Apple relents: in-app purchase for free apps allows demo-to-paid
Big news coming down the pike today for App Store developers. Apple has finally relented on a sticking point in the developer agreement, allowing in-app purchases for free applications. Finally, developers can distribute a free trial version of their applications, unlocking features from directly within the app as users request them (and pay for them). Until now, developers had to deliver two applications, with two unique identities, and no simple way to share data from the trial to the full version. (Yes, you could have used servers and shared keychains, but that's burdensome and kind of pointless.)What this news means is that developers can unify into a single application. One project to maintain and support, one place to consolidate reviews, one application sandbox for a single set of application data. Earlier today, Mike S. mentioned Gas Cubby and Gas Cubby Lite -- now there could be only one version of the app, with an 'upsell' inside to go from the light to full feature set.
Q&A: Readers ask: "How will this affect the no reviews situation for free apps." Good question. Apple is going to need to sort that out. Since in-app purchases are registered to an iTunes account and associated with an application, it shouldn't take much work to limit reviews to those who have purchased something in a free app. We'll have to watch for this to happen because as things stand now, if you download an app, you get to rate it and developers know that free apps are thoughtless review magnets.
"How will you deliver binaries?" All the functionality must already be built into the app. StoreKit allows you to unlock those features when users pay a fee. You can download data or extend a web based service but you can't download additional executable binary components.
"Will I have to buy this twice for myself and other members of my family?" No, not if you both sync to the same iTunes account. It works the same as with applications. One app that has bought an upgrade extends to all apps for that same account. Each time your app launches, developers will check with App Store and restore any purchases that have already been made. So if you buy your upgrade on an iPhone, that upgrade will propagate to your iPod touch when it checks in.
"Will this help in anti-piracy measures?" Definitely. StoreKit allows developers to validate receipts, ensuring that unlock codes are only sent to paying customers. Add a hash-check algorithm for the current device and developers have better control over who gets to use their applications.
"What about promo codes?" I think Apple has learned its lesson about free apps/promo codes. I'm betting that they've already thought about a way to distribute in-app purchases via promo codes.
"What about people who have already bought apps?" Admittedly, this news is currently best suited for new products than existing ones. Devs who have built in shared keychains already have a slight leg up but for the time being you'll likely want to at least consider a new product that leverages this ability rather than trying to retrofit.
As for people who have already bought a paid version whom you want to support while migrating to a free demo/in-app purchase model, you're likely going to encounter trouble until Apple irons out its policies and its solutions. Again, I expect Apple to provide some sort of solution shortly.
And why all this trust in Apple? Any move that benefits developers ends up benefiting Apple in the end. This was a smart move on Apple's part, it's a good move for users, and for developers too. And it still has a long way to play out so keep watching for Apple's next steps.
"Who are the biggest winners here?" It's the people who have been putting out free and ad-support apps. They now have a way to turn off those ads and to solicit donations. In-app purchase doesn't have to be about buying and unlocking features. It provides a real solution for free apps to monetize, and for Apple to transform a huge part of their store into a paying model.
"Can free app devs charge an in-app purchase for nothing (i.e. donation)? Can the user repeat purchases or pick the amount?" Apple provides several kinds of purchase types and those purchases can be applied in multiples. For example, you can buy 5 hit point boosters or make 5 donations of $1. So yes, that model does work for donations.
"Can devs now charge for updates?" Not unless those new features are added as unlockable items. Again, this is something that Apple will likely address given the great demand for exactly that. Expect to see new App Store terms of service should that happen because the current one uses a "buy once, use and upgrade forever" model.
"What kinds of limitations should I think about?" TUAW reader Scott Kveton suggest the following in the comments for this post. He writes, "The key is keeping the app under 10 MB so it can be downloaded without wi-fi. A lot of developers can just 'unlock' functionality but when you get into actually delivery potentially large(ish) content to the device that's not possible. It also opens up the possibility to make the apps that much smaller on initial 'purchase' and then download content on the fly."

![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
schroef said 5:25PM on 10-15-2009
This sucks, what ever happened to "What is free, stays free"?
Reply
mikehild said 3:11PM on 10-16-2009
It does stay free. If the free functionality meets your needs you're under no obligation to pay for the added functionality. It's really no different than it is now, except that if you want to buy the full version it doesn't mean you have to download a whole new app.
burtonposey said 12:58AM on 10-24-2009
Those people went broke.
facetious.ian said 5:26PM on 10-15-2009
I imagine this will put us back to a state where people can negatively review apps without paying for them. They can simply 'purchase' the free app, then write a review moaning about how it's too much money to get the paid portion.
Reply
ODog said 6:24PM on 10-15-2009
Excellent point facetious.ian. I'm interested to see how this change develops since Apple's taking away reviewing rights from people who didn't purchase the app I believe was a huge step in the evolution of the App Store.
Joe said 5:31PM on 10-15-2009
I had read that you can't deliver binaries to the phone via in-app purchases, so I presume that simply allowing in-app purchases won't solve the Lite version/paid version problem in all cases, unless I'm mistaken with my information.
Also, how is this change going to affect the charts in the App Store? As it stands, there's Top Paid and Top Free. If everyone is offering their apps for free to demo with an upsell to paid within the app, are they going to make a new chart for this?
I'm sure I'm not alone when I worry that this will mean the death of truly free apps. If every developer can now sell their app for "free" but then feature-limit it, how many are not going to take advantage of that.
Reply
sam.ley said 6:04PM on 10-15-2009
I think the Top Free and Top Paid thing is already broken. Right now, Top Free is nearly all the "LITE" version of the apps in the Top Paid list! At least this way, we'd get different apps in each list.
Ultimately, we'll still have the same dynamic of free apps, demo apps and paid apps, its just that more paid apps will become demo apps. I doubt many currently free apps will switch to demo/paid due to this change.
Adding the functionality is non-trivial, as others have mentioned, and people who are that motivated to include "buy-up" in their application are already doing so in the form of a separate Demo app.
So really, I think this will help un-clutter the app store, and app developers will continue to use the same distro they used before, free, demo or paid, just in a way that makes the demo apps not get in everyone's way.
-Sam
Khalid said 5:35PM on 10-15-2009
This means that me and my wife can't share the same app's together, we have to pay for the same app twice.
Reply
Scott Kveton said 5:36PM on 10-15-2009
This is great news and it will finally eliminate the need for multiple versions of the same app hopefully helping to de-clutter the app store. That said, as @joe mentions above, it means a change in how to gauge "top apps".
It should be noted that mplementing in app purchase is non-trivial. Developers have to actually handle the last-mile delivery of content to the device. Apple does the transaction but then the app developer has to get the content to the device.
If you want to get up and running quickly with in app purchase and have somebody else handle the backend piece, check out Urban Airship. Yes, this is shameless self-promotion but I think its relevant … :-)
http://urbanairship.com
Reply
starq said 5:50PM on 10-15-2009
@ Scott
Please send a quick email to:
http://newtoyinc.com
They have the best Scrabble game and Chess game on the app store but they've been promising Push for months and must be having problems.
kmcgrady90 said 5:53PM on 10-15-2009
I've implemented it before in one of my apps and I think the majority of devs will go the route I did. Basically you build all the content in but just have some of it blocked off with a simple logic check (an int set to 0). When the purchase is made set the int to 1 and allow the content to be accessed. Of course in cases like TTR3 where songs are downloaded it doesn't make sense to include them in this way but I think the majority of apps will probably work like this.
Scott Kveton said 5:57PM on 10-15-2009
@kmcgrady90 The key is keeping the app under 10 MB so it can be downloaded without wi-fi. A lot of developers can just "unlock" functionality but when you get into actually delivery potentially large(ish) content to the device that's not possible. It also opens up the possibility to make the apps that much smaller on initial "purchase" and then download content on the fly.
kmcgrady90 said 8:33PM on 10-15-2009
@Scott good point regarding reducing app size and delivering content on the fly.
Kento Ito said 5:51PM on 10-15-2009
Was going to be first to report it, but the balloon incident distracted me.
Anyway, since Apple reviews all app, one line of code at a time, it might take months for new apps to be approved.
Reply
starq said 5:55PM on 10-15-2009
Said balloon incident happened just miles from my house. Hope the little guy is ok.
Luqven said 8:06PM on 10-15-2009
Dude, he was in the house the whole time.
Kai Cherry said 5:59AM on 10-16-2009
Apple does not in any way whatsoever review apps "one line of code at a time" and I have no idea where you would get such a notion.
-K
Devon said 10:53AM on 10-16-2009
You don't submit source code to Apple. You submit a compiled binary
DA623 said 5:53PM on 10-15-2009
I think this is great for all the "Lite" version apps/games on the App store. Basically, they can do the Xbox Live Marketplace style system. You see the app on the store, you get the option to buy it or get a trial. If you get the trail, you can get the option within the app itself to buy it or not.
I think that would GREATLY help iPhone apps and developers if they did it this way. It would unify the reviews as well and declutter the store if the trial and full version downloads are within the same app store link instead of separated.
Reply
Gabriel Prieto said 5:54PM on 10-15-2009
At last! The App store info, photos and (lack of) reviews makes me shiver every time I buy something. And downloading the "lite" version is not always the same...
Reply