android users - free app with ads + upgrade to pro version, or full version at $.99?

[purbeast0]

i just published an app to the google play store and i'm selling it for $.99. it is basically a game guide/moves list for a fighting game.

after about 3 weeks or so i am having somewhat decent sales, however there are other apps that are very similar to what i have out there, and they are free. some of them also have pretty bad reviews. but, they have a lot more downloads than my app does.

it seems from just reading and hearing people talk, the typical android user expects free apps rather than pay apps, and pay apps, even if they are better, they don't give them the time of day. i guess they don't mind ads in general, or they just use adblockers. the minute they see it is a pay app, they don't even bother checking it out.

i also have a feature in mine that is not in the other apps - it allows the user to enter their own custom combos and store them into the app, and can be viewed like the normal moves lists.

over the weekend i "converted" this into an app that i plan to submit and make it free, that now has banner ads at the top of the screen, and it also has interstertial ads pop up randomly when the user makes their "final" selection (as in, they select character, then the move type where it displays the moves for that selection) that just comes up randomly 1 out of 10 times, so its' not TOO overbearing.

i also made it so that the free version only allows the user to enter 1 or 2 (haven't decided yet) custom combos.

i have an in-app purchase that will allow the user to pay $.99 and it removes all ads and will also allow unlimited custom combos - which is exactly what the app does now for the 99 cent version.

now my question is, since i'm not in the android eco system, do you as android users think this is a good idea? the reason i ask is because with android, once you make your app free, there is no going back to a paid version. so if i flip this switch, there is no turning back. i already have it coded so that people who have the app right now will be "upgraded" to the pro version, so this is behind the scenes to them.

but does this seem like a smart move, to simply get the app out there to A LOT more people so they can at least see that mine offers more than the others, and it will tease them as well with the custom combos, and possibly get an upgrade?

as someone who has been in the iOS ecosystem all along, i am just not sure exactly the market for this, so i'm coming to AT where i know there are a lot of android users, to get an opinion on this because i'm kind of at a cross roads as to what to do at this point.

if i DO "flip the switch" and it goes well, i may look at doing the same thing for my iOS version as well.

 

[sweenish]

Even with the extended return window, I don't like dropping money to go into an app blind, even if the amount is small.

Whatever method is used, I generally prefer a demo. <-- This is my main point.

I've gone in blind a couple times, and refunds are easy enough to get, but I'd rather not. It took me way longer than it should have to buy Weather Timeline just because its description never said it had widgets, and I had to pay money to find out.

If you do go free + IAP, I think it would be good to give a brief outline of what the IAP is in the Play Store description to curb some of the people that will drop 1-star reviews for having IAP.

 

[purbeast0]

Even with the extended return window, I don't like dropping money to go into an app blind, even if the amount is small.

Whatever method is used, I generally prefer a demo. <-- This is my main point.

I've gone in blind a couple times, and refunds are easy enough to get, but I'd rather not. It took me way longer than it should have to buy Weather Timeline just because its description never said it had widgets, and I had to pay money to find out.

If you do go free + IAP, I think it would be good to give a brief outline of what the IAP is in the Play Store description to curb some of the people that will drop 1-star reviews for having IAP.

yeah i will definitely describe the IAP in the description right at the beginning probably. and limiting the custom combo number to 1 or 2 will give them basically a demo of what the feature does and how it works, and then they can decide if having that is worth the 99 cents or not. the rest of the app will work just as it does in the paid version, only with ads displaying.

 

[cliftonite]

I hate ads and always pay for the ad-free version.

 

[purbeast0]

I hate ads and always pay for the ad-free version.

but would you be more likely to pay for an ad-free version if there was a free version you could try out first, before you make that decision, rather than just browsing the store for apps in that area, and then seeing one for 99 cents and purchasing it?

 

[Jeraden]

I've never paid for an app without either trying a free version first, and wanting the paid version. Or else going off of word-of-mouth where people say it's definitely worth the 99 cents, or however much a particular app is.

Even with ads, I usually just put up with the ads, though there have been a few occasions where I paid more to get rid of them.

In my opinion, the best business model - and the one that has gotten me to buy an app more often, is to release a free version with basic functionality, but have a paid version that has additional functionality. So you can use the free version to try it out, but if you like it enough and want the extras, you pay. That might not work for every kind of app though. And it really depends on whether you are looking to actually make money vs. doing it for fun and just trying to get an app out there that people like. Some people might be fine with the basic functionality and never have a need to upgrade to the paid version.

 

[gorcorps]

You have the right idea in making it free to download with an upgrade option. I know it's only a buck, but there's something about spending a buck when there are free options out there that feels wrong. So yes... lure them into your web with the free version, and hopefully when they see the quality of your app is better they'll pay for it. The major concern when buying a digital product is not getting what you expected, and having nowhere to turn when you don't like what you bought.

So yeah, it sounds like you're on the right track and I'd make the switch if it was my call to make.

 

[Commodus]

I'd say ad-free with an in-app purchase that removes them and adds new features.

Let's face it, piracy is much more of a problem on Android than on iOS, and that's especially true if you're not releasing a blockbuster title that already has people convinced they should pay off the bat. I know game developers (like Epic and id Software) that specifically refused to support Android for that reason. It's better to go free and get exposure from lots of legit downloaders than wind up with legions of people giving you zero revenue (or my favourite, asking for help with a stolen app).

 

[cliftonite]

but would you be more likely to pay for an ad-free version if there was a free version you could try out first, before you make that decision, rather than just browsing the store for apps in that area, and then seeing one for 99 cents and purchasing it?

Yes that would be helpful, especially on higher priced apps. But 99 cents = impulse buy most of the time.

 

[purbeast0]

I'd say ad-free with an in-app purchase that removes them and adds new features.

Let's face it, piracy is much more of a problem on Android than on iOS, and that's especially true if you're not releasing a blockbuster title that already has people convinced they should pay off the bat. I know game developers (like Epic and id Software) that specifically refused to support Android for that reason. It's better to go free and get exposure from lots of legit downloaders than wind up with legions of people giving you zero revenue (or my favourite, asking for help with a stolen app).

i'm assuming you meant free and with ads, and not without ads heh.

 

[Commodus]

i'm assuming you meant free and with ads, and not without ads heh.

Er, yes. It was Monday morning, sorry!

 

[Viper GTS]

I'm not sure you're going to get worthwhile sampling data from a site like this. People who post on a tech site are (purely IMO of course) more likely to recognize the value of software, less likely to tolerate ads, and more likely to have a higher impulse buy threshold.

I actively avoid in-app purchase apps, I'd much rather just pay up front. While I know I can return apps I've never done it - Even in cases where I realized immediately that it would not do what I wanted. I've also never pirated anything on Android, my time is worth too much to bother when we're talking <$5 apps.

I know lots of more normal users though that value free above all else. They have never or rarely paid for any apps and won't consider one that is paid only.

Sadly the 'normal' users outnumber us 20:1 so you should probably go with the plan you are considering.

Viper GTS

 

[purbeast0]

I'm not sure you're going to get worthwhile sampling data from a site like this. People who post on a tech site are (purely IMO of course) more likely to recognize the value of software, less likely to tolerate ads, and more likely to have a higher impulse buy threshold.

I actively avoid in-app purchase apps, I'd much rather just pay up front. While I know I can return apps I've never done it - Even in cases where I realized immediately that it would not do what I wanted. I've also never pirated anything on Android, my time is worth too much to bother when we're talking <$5 apps.

I know lots of more normal users though that value free above all else. They have never or rarely paid for any apps and won't consider one that is paid only.

Sadly the 'normal' users outnumber us 20:1 so you should probably go with the plan you are considering.

Viper GTS

you also are well off enough to afford a Viper

but yeah, you are right in that sense that maybe not asking a tech forum full of mostly adults is the best place, but a lot of people on here also do know the market very well and what is going on with it, which is why i am asking here.

but in general too, android is definitely a more "budget" ecosystem than iOS is, and i want to just do what is best for the market that i am in.

i can tell you that my app has been out for about 8 days on iOS and about 20 on Android and i've made more off of iOS than android in that period of time. that is typical for the apps i've made though, and i think a lot of that is because in general, the android market "expects" free apps and doesn't really even look at the paid version of similar apps in many cases. however, that is just my conclusion from being on the outside of the market looking in, as a developer.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It comes down to expectations. For the Android side I think you are doing the right thing.

The problem with your approach is the unified ratings- aka the "free" version and the "pro" version share the same pool of reviews. On Android that isn't a problem, as people expect ads so they won't ding the free version for having ads. If you get complaints about the ads dragging down your reviews that is bad, but otherwise it seems win-win.

 

[purbeast0]

It comes down to expectations. For the Android side I think you are doing the right thing.

The problem with your approach is the unified ratings- aka the "free" version and the "pro" version share the same pool of reviews. On Android that isn't a problem, as people expect ads so they won't ding the free version for having ads. If you get complaints about the ads dragging down your reviews that is bad, but otherwise it seems win-win.

yeah, i definitely like that on Android you can at least leave a comment for every review people leave. even though that doesn't change the score they lave you, it at least gives you a chance to explain their issue.

the one thing i want to do though is make it so that interstertial ad that pops up isn't TOO intrusive. i initially was going to make it happen every time they make a "final" selection for their character. but then i read other reviews of other apps saying that there are too many ads popping up every 5 seconds, so i'm not going that route. i'm going to display them at random with a 10% probability of it coming up, when they make the final selection.

there are always going to be banner ads at the top though, and at the bottom i have an upgrade button that is i believe 50dp tall. and then when trying to create a new combo after they already have one, they get an alert dialog telling them the limit is one and to upgrade for the pro version for unlimited.

which i guess comes another question ... should i limit the combos to just 1 or do 2? (or 3?) initially i was going to do JUST 1, so it can give them a taste of how it works, but then i was thinking maybe 2, just so they can get more of a taste.

 

[Deeko]

Free with an upgrade option is definitely the way to go. People just won't pay for straight 99 cent apps, which frankly is ridiculous, it's a dollar, but that's the world we're in. I think you're going the right route - a pay option to remove ads and increase functionality.

 

[poofyhairguy]

which i guess comes another question ... should i limit the combos to just 1 or do 2? (or 3?) initially i was going to do JUST 1, so it can give them a taste of how it works, but then i was thinking maybe 2, just so they can get more of a taste.

2 is good I think. The line for Android is that the app is less a demo and more a lite version. I think 2 is enough you can use it for basic needs, but if you are serious you need more.

 

[Ravynmagi]

I think Google needs to do more to highlight it's 2 hour app return policy. Apple doesn't really have one (app has to be broken pretty much to get a refund) and Google used to have only a 15 minute refund window, so people are scared to try out a paid app.

Google should have a "Buy" and "Try" button. If you "Try" an app, it'll download and install and be usable for 2 hours. After two hours it prompts to you buy it or uninstall it. I think this would make people more comfortable trying out paid apps without the fear they'll forget to uninstall it in two hours and get charged for something they didn't try out yet.

I actually keep forgetting that 2 hour trial exists myself, I keep thinking it's 15 minutes, because it used to be. So I don't try out paid apps either. And I don't like to spend money on an app I haven't tested out yet (there are a lot of bad apps out there not worth a penny). So I look for "lite" or ad versions of apps and if I like it I'll purchase the upgrade or "pro" version.

 

[purbeast0]

yeah i'm going to give it a try. i just unpublished the pay one and am going to wait until it's off the store to upload the new one, because i'm setting a time threshold that anyone who had it before gets the pro version without paying, so i need to be sure there is a time frame when my app isn't on there. i'll report back with whether things go better/worse $$ wise.

 

[lothar]

I have never bought an "in-app" purchase, and I never will.
Either make the app free with ads, or make it $0.99 up front, or both.
Better yet, upload two separate ones. One for those that like ads for free with option to upgrade, and one for those that would like to pay up front.
Lots of developers already do this. "purbeast0" app with option to upgrade to pro version via an in-app purchase, and "purbeast0 PRO" app for those that want to purchase outright.

As a general rule, I don't do "in-app" purchases out of principle regardless of how good they may be.
I follow the same exact principle on Steam when it comes to DLC's. I don't care how good the DLC is, I won't purchase it. Either add it to the original game or add it to the expansion. I refuse to participate in "micro" transactions.

Why do you need to unpublish the paid one?

 

[purbeast0]

I have never bought an "in-app" purchase, and I never will.
Either make the app free with ads, or make it $0.99 up front, or both.
Better yet, upload two separate ones. One for those that like ads for free with option to upgrade, and one for those that would like to pay up front.
Lots of developers already do this. "purbeast0" app with option to upgrade to pro version via an in-app purchase, and "purbeast0 PRO" app for those that want to purchase outright.

As a general rule, I don't do "in-app" purchases out of principle regardless of how good they may be.
I follow the same exact principle on Steam when it comes to DLC's. I don't care how good the DLC is, I won't purchase it. Either add it to the original game or add it to the expansion. I refuse to participate in "micro" transactions.

Why do you need to unpublish the paid one?

having 2 SKU's for the same app is overall bad practice, even if you prefer it. the general consensus is that you want to simply have 1 SKU for 1 app, not 2 SKUs for 1 app.

i unpublished it so that i know there is a time frame where one could not download the paid version because i'm using a timestamp of the installation date as the threshold of if you downloaded it before X time, then you get the pro version. otherwise you get the free one and can do in app purchase if you choose.

 

[sm625]

I think you're on the right track. If people like your app they will pay to remove the ads and unlock extra features. The trick is to make them want those extra features.

 

[lothar]

having 2 SKU's for the same app is overall bad practice, even if you prefer it. the general consensus is that you want to simply have 1 SKU for 1 app, not 2 SKUs for 1 app.

i unpublished it so that i know there is a time frame where one could not download the paid version because i'm using a timestamp of the installation date as the threshold of if you downloaded it before X time, then you get the pro version. otherwise you get the free one and can do in app purchase if you choose.

How is it bad practice?

Nova Launcher, PowerAmp, Titanium Backup, and lots of other popular apps do this. They either have 2 SKU's for the same app with one for the free(or trial) version, and the other for the PRO version; or they have 1 SKU for the same app while the other app is a License key on the Play Store that one can purchase and not an "in-app" purchase. It doesn't seem to have affected their ratings on the Play Store. There is also a reason why the PRO versions of those apps have much higher ratings than the free version.

The problem with doing it your way is that the Play Store ratings will be combined and the "free with ads, limited features" and "PRO" version will share the same pool of reviews.

 

[purbeast0]

How is it bad practice?

Nova Launcher, PowerAmp, Titanium Backup, and lots of other popular apps do this. They either have 2 SKU's for the same app with one for the free(or trial) version, and the other for the PRO version; or they have 1 SKU for the same app while the other app is a License key on the Play Store that one can purchase and not an "in-app" purchase. It doesn't seem to have affected their ratings on the Play Store. There is also a reason why the PRO versions of those apps have much higher ratings than the free version.

The problem with doing it your way is that the Play Store ratings will be combined and the "free with ads, limited features" and "PRO" version will share the same pool of reviews.

i'm just talking based on what i've been reading about. the "preferred" method is to have 1 sku if it is the same app. doing it either way is just up to the developer. but general consensus is that best practice is to have 1 sku.

EDIT:

you do bring up a very good point though. depending how this test run goes, maybe i will do what you are saying with my iOS app. keep the paid version as is right now, and then have a second "lite" version that has in-app purchase.