Apple announces In App Purchases for free App Store software - Page 2

One could even offer the free ad-supported app with the in-app option to pay to get rid of the ads. I'm completely in favor of more options for everyone.

from what i read for in app purchases most of the sales data is stored on the developer's side. they just have to set up their database to reflect what you purchased. and it will make pirating apps a lot harder

This is one of several oddball things that needs to be worked out.

As I understand it:

-- the content is provided from the developer's servers, not Apple's servers
-- the sale and transaction processing (credit card, etc.) are provided by the iTunes store

This means that if you want:

-- access of single-copy content purchase from multiple devices
-- to re-download already-purchased content,

it is up to the developer's support system (not Apple's) to provide this capability.

FWIW, the Kindle Reader app, appears to provide both capabilities. You can install the free app and access single-copy content purchases from multiple (at least 5) iPhones/iPod Touches. It appears that Kindle's servers synch with the devices for access and updates.

It is unclear how developers will deliver in-app purchases app upgrades. Some apps lend themselves to downloading new content (different levels of play, avatars, etc). Other apps will, likely, download all the features as part of the purchased app. Then use in-app purchases to unlock the features (content) that has always been present. The latter is easier for the developer, as his servers need only to track purchases, and not provide content download.

Here's an interesting anomaly: An Indie artist could (conceptually, at least) provide a free app that markets and sells music and videos. The transaction process would be provided by Apple. The content distribution would be from the developer's (or an aggregator's) servers, as an alternative to the iTunes store. The Indie would receive 70% of the price. Last I looked, the artist got 10% of iTunes music sales. Lets see, 70% vs 10%...

*

He said to the mixed audience of idealists and profiteers....


Well, yeah. The good news is that many free "limited functionality" apps - the real well-written ones - luckily (for me) have enough for me to be satisfied with the free version.

e.g., Super-Duper (about which I'm feeling guilty about not at least making a contribution to by now after four years of data security).

But this can and will go in less savory directions for the easily marketed to in incremental fragments - amounts which add up so much faster than people - especially young people wanting a new something in a game or something similar - realize ("it's only $2.99, Ma!!").


What you said.


Tech may change but our nature in its various guises is pretty constant.... ...and the sound you hear is the hum of marketing machines gearing up in the guise of an "improved user experience"... ...which is really "an enhanced impulse buyer experience."

People do spend billions on renting30 second ring tones after all.


About some of folk out there in developer land, yes.....

the 10% is due to the fact that most itunes music is put there by the labels the artists contract with and the artists get a little of the revenue. even with indie artists and labels on itunes they usually go through another company that manages the itunes part of the business.

for the app the artist might receive 70% of the price a person pays, but he or she still has to write the app or pay someone to write the app and pay the costs of the server infrastructure, etc. in the end it will probably be around 10% as well after all the bills are paid.

you have to be naive to believe that someone should keep close to 100% of revenue in any business venture. i don't think there has ever been a line of business where net income was anywhere close to 100% of revenues. if it was possible to write music and keep close to 100% of revenues then Madonna and all the top artists of the last 30 years would have ditched the labels a long time ago

I'll compare business props with you, anytime... I have worked for Mom & Pops, small companies, and major corporations (Hoffman Electronics, Bell & Howell, Lockheed, IBM) and started several businesses-- one was a corporation, started in 1978, that owned computer stores (including the 5th computer store in Silicon Valley). I sold my shares in 1989, and retired at age 50.

Our satisfied business customers included: Apple, IBM, Daimler Benz (ger) , EMI Thorne (UK), Xerox, Fairchild/Schlumberger, SRI, Lawrence Livermore Labs, Stanford, Intel, Verbatim, Piper Jaffery, US Army College at Ft.Leavenworth (across the wide Missouri)... We had customers from Sindelfingen to Guatemala City to Guam to Taipei.

Our satisfied personal customer list was a who's who of the industry, including the likes of: Woz, Mike Scott, John Sculley, Regis McKenna, Reid Anderson (founder of Anderson/Jacobson and Verbatim), Charles Schwab, John Draper, Rock Promoter Bill Graham, Andy Hertzfeld, Bill Atkinson, Dave Winer, Ted Nugent, Guy Kawasaki, Peter Jennings (MicroChess & VisiCalc)... Oh yeah, Steve Jobs visited our Sunnyvale store but never really bought anything

This was the period of time where, the computer industry evolved from hobbyist, home-personal, small business, large business. And it changed from a high-margin specialty business to a low-margin commodity business... We survived through the best and worst of times and outlived the "ComputerLands, BusinessLands, MicroAges, ByteShops", and all the others).

Our business plan for the computer stores targeted the home and business sectors (before there even was a business sector).

Our corporate objectives:

1) make a fair profit and return to our shareholders
2) offer superior products and the best customer service and support
3) have fun

Naive, hardly.

As to the particular proposition of selling songs:

-- the recording industry is changing, evolving, and the "labels" are losing their monopoly
-- An iphone app to sell music content could be contracted for, say, $25,000 (one time charge)*
-- A Web site/app could be written for about the same (one time charge)*
-- Servers-web hosting starts at $10/month, and up-- based (mainly) on storage, bandwidth, shared/dedicated hosting
-- An electronic aggregator could prorate the costs (especially one-time charges) over multiple Indies, and lower the entry threshold
-- I could see a successful relationship with a sliding scale where the Indie's take would be 30-60% of the sales price, based on volume.

* I know, I have done both -- these estimates are conservative (high), BTW.

Without belaboring the point, the Madonnas, and the current top artists, are contractually locked-in to the current system with all its warts!

That does not mean that it will always be that way!


Tom Watson, Sr, then IBM chairman, was alleged to have said in 1958: "I think there is a world market for about five computers."


*

I just tough of a very good reason behind the recent move by Apple to allow in-app purchases for free apps.
Well, if you look at the best selling Apps, you notice these are lot of free or low priced Apps and not necessary quality apps. No matter how good your app, people will always buy more 99 cent apps than say 2,99 dollar apps.

So by allowing free apps to make in app purchases, developers of quality apps can bring their prices down to free and introduce and additional features or updates via in app purchase.
This will enable developers to go away with the lite version of the games by offering a single App for free. Say you buy a free game. If you like the basic functionality, you can buy additional levels at any time. Who would't want to download the best games even if they offer just 1 level,track, or vehicle.
Not having a "lite" in the name app and being free will also help sales.

So no more will the App store charts be dominated by cheaply 1 time apps. It will be a even price level field where, App quality will be the judging factor not the initial price.

One interesting side effect is it will allow for a lot of customization. Developers will be have a much bigger pool of people to poll about what features they want and they will be able to justify making those available via a module.

The model of an App with 1 city guide and modules for more cities is actually applicable to every kind of App, even more so when they can have a starting price FREE.

I think this one move by Apple will result in the greatest positive effect over the App store overall quality since the App started to become too many.

Yeah... letting people buy things they want (and can afford), can't be all bad!

Completely in favor of the modular/add-on packs mentality for apps. This should allow buyers to get in at all levels for apps and customize as much as they want. Especially makes sense for GPS apps, episodic content, games with dozens of different levels, etc.

Then you are a rare individual. Many of my programs have been already updated to to it, and I like that, as will most users and developers.

Why don't you like it?