I use a few "free with In-App purchase" apps that I didn't pay for, and that are fine. The problems the article talks about stem from poor curation of the App Store.
AStonesThrow · 38m ago
In my experience with the Google Play Store, I've come across plenty of apps that are "free with Premium in-app purchase". This can get tangled and confusing.
If I know an app well by reputation already, perhaps I've already used their service as a website and I simply want to go deeper, then I have zero qualms about paying "up-front" in the app store for a license fee. I've done this a few times for apps that are $10-$15. No problem there. Especially when that fee is perpetual and not a subscription. One of the first Android apps I purchased in 2015 is still listed on the app store, and still "owned" by me from that original payment!
Now unfortunately there are many categories of apps that I don't know by reputation, and I can't really try before I purchase them. So for any app that I want to test out, have on a free trial, an "up-front license fee" doesn't really work for that, does it? Especially if it's priced as a perpetual license and not subscription - a cheap subscription I could cancel after the first month. So this is where "free with in-app purchase" comes in.
There are many apps which are like this which have at least two app listings. One is the "Premium app" with up-front pricing and another listing is the "Free trial" app with the in-app purchase for the Premium upgrade.
This gets troublesome when I'm using multiple devices, and multiple accounts, and uninstall/reinstalling to try and troubleshoot things. Because eventually me or the system becomes a little confused about what I've paid for, and I'm unsure whether I will get the paid features by installing the free app, or if I need to pay again. Perhaps this is an oft-beloved trap by app vendors, because I can imagine that many, many customers simply pay over and over to install the Premium app, when they could've installed the free one and it would've activated as Premium when it vetted their account purchases.
For one app there was the main app listed in the Play Store, and when I wished to buy into it, the developer provided an "<app> Supporter" auxiliary app which was not the app, but served to unlock those paid features within the main app. And thereafter, it was unclear which app I'd need to download, but it seemed that I only needed to install the Supporter app once in order to activate everything.
So yes, confusing, but perhaps a necessary evil, when it is not easy to trial apps without purchase. I think that any app providing free/freemium/premium tiers of purchase is sometimes forced into these bifurcations because of how app stores work. The customer just needs to be savvy enough to follow along.
dlachausse · 4h ago
Unfortunately, this is how you beat human psychology. Typical user thought process goes something like the following…
“I’m not paying $4.99 for a whozamuzzle app! That’s ridiculous. Ooh, here’s a free one! Oh look if I pay $1.99 a month for premium I get all these cool extra features! Whoa there’s a deal where if I pay $14.99 I get a lifetime subscription? Sold!”
Yes, an up front one time license fee would be better for users in most cases, but that doesn’t compete well with “free” with an asterisk.
guywithahat · 29m ago
I like being able to see and use the app first. If something really adds value to my life I'm ok paying more than $5 dollars for it, but I don't want to spend $5 before I know that it will work. There are lots of terrible apps, and spending money on a bad one feels like getting scammed
hedora · 26m ago
If curation were better, then I might be willing to just pay $5 for a highly rated app that claims to solve my problem.
Of course, if curation were better, the app in the article wouldn't have been approved.
squigz · 45m ago
I do not know a single person whose thought process would come anywhere close to that, frankly. People aren't excited to pay more per month for every tiny app they use.
Well... maybe Apple users are, actually?
dlachausse · 28m ago
Let me make it more clear, the process goes something like this…
1. I’m not paying that much for an app
2. Oooh that one’s free
3. Oh if I pay for a monthly subscription I get all these cool features
4. If I pay $X I can get those cool features without paying the monthly subscription fee
It’s not logical, but it’s essentially why the freemium model works and is the dominant monetization strategy currently.
If I know an app well by reputation already, perhaps I've already used their service as a website and I simply want to go deeper, then I have zero qualms about paying "up-front" in the app store for a license fee. I've done this a few times for apps that are $10-$15. No problem there. Especially when that fee is perpetual and not a subscription. One of the first Android apps I purchased in 2015 is still listed on the app store, and still "owned" by me from that original payment!
Now unfortunately there are many categories of apps that I don't know by reputation, and I can't really try before I purchase them. So for any app that I want to test out, have on a free trial, an "up-front license fee" doesn't really work for that, does it? Especially if it's priced as a perpetual license and not subscription - a cheap subscription I could cancel after the first month. So this is where "free with in-app purchase" comes in.
There are many apps which are like this which have at least two app listings. One is the "Premium app" with up-front pricing and another listing is the "Free trial" app with the in-app purchase for the Premium upgrade.
This gets troublesome when I'm using multiple devices, and multiple accounts, and uninstall/reinstalling to try and troubleshoot things. Because eventually me or the system becomes a little confused about what I've paid for, and I'm unsure whether I will get the paid features by installing the free app, or if I need to pay again. Perhaps this is an oft-beloved trap by app vendors, because I can imagine that many, many customers simply pay over and over to install the Premium app, when they could've installed the free one and it would've activated as Premium when it vetted their account purchases.
For one app there was the main app listed in the Play Store, and when I wished to buy into it, the developer provided an "<app> Supporter" auxiliary app which was not the app, but served to unlock those paid features within the main app. And thereafter, it was unclear which app I'd need to download, but it seemed that I only needed to install the Supporter app once in order to activate everything.
So yes, confusing, but perhaps a necessary evil, when it is not easy to trial apps without purchase. I think that any app providing free/freemium/premium tiers of purchase is sometimes forced into these bifurcations because of how app stores work. The customer just needs to be savvy enough to follow along.
“I’m not paying $4.99 for a whozamuzzle app! That’s ridiculous. Ooh, here’s a free one! Oh look if I pay $1.99 a month for premium I get all these cool extra features! Whoa there’s a deal where if I pay $14.99 I get a lifetime subscription? Sold!”
Yes, an up front one time license fee would be better for users in most cases, but that doesn’t compete well with “free” with an asterisk.
Of course, if curation were better, the app in the article wouldn't have been approved.
Well... maybe Apple users are, actually?
1. I’m not paying that much for an app
2. Oooh that one’s free
3. Oh if I pay for a monthly subscription I get all these cool features
4. If I pay $X I can get those cool features without paying the monthly subscription fee
It’s not logical, but it’s essentially why the freemium model works and is the dominant monetization strategy currently.