideloading, all of the controversy could just go away.

ceejayoz 12y ago
In exchange for the "malware on iOS!" controversy? No thanks.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Malware is kept at bay by the sandbox. App review does jack squat to stop malware. Sideloaded apps could still be sandboxed. Downvoters: please explain yourself. Is what I said incorrect?

finalight 12y ago

does this mean hay day is gone?

pratyushag 12y ago

The clause of being able to promote apps that are made by the same publisher will have a very significant impact on the industry and could even lead to more consolidation and a significant disadvantage for independent developers. In fact, I think this could lead to a business opportunity for publishing as a service whereby a developer can host their app with a partner and get paid based on the number of ads clicked, impressions, etc. Overall, an unfriendly move for developers. I think it might be time to buy some Zynga ;-).