Ever since we learned a few days back of Apple ‘s change to App Store policy, allowing for in-app purchases in free apps, I ‘ve been reading and watching reactions to it, and wondering what the real upshot of this change will be for both users and iPhone app developers.
This change struck me as one of the most significant we ‘ve seen thus far for the App Store, and I ‘m keen to learn what people think about it. Over the weekend I asked a small group of iPhone developers whether they would mind answering a short set of questions and sharing their thoughts on this subject.
Several devs were kind enough to take time to provide answers, and most were happy having their thoughts quoted for this post as well. The group includes: our good friend Marc Tassin from Ilium Software (makers of eWallet), Loren Brichter (creator of Tweetie), Hwee-Boon Yar (developer of SimplyTweet), Alex Kac of WebIS (makers of Pocket Informant), Hardy Machia of Catamount Software (PocketMoney), Dave Hornsby of ChilliX (PhotoFrame), and Nelson Taruc (MPA10).
Here are the questions I asked, a comment on which way the answers predominantly went, where appropriate, and some quotes that stood out for me:
Is this one of the more notable changes we’ve ever seen in App Store policies?
Nearly all the devs said yes on this one. Just a couple examples:
Yes, and I think it’s one of the best.
Loren Brichter, creator of Tweetie
Probably one of the bigger reversals. It opens thing up more, that’s for sure.
Alex Kac, WebIS
Marc from Ilium had the lone dissenting view on this one:
I don ‘t think so. Developers have been pushing for something like this for quite some time. I think the most notable thing is that it took Apple this long to do it. In addition, I don ‘t think this required much on Apple ‘s part “ in fact, the number of things they didn ‘t do suggests to me that it was more of an afterthought than a serious move toward improving the overall infrastructure. Don ‘t get me wrong “ I ‘m happy they did it but it doesn ‘t strike me as ‘notable. ‘
What are the upsides for developers as a result of the change?
Here ‘s one I ‘ve seen mentioned a lot round the web, that was cited by one of the devs who preferred to remain anonymous
One obvious upside for developers is the prevention of piracy. You could give away the app for free but require an in-app purchase to activate it. This would be very very difficult to crack.
And Dave from ChilliX ‘s take:
There’s the obvious benefit of just having one version of your app rather than a lite trial version and a full paid one. In fact the way in-app purchasing is implemented makes it easier to ship a full app that has some of its features locked, rather than a partial app which has to download new content.
It brings the dream of users trying your app, getting hooked and having to pay to continue using it, one step closer.
Nelson Taruc ‘s thoughts:
First, developers can expand their monetizing strategy and experiment
with new pricing models. It’s no longer just about displaying ads or
trying to crack the top 100 lists. It’s also now all about building
customer loyalty: Your new app might have far fewer downloads, but if
those downloaders are loyal and keep paying for updated stuff in your
app, you can still make a living doing this."
And Loren Brichter ‘s
Developers have been given the green light to start doing "Lite"
versions of apps, something that wasn’t allowed before. (Every app,
even the free ones, used to have to be considered "full featured",
e.g. no disabled buttons). Try-before-you-buy is a really important
step, it makes things more fair for consumers, and helps out
lesser-known developers who can’t rely on huge buzz and marketing.
And downsides for developers?
From Dave at ChilliX:
From a technical perspective it’s quite difficult to add the in-app purchase functionality to your app. There’s plenty of hoops to jump through and pretty sparse developer documentation. It’s a tedious process and I can see lots of developers trying to implement it and hitting problems…
Marc at Ilium:
While this is great for new developers, for existing developers it creates a major dilemma. If we release a new application to take advantage of this we lose our position in the rankings, old reviews, and even our product name (you can ‘t have two products with the same name.) In addition, starting a new application means we either need to pull our old application (which leaves existing users high and dry when it comes to upgrades) OR we need to maintain two applications.
If, however, we switch our existing application over to this format, now we are faced with developing a way to provide existing users with a free copy of the ‘In-App Purchase ‘ upgrade to the full version “ something the system doesn ‘t seem to provide us with automatically. If we don ‘t do this, when we ‘upgrade ‘ to this format, they end up with a free, limited use version and have to pay a second time to move back the full version.
Anonymous:
Another weakness is that the user might not be clear that he needs to pay for the app–he would see the price in the store as free but then find out that he needs to pay either by launching the app or reading the description. I think a lot of users would have a negative emotional reaction to this. I’ll be watching to see how users react to this.
Alex at WebIS:
For new apps it presents more opportunities. For established apps it presents many questions regarding rankings, migration to the new model and more. It would mean one app to update instead of two (as an example PI 1.11 is on the store, but 1.11 Lite is not). It could help people know and understand what the paid version offers better.
So really the potential upsides are a better user-experience in trial->upgrades but we really don’t know yet.
So a major downside right now is unanswered questions.
Loren Brichter:
It’s an order of magnitude more complicated to implement, developers
need to maintain their own servers to handle the purchase process (or
pay a third party company to handle it for them).
Hardy Machia:
Some developers might lose some exposure. Apple hasn’t mention how they are going to deal with the top 20 listings for free, paid, and this new app with in app purchases. Will these new free applications with IAP be listed as free apps? If so, then what might have been a top 20 paid app could get lost in the top 20 of the free apps so you lose some exposure.
Your applications rating might lose a half of star to a star rating stars because users who leave reviews of products that are free that they decide they won’t user or won’t like are more likely to give it a 1 star review, whereas users who pay for an app have probably spent more time using it and getting to know it so they will typically give a paid app a better rating. Comparing my lite apps to my paid apps, all my lite apps have 1/2 a star less rating.
Adding support for IAPs is more work for the developer.
IAPs doesn’t support iPhone/iPod Touch 2.x users. While most iPhone users have upgraded, the adaption rate for iPod Touch users is considerably less since they must purchase the upgrade, so developers could be missing out on millions of potential users if they don’t support 2.x users.
Currently there doesn’t seem any way to add IAP to an application that is currently free. Also for those of us who have had lite/full versions for a long time I have many users on the free version, but I’d like to migrate them over to the free/IAP version and there isn’t any way to do it so that developers won’t still be supporting old Lite version and new free/IAP versions.
What are the upsides for App Store users?
Dave from ChilliX:
Being able to get a better feel for an app before having to commit to purchase.
Hwee-Boon Yar of SimplyTweet:
Users can gain the chance to have try a limited-feature-set version of apps without spending money upfront and should need to spend less time doing transfer of settings and data as with the current approach of try free version, like it, buy paid version and re-enter all settings and configuration.
A potential upside for everyone (users, developers and Apple) is it may help reduce the throw-away-this-1-dollar-for-trying-app mentality, and increase the overall price of apps in the app store, revenue for developers and Apple. If this happens, it should feed into the cycle where quality of applications improve and the user wins in the end. With the current policy, many developers (have to) aim for a single hit during launch.
Hardy Machia:
Migration from Lite to Full versions will be much simpler if they are using an application that has data associated with it since servers or desktop applications won’t need to be used to transfer the data to the full version.
I see many applications take advantage of this so users will be able to try out many more apps.
And downsides for users?
Dave Hornsby:
Feeling ripped off by a new generation of crippled apps.
Marc Tassin:
Price comparison. If all the apps of a particular type go with this (and it seems like we ‘re going to see this), suddenly everything is free! Flipping through apps in the app store really won ‘t make clear the actual cost of the app you ‘re looking at. Customers are going to need to do a lot of digging to figure this out. Will the developer put the actual cost in the description? Will the customer have to install every app and hit the upgrade button to find the price? For price sensitive consumers this could mean a lot of wasted time downloading apps only to discover the in-app cost is prohibitive.
Loren Brichter:
Prices will probably go up. I think this is a good thing in the long
run for the sustainability of the App Store, because now developers
don’t have quite as much pressure to price apps at 99c. This isn’t
necessarily a downside though… where you might have balked at paying
$10 for an app without the ability to try it out, you now can at least
give it a chance (and realize that it’s totally awesome and worth it).
If you could make a single change to App Store policy tomorrow, what would it be?
Marc Tassin:
Fix the approval process. The process remains painfully subjective, inconsistent, and unclear. I ‘ve seen a number of developers shelve really great iPhone projects before they started, saying that the investment into a project that is dependent on the current approval process is too risky, and they turned their efforts to other platforms. Apple really has to fix this.
Alex Kac:
I am torn between private Api access and Apples penchant for saying no to apps that look too much like built in apps.
On one hand responsible private API access would be a boon. On the other hand – who decides who is ‘responsible’? I feel we have proven in other platforms to be responsible, but I know Apple wouldn’t want to have that separation. I am sure there are others, but that’s the best one I can think of for now as far as policy (I.e not missing features like real trials and coupons).
Dave Hornsby:
I’d like to see a better way of featuring new apps. Recent changes to the App Store design have made it look better at the cost of functionality. They have increased the divide between the success of featured front page apps and the rest of the store even further. It’s amazing how many people don’t realise the App Store heading has a drop down menu of sections. Most users never look beyond the home page anymore.
Nelson Taruc:
Listing top apps by highest rated in addition to (or rather than)
most downloaded: Let’s make it easier to find the ‘cream of the crop’
apps!
Loren Brichter:
Obviously I’d still love a way to do discounted paid upgrades, and
other cross-promotions between apps, even if it’s too late for Tweetie
2.
Hardy Machia:
Allow developers to directly contact users who post reviews or post a response to the review. To many users try to use the app user review process to complain about problems with the application and never actually talk to the developer directly. The current process leads to frustration on both sides because I often see user reviews complaining about something with very simple solutions, and the more vague issues like "this app is slow" it would allow developers to try to find out what is slow for this one user that none of your other users are complaining about.
Hwee-Boon Yar:
Ditch the pre-approval process and replace with a post-vetting process and possibly combined with pre-approved of developers. E.g. taking down an app or providing a deadline to update in case of (serious) complains/problems.
I definitely feel like these answers have given me a lot more insight and food for thought on the recent policy change. I also really enjoyed the answers on what single change these devs would make tomorrow if they could. I think my vote on that one would go for getting folks like these involved with Apple on the App Store. Establishing some sort of group of devs that could work closely with the reviewers / App Store decision makers “ so that all these sorts of thoughts and ideas could be getting shared continually with Apple. Have them nominated by their peers, rotated frequently, and establish some regular and effective communication.
Huge thanks to all the devs who took time to provide such thoughtful answers! Now what do you all think on these subjects? Let ‘s hear the user perspective 🙂
Continue reading:
- Everything New Apple Just Announced (Septembe
- Apple Watch Pre-Order
- Apple Research Kit launches with 5 Apps
- Apple TV now only $69
TAGS:
