Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Software, Apple, iPhone, App Store
App Store: "Demo" no, "Lite" yes
Our dear friend Erica Sadun has outlined one of Apple's more sticky App Store policies over at Ars Technica. There's been a lot of customer pressure, as we've said before, to put "try it" versions of apps on the App Store, and quite a few developers have done exactly that, by releasing a "Free" or "Lite" version of the paid app along with the real thing. But Apple has some pretty strict rules about doing so: every app on the store needs to be fully functional and stand on its own. You can leave out some levels of your game, for example, but you can't put a timed limit on it or remove features that are central to the app itself.Of course, there's a grey area there -- what features are central to the app, exactly? But Erica boils it down to words: putting "Lite" or "Free" in the title are fine, but releasing "Demo" or "Beta" versions are not.
It's too bad Apple hasn't fleshed this out more -- everything we've heard about how people are buying these apps shows that if customers have a chance to try the app, they're much more likely to spend money on it later on. But right now, developers have to keep up two different versions, and they have to dodge the pitfalls of deciding what goes in each one, while keeping them both "fully functional."
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
m said 9:12AM on 2-08-2009
who are these "customers"? got any data? at all? your links all go to "sell your crap for $10" articles. nice touch. as a real-life customer, i wish TUAW would take a less blatantly pro-developer stance. apple, in this instance at least, seems to get it: they've stood up to the record companies, and i hope they continue keeping developers in line. the app store isn't a get rich quick scheme, nor should it be.
Reply
NoAndThen said 10:40AM on 2-08-2009
@m: you're a douche.
Developers are the little guy here for the great majority.
Apple is making -plenty- of money and a model that helps devs more is always welcome.
Just because working at walmart isn't a get rich quick scheme doesn't mean they shouldn't pay their workers more.
Oh, and this is in no way (not even a little, teensy bit) similar to standing up to record companies; your understanding of the situation is laughable at best. Where is your data, sir/madam?
What the hell do you mean by keep devs in line?
It's a bunch of dudes writing code, not some overpriveliged screen actors guild or something. Get your damn facts straight.
Kai Cherry said 7:02PM on 2-08-2009
"Stood up to record companies"?
Dude...
Apple is on record *publicly favoring DRM*...when it suits them :)
2003 I suppose was a "long, long time ago" for some people, but "way back then" Apple was quite the proponent of DRM on iT(M)S tracks; it tied users to the platform and made switching a barrier.
Oh how I remember the heady days of 2004 when this ugly truth came to light...Apple was in the Press, and the courts, defending *their* DRM because someone had the unmitigated gall to figure out a way to play DRM'd iTMS tracks on other people's players...with *DRM* no less, thus pissing off no one but Apple. Oh, and people that believe Apple can do no wrong :)
Fast Forward to 2007: In a brilliant marketing move, now that Apple had secured market dominance and was projected to overtake traditional music retailers in 12-18 months, Steve Jobs publishes an open letter against the DRM his company fought in favor of...because now it didn't matter.
Or was this all happening in a parallel universe that only I live in? :)
Google is there...look it up for yourself.
-K
VanillaSpice said 7:41PM on 2-08-2009
NoAndThen, you have not exactly presented yourself as anything better than a "douche".
And your idea that developers are little guys battling for good, is just as ridiculously unrealistic as the straw man position you put on m (that developers are privileged).
I for one agree somewhat with m, I believe that Apple has a responsibility to not allow developers carte blanche in the App Store, and that many of the so-called 'developer pitfalls' of the App Store are in fact really good consumer protection systems.
It has nothing to do with "standing up" to anyone; the fact is, Apple has changed the music industry, for the better it is widely agreed, and I see them changing the software industry too, for the better also.
Better in many ways, but reasonable prices are the big thing for me, instead of 'we have to charge you $100 for every game we make because 9 out of every 10 are total crap and will not sell and we need to subsidise the excessive amount we invested in them' which has been the rule for console and desktop games for so long now.
Kai Cherry said 7:57PM on 2-08-2009
"I for one agree somewhat with m, I believe that Apple has a responsibility to not allow developers carte blanche in the App Store, and that many of the so-called 'developer pitfalls' of the App Store are in fact really good consumer protection systems."
On the surface, this is a positive notion...however, like say, Communism, it sort of only works on paper.
Do you truly believe that what you are seeing in the store represents overall, the best the platform has to offer in terms of capability and quality?
Do you see the same trend with Mac OS X software?
-K
Ben said 9:19AM on 2-08-2009
I did this when I got my touch and DLed Penguin Catapult. I tried the lite version; enjoyed it; and then bought the full version. I never would have bought the full version otherwise. As it stands, though, I'm bummed I spent the cash on the full version b/c it was overall a pretty disappointing and pretty short game. That's my App Store lesson!
Reply
vandil said 9:58AM on 2-08-2009
Labyrinth (metal ball, wooden maze) is a good example of this. I picked up the free version that comes with 10 mazes. After getting over the novelty and after getting past the 10 levels, I realized I didn't want to purchase the full game.. I could just replay the 10 levels should the itch for the novelty come back. I saved $10.
Now if Labyrinth has no Lite version, and was $0.99, I would have brought it outright, and would have been fine with my purchase even if I was to stop after the first 10 levels.
They missed out on getting my buck (or 60 cents or whatever they get from it). Multiply that by other impulse buyers and they could have made some cash.
Another one: Wikipanion. The free version does everything I need. I will never buy the full version for $4.99. But I would certainly have picked up a $0.99 version if that was the only version you could get.
So my point is, Lite versions do have their place, but if they are good enough, why by the full version? If they are in the App store to make money, they should insulate themselves with venture capital, sell their app for $0.99, and wait for the volume of purchases to reimburse the capital and get profit.
Reply
robogobo said 10:46AM on 2-08-2009
but you have to remember the point here. Lite apps are the only way of putting out a demo. This model has been used by many OS X developers for years. Free apps are a great idea, and then you get to know it, love it, and maybe pay more for the meaty features.
KeynoteKen said 11:51AM on 2-08-2009
Now THAT is an interesting idea! Who says that a "Lite" app has to be free? If your full version has, say 100 levels, you can sell 50 levels for less... or even 10 levels for less than that.
If your model is such that someone playing the game as "something to do" for a few minutes between other daily activities, give them a "tiny" 5 levels for free. If they get tired of playing the 5 levels over and over, then they can get the "Lite" version for .99 that has 20 levels or the whole 100 levels (for those who are playing like a PSP or DS) for $2.99. Not only do you have THREE entries of your app on the app store, you may even end up upselling and essentially making $3.99 on the people buying both Lite and full versions instead of just the $2.99 you end up with.
But the summary of the last paragraph of the article appears to be "Devs have to work hard to make money" which I'd say is just about right.
Kai Cherry said 7:47PM on 2-08-2009
Ken:
You are a smart guy :)
Free "lite" apps will become history for the most part by the end of the year, from what I'm seeing "on the ground" because they don't work from a business prospective.
The logic goes like this: "if people are willing to pay a dollar for a fart app..."
See...what we *crazy* devs like to do, for want of a better analogy, is what works...the "Drug Dealer" model.
Let 'em get a lil' taste...hook 'em. Customers like this, too. They don't like the notion of buying blind...ask Apple. You buy a Mac, it comes with nice trails of things like iWork.
Now, with the App Store, it appears that someone decided that a dollar was worth blowing in the Mobile Space, since these are the same sorts of people that will blow $3 to make the people calling them hear a looping snippet of "Sexyback" when people call them.
The idea with the App Store was essentially to adopt the Verizon Model with BREW crap...the "walled garden".
Many, many people...customers and pundits attacked Verizon over this, because it was anti-consumer..."evil" carriers exploiting customers, etc. BREW devs weren't too keen on it because it basically amounted Verizon getting a cut of every sale after levying license fees for developing for the platform in the first place.
Apparently, when Apple does this...it is...somehow...not...what it is.
Funny, that :)
-K
Mickinator said 10:01AM on 2-08-2009
I've often wondered if legally they can sell a product on the App Store, that has no potential for a refund. It seems like a business shouldn't be able to do that. Yet, we keep buying stuff from them......
Reply
milkmage said 12:11PM on 2-08-2009
the same holds true for retail software. once you break the seal you're more than likely not going to be able to return it. you can't use it or try it unless you break the seal. the app store equivalent of breaking the seal is downloading. the only difference is the mechanics.
nobody complains about the inability to return software once you open it. how is this different?
robogobo said 10:47AM on 2-08-2009
I prefer "gray" area.
Reply
antiorario said 10:50AM on 2-08-2009
Should be:
putting "Lite" or "Free" in the title *is* fine, but releasing "Demo" or "Beta" versions *is* not.
Just wanted to point that out.
Reply
Kai Cherry said 6:35PM on 2-08-2009
No no...you have it wrong :)
*Releasing* and *charging* for demo and beta versions is perfectly acceptable and fine.
You just can't SAY that is what it is.
Think about that for a few minutes. Tell me if this is a good or bad thing for you, the consumer :)
-K
antiorario said 6:42PM on 2-08-2009
Maybe I'm just tired and sleepy, but... HUH?
I'm talking about grammar there. How about you?
Kai Cherry said 7:13PM on 2-08-2009
So you were :)
I was talking about the notion in the piece in and of itself. I should have posed a separate comment.
My bad :)
thezonie said 11:26AM on 2-08-2009
@Mickinator - People can and do get refunds for App Store purchases. They just have to contact Apple (not the developer) and ask for one.
For years software companies have been putting out fully-functional demo versions that time-out after some number of days or number of uses. If this was allowed to be implemented by developers on the App Store it would benefit both the users (who could try out an app without paying for it) and the developers (who wouldn't have to release a "watered-down" version of their app just so people can get an idea whether or not they want to buy it).
Reply
Jacques Lema said 11:38AM on 2-08-2009
The number of available business models available on the appstore are severely limit.
Noticeably there's no way to sell a service for a monthly fee. If you sell a service that requires maintenance (24hours/workers, data servers) there's just no way you can make it. You can't sell something 1$ and then provide service for it for 10 years.
But if you make it available for free and require people to pay a yearly fee to use the service.. then it's forbidden.
Way to go Apple...
Just labels the apps clearly as time limited demos, and that is all.
Reply
dagamer34 said 12:37PM on 2-08-2009
epocrates has that "forbidden" model you are talking about. The app itself is free, but access to greater amount of data requires a subscription.