Updated: Apple Introduces In-App Purchase for Free App — Buh-Bye Lite, Hello Demo!
Apple has just sent out a letter to developers introducing in-app purchasing for free apps.
UPDATE: Developers Erica Sadun on TUAW, and Marco Arment delve deeper into the subject, as does Techcrunch (twice).
ORIGINAL: Here’s what Apple had to say:
In App Purchase is being rapidly adopted by developers in their paid apps. Now you can use In App Purchase in your free apps to sell content, subscriptions, and digital services.
You can also simplify your development by creating a single version of your app that uses In App Purchase to unlock additional functionality, eliminating the need to create Lite versions of your app. Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases.
Visit the App Store Resource Center for more details about how you can add In App Purchases to your free apps.
So in one email, Apple ends the clutter of Lite apps, provides a real possibility for demoware (a developer can provide 1 level of a game, for example, for free, and 10 more via in-app purchase), and offers developers the carrot of anti-piracy measures at the same time.
Previously, Apple was resolute about “free apps stay free” so as to avoid user confusion. What changed their mind, all of the above? And will in-app purchases in free apps be extra-carefully marked to avoid just such confusion?
[Thanks everyone who sent this in!]
October 15th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Yeah was pretty surprised to see this. Not sure quite how to feel about it. Free demos would be nice though. Guess we’ll have to see how it plays out (whether the App Store gets filled with free shovelware).
October 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Sounds good to me. Perhaps now instead of having one app per book on the App Store, we’ll just have the one free client with which you will download premium books to? This of course would apply to many other things as well.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Also can solve piracy. Give away app for free, but make the user pay how much the app is worth.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Interesting… I’d love to try an app before I buy it.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
how does this work with apps that are shared within a household, using itunes’ new app sharing functionality?
October 15th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
An unexpected, but pleasant, surprise.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Much rather have this than to pay for an app only to pay more for extra levels.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I hope they use the same method Tap Tap Revenge 3 uses, in which all your downloads are linked to your account, so even though you restored your device or perhaps downloaded it on your other iPod/iPhone you could still download the content you already paid for.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I’m really concerned about this because they need to require developers to explicitly state what Add Ons you can (or have to) purchase for the free ones.
I can foresee a lot of bad reviews for apps where people downloaded something not knowing it requires an upgrade within the app because it wasn’t disclosed.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I think this is a flawed move, but at the same time, I think it’s a case of apple looking at what they have, and what people are demanding, and trying to figure out how to get from ‘have + want’ to ’satisfied’ in the least amount of ‘making something new’ possible.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I thought I heard Apple stated when they first introduce the iPhone Firmware 3.0 that any Dev with free Apps can’t charge there customers for any In App Purchases?
October 15th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Provided it’s disclosed upfront, and that’s certainly the case with all inApp purchases now, this is a good move.
We may see the AppStore application count drop a little too.
Whether this works out well or not, at least Apple is trying to fix peoples concerns.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
This is the only sensible answer. There are legitimate business models that require to give the app away, and sell content within. No brainer if you ask me.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Now if only The iPhone Blog could allow in-blog purchases! Get the first few sentences free and have to pay for the rest if the story
October 15th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
nerdalot: if only you had to pay to be first post in the comments…
October 15th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
instead of 74900 **** apps now will be an influx of triple terrible apps for free now.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
This might have something to do with the cover story in USA today about social gaming.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I swear Apple must read this blog.
All the bItchin about this lately, even getting mentioned in the podcast a couple of times and Boom its there.
This is very nice.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
@OneOfDaKine :
You did. That is why this is news!
I wonder if the in-app purchases can be for a fixed length of time, allowing for a subscription model?
October 15th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Boxcar has already been re-released as a free app with in-app purchases for services after the first one.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
@icebike:
No, in-app purchases can’t have an expiration date, but they do allow for subscription models.
“2.3 Content and services may be offered through the In App Purchase API on a subscription basis (e.g., subscriptions to a magazine, comic series, or financial reporting service); however, rentals of content, services or functionality through the In App Purchase API are not allowed (e.g., use of a particular game item or digital book for a pre-determined, limited period of time).”
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/15/apple-announces-in-app-purchases-for-free-iphone-applications/
October 15th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
The regular boxcar listing on iTunes still shows a price, but the techcrunch article has the link:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/15/the-in-app-purchase-shakeup-begins-boxcar-goes-free/
October 15th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I think it’s a good idea in that we can get real trials of a whole game but now that the light ones will be gone, you can’t just play those for free instead of the real game which cost because future trials will only last for so many days and then they won’t work
October 15th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I think this will be great…..
October 15th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Wait, so what happens to previously purchased apps? Will users now be required to purchase add-ons that previously came with the paid app? Or will developers be forced to maintain two different versions of their apps, the “old” full version plus the “new” a-la-carte version?
October 16th, 2009 at 12:06 am
@icebike
“I swear Apple must read this blog.”
LOL. That’s plausible until you consider how many posts have been about backgrounder, winterboard, SBSettings, tethering, etc…
October 16th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Hmm, sound great but i have one think. If all developers make there apps free and selling it with in app purchase, won’t all apps be in the free section then??
October 16th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Im so glad to see this! Im also happy that Apple is suggesting developers do away with Lite apps. While its nice to try apps, Ive always hated how lite apps clutter up the appstore. I really hope we can do away with lite apps altogether. It is also interesting how this might help out with piracy. Good idea. I look forward to this change.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am
@Venture82:
Thansks for that good info.
Also Wired http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/10/tablet-print-2/ has story about in-app sales combined with the putative iTablet being geared toward rescuing the Print Media.
Quoting:
As I’ve said many times here, if the iTablet does nothing but change the business model of the Main Stream Press, it will be ground breaking, and all the nay-sayers will be out buying an iTablet within a year.
This change to in-app purchase capabilities is the tip of the iceberg.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:06 am
I thought once apps were released free they have to be free all along. I don’t like this.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:45 am
My 2 thoughts: 1. This is good. The reason they had this rule is because they didn’t want people downloading a “free” app that costs $5. That’s good, but instead, they have “$1″ apps that actually cost $5, and you’re already out the $1. A boneheaded move that thankfully has been fixed.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Oh, and that quote-looking part of my comment wasn’t supposed to be a quote. It’s my second thought.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
As a developer with a combination of free and paid apps on the App Store, I’m concerned about ownership migration. As I see it, in order to transition, I will need to add in-app purchase support to my paid apps, then remove my “lite” apps from the store and change the pricing tier of the paid apps to “free.” At this point, I see no clear path to unlock in-app features for those who have bought the paid apps already.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I don’t see the big deal. It seems like its worse to pay something (even a small amount) for an app and then realize that you have to pay more for it to be useful. If you get a free app and then find out you have to pay more to really use it, you may have lost a few minutes of time but you haven’t lost any money if you just decide not to use it.