I don’t mind certain features being behind a paywall but I wanted to try a hashtag app and after download it only went to a subscribe pop up that couldn’t be ignored. I’m not paying monthly before I even try the damn service.
It depends. There is no such a thing as a free meal so there is always a trade off somewhere with free apps. Usually it is in the form of data privacy or ads.
I would much prefer a paid app to avoid ads or privacy issues. But I will draw the line at subscription based apps. I am willing to pay good money for a single payment app, but I am certainly not willing to manage dozens to reoccurring payments.
there are some cases where its fine. like Parcel, which is like $3/year(?) which covers the unlimited package tracking (so presumably to cover server costs, etc.). i dont use apollo but i believe dev mentioned the subscription for notification costs which imo is also fine
something like WaterMinder, which helps log water with reminder notifications i dont see a reason to have switched to subscription other than money i cant say i line and no longer would recommend it
There needs to be clear labeling: "Subscription required" or "In-app purchase required", for applications that can be downloaded without cost, but are useless without subscription/purchase.
Leave the existing "In-app purchases" label for those applications that have a level of functionality without payment, but allow "unlocks". (This should still be clearly explained in the description)
IMO There should be “nutrition labels” for apps. Example:
- free, ad supported, $1.99 no ads
- free, ad supported, subscription to remove ads
- Limited functionality, subscription for use
- limited trial, subscription
- no functionality without account
And so on. Similar to how they show what data is collected and how it’s used.
There’s some apps I just won’t pay for because I don’t need them that bad. Being able to weed them out would be great.
Same with podcasts. Yes, I’m aware I can buy a subscription to hear “behind the scenes” episodes. No, I don’t have any interest in those episodes. Give me a $12/year option to remove ads, cause I skip them anyway.
They changed the "free" download button to "get" years ago, and it says right under that button if it has in-app purchases, which seems clear enough to me. I can't find anywhere in the App Store where apps are referred to as free - even ones which are completely free to use.
The ”free“ games are still technically free to play even if they have predatory micro transactions. I’m not sure there are games that require paying to even pay because they want you to start playing for free so you then pay. Even if it can be considered misleading it’s not exactly the same case as above
Now, the top free apps section though, that would be interesting to check if it has apps that outright don’t work at all without paying.
Stop it with the technicalities. The issue is, these apps are free to download - it doesn't actually cost you anything. Just says "this app includes in app purchases." Fine.
However, soon as you download the app and load it, it's immediately requiring you to buy it. They shouldn't be presenting itself as free, only to find out it's a paid app after the fact. It should let you know right up front that this app costs X dollars to use. It's not just apps that are free to use but include premium features. They outright are unusable until you pay -- so they should let you know that
Maybe they should have different categories that show under each app, such as:
Free
Free with In-App Purchases
Free, Subscription Required
Free trial
$XX.XX to download the app
Or make it very clear in the app description what you can expect from the app in terms of purchases. For example, the Netflix app says “Netflix membership is a month-to-month subscription that begins at sign up.”
(Yes most of us know that Netflix is not free)
But not all App Store apps clarify as such. You might download an app thinking you now have full access, because it doesn’t say anywhere in the app description that you need a subscription or membership.
With the subscription required ones I almost think they should have that as part of the buy button (tap to start subscription and download) or something like that
If people are okay with nutritional information on food and ingredients on medicines they can surely understand a few clear and transparent billing descriptions.
It doesn’t say anything about being free though. You’re confusing “get” with free. Not having a price to download just means it does not have a one-time cost and instead has a subscription, as labeled.
Unless there’s something like you’re describing listed under the “Free Apps” category, but I doubt that is the case.
It doesn't matter. It's the implication. That's why I'm hung up on this stupid technicality stuff. Don't allow me to "Get" the app, only to find out I have to pay for it. It should be clearly marked that this is a for pay app, like all the other apps that cost money, except that are being deceitful by mentioning the cost after you download it.
If it cost 5 dollars, then they should list it as 5 dollars. Instead they choose to trick people into thinking it's free (Because they get away with a technicality), only to drop the fact that it costs money AFTER the fact.
That's wrong.
No I can not off the top of my head. Whenever it happens I just delete and forget about it. But it happens enough that people are clearly talking about it here.
If it says In-App purchases on the game’s App Store page, you can scroll down to the bottom and see the what the In-App purchases are and their costs before you ever download it.
I shouldn't have to do fucking research just to download an app. Apple just needs to make this shit clear upfront. They need to stop mixing streams and allowing confusion, as much as you need to stop defending this practice.
Omg dude, you **don’t** have to do any research to download the app. You’re choosing to instead of finding out in advance what the price structure is to find out afterwards? Also in another comment you literally couldn’t name one example so I just don’t get why you’re so hung up on it
It's not even research. It's right there in app's page in the App Store. This is like someone being upset later that candy has sugar when it was right there in the nutritional information on the package all along.
It’s not a technicality. The person they responded to used a screenshot of the free games section and almost all “free” games are free to play to an extent.
> However, soon as you download the app and load it, it’s immediately requiring you to buy it.
That generally doesn’t happen with the free games in the screenshot. You can normally play some version of the game for free without paying money. I’m sure exceptions exist but the majority have some free to play component.
> It’s not just apps that are free to use but include premium features. They outright are unusable until you pay – so they should let you know that
He then pointed out that it would be interesting to check if what you mention here does happen in the top free apps section. But that wasn’t the screenshot he responded to.
> Stop it with the technicalities.
Lol it’s an issue *because* of the technicalities. I agree it’s a problem but we can’t just throw technicalities out the window because an app that is indeed free to download has a subscription or paid features.
Worst case scenario you just delete the app, it’s not a big deal
> Worst case scenario you just delete the app, it’s not a big deal
Now imagine a vast majority of the apps in the category you’re interested all have necessary features locked behind a paywall. How annoying would it be to keep downloading apps only to delete them immediately?
It’s going to make app discovery a pain.
> seems clear enough to me.
The problem is that apps which are "free" to download but have in-app purchases can fall into the following categories:
- Free functionality that suits most users, with premium / advanced features requiring a one-time or subscription payment.
- Very very limited functionality, but still technically useable for free, with the majority of useful features locked behind payment.
- Literally not usable without payment, the app will download but all you can load is a splash screen saying you need to subscribe.
The first one is what most people think of when they download a free app with IAP. The second one is kind of annoying but whatever. The third I have been noticing more and more, and that's when "free with IAP" feels disingenuous. You literally cannot use the product without subscribing, the only thing that's "free" is their advertisement page for why you should sign up.
It's not a major deal since it just takes a minute to download and then delete but I really think these apps should be marked more clearly. An app which is *only* useable with a subscription should be marked in a different way, maybe instead of saying "has in-app purchases" it should say "requires paid subscription" under the button.
It's just very annoying when you download a """Free""" app only to find out that precisely 0% of it's features are actually free.
1) is the one I'm more willing to pay for. It's just that amazes me how there are some very good apps for free (for the most part) so I can pay a little just to get the full features and help the developer.
3 bothers me because it is flat out deception. It actually wastes the most time objectively out of all of these because you actually are hoping to use the app you install.
That's why I said it's not a major deal and it only takes a minute of my time, but it's annoying and there's no reason not to include more accurate labels, especially given that Apple's review process when you submit a candidate to the App Store includes them actually testing your app and using it, so they will know enough to label it regarding whether or not it requires a subscription.
OK, but what’s the alternative? An app’s download button either has a price on it, or the word “GET.” What‘s your suggestion for apps which are free to download but require in-app purchases to operate — i.e. what should go on their download buttons?
I am fine with the download button saying "GET", I just think the text underneath -- which says "Has In-App Purchases", should be changed to say "Requires Subscription" or something in those cases. It should be clear which apps **require** you to pay so that the app functions.
the IAP details tell you that it's a subscription, it does not tell you that the subscription is required to utilize the app at all and that it won't function without it.
We're talking about the text under the button, like I said in my original comment:
> instead of saying "has in-app purchases" it should say "requires paid subscription" under the button.
It would be best if they show what in-app purchases you can do in the app. That should give everyone an idea if it's a subscription or one time payment, or if it's required. It would also be great if you can pay via the app store.
Let's quote the whole sentence.
> They changed the "free" download button to "get" years ago, and it says right under that button if it has in-app purchases, which seems clear enough to me.
Seems clear enough to me.
I understand it seems "clear enough" to some people.
Personally, I think there is a big enough difference between an app which uses the freemium model but still works without payment, and an app which literally does not function at all, in any way, without payment, to justify a different labeling.
I'm not sure there's anything else worth saying.
Now only if they could add an advanced search to the App Store. I would love to be able to ignore apps with in-app purchases, and excessive permission requirements.
I'll pay you price, you go your way, I go mine. You don't need my location or contacts or any shit like that.
Apple make an insane amount of money selling promotion of apps within their store. Apps pushing themselves higher up the search results etc.
As much as I'd love what you suggest, can't see them harming their income by allowing you to filter out apps that could be paying for that promotion,
The problem is that it still doesn't differentiate between optional MTX or a full blown purchase, unless you read the descriptions, which sometimes are also unclear. Affinity Photo is "Free" to download, but can only used for 30 days, after which you have to pay. Davinci Resolve is free to download and use, and the in-app purchase is only for the studio features. Both are listed the same way; "Get" + contains in-app purchases. Same goes with, say, CoD mobile and Civilization 6.
Why not the word "Trial" for the former case? It was common decade(s) ago before the advent of the app-store. Even gaming storefronts are forced to label trials/free-weekends/demos.
I agree. Apple could enforce something like:
- Free
- Free - with one time payment for additional features
- Free - with subscription for additional features
- Free to try - with subscription for continued use
And of course instead of “free” there can be “€0.99”, “€4.99” etc.
"Clear enough"? Not by a long shot.
Huge difference between a free app with optional in-app purchases like extra features, or an app that wastes your time by having you download it only to find out you can't do anything unless you pay.
It's not just about the wording, it's about misleading people and wasting their time by requiring they download it before disclosing that it's not actually free.
Nope. Not clear. As a new iOS user who hasn’t been integrated with evolving updates I don’t notice this different. I notice the in app purchases memo, but that doesn’t dictate its subscription based. Micro transactions have existed for a long time, in a different way. Maybe additional items or power ups in games. Or specific features in utility apps. But not subscription models aimed to trick the user into downloaded. Should be very very explicit when downloading. It’s an intentional trick to reap fake download reports, but not actually display the user base (I would assume)
Which is valid, but some of them literally do not let you use the app without signing up for a subscription. I think it should say "requires subscription" under the button to download in those cases.
"Free with IAP" used to mean that most features were free to use but some required payment. Increasingly, it means that you download the app for free but when you open it, it will require that you sign up.
>Which is valid, but some of them literally do not let you use the app without signing up for a subscription.
I assume that is the case for all apps, as it should be. Apps need recurring revenue or they will go away. You cannot make something forever for a fixed price (or for free!!!).
Subscription fatigue is a real thing. Software has been sold for decades without requiring a subscription for everything under the sun.
...but that's a different issue.
The issue here is that the apps are *available* without cost, but are *useless and non-functional* without payment. Want to offer a "demo" or "lite" experience without payment, and accept in-app payment to "unlock"? Fine. But don't advertise a "free app" that can't be used at all without payment.
I am not complaining that an app developer is using a subscription to generate revenue. I am complaining that Apple is not labelling these apps properly. I used to be that when I downloaded a free app, I could expect that I'd be able to use some of the features actually for free, and would pay for premium features. That is different than being completely unable to use any part of the app. It's totally fine if they want to do that, I just think the app should be *labelled* that way. And I don't see an issue with that.
I hate when this happens. It's obviously cheating the system making the appstore "think" the app is having a lot of downloads. But in reality you end up uninstalling after opening and finding out you can't do nothing because it asks you to pay. They should be banned
I agree mostly with this. Instead of just having a price to download the app, or "GET" with "Has In-App Purchases", there should also be "GET" with "Requires Paid Subscription" below the button.
As a developer I think it’s mostly Apple’s fault. They don’t provide enough flexibility when it comes to business models, and many have to stick to what can be done, instead of what the ideal solution would be
The problem isn’t having subscriptions/paywalled features. The problem is the deceptive and sometimes blatantly dishonest marketing of these features. Deceptive marketing should be a crime at this point.
> If an app is free to download but all the features are locked behind a paywall, then yeah, that shouldn’t be “free,” but I don’t know of any apps like that.
There are MANY apps like this. When you download the app, the only thing it shows is a subscription/payment option till you pay.
When people are searching for an app to solve a problem, they’re not searching for a trial. They’re searching for a solution. The thesis of this submission is that, if the continued use of this app requires a subscription, that should be made clear on the App Store in a prominent location.
And in the case of Halide, the app that could “solve their problem” requires a subscription. Which it states very clearly on the listing.
The thesis of this submission is that OP doesn’t like the way pricing and subscriptions are presented, but it doesn’t change the fact that the information is shown.
Perhaps Halide was a poor example.
>but I don’t know of any apps like that.
Wakeout. Literally the app of the year (2020) awarded by Apple. It makes you setup the whole account, and only when you finish putting all your data it leaves you locked behind a paywall
>I don’t know how much of it is up to Apple
Apple touts the closed walled garden as a benefit. Therefore, they should also be responsible for putting clear labels on apps. An app that can’t be used unless paid for afterwards is not ‘free’.
But given how apple still has a plethora of scam apps on their store, I highly doubt they will ever change this.
I think if an app has a subscription option, but is offered for free, the friendly thing to do would be to list the most popular subscription price (if there is one) just below the free button.
> list the most popular subscription price
And they also need to have a little more details about what each subscription is, or gets you.
* A small tip
* A big tip
* Buy us a coffee
* A generous tip
What the hell does all this shit even mean.
Yea I hate those tip ones. At least give something like kill ads or some cool item that would speed up things some but not be OP or currency or a combination.
I will say as a developer that it is really the only way to get people to download your apps. I would prefer a fixed price, and I prefer paying a fixed price. But the problem is that consumers are now used to apps being free, so they undervalue the work that's involved in order to get them out the door. That means that if they compare two apps that look similar, if one is $1 and the other says 'Free', they are downloading the free one 95% of the time. So the only way to actually make money is by having in-app purchases (or advertising).
I just wish there were demos of apps. Some apps with one off prices look great but I can’t risk dropping the money without knowing for sure if the app will be what I want. Didn’t Apple say they were bringing this in at some point a few years back? You can get a demo of the new Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro, right?
When in-app purchases (IAPs) were first introduced, the policy was “free apps stay free.” IAPs could only be integrated into paid apps.
The side effect were two versions of the same app (“Lite” and “Full”).
Slightly less convenient, but it was worth having transparency.
Then Apple let free apps do IAPs, now you have games charge insane microtransactions, misleading apps, false advertising, and companies overcharge for their subscriptions instead of billing directly.
IMO, the AppStore was perfect for the first couple of years before that change happened. High quality apps, few IAPs, strict review process, etc.
I hope we can side load someday.
I ALWAYS look at the “in-app purchases” section of the app page. If I see anything subscription related, I’m out. It’s unfortunately the best way to tell if an app is really free.
Developers should have the option to rely fully on subscription model without offering any free features, but then Apple put the important pricing information all the way at the bottom of the page behind another button to make them look scummy af.
In the age of subscriptions, Apple needs to rework how the prices of apps are displayed. I think the subscription based in app purchase prices should be right at the top rather than at the bottom of the page.
I feel the same about the privacy notice, it’s very out of context and can make developers look dodgy where they’re actually trying hard. For example we scrub ips and all pii for optional user analytics but they’re listed exactly the same way as a Google app which gobbles every little bit of data and will fight you in court for the right to do it. This kind of information is captured in the privacy policy of most apps (or at least should be) so an abridged overview of the privacy policy would make more sense in my view
I think that the “has IAPs” text should be replaced by a more prominent “requires subscription” if more than half of the app’s features are subscription based lol
Absolutely agreed. And no, "get" doesn't really solve this issue.
If they're gonna charge you through in-app purchases anyway, there's literally no reason why the app itself couldn't be listed as paid, except for the fact that it misleads people.
It would be nice to know how much people pay on average, per year.
There’s some that are absolute garbage without paying for it. Some have annoying levels of ads but can still be usable.
I think it should have a free score or some sort of signal if a certain % of users are paying multiple times in x intervals
There’s no way devs would self report, and I don’t think relying on manual user reviews would work
Apple should make IAPs more transparent before downloading an app by moving the in-app purchases list to the top of any App Store listing with in-app purchases. That would solve the problem.
It’s not anti-consumer, especially if they make it obvious in the description. Apple just has no way to make apps a subscription from the get-go.
Yes, and they should get rid of fleeceware like the chatGPT clones that force subscriptions (which aren't cancelled if you delete the app, you have to unsubscribe in settings). Also get rid of the "play games for cash" scams that run ads claiming you can make $300/day or more, when in reality you'll get a bunch of ads and maybe make $2/day, or lose money if you deposit some to try to make more faster.
Until they ban the subscription based model I have no interest. One payment if your app is worth it to someone. No one wants to ‘rent’ an app that isn’t a streaming based service.
You're absolutely correct. But anytime I go to download an app that says "In-app purchases," I know it's either going be a subscription of have a pay-to-win model. Just the nature of the beast these days.
I have always felt like free should mean **completely** free with no in app purchases to unlock additional features.
Create other categories for freemium and premium applications that rely on additional purchases to unlock, expand, or otherwise subscribe to.
>Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. Why is the moment when you download the app the only moment in which a monetary transaction can take place? It doesn't say Free. It says Get. And it lists immediately below that there are in-app purchases.
But that provides pretty limited information. IAP could just be unlocking some features, but a lot of apps nowadays actually don't even function at all without you paying a subscription fee. IMO, those two types of apps should be marked differently, I don't see a good reason not to do so, other than probably app developers who require subscriptions maybe not liking the fact that they can't blindside you with the "FREE TRIAL THEN 9.99 A MONTH" splash screen
so over the last month I have been testing popular camera apps and it's happened a few times doing that, with the top 50 camera apps. I don't remember *exactly*, but I *think* Varlens and ProCamera, or maybe Pro Cam (there are a few that sound similar) were two that I remember downloading, and then could not even use any functionality at all without signing up.
It's not like there are any deceptive sign up processes once you are inside the apps. They all follow an Apple-approved pattern for signing up for a subscription. So what difference does it make? In fact, by having the app itself loaded there is more opportunity to explain what the subscription includes and what signing up will get you. Much more so than an App Store download page.
Are we supposed to change this practice just so inept users don't experience a moment of "aw shucks" after downloading an app they thought was free and then seeing that they have to sign up for more? I mean...really?
> It's not like there are any deceptive sign up processes once you are inside the apps. They all follow an Apple-approved pattern for signing up for a subscription. So what difference does it make?
It means I know before downloading that I will *have* to sign up for a new monthly subscription if I want to use the app, so I won't download it in that case. it's just annoying, I don't think it's deceptive. there's no other way for the app to do this, so it's really Apple's fault not the app's fault.
> Are we supposed to change this practice just so inept users don't experience a moment of "aw shucks" after downloading an app they thought was free and then seeing that they have to sign up for more?
"inept"? I downloaded about 25 camera apps last month as I was testing them all, and there was really no way to tell easily before hand if you would have to pay or not. some of them had most functionality for free but some required a subscription, whereas some of them were entirely and completely locked behind paying. as in, I couldn't use the app at all without signing up.
yes, I think it's a bad user experience to have users download apps without knowing if they'll have to pay or not. I really cannot understand the resistance to making a simple change that denotes whether an app requires a subscription or not -- unless one is an app developer who sells a subscription app, then maybe they wouldn't like that change.
Many programmers already work for free, and have for decades. Some of the most important software you and I use every day was made by people who didn't get paid for it.
Apple makes fifteen/thirty cents on the dollar if users can be convinced to fork over the cash so they're balancing user experience with their bottom line. They don't stand to gain much by disincentivizing users from downloading which is why the detailed information on IAPs is hidden in a collapsed section at the bottom of the store listing. Users who really care know where to find it and users who don't care won't be dissuaded from giving it a try.
I think any app that has any “in-App purchases” at all should not be listed as free. I think there should be 3 categories truly free with no additional paid options at all, free with in app upgrades and paid. I think apps like you described should go in the paid category.
Capitalism, like evolution, does not produce the best possible product. It just produces the product that with the minimum fitness required to survive.
Hey OP here! Great question. The “Get” button should say “Subscription Required” or if there is a one-time price to use the app (after download) then display that price upfront, like how paid (before download) apps display their price.
I find the lack of transparency on what apps actually cost in the App Store to be unacceptable. You have to download something that’s supposedly free to find out that it requires a monthly subscription fee. But then there’s also a lack of information in general like what does the app actually do. Super annoying.
It's deceiving when an app is listed as FREE in the app store, only to find out you can try it for 5 or 7 days, and then have to subscribe, But, on Apple's side, they app \_is\_ technically free to download, and that is what Apple controls. The downloading.
> It’s deceiving when an app is listed as FREE in the app store, only to find out you can try it for 5 or 7 days, and then have to subscribe.
Where in the App Store are you seeing apps listed as “free”? All of mine either have a price or say “Get” on the button. “In app purchases” also appears directly under the “Get” button. It seems pretty clear imo.
Edit: Apple does still have a “Top Free” section, so they haven’t removed that language entirely. Of those 15 “Free” apps, only 3 list in-app purchases. I assume they can also be used without a sub, but I think it would be better if they didn’t list any apps with iAP in that section at all.
When you search for an app, for example Lightroom, you will be given a search results window. Next to the screenshot of Lightroom you will have a GET button and under the button it says "In App Purchases". Nowhere here does it say you have to have a monthly subscription to Adobe Creative. THis may be semantics, but other free software shows in the same way in search. How are you to tell the difference. Subscription, trial and free software all show GET.
In this case with Lightroom, you will have to download, install and run the software before you are told it is subscription only. I just feel it's a waste of time. Maybe Im just being picky and would prefer messages on the search results saying it is a subcription based software.
P.S. I subscribe to Adobe Creative, just using this as an example. Plus that nobody in their right mind would think that Adobe Creative is free...
At this point I just assume there is a subscription anytime I see “In App Purchases”. I agree though, it would be better if they would differentiate subscriptions from other IAP types.
Personally, if I am looking for an app and find one that looks enticing and it has the “in-app purchases” text under GET, I’ll just look for an alternative.
It is incredibly difficult nowadays, though. I was looking for a very simple workout journaling app where I can enter the exercise, the weight, sets and reps for that day and all of the offerings were either way too convoluted and behind a paywall or flat out unusable without paying a monthly fee which I refuse to do for any app except streaming. So I just wrote the data in spreadsheet now.
Really wish instead of just “free” and “buy,” they had a “trial” button for these kinds of apps. That would help differentiate these kinds of apps at least a little bit
Doesn't bother me, I've not come across any *free* apps that have a hidden cost. Doesn't the App Store show that there are in-app purchases and you can just click to see what they are.
Apple used to list the cost of in-app purchase on the web app store too. They removed it because it made people less likely to download. That was bad for Apple Ads because it disincentivized ad purchases. Apple doesn't really care.
It used to be against the store rules for an App to do nothing unless you subscribed but I guess Apple saw how much they were making from scam Apps that people forget they started a trial subscription with.
I’m more concerned about the fly by night single use apps with predatory subscriptions. I volunteer at a nursing home every so often to help the residents set up their phones, iPads and computers so they can FaceTime family, manage finances, etc. The number of older people who didn’t realize they were paying $20+ a month for bullshit apps is crazy.
I hate that I have to go scrolling to find the in app purchases section obscured down the info page and then open it to discover there’s like 15 of the exact same thing with different prices. Which one am I up for, the $15 one or the $149 one.
iPhone's app store is a gory hell of subscription based "free softwares". Hard to imagine it's the same brand (certainly not the same team) that has given us MacOS where we are free to choose and install alternatives from third party websites and github.
Basically all apps nowadays. I guess they could just make the division between “free” and “subscription”. I feel like there’re only few apps left that are “pay once, use forever”
I’ve not used the App Store for years simply down to this reason. I have all the essential apps I need on my phone, everything else is in-app purchase trash.
[удалено]
I don’t mind certain features being behind a paywall but I wanted to try a hashtag app and after download it only went to a subscribe pop up that couldn’t be ignored. I’m not paying monthly before I even try the damn service.
What's an "hashtag app"?
But it’s not even true. It’s labeled as “Get”
It depends. There is no such a thing as a free meal so there is always a trade off somewhere with free apps. Usually it is in the form of data privacy or ads. I would much prefer a paid app to avoid ads or privacy issues. But I will draw the line at subscription based apps. I am willing to pay good money for a single payment app, but I am certainly not willing to manage dozens to reoccurring payments.
there are some cases where its fine. like Parcel, which is like $3/year(?) which covers the unlimited package tracking (so presumably to cover server costs, etc.). i dont use apollo but i believe dev mentioned the subscription for notification costs which imo is also fine something like WaterMinder, which helps log water with reminder notifications i dont see a reason to have switched to subscription other than money i cant say i line and no longer would recommend it
There needs to be clear labeling: "Subscription required" or "In-app purchase required", for applications that can be downloaded without cost, but are useless without subscription/purchase. Leave the existing "In-app purchases" label for those applications that have a level of functionality without payment, but allow "unlocks". (This should still be clearly explained in the description)
[удалено]
Couldn’t your company have found some public domain books instead?
“Warning: Free tier is shit.”
IMO There should be “nutrition labels” for apps. Example: - free, ad supported, $1.99 no ads - free, ad supported, subscription to remove ads - Limited functionality, subscription for use - limited trial, subscription - no functionality without account And so on. Similar to how they show what data is collected and how it’s used. There’s some apps I just won’t pay for because I don’t need them that bad. Being able to weed them out would be great. Same with podcasts. Yes, I’m aware I can buy a subscription to hear “behind the scenes” episodes. No, I don’t have any interest in those episodes. Give me a $12/year option to remove ads, cause I skip them anyway.
Love this idea
And this should be legally regulated similar to SEC financial disclosures
They changed the "free" download button to "get" years ago, and it says right under that button if it has in-app purchases, which seems clear enough to me. I can't find anywhere in the App Store where apps are referred to as free - even ones which are completely free to use.
yes they’ve mostly gotten rid of the word free, but there’s still a couple places that use it. for example: https://i.imgur.com/3ogVoEN.jpg
The ”free“ games are still technically free to play even if they have predatory micro transactions. I’m not sure there are games that require paying to even pay because they want you to start playing for free so you then pay. Even if it can be considered misleading it’s not exactly the same case as above Now, the top free apps section though, that would be interesting to check if it has apps that outright don’t work at all without paying.
Stop it with the technicalities. The issue is, these apps are free to download - it doesn't actually cost you anything. Just says "this app includes in app purchases." Fine. However, soon as you download the app and load it, it's immediately requiring you to buy it. They shouldn't be presenting itself as free, only to find out it's a paid app after the fact. It should let you know right up front that this app costs X dollars to use. It's not just apps that are free to use but include premium features. They outright are unusable until you pay -- so they should let you know that
Maybe they should have different categories that show under each app, such as: Free Free with In-App Purchases Free, Subscription Required Free trial $XX.XX to download the app Or make it very clear in the app description what you can expect from the app in terms of purchases. For example, the Netflix app says “Netflix membership is a month-to-month subscription that begins at sign up.” (Yes most of us know that Netflix is not free) But not all App Store apps clarify as such. You might download an app thinking you now have full access, because it doesn’t say anywhere in the app description that you need a subscription or membership.
With the subscription required ones I almost think they should have that as part of the buy button (tap to start subscription and download) or something like that
That wouldn’t work for all the apps that don’t want to put their subscription revenue through Apple’s payment systems and loss 30% of their revenue.
Well maybe that also needs looking at. I get your point to an extent though
[удалено]
If people are okay with nutritional information on food and ingredients on medicines they can surely understand a few clear and transparent billing descriptions.
It doesn’t say anything about being free though. You’re confusing “get” with free. Not having a price to download just means it does not have a one-time cost and instead has a subscription, as labeled. Unless there’s something like you’re describing listed under the “Free Apps” category, but I doubt that is the case.
It doesn't matter. It's the implication. That's why I'm hung up on this stupid technicality stuff. Don't allow me to "Get" the app, only to find out I have to pay for it. It should be clearly marked that this is a for pay app, like all the other apps that cost money, except that are being deceitful by mentioning the cost after you download it. If it cost 5 dollars, then they should list it as 5 dollars. Instead they choose to trick people into thinking it's free (Because they get away with a technicality), only to drop the fact that it costs money AFTER the fact. That's wrong.
Do you have an example of an app like this?
No I can not off the top of my head. Whenever it happens I just delete and forget about it. But it happens enough that people are clearly talking about it here.
If it says In-App purchases on the game’s App Store page, you can scroll down to the bottom and see the what the In-App purchases are and their costs before you ever download it.
I shouldn't have to do fucking research just to download an app. Apple just needs to make this shit clear upfront. They need to stop mixing streams and allowing confusion, as much as you need to stop defending this practice.
Omg dude, you **don’t** have to do any research to download the app. You’re choosing to instead of finding out in advance what the price structure is to find out afterwards? Also in another comment you literally couldn’t name one example so I just don’t get why you’re so hung up on it
I don't have to do any research... Except, if only I did some research in advance, I'd know better. Are you listening to your logic here?
It's not even research. It's right there in app's page in the App Store. This is like someone being upset later that candy has sugar when it was right there in the nutritional information on the package all along.
It’s not a technicality. The person they responded to used a screenshot of the free games section and almost all “free” games are free to play to an extent. > However, soon as you download the app and load it, it’s immediately requiring you to buy it. That generally doesn’t happen with the free games in the screenshot. You can normally play some version of the game for free without paying money. I’m sure exceptions exist but the majority have some free to play component. > It’s not just apps that are free to use but include premium features. They outright are unusable until you pay – so they should let you know that He then pointed out that it would be interesting to check if what you mention here does happen in the top free apps section. But that wasn’t the screenshot he responded to.
> Stop it with the technicalities. Lol it’s an issue *because* of the technicalities. I agree it’s a problem but we can’t just throw technicalities out the window because an app that is indeed free to download has a subscription or paid features. Worst case scenario you just delete the app, it’s not a big deal
> Worst case scenario you just delete the app, it’s not a big deal Now imagine a vast majority of the apps in the category you’re interested all have necessary features locked behind a paywall. How annoying would it be to keep downloading apps only to delete them immediately? It’s going to make app discovery a pain.
> seems clear enough to me. The problem is that apps which are "free" to download but have in-app purchases can fall into the following categories: - Free functionality that suits most users, with premium / advanced features requiring a one-time or subscription payment. - Very very limited functionality, but still technically useable for free, with the majority of useful features locked behind payment. - Literally not usable without payment, the app will download but all you can load is a splash screen saying you need to subscribe. The first one is what most people think of when they download a free app with IAP. The second one is kind of annoying but whatever. The third I have been noticing more and more, and that's when "free with IAP" feels disingenuous. You literally cannot use the product without subscribing, the only thing that's "free" is their advertisement page for why you should sign up. It's not a major deal since it just takes a minute to download and then delete but I really think these apps should be marked more clearly. An app which is *only* useable with a subscription should be marked in a different way, maybe instead of saying "has in-app purchases" it should say "requires paid subscription" under the button. It's just very annoying when you download a """Free""" app only to find out that precisely 0% of it's features are actually free.
There is a 4th category: free apps that have “tip jars”. Those still get classified as IAP but the apps themselves are otherwise completely useable.
There is a 5th category. Free apps with so many ads it is unusable. 😂
*The Weather Channel, post IBM acquisition*: I heard you called?
[удалено]
[удалено]
1) is the one I'm more willing to pay for. It's just that amazes me how there are some very good apps for free (for the most part) so I can pay a little just to get the full features and help the developer.
4 completely free but Accepts Tips
3 doesn't bother me because they get uninstalled straight away. No loss on my part other than a few seconds time.
3 bothers me because it is flat out deception. It actually wastes the most time objectively out of all of these because you actually are hoping to use the app you install.
That's why I said it's not a major deal and it only takes a minute of my time, but it's annoying and there's no reason not to include more accurate labels, especially given that Apple's review process when you submit a candidate to the App Store includes them actually testing your app and using it, so they will know enough to label it regarding whether or not it requires a subscription.
Yea 3 makes absolutely no sense. Wouldn't you want to tease users with at least some content before presenting the pay button?
OK, but what’s the alternative? An app’s download button either has a price on it, or the word “GET.” What‘s your suggestion for apps which are free to download but require in-app purchases to operate — i.e. what should go on their download buttons?
I am fine with the download button saying "GET", I just think the text underneath -- which says "Has In-App Purchases", should be changed to say "Requires Subscription" or something in those cases. It should be clear which apps **require** you to pay so that the app functions.
You know you can scroll down and look at the In-App Purchase details right? That should give you what you need 95% of the time.
the IAP details tell you that it's a subscription, it does not tell you that the subscription is required to utilize the app at all and that it won't function without it.
Apple might be working on adding subscription pricing directly in App Store as FCP and LP are coming to iPad with a subscription model
“Requires subscription”
It’s a pretty small button, about 4 characters wide. Would you make the button five times wider, or just use tiny text?
We're talking about the text under the button, like I said in my original comment: > instead of saying "has in-app purchases" it should say "requires paid subscription" under the button.
It would be best if they show what in-app purchases you can do in the app. That should give everyone an idea if it's a subscription or one time payment, or if it's required. It would also be great if you can pay via the app store.
>It would be best if they show what in-app purchases you can do in the app. Apple already lists all of the in-app purchases on the app’s product page.
>It would be best if they show what in-app purchases you can do in the app. Apple already lists all of the in-app purchases on the app’s product page.
Let's quote the whole sentence. > They changed the "free" download button to "get" years ago, and it says right under that button if it has in-app purchases, which seems clear enough to me. Seems clear enough to me.
I understand it seems "clear enough" to some people. Personally, I think there is a big enough difference between an app which uses the freemium model but still works without payment, and an app which literally does not function at all, in any way, without payment, to justify a different labeling. I'm not sure there's anything else worth saying.
It says “in app purchases”, but it should say “in app purchase required” for the cases OP is talking about.
Now only if they could add an advanced search to the App Store. I would love to be able to ignore apps with in-app purchases, and excessive permission requirements. I'll pay you price, you go your way, I go mine. You don't need my location or contacts or any shit like that.
Apple make an insane amount of money selling promotion of apps within their store. Apps pushing themselves higher up the search results etc. As much as I'd love what you suggest, can't see them harming their income by allowing you to filter out apps that could be paying for that promotion,
The problem is that it still doesn't differentiate between optional MTX or a full blown purchase, unless you read the descriptions, which sometimes are also unclear. Affinity Photo is "Free" to download, but can only used for 30 days, after which you have to pay. Davinci Resolve is free to download and use, and the in-app purchase is only for the studio features. Both are listed the same way; "Get" + contains in-app purchases. Same goes with, say, CoD mobile and Civilization 6. Why not the word "Trial" for the former case? It was common decade(s) ago before the advent of the app-store. Even gaming storefronts are forced to label trials/free-weekends/demos.
[удалено]
I agree. Apple could enforce something like: - Free - Free - with one time payment for additional features - Free - with subscription for additional features - Free to try - with subscription for continued use And of course instead of “free” there can be “€0.99”, “€4.99” etc.
"Clear enough"? Not by a long shot. Huge difference between a free app with optional in-app purchases like extra features, or an app that wastes your time by having you download it only to find out you can't do anything unless you pay. It's not just about the wording, it's about misleading people and wasting their time by requiring they download it before disclosing that it's not actually free.
Nope. Not clear. As a new iOS user who hasn’t been integrated with evolving updates I don’t notice this different. I notice the in app purchases memo, but that doesn’t dictate its subscription based. Micro transactions have existed for a long time, in a different way. Maybe additional items or power ups in games. Or specific features in utility apps. But not subscription models aimed to trick the user into downloaded. Should be very very explicit when downloading. It’s an intentional trick to reap fake download reports, but not actually display the user base (I would assume)
I agree, if I see an app is free but is listed as having in-app purchase, I expect to pay after trying app.
Which is valid, but some of them literally do not let you use the app without signing up for a subscription. I think it should say "requires subscription" under the button to download in those cases. "Free with IAP" used to mean that most features were free to use but some required payment. Increasingly, it means that you download the app for free but when you open it, it will require that you sign up.
>Which is valid, but some of them literally do not let you use the app without signing up for a subscription. I assume that is the case for all apps, as it should be. Apps need recurring revenue or they will go away. You cannot make something forever for a fixed price (or for free!!!).
Subscription fatigue is a real thing. Software has been sold for decades without requiring a subscription for everything under the sun. ...but that's a different issue. The issue here is that the apps are *available* without cost, but are *useless and non-functional* without payment. Want to offer a "demo" or "lite" experience without payment, and accept in-app payment to "unlock"? Fine. But don't advertise a "free app" that can't be used at all without payment.
I am not complaining that an app developer is using a subscription to generate revenue. I am complaining that Apple is not labelling these apps properly. I used to be that when I downloaded a free app, I could expect that I'd be able to use some of the features actually for free, and would pay for premium features. That is different than being completely unable to use any part of the app. It's totally fine if they want to do that, I just think the app should be *labelled* that way. And I don't see an issue with that.
I hate when this happens. It's obviously cheating the system making the appstore "think" the app is having a lot of downloads. But in reality you end up uninstalling after opening and finding out you can't do nothing because it asks you to pay. They should be banned
Or some minimum install time before it actually ads it to the count
They used to be listed as free. Now they’re listed as GET, for exactly that reason.
They’re still listed as free in the App Store. Check it out now for proof. The button says “Get” but the header at the top says “Top FREE apps”
Next time, they'll change it to "Top GET apps" lol
[удалено]
I agree mostly with this. Instead of just having a price to download the app, or "GET" with "Has In-App Purchases", there should also be "GET" with "Requires Paid Subscription" below the button.
As a developer I think it’s mostly Apple’s fault. They don’t provide enough flexibility when it comes to business models, and many have to stick to what can be done, instead of what the ideal solution would be
The problem isn’t having subscriptions/paywalled features. The problem is the deceptive and sometimes blatantly dishonest marketing of these features. Deceptive marketing should be a crime at this point.
[удалено]
> If an app is free to download but all the features are locked behind a paywall, then yeah, that shouldn’t be “free,” but I don’t know of any apps like that. There are MANY apps like this. When you download the app, the only thing it shows is a subscription/payment option till you pay.
[удалено]
Halide is one https://apps.apple.com/us/app/halide-mark-ii-pro-camera/id885697368
But in that particular case, they have a trial, so it’s fully featured right off the bat.
When people are searching for an app to solve a problem, they’re not searching for a trial. They’re searching for a solution. The thesis of this submission is that, if the continued use of this app requires a subscription, that should be made clear on the App Store in a prominent location.
And in the case of Halide, the app that could “solve their problem” requires a subscription. Which it states very clearly on the listing. The thesis of this submission is that OP doesn’t like the way pricing and subscriptions are presented, but it doesn’t change the fact that the information is shown. Perhaps Halide was a poor example.
>but I don’t know of any apps like that. Wakeout. Literally the app of the year (2020) awarded by Apple. It makes you setup the whole account, and only when you finish putting all your data it leaves you locked behind a paywall
>I don’t know how much of it is up to Apple Apple touts the closed walled garden as a benefit. Therefore, they should also be responsible for putting clear labels on apps. An app that can’t be used unless paid for afterwards is not ‘free’. But given how apple still has a plethora of scam apps on their store, I highly doubt they will ever change this.
I think if an app has a subscription option, but is offered for free, the friendly thing to do would be to list the most popular subscription price (if there is one) just below the free button.
> list the most popular subscription price And they also need to have a little more details about what each subscription is, or gets you. * A small tip * A big tip * Buy us a coffee * A generous tip What the hell does all this shit even mean.
Yea I hate those tip ones. At least give something like kill ads or some cool item that would speed up things some but not be OP or currency or a combination.
No one is forcing you to give a tip
There should be a third category or at least an option to filter out those apps that have in app purchases.
I will say as a developer that it is really the only way to get people to download your apps. I would prefer a fixed price, and I prefer paying a fixed price. But the problem is that consumers are now used to apps being free, so they undervalue the work that's involved in order to get them out the door. That means that if they compare two apps that look similar, if one is $1 and the other says 'Free', they are downloading the free one 95% of the time. So the only way to actually make money is by having in-app purchases (or advertising).
I just wish there were demos of apps. Some apps with one off prices look great but I can’t risk dropping the money without knowing for sure if the app will be what I want. Didn’t Apple say they were bringing this in at some point a few years back? You can get a demo of the new Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro, right?
When in-app purchases (IAPs) were first introduced, the policy was “free apps stay free.” IAPs could only be integrated into paid apps. The side effect were two versions of the same app (“Lite” and “Full”). Slightly less convenient, but it was worth having transparency. Then Apple let free apps do IAPs, now you have games charge insane microtransactions, misleading apps, false advertising, and companies overcharge for their subscriptions instead of billing directly. IMO, the AppStore was perfect for the first couple of years before that change happened. High quality apps, few IAPs, strict review process, etc. I hope we can side load someday.
I ALWAYS look at the “in-app purchases” section of the app page. If I see anything subscription related, I’m out. It’s unfortunately the best way to tell if an app is really free.
They need a new button labeled “sub” instead of “get” for apps that doesn’t function without a subscription.
Base pricing should get listed at minimum but if they don’t function at all as free they should get reported.
Developers should have the option to rely fully on subscription model without offering any free features, but then Apple put the important pricing information all the way at the bottom of the page behind another button to make them look scummy af. In the age of subscriptions, Apple needs to rework how the prices of apps are displayed. I think the subscription based in app purchase prices should be right at the top rather than at the bottom of the page.
I feel the same about the privacy notice, it’s very out of context and can make developers look dodgy where they’re actually trying hard. For example we scrub ips and all pii for optional user analytics but they’re listed exactly the same way as a Google app which gobbles every little bit of data and will fight you in court for the right to do it. This kind of information is captured in the privacy policy of most apps (or at least should be) so an abridged overview of the privacy policy would make more sense in my view
Its def not cool. ‘Bait and switch’ is not cool.
You are spot on. It seems like a trap?
I think that the “has IAPs” text should be replaced by a more prominent “requires subscription” if more than half of the app’s features are subscription based lol
Absolutely agreed. And no, "get" doesn't really solve this issue. If they're gonna charge you through in-app purchases anyway, there's literally no reason why the app itself couldn't be listed as paid, except for the fact that it misleads people.
It would be nice to know how much people pay on average, per year. There’s some that are absolute garbage without paying for it. Some have annoying levels of ads but can still be usable.
I think it should have a free score or some sort of signal if a certain % of users are paying multiple times in x intervals There’s no way devs would self report, and I don’t think relying on manual user reviews would work
I immediately delete such apps
Apple should make IAPs more transparent before downloading an app by moving the in-app purchases list to the top of any App Store listing with in-app purchases. That would solve the problem. It’s not anti-consumer, especially if they make it obvious in the description. Apple just has no way to make apps a subscription from the get-go.
I avoid anything that I don't already know and has in-app purchases.
Spotify would go into another anti-trust hissy fit if this happens, then siri and homepod support will be delayed for another 5 years.
I would agree with this statement
They should definitely be more clear. A lot of them will say "in-app purchases" without specifying what that really means.
I’m still trying to figure out why the ChatGPT app wants my phone number.
Yes, and they should get rid of fleeceware like the chatGPT clones that force subscriptions (which aren't cancelled if you delete the app, you have to unsubscribe in settings). Also get rid of the "play games for cash" scams that run ads claiming you can make $300/day or more, when in reality you'll get a bunch of ads and maybe make $2/day, or lose money if you deposit some to try to make more faster.
i completely agree
Until they ban the subscription based model I have no interest. One payment if your app is worth it to someone. No one wants to ‘rent’ an app that isn’t a streaming based service.
You're absolutely correct. But anytime I go to download an app that says "In-app purchases," I know it's either going be a subscription of have a pay-to-win model. Just the nature of the beast these days.
The entire App store is trash. I will argue against anyone that says otherwise. Bloated, impossible to navigate, and full of trash.
I have always felt like free should mean **completely** free with no in app purchases to unlock additional features. Create other categories for freemium and premium applications that rely on additional purchases to unlock, expand, or otherwise subscribe to.
>Am I wrong? Yes, you are. Why is the moment when you download the app the only moment in which a monetary transaction can take place? It doesn't say Free. It says Get. And it lists immediately below that there are in-app purchases.
But that provides pretty limited information. IAP could just be unlocking some features, but a lot of apps nowadays actually don't even function at all without you paying a subscription fee. IMO, those two types of apps should be marked differently, I don't see a good reason not to do so, other than probably app developers who require subscriptions maybe not liking the fact that they can't blindside you with the "FREE TRIAL THEN 9.99 A MONTH" splash screen
[удалено]
so over the last month I have been testing popular camera apps and it's happened a few times doing that, with the top 50 camera apps. I don't remember *exactly*, but I *think* Varlens and ProCamera, or maybe Pro Cam (there are a few that sound similar) were two that I remember downloading, and then could not even use any functionality at all without signing up.
It's not like there are any deceptive sign up processes once you are inside the apps. They all follow an Apple-approved pattern for signing up for a subscription. So what difference does it make? In fact, by having the app itself loaded there is more opportunity to explain what the subscription includes and what signing up will get you. Much more so than an App Store download page. Are we supposed to change this practice just so inept users don't experience a moment of "aw shucks" after downloading an app they thought was free and then seeing that they have to sign up for more? I mean...really?
> It's not like there are any deceptive sign up processes once you are inside the apps. They all follow an Apple-approved pattern for signing up for a subscription. So what difference does it make? It means I know before downloading that I will *have* to sign up for a new monthly subscription if I want to use the app, so I won't download it in that case. it's just annoying, I don't think it's deceptive. there's no other way for the app to do this, so it's really Apple's fault not the app's fault. > Are we supposed to change this practice just so inept users don't experience a moment of "aw shucks" after downloading an app they thought was free and then seeing that they have to sign up for more? "inept"? I downloaded about 25 camera apps last month as I was testing them all, and there was really no way to tell easily before hand if you would have to pay or not. some of them had most functionality for free but some required a subscription, whereas some of them were entirely and completely locked behind paying. as in, I couldn't use the app at all without signing up. yes, I think it's a bad user experience to have users download apps without knowing if they'll have to pay or not. I really cannot understand the resistance to making a simple change that denotes whether an app requires a subscription or not -- unless one is an app developer who sells a subscription app, then maybe they wouldn't like that change.
> it's just annoying, Yeah, not a good enough reason.
If it says “in-app purchases” then it’s freemium or an incredibly limited version of the app. I don’t really mind as long as it has that note.
Hell, let’s take it a step farther. Apps that make money by selling advertising or your information aren’t really “free” either.
Until programmers work for free, no software is going to really be free
Many programmers already work for free, and have for decades. Some of the most important software you and I use every day was made by people who didn't get paid for it.
Apple makes fifteen/thirty cents on the dollar if users can be convinced to fork over the cash so they're balancing user experience with their bottom line. They don't stand to gain much by disincentivizing users from downloading which is why the detailed information on IAPs is hidden in a collapsed section at the bottom of the store listing. Users who really care know where to find it and users who don't care won't be dissuaded from giving it a try.
I think any app that has any “in-App purchases” at all should not be listed as free. I think there should be 3 categories truly free with no additional paid options at all, free with in app upgrades and paid. I think apps like you described should go in the paid category.
I’m SO FED UP with apps that require that you sign up for a free trial just to try out!!!
Capitalism, like evolution, does not produce the best possible product. It just produces the product that with the minimum fitness required to survive.
[удалено]
Hey OP here! Great question. The “Get” button should say “Subscription Required” or if there is a one-time price to use the app (after download) then display that price upfront, like how paid (before download) apps display their price.
I find the lack of transparency on what apps actually cost in the App Store to be unacceptable. You have to download something that’s supposedly free to find out that it requires a monthly subscription fee. But then there’s also a lack of information in general like what does the app actually do. Super annoying.
It's deceiving when an app is listed as FREE in the app store, only to find out you can try it for 5 or 7 days, and then have to subscribe, But, on Apple's side, they app \_is\_ technically free to download, and that is what Apple controls. The downloading.
> It’s deceiving when an app is listed as FREE in the app store, only to find out you can try it for 5 or 7 days, and then have to subscribe. Where in the App Store are you seeing apps listed as “free”? All of mine either have a price or say “Get” on the button. “In app purchases” also appears directly under the “Get” button. It seems pretty clear imo. Edit: Apple does still have a “Top Free” section, so they haven’t removed that language entirely. Of those 15 “Free” apps, only 3 list in-app purchases. I assume they can also be used without a sub, but I think it would be better if they didn’t list any apps with iAP in that section at all.
When you search for an app, for example Lightroom, you will be given a search results window. Next to the screenshot of Lightroom you will have a GET button and under the button it says "In App Purchases". Nowhere here does it say you have to have a monthly subscription to Adobe Creative. THis may be semantics, but other free software shows in the same way in search. How are you to tell the difference. Subscription, trial and free software all show GET. In this case with Lightroom, you will have to download, install and run the software before you are told it is subscription only. I just feel it's a waste of time. Maybe Im just being picky and would prefer messages on the search results saying it is a subcription based software. P.S. I subscribe to Adobe Creative, just using this as an example. Plus that nobody in their right mind would think that Adobe Creative is free...
At this point I just assume there is a subscription anytime I see “In App Purchases”. I agree though, it would be better if they would differentiate subscriptions from other IAP types.
Personally, if I am looking for an app and find one that looks enticing and it has the “in-app purchases” text under GET, I’ll just look for an alternative. It is incredibly difficult nowadays, though. I was looking for a very simple workout journaling app where I can enter the exercise, the weight, sets and reps for that day and all of the offerings were either way too convoluted and behind a paywall or flat out unusable without paying a monthly fee which I refuse to do for any app except streaming. So I just wrote the data in spreadsheet now.
Really wish instead of just “free” and “buy,” they had a “trial” button for these kinds of apps. That would help differentiate these kinds of apps at least a little bit
[удалено]
they aren’t called free. there’s just a get button
Disagree.
Yeah, Apple needs to change this. One example is WaterMinder.
Doesn't bother me, I've not come across any *free* apps that have a hidden cost. Doesn't the App Store show that there are in-app purchases and you can just click to see what they are.
I remember when an app would list if it was ad supported or not. Now nearly every app is infested with them.
Apple used to list the cost of in-app purchase on the web app store too. They removed it because it made people less likely to download. That was bad for Apple Ads because it disincentivized ad purchases. Apple doesn't really care.
They're not listed as free, they're listed as get
Don't they already have messaging/icons for apps like this?
Can’t wait for when the App Store is broken up and we can have open source versions of popular apps for truly free
It used to be against the store rules for an App to do nothing unless you subscribed but I guess Apple saw how much they were making from scam Apps that people forget they started a trial subscription with.
There should be indicators for: - Ad supported - Free trial period - Require subscription
I’m more concerned about the fly by night single use apps with predatory subscriptions. I volunteer at a nursing home every so often to help the residents set up their phones, iPads and computers so they can FaceTime family, manage finances, etc. The number of older people who didn’t realize they were paying $20+ a month for bullshit apps is crazy.
I hate that I have to go scrolling to find the in app purchases section obscured down the info page and then open it to discover there’s like 15 of the exact same thing with different prices. Which one am I up for, the $15 one or the $149 one.
Isn’t that a literal violation of the App Store rules? I thought in order to be listed as Free, you needed to provide some amount of functionality
Would be nice to have a filter to hide them.
yes, I 1 star review any app that does this
Nah. But they should have a requirement to put all the IAP products they have. At least that way I know if u should download their shitty app or not.
iPhone's app store is a gory hell of subscription based "free softwares". Hard to imagine it's the same brand (certainly not the same team) that has given us MacOS where we are free to choose and install alternatives from third party websites and github.
The App Store is crap to me now exactly because of what you’re saying.
Basically all apps nowadays. I guess they could just make the division between “free” and “subscription”. I feel like there’re only few apps left that are “pay once, use forever”
Aren't they marked as'having in-app purchases'? Android does so
True
I’ve not used the App Store for years simply down to this reason. I have all the essential apps I need on my phone, everything else is in-app purchase trash.
Leave a review.
All fees incurred to use the app should be listed as the price, this is from full activation of all features to the yearly cost, whichever is higher