Please, please just start charging for apps again. I specifically search for "pay once and never again" apps now.
Power law strikes again.
To be honest - as an independent app store developer, these are REALLY hard to maintain just because you need to balance the need for ongoing development w/ servicing existing customers. Most app price points don't allow for this, since many customers are outraged that you would have the gall to even charge for an app (everything should be free, right?).
We've done well at doing both - and trying to add ONLY subscription services for features that are useful to users who use the app month over month.
On the other hand I really don’t want to pay USD10 a month for access to premium features that run on my phone.
Oh. And yes. I prefer as much as realistically possible to run on my phone.
And I'm fairly sure I have sometimes paid for apps I really like even if I'm not sure I'll use them - just to reward the developer and incentivice them to develop more good apps.
I do this too. Subscriptions usually flip the bozo bit for me.
Do you even want those kinds of customers in the first place? I've found that paid apps tend to have higher quality customers instead of the bottom of the barrel type of customer that flocks to Clash of Clans.
http://www.androidauthority.com/how-to-get-refund-apps-googl...
Also, compare with Kindle, where you can download a sample of any book you like, and it just sits until you get around to reading it. Once you finish the sample, you can decide whether to buy it. I think that model is closer to free with in-app purchases than anything else.
[1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2479637?hl=en
If a free app starts out with limited functionality for trialing, with a (one-time) in-app-purchase to unlock the full features, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Follow-up: if it's a good thing, how should the app developer make it clear that it's not crapware? (asking for a friend)
That's a tough one, especially for small developers.
But it goes the other way too. I bought Bad Piggies some years ago. I play it on vacations. And this vacation I started it and just couldn't figure out how to start a level. There were several buttons but they all seemed to start fullscreen unskippable ads for other games instead of the game. I tried several times and gave up. I'm not sure there still is a game in there.
I think behavior like this should not be allowed by Apple.
The closest thing I can think of is what Apple did to Final Cut Pro users, or what Sony did to Other OS users on the PS3.
I wish there was distinct language for this. But at least I've learned to look closer, before making up my mind.
P.S. I just checked a couple of apps I was thinking of, and I do not see -- or no longer see -- that language on their app page. One -- Open Camera -- does have the ability to make such a donation by purchasing a separate "donation app".
I don't know whether the language has changed, or whether I'm mis-remembering my past experience. About the time Android and smart phones came along, I lost the will to keep my attention focused on and keep up with every last detail.
Anyway, I've no problem with making a donation for an app I value. I tend to favor such apps, because I just don't have a lot of trust in closed-source apps. Not that all app developers are bad or evil, but 1) Mistakes get made, particularly around security; 2) Apps get sold, and the new parties are an unknown, then already on my device; 3) Ads -- sooner or later, in distraction and/or malicious behavior, they go bad.
I also pay for some commercial, closed-source apps. But I have to have a fair amount of trust in the outfit behind them.
Anyway... Play platform language is oriented around "sales" and not "contributions".
Android has the concept of 'unlock keys', which were basically IAPs for full unlocks. I'm pretty sure you can still make them, as a couple apps I use still have legacy keys in addition to IAPs (added later).
The guarantee that you're only paying once is a nice thing, but these days I think users understand IAPs these days and prefer what they know.
oh, and there are those app that started paid for and switched to free+ads, leaving users who bought it prisoner of their sucky ads experience.
Though, Nintendo has been experimenting with IAP and F2P stuff, which I just try to avoid.
I just got to question how the developers felt that it was morally acceptable to create a toxic enough app experience that drives users to use in app purchases through deceptive tactics during the first few minutes of play to go and drop +$100 on virtual gems.
Do you have actual stats on how many people purchase this sort of thing, or are you just guessing?
I'm sure the anchoring effect helps too, of course.
I mostly agree, with the exception of a FEW good game publishers that have an ad supported version where ads can be disabled via a one time payment. Best of both worlds.
Another example I've seen is extended demos that have an unlock for the full game. Solitairica does this well, the free game by itself is a good three or so hours, and a one time payment gets another 20+ hours of gameplay, and more DLC is available after that. Unfortunately the app store doesn't have a way to search for "No repeat IAP for in game currency", which is what I really want to avoid.
The "in-app purchase" thing is good when someone designs their "app" like a fucking cigarette hit (or a cup of coffee). They have to make the user desire that hit every day. Games do that because they are addictive.
The numbers support a claim that in-app purchases make more money, but this should not be mistaken for proof that in-app purchases provide a better user experience.
People put down money for in-app purchases because they encourage addictive behaviors. I don't think it's a non-starter to ask people to give up money to behave with conscience. There are many areas where we ask and even mandate businesses to behave ethically.
And IAP != encouraging addictive behavior.
You're conflating mobile games that use IAP and very specific patterns with IAP.
IAP are also used for simple things like providing a "paid ad-free version" within a single app, or to unlock additional functionality. The trend of people having an aversion to paying up front applies to all mobile apps, not just games.
People vote for all sorts of awful things with their money. It's ridiculous to assume that means the people they bout for are behaving ethically.
The top grossing apps are all free no matter where you look, if charging for apps was profitable we'd expect to see at least some paid apps right?:
https://thinkgaming.com/app-sales-data/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/topgrossing? hl=en
It's well known in app development that not having a free app will seriously hamper your traction. The only apps I've seen get away with it are technical utility apps, and remakes/releases of established games for non-mobile (GTA, FF, RCT, etc.)