What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
43 Comments
- sholt, on 10/16/2009, -0/+22Nah, it's more beneficial for developers (and users) this way, and brings the experience more in line with trialware on the desktop.
The way it worked: A developer releases 2 versions of the same application, one free (limited functionality/ad supported/whatever) and one paid (full feature/no ads/etc). That's 2 applications for users to juggle in search results, and 2 applications for developers to maintain, and 2 applications that need to find their way through Apple's app review process. It's a mess.
This way, theres only one app. The free version can have the same features as the previous free version, but allow unlocking the full version. There is only one app for the developer to maintain and build, and only one app for apple to review. Releases and updates are simpler, and both free and paid users receive them at the same time.
Marketing that application is also simplified, since there's only one version of an app to direct users to, and it removes some anxiety of trying a $5 piece of software with only a description and a few screenshots to go on.
I fail to see how, overall, this is anything but a good thing. (Not that there couldn't be more improvements) - tyrulz, on 10/16/2009, -10/+31This is bad news I think
- mezzthepezz, on 10/16/2009, -2/+15There should be a section for apps that are 100% free
- sholt, on 10/16/2009, -0/+12But they already put a free "demo" app in the store along side a paid "full" version.
How does this change anything except the ease of which a user migrates from the demo to full app version? - cave, on 10/16/2009, -1/+13I don't like this... Think at least there should be a warning, these "kind of" free programs shouldn't be grouped together with truly free programs.
- frenchfries11, on 10/16/2009, -2/+11This is gonna be a pain in the ass because now a lot of developers are gonna start putting "free" apps in the app store when in reality it's a ***** demo with so much limited functionality that you won't even want to keep it unless you buy the full version. They should be forced to write a huge DEMO sign next to the names of all apps like this.
- craptastrophy, on 10/16/2009, -0/+9Sounds like it will get bad reviews then. One person's demo is another person's basic functionality. Let people decide for themselves and vote. Democracy works!
- eadnams, on 10/16/2009, -0/+8Excited that the trial and full apps can migrate data now... hate using a trial version, buying the full, but having to enter everything into it again.
- billygreen23, on 10/16/2009, -3/+11I think this will create a lot of Bait and Switch apps. I liked it before when a free app is completely free.
- spiffyfitz, on 10/16/2009, -0/+7I like this because this gives the app store the potential to have less "Lite" versions of software all over the place.
- craptastrophy, on 10/16/2009, -1/+8Bait and switch is bad, so reviews will tank for the app. Cool, the system worked.
On the other hand, good developers can use this to fund development through donations, upgrades and paid content as well. Honest, good developers will get good reviews. Cool, the system worked. - eadnams, on 10/16/2009, -3/+9Good step to cut down clutter on the app store. Reminds me of Xbox live Arcade "Trial" versions with upgrade options. Nice.
- Me1000, on 10/16/2009, -1/+7I think it makes sense for a few types of applications. Book readers would make sense, so you get the reader for free then buy the books. However this will most likely be abused leaving us at the reason we can't have nice things. :(
- jrm125, on 10/16/2009, -5/+10Installous
- Lightstab, on 10/16/2009, -0/+5This is actually a move to cut down on piracy. TechCrunch did a pretty good article about the issues here:
http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/10/15/in-app-purc ...
"...while you can crack an iPhone application and throw it up for all to download in a matter of seconds, you can’t fake an In-App purchase receipt. A pretty notable chunk of the In-App purchase process is actually handled on the developer’s server, in addition to Apple’s – so unlike the initial purchase (which devs actually get to know very, very little about), developers know pretty damn well exactly which iPhones should be running which In-App Purchase. Developers have a specific receipt for each in-app purchase, which resides on their server. Faking this would be like tricking Amazon into shipping you a TV that you didn’t pay for." - craptastrophy, on 10/16/2009, -1/+5This is a very very good thing for app users.
This allows for shareware (good developers). But yes, it also allows bad people to trick you. Don't be an idiot and buy upgrades from bad people. If you haven't noticed, the App store reviews are brutally honest, so you have no excuse if you blow money on something that you had a chance to sample first, read reviews on, and then upgrade. Better than the real world, even!
It's between you, the developer and the other app users. Leave Apple out of your bad decisions. - stuy486, on 10/17/2009, -0/+3The reason I see it as not a good thing, and the main reason I won't be merging my two apps into one, is the app rating. If anyone can download it and rate it without investing anything but a few minutes, then you're going to get the typical 1 start ratings and crap reviews from people who don't know what they're talking about. Since that's the main thing people see when they're browsing the list of apps in a search it's going to turn people away. Sure people may be able to rate the in-app purchases individually, but even if you have a 5 star rated "full version upgrade", many people will see a crap overall app rating and never see that it's actually a good app.
- blaxbb, on 10/16/2009, -0/+3at least with the way it is now, you know exactly what you are downloading. I can imagine some devs creating an app which is pretty much a shell with no functionallity until paid
- nanowerx, on 10/16/2009, -0/+3Awesome, now can they finally make Tap Tap Revenge 3 free?
- aristotle0dude, on 10/16/2009, -0/+2You might be missing the point that the purchases occur through the appstore communication interface and that interface could validate that the app calling the service is encrypted "and" has a CRC/MD5 hash that matches the one on record with the appstore to prevent hacking/tampering.
- NJank, on 10/16/2009, -0/+2as long as things are set up such that "accidental" or "deceptive" upgrades are too difficult to be believed.
- Rapter09, on 10/16/2009, -1/+3This is great news. Now I can download a free Oregon Trail and pay 99¢ to die of dysentery.
- eobet, on 10/16/2009, -0/+2And how do you see the difference between a "legitimate" developer and a "non-legitimate" developer?
When I saw the first demo of that Gameloft FPS where you went to pick up a weapon in a multi-player match and a window popped up asking if you wished to buy that weapon, I thought that I'd never buy another app again.
This announcement today brought me closer to that being a reality. - Luminoth545, on 10/16/2009, -0/+2They held out longer than I thought they would.
- aristotle0dude, on 10/16/2009, -1/+3If you are stupid enough to pay for something that you don't want to pay for, then it's your own damn fault. Nobody forces you to buy the upgrades. Vote with your dollars and reviews of the apps.
- alpha88, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1That would be a non-legitimate developer, as I said.
- kragil, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1Apple a few weeks back: "Free stays free"
- alpha88, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1I might be missing something, but if you bypass the security check altogether by cracking the app, it won't matter if it has an in-app receipt, as it can still access other features. This should make it easier to crack apps by downloading them for free and circumventing security measures like any normal mac app.
This wouldn't work for apps where you'd download new content, obviously, but if the features are there but hidden, it should. - ohreilly, on 10/16/2009, -2/+3" apps, in-app apps in-app apps."
Presumably "applications" is far too difficult to type. - alpha88, on 10/16/2009, -0/+1As I said, that would stop downloading extra content, but what about features that are built into the application, but hidden and then unlocked via purchase? The features could then be unlocked by cracking the application to skip the validation process. If it's an app that connects to a server that checks the md5 before feeding it information, that could cause problems, but not all apps work that way, and not all developers are going to think that far ahead.
- Canuck, on 10/16/2009, -1/+2As long as the in-app purchase is through the app store. I don't want my credit card information given to an overnight developer just there to grab credit information.
If the key is on the developers server what happens if I don't have network access to validate the key? Will that mean that I can't use the application that I paid for?
I didn't read the mobilecrunch article, so it might very well answer my questions. - alpha88, on 10/16/2009, -1/+2It's good for legitimate developers.
If you go to the app store right now, you'll see "Whatever App" and "Whatever App Lite" all over the place. This way, you can just download one app, and if you like the free version, upgrade it without needing to download a different app entirely.
The non-legitimate developers... well... yeah it's not such a great idea. - jwdav, on 10/16/2009, -1/+1 ... something Microsoft *will* do, but three to five years after Apple does it.
- Dunpite, on 10/16/2009, -5/+5Yo dawg I herd........
- TrancePhreak, on 10/16/2009, -1/+1I guess some people have no idea how the alternatives have been doing it for years. (XBL/PSN/WiiWare)
- AiR1890, on 10/16/2009, -1/+1Let the price gauging begin.
- aristotle0dude, on 10/16/2009, -4/+3Get a job you bum.
- Giac, on 10/16/2009, -7/+6That's ***** bs...when they announced 3.0 they said any free app should akways be free with no in app purchases.
- s4g4n, on 10/16/2009, -9/+5 and you'll now have to pay for what used to be once free.
- doctordbx, on 10/16/2009, -6/+1What the *****? were the words "trial version" in your tl;dr filter or something?
- FLCProductions, on 10/16/2009, -12/+3This seems like something Microsoft would do.....
Bad choice Apple...... - phogasmic, on 10/16/2009, -20/+5Apple is evil.
- TrancePhreak, on 10/16/2009, -20/+4More stuff that should have been standard. Oh well, at least it's there now!
