As others have posted you will now be able to have a free aggregator program like an eBook Reader, and charge for the content--rather than waste server storage, bandwidth and device storage (eliminate the need to package a copy of the app with every copy of the content).
I would like to see it go even further and have submitted a feature request, for same.
I would like to be able to have a feature in my app where I could allow the user to purchase any content available in the iTunes stores (currently: app, music, TV, Movies and LPs), without leaving my app. Currently, the best my app can do is save status, link to the store item (terminating my app). Later the user has to resume my app to pick up where he left off.
This is like going to the back of the line for every menu item you buy in a trip to the [fast food]] restaurant!
Seems like a good idea. Only concern would be bait and switch. I hope Apple requires the free apps to very clearly spell out exactly what will enabled with the initial free download. Otherwise the apps might advertise all sorts of functionality, none of which is there until you pay, perhaps for each feature. Not generally a huge concern and certainly if it was going to be a problem, the 99 cent apps might have seen the same behavior.
That's not correct. Right now, free versions of apps are feature limited. So they must also be "bait and switch".
In addition, much shareware is feature limited, also "bait and switch"?
What about shareware that is limited time? Just as you really get to depend on it (which you shouldn't do under the circumstances), "pop", it stops and asks you to upgrade. "Bait and switch"?
In fact you can say that about any application that has add-ons, such as most audio and video editing programs, even though you do pay for the program itself.
It's absurd to think that.
Free will still be free.
What's the matter with you people? Are you all that cynical?
I am not disagreeing with your here, but it really isn't being overly cynical. After all, wasn't this exactly the reasoning Jobs gave when he intro'd In App Purchases...that free apps would not be allowed, in order to prevent bait and switch (though not in those words).
If Apple had the same concerns, then were they also being overly cynical?
Seems like a good idea. Only concern would be bait and switch. I hope Apple requires the free apps to very clearly spell out exactly what will enabled with the initial free download. Otherwise the apps might advertise all sorts of functionality, none of which is there until you pay, perhaps for each feature. Not generally a huge concern and certainly if it was going to be a problem, the 99 cent apps might have seen the same behavior.
IMO any developers who do try bait-and-switch will very quickly find themselves with one-star reviews and no sales. Both being incentive enough to be honest about things!
That said, I don't know if comparing an app's description to its actual functionality is something Apple does in the review process, but perhaps it should be. Apps that bait-and-switch should be rejected.
This isn't a new "feature", it's a method for companies to advertise. This will render lots of apps unappealing to me and cause me to download fewer apps and cease to upload others that include in-app sales.
If you look at this new sales technique as any thing other than spam you're an idiot...
The iPhone is going to become a stinky pile of doo when every app available tries to sell you something you have no intterest in to begin with.
I was very happy with the "free is free" policy: it did kill the "shareware" economic model, which consists in free programs which always ask you for money (to put it simple)
I do not think the system based on "Lite" and "Full" version was this bad, at least we knew what we were buying.
If many developer will not be affected by that system, I am sure the store will be polluted by many "gimme-money" applications and that sucks (yeah I am cynical, but look in your letterbox or your e-mail: you'll get what I'm saying)
But there is a way to make things better: in search options, add next to "free app" and "not-free app" a "not-really-free app" category so that user could just ignore them when they are looking for free programs.
As others have posted you will now be able to have a free aggregator program like an eBook Reader, and charge for the content--rather than waste server storage, bandwidth and device storage (eliminate the need to package a copy of the app with every copy of the content).
I would like to see it go even further and have submitted a feature request, for same.
I would like to be able to have a feature in my app where I could allow the user to purchase any content available in the iTunes stores (currently: app, music, TV, Movies and LPs), without leaving my app. Currently, the best my app can do is save status, link to the store item (terminating my app). Later the user has to resume my app to pick up where he left off.
This is like going to the back of the line for every menu item you buy in a trip to the [fast food]] restaurant!
I am not disagreeing with your here, but it really isn't being overly cynical. After all, wasn't this exactly the reasoning Jobs gave when he intro'd In App Purchases...that free apps would not be allowed, in order to prevent bait and switch (though not in those words).
If Apple had the same concerns, then were they also being overly cynical?
I thought they were. And now, THEY think they were.
We have to give people SOME credit. Do you feel as though you have to upgrade a free program to a paid version? I don't. But sometimes I do.
As I've said, the developers who are too ballsy about it will get cut down by the reviewers, and users. Or Apple themselves might decide, when they review a program for entry, that it's going too far.
It's just not something I'll worry about, even though there will be a few who will try and take advantage.
Honestly, if someone can't exercise some restraint in what they buy, the iPhone Reclamation Team should come and take it away from them.
This isn't a new "feature", it's a method for companies to advertise. This will render lots of apps unappealing to me and cause me to download fewer apps and cease to upload others that include in-app sales.
If you look at this new sales technique as any thing other than spam you're an idiot...
The iPhone is going to become a stinky pile of doo when every app available tries to sell you something you have no intterest in to begin with.
You have no idea as to how developers will act. I've got several programs that sell more from within the program. so far, it's all been done tastefully, and hasn't been bothersome.
I believe that that will be the norm, and any flaming nonsense will be rare, and quickly gone.
I am a paid developer. I do not have any apps for sale in the app store, that is not my motivation. I have several apps released ad hoc.
I have 2 different apps in development that experiment how to support a (composer, singer, lyricist) friend/associate who will release her 1st album on iTunes (original songs, video, LPs, etc) in the near future. One part of the app provides a way for a user to preview and purchase her content.
Briefly, there are 2 barriers to doing this the "right way":
1) only paid apps are allowed to provide in-app purchases-- so if we wanted to offer the user the convenience of buying content, we would need to charge for the app.
2) within the app, we cannot sell her content that is in the iTunes Music Store. We have 2 choices:
2.1) leave the app and link to the the item in the iTunes Music Store-- poor sales technique, clumsy and inefficient
2.2) duplicate her content on our own servers and distribute it ourselves, within the app, (duplicating the function of the iTunes store, but losing most of its benefits).
Yesterday's "free app, in-app purchases" announcement removes the first barrier.
The requested product enhancement, would allow us to let the user browse her iTunes Music Store content, and purchase content within the app (without ever leaving the app).
There are other considerations, but these are the major procedural hurdles-- one down, and one to go
This isn't a new "feature", it's a method for companies to advertise. This will render lots of apps unappealing to me and cause me to download fewer apps and cease to upload others that include in-app sales.
If you look at this new sales technique as any thing other than spam you're an idiot...
The iPhone is going to become a stinky pile of doo when every app available tries to sell you something you have no intterest in to begin with.
I disagree.
You could "advertise" within an app (free or paid) before today-- you just could not purchase from within a free app.
If a developer abuses this feature, word will get out, and buyers will avoid the app or Apple will remove it from the store.
I could see some promoting their apps as "no in-app advertising".
Seriously, I believe this will result in apps being more convenient to use.
Apps could have a special tab/button/menu that deals with promotional items, that a user could peruse at his option.
Say, I am out and about and running app x. I like it, would like to know about other apps by this developer. It would be great if the app had a tab or get-info button that allowed me to do this.
Some apps do this now by linking to a web site or the iTunes store (quitting the current app and opening Safari app or the iTunes app). It would be more convenient if the information was available without leaving the app. (It is trivial to read and display web pages within an app, In fact, there is a UI API/framework, UIWebView, that is designed specifically for that purpose).
If I can purchase within the app, all the more convenient!
You could "advertise" within an app (free or paid) before today-- you just could not purchase from within a free app.
If a developer abuses this feature, word will get out, and buyers will avoid the app or Apple will remove it from the store.
I could see some promoting their apps as "no in-app advertising".
Seriously, I believe this will result in apps being more convenient to use.
Apps could have a special tab/button/menu that deals with promotional items, that a user could peruse at his option.
Say, I am out and about and running app x. I like it, would like to know about other apps by this developer. It would be great if the app had a tab or get-info button that allowed me to do this.
Some apps do this now by linking to a web site or the iTunes store (quitting the current app and opening Safari app or the iTunes app). It would be more convenient if the information was available without leaving the app. (It is trivial to read and display web pages within an app, In fact, there is a UI API/framework, UIWebView, that is designed specifically for that purpose).
If I can purchase within the app, all the more convenient!
*
It's an interesting idea to allow purchase of iTune content from within your app
- Apple have a phobia about allowing duplication of their core functionality
- but you need not do that if you just specify a single track, album etc, and it gets loaded to the iPod music area.
- an interesting idea, but I doubt Apple will implement it!
I thought they were. And now, THEY think they were.
We have to give people SOME credit. Do you feel as though you have to upgrade a free program to a paid version? I don't. But sometimes I do.
As I've said, the developers who are too ballsy about it will get cut down by the reviewers, and users. Or Apple themselves might decide, when they review a program for entry, that it's going too far.
It's just not something I'll worry about, even though there will be a few who will try and take advantage.
Honestly, if someone can't exercise some restraint in what they buy, the iPhone Reclamation Team should come and take it away from them.
Sure, and like I said, I don't disagree with you.
I just don't see the point in getting upset that some people still see possible problems. After all, they were told to think this way and for some, if Apple says it, it is true. It will just take time for the newly approved thoughts to process. (j/k)
To be honest, I really don't see the difference in risk of bait and switch between In App Purchases for free apps and 99 cent apps, other than free taking away all possible barriers to give it a try.
What happened to the quote from the keynote, when announcing in-app purchasing, that sounded like, "Free applications will remain free."
Do you they figure enough time has passed that no one remembers/cares? Is there no one to call Apple out on the fact that they promised Free Apps would remain completely Free?
I'm not saying that this is totally a bad idea, but Apple should have thought of that before being explicit about Free being Free.
I'm a fan of a model where users can 'test' a full featured app for a limited time and return it if they are unsatisfied. And, when I say limited time, I mean an hour or just minutes. Long enough to get a feel for the app.
We've all downloaded an app that has limited screenshots in it's description. After it's installed, you find the graphics actually stink, the controls are shotty, or the mechanics don't deliver. You can usually tell within the first few minutes of messing with the app.
Wouldn't it be great if within an hour (or even 15 minutes) of downloading an app, you could return it for a full refund?
Absolutely positively NOT. That is the absolute last thing thats needed. You sound like the average Amazon.com customer. Someone who thinks its within their right to purchase something, use and abuse for 30 days, then return a now worthless unit for a full refund. That's actually called FRAUD, but lenient return policies of high-volume companies have legitimized this ridiculous excuse for consumer business.
For the small developers retailing on the App Store, their only chance at success beyond a runaway-hit-application, are the impulse purchases. If everyone could decide within an hour, or even 15 minutes, that they want their money back instead, the App store would be a total business loss. YOU wouldn't care of course, because you'd have your $1.07 back. You might start to care when you don't notice any new applications being developed, however.
What are needed, are more substantial advert media built into the App Store. 4 screen shots doesn't cut it. A structure-less description that can contain as much or as little useful info as provided, also doesn't cut it.
Video demos should be the primary visual. A 30 second video that shows not only the animation of the app, but how you actually interact with your fingers, ala TouchArcade, should be the standard.
Also, the App descriptions should be more structured and concise, with specific bold bullets that people can judge from without having to read 25 testimonials first.
Can someone explain to me how your purchased content is saved with this model?
What happens if I buy a ton of books or levels or whatever through InAppPurchase, then delete it off my phone? I still own the app, and I still have it in iTunes. Normally, this would erase my "saved data" anyway, but until now Saved Data hasn't consisted of anything significant beyond high scores/preferences. WIll This Delete My Purchased Content?
What if I want to install the same app on my iPhone AND my iPod touch.....? Do I have to purchase the content more than once???? Endlessly?
Not not not not goood, if any of this is true..
EDIT: Got my answer elsewhere, somewhere people actually post real questions and answers. Not immediately launch into argument ala THIS place.
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.
Comments
As others have posted you will now be able to have a free aggregator program like an eBook Reader, and charge for the content--rather than waste server storage, bandwidth and device storage (eliminate the need to package a copy of the app with every copy of the content).
I would like to see it go even further and have submitted a feature request, for same.
I would like to be able to have a feature in my app where I could allow the user to purchase any content available in the iTunes stores (currently: app, music, TV, Movies and LPs), without leaving my app. Currently, the best my app can do is save status, link to the store item (terminating my app). Later the user has to resume my app to pick up where he left off.
This is like going to the back of the line for every menu item you buy in a trip to the [fast food]] restaurant!
*
That's not correct. Right now, free versions of apps are feature limited. So they must also be "bait and switch".
In addition, much shareware is feature limited, also "bait and switch"?
What about shareware that is limited time? Just as you really get to depend on it (which you shouldn't do under the circumstances), "pop", it stops and asks you to upgrade. "Bait and switch"?
In fact you can say that about any application that has add-ons, such as most audio and video editing programs, even though you do pay for the program itself.
It's absurd to think that.
Free will still be free.
What's the matter with you people? Are you all that cynical?
I am not disagreeing with your here, but it really isn't being overly cynical. After all, wasn't this exactly the reasoning Jobs gave when he intro'd In App Purchases...that free apps would not be allowed, in order to prevent bait and switch (though not in those words).
If Apple had the same concerns, then were they also being overly cynical?
What's the matter with you people? Are you all that cynical?
It would appear that some are.
Seems like a good idea. Only concern would be bait and switch. I hope Apple requires the free apps to very clearly spell out exactly what will enabled with the initial free download. Otherwise the apps might advertise all sorts of functionality, none of which is there until you pay, perhaps for each feature. Not generally a huge concern and certainly if it was going to be a problem, the 99 cent apps might have seen the same behavior.
IMO any developers who do try bait-and-switch will very quickly find themselves with one-star reviews and no sales. Both being incentive enough to be honest about things!
That said, I don't know if comparing an app's description to its actual functionality is something Apple does in the review process, but perhaps it should be. Apps that bait-and-switch should be rejected.
If you look at this new sales technique as any thing other than spam you're an idiot...
The iPhone is going to become a stinky pile of doo when every app available tries to sell you something you have no intterest in to begin with.
I do not think the system based on "Lite" and "Full" version was this bad, at least we knew what we were buying.
If many developer will not be affected by that system, I am sure the store will be polluted by many "gimme-money" applications and that sucks (yeah I am cynical, but look in your letterbox or your e-mail: you'll get what I'm saying)
But there is a way to make things better: in search options, add next to "free app" and "not-free app" a "not-really-free app" category so that user could just ignore them when they are looking for free programs.
I think this is great!
As others have posted you will now be able to have a free aggregator program like an eBook Reader, and charge for the content--rather than waste server storage, bandwidth and device storage (eliminate the need to package a copy of the app with every copy of the content).
I would like to see it go even further and have submitted a feature request, for same.
I would like to be able to have a feature in my app where I could allow the user to purchase any content available in the iTunes stores (currently: app, music, TV, Movies and LPs), without leaving my app. Currently, the best my app can do is save status, link to the store item (terminating my app). Later the user has to resume my app to pick up where he left off.
This is like going to the back of the line for every menu item you buy in a trip to the [fast food]] restaurant!
*
Are you an app store developer?
I am not disagreeing with your here, but it really isn't being overly cynical. After all, wasn't this exactly the reasoning Jobs gave when he intro'd In App Purchases...that free apps would not be allowed, in order to prevent bait and switch (though not in those words).
If Apple had the same concerns, then were they also being overly cynical?
I thought they were. And now, THEY think they were.
We have to give people SOME credit. Do you feel as though you have to upgrade a free program to a paid version? I don't. But sometimes I do.
As I've said, the developers who are too ballsy about it will get cut down by the reviewers, and users. Or Apple themselves might decide, when they review a program for entry, that it's going too far.
It's just not something I'll worry about, even though there will be a few who will try and take advantage.
Honestly, if someone can't exercise some restraint in what they buy, the iPhone Reclamation Team should come and take it away from them.
This isn't a new "feature", it's a method for companies to advertise. This will render lots of apps unappealing to me and cause me to download fewer apps and cease to upload others that include in-app sales.
If you look at this new sales technique as any thing other than spam you're an idiot...
The iPhone is going to become a stinky pile of doo when every app available tries to sell you something you have no intterest in to begin with.
You have no idea as to how developers will act. I've got several programs that sell more from within the program. so far, it's all been done tastefully, and hasn't been bothersome.
I believe that that will be the norm, and any flaming nonsense will be rare, and quickly gone.
Are you an app store developer?
I am a paid developer. I do not have any apps for sale in the app store, that is not my motivation. I have several apps released ad hoc.
I have 2 different apps in development that experiment how to support a (composer, singer, lyricist) friend/associate who will release her 1st album on iTunes (original songs, video, LPs, etc) in the near future. One part of the app provides a way for a user to preview and purchase her content.
Briefly, there are 2 barriers to doing this the "right way":
1) only paid apps are allowed to provide in-app purchases-- so if we wanted to offer the user the convenience of buying content, we would need to charge for the app.
2) within the app, we cannot sell her content that is in the iTunes Music Store. We have 2 choices:
2.1) leave the app and link to the the item in the iTunes Music Store-- poor sales technique, clumsy and inefficient
2.2) duplicate her content on our own servers and distribute it ourselves, within the app, (duplicating the function of the iTunes store, but losing most of its benefits).
Yesterday's "free app, in-app purchases" announcement removes the first barrier.
The requested product enhancement, would allow us to let the user browse her iTunes Music Store content, and purchase content within the app (without ever leaving the app).
There are other considerations, but these are the major procedural hurdles-- one down, and one to go
*
This isn't a new "feature", it's a method for companies to advertise. This will render lots of apps unappealing to me and cause me to download fewer apps and cease to upload others that include in-app sales.
If you look at this new sales technique as any thing other than spam you're an idiot...
The iPhone is going to become a stinky pile of doo when every app available tries to sell you something you have no intterest in to begin with.
I disagree.
You could "advertise" within an app (free or paid) before today-- you just could not purchase from within a free app.
If a developer abuses this feature, word will get out, and buyers will avoid the app or Apple will remove it from the store.
I could see some promoting their apps as "no in-app advertising".
Seriously, I believe this will result in apps being more convenient to use.
Apps could have a special tab/button/menu that deals with promotional items, that a user could peruse at his option.
Say, I am out and about and running app x. I like it, would like to know about other apps by this developer. It would be great if the app had a tab or get-info button that allowed me to do this.
Some apps do this now by linking to a web site or the iTunes store (quitting the current app and opening Safari app or the iTunes app). It would be more convenient if the information was available without leaving the app. (It is trivial to read and display web pages within an app, In fact, there is a UI API/framework, UIWebView, that is designed specifically for that purpose).
If I can purchase within the app, all the more convenient!
*
Not that I care much about it's .99 or 99.99. Gimme a feature-rich app. (And the filter to not see mountains of useless crap, please).
I disagree.
You could "advertise" within an app (free or paid) before today-- you just could not purchase from within a free app.
If a developer abuses this feature, word will get out, and buyers will avoid the app or Apple will remove it from the store.
I could see some promoting their apps as "no in-app advertising".
Seriously, I believe this will result in apps being more convenient to use.
Apps could have a special tab/button/menu that deals with promotional items, that a user could peruse at his option.
Say, I am out and about and running app x. I like it, would like to know about other apps by this developer. It would be great if the app had a tab or get-info button that allowed me to do this.
Some apps do this now by linking to a web site or the iTunes store (quitting the current app and opening Safari app or the iTunes app). It would be more convenient if the information was available without leaving the app. (It is trivial to read and display web pages within an app, In fact, there is a UI API/framework, UIWebView, that is designed specifically for that purpose).
If I can purchase within the app, all the more convenient!
*
It's an interesting idea to allow purchase of iTune content from within your app
- Apple have a phobia about allowing duplication of their core functionality
- but you need not do that if you just specify a single track, album etc, and it gets loaded to the iPod music area.
- an interesting idea, but I doubt Apple will implement it!
I thought they were. And now, THEY think they were.
We have to give people SOME credit. Do you feel as though you have to upgrade a free program to a paid version? I don't. But sometimes I do.
As I've said, the developers who are too ballsy about it will get cut down by the reviewers, and users. Or Apple themselves might decide, when they review a program for entry, that it's going too far.
It's just not something I'll worry about, even though there will be a few who will try and take advantage.
Honestly, if someone can't exercise some restraint in what they buy, the iPhone Reclamation Team should come and take it away from them.
Sure, and like I said, I don't disagree with you.
I just don't see the point in getting upset that some people still see possible problems. After all, they were told to think this way and for some, if Apple says it, it is true. It will just take time for the newly approved thoughts to process. (j/k)
To be honest, I really don't see the difference in risk of bait and switch between In App Purchases for free apps and 99 cent apps, other than free taking away all possible barriers to give it a try.
Do you they figure enough time has passed that no one remembers/cares? Is there no one to call Apple out on the fact that they promised Free Apps would remain completely Free?
I'm not saying that this is totally a bad idea, but Apple should have thought of that before being explicit about Free being Free.
I'm a fan of a model where users can 'test' a full featured app for a limited time and return it if they are unsatisfied. And, when I say limited time, I mean an hour or just minutes. Long enough to get a feel for the app.
We've all downloaded an app that has limited screenshots in it's description. After it's installed, you find the graphics actually stink, the controls are shotty, or the mechanics don't deliver. You can usually tell within the first few minutes of messing with the app.
Wouldn't it be great if within an hour (or even 15 minutes) of downloading an app, you could return it for a full refund?
Absolutely positively NOT. That is the absolute last thing thats needed. You sound like the average Amazon.com customer. Someone who thinks its within their right to purchase something, use and abuse for 30 days, then return a now worthless unit for a full refund. That's actually called FRAUD, but lenient return policies of high-volume companies have legitimized this ridiculous excuse for consumer business.
For the small developers retailing on the App Store, their only chance at success beyond a runaway-hit-application, are the impulse purchases. If everyone could decide within an hour, or even 15 minutes, that they want their money back instead, the App store would be a total business loss. YOU wouldn't care of course, because you'd have your $1.07 back. You might start to care when you don't notice any new applications being developed, however.
What are needed, are more substantial advert media built into the App Store. 4 screen shots doesn't cut it. A structure-less description that can contain as much or as little useful info as provided, also doesn't cut it.
Video demos should be the primary visual. A 30 second video that shows not only the animation of the app, but how you actually interact with your fingers, ala TouchArcade, should be the standard.
Also, the App descriptions should be more structured and concise, with specific bold bullets that people can judge from without having to read 25 testimonials first.
What happens if I buy a ton of books or levels or whatever through InAppPurchase, then delete it off my phone? I still own the app, and I still have it in iTunes. Normally, this would erase my "saved data" anyway, but until now Saved Data hasn't consisted of anything significant beyond high scores/preferences. WIll This Delete My Purchased Content?
What if I want to install the same app on my iPhone AND my iPod touch.....? Do I have to purchase the content more than once???? Endlessly?
Not not not not goood, if any of this is true..
EDIT: Got my answer elsewhere, somewhere people actually post real questions and answers. Not immediately launch into argument ala THIS place.