On Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:25:29 AM UTC, hackbod wrote: How about using it to be able to put your app up on market as a free trial > version, using in-app billing to unlock the full version? >
I've been thinking about this since the announcement yesterday. I used to think this was a good use for in-app billing, but now I'm not so sure. My issue is with how to present the app. That's *app,* singular, because you'll only have one, as opposed to the lite/pro or trial/unlock pairs which are common now. With this current approach, especially lite/pro, users understand what they're getting with the free aspect. They see "Lite" in the title, and they immediately know they're not getting the whole enchilada. Expectations are managed. If the app is all-in-one (unlocked through in-app billing), I'm betting many users won't realize that they need to pay until AFTER they install it. It's well established that a large percentage don't read the Market description. So then they'll be annoyed that they didn't get the full version, with crappy 1* Market comments following soon after. Not a recipe for success. OTOH, I've had good results with separate lite/pro apps. My top-selling app was fed by a Lite version which rose in the Free rankings of its category, then more recently has fallen back down. But not before the Pro version rose high enough to gain decent visibility on the Paid side, and it's now doing well enough that it doesn't need the support of Lite any more. Moral: with two apps, you get two shots at success. I'm not saying that in-app billing to unlock a trial may not be right for some apps, some devs. Just that I, for one, am not convinced. String -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
