InAppPurchase
Latest
Daily iPad App: Rich Notes is another snazzy note-taking solution for your iPad
There are a ton of great note-taking apps out there for the iPad at this point (one of my favorites is Penultimate), and because there are so many available, choosing one is really up to personal preference at this point. Rich Notes is a relatively new entry to the pantheon, but it's free (which is always nice), and will let you take fully formatted notes on your iPad you like. The app is simple and clean, and features full text formatting (bold, italic, and underline to start), iCloud compatibility, the ability to share your notes out via email or copy them to the clipboard, and a nice wide landscape orientation editor for typing into. The one real issue I have with Rich Notes is the fact that much of the app's really shiny formatting options (like the ability to use strikethrough text, change the text's color, or use highlighting) are hidden behind in-app purchases. That you have to buy these features isn't so bad (obviously the app's developer worked hard, and deserves to be paid for his work), but the buttons for these features are permanently in the interface, and you are only reminded that you need to purchase them once you've gone through, selected your text, and then hit the "highlight" button, for example. That can be frustrating, especially when you're in the middle of taking notes fast and want to highlight something without remembering that you haven't made the in-app purchase yet. So it would be nice if the IAP features were a little more well-thought out. Obviously, buying the features means you won't have any problems, but the model is just a little weird (especially because, from what I've seen, many purchasers of productivity apps are more than happy to pay for a well-made experience). At any rate, if you want another notes app to try out, Rich Notes is currently available as a free download on the App Store. I doubt it will sway you away from a solution if you've already found something you love, but again, finding a notes app you like at this point is mostly a matter of personal taste. So in that light, it's probably worth a try.
Daily iPhone App: Theatrhythm Final Fantasy
Theatrhythm Final Fantasy is a really interesting gift from Square Enix for Final Fantasy fans. It's a music game that was originally released on the Nintendo 3DS earlier this year, in which players can play a touchscreen game with songs culled from Final Fantasy soundtracks, supported by a progression RPG game featuring stylistic versions of characters from throughout the Final Fantasy series. It's very much fan service: If you love the songs and the characters from these games, you'll love seeing and playing along with them in this form. Now the game's been brought over to iOS' single-screen platform. The game plays just as well as it did on the 3DS, and in some ways it's even better. You especially see this on the iPad, where the bigger screen gives lots of room to show off the game's clear and colorful graphics. Any Final Fantasy fan will love finding the references and hearing these songs again in this context is a really great experience. The only issue is the price. You can download the app for free, and it comes with two songs, so anyone who wants to simply try out the game can do so without consequence. Buying songs can be an issue, because they aren't cheap. Each track is US$0.99 and bundles run for $2.99. But if you want to get the whole thing, you'll be paying quite a bit of money. That makes sense to a point, because the 3DS game is still available for $30 or more in stores. But Square's a little greedy here, because buying all of the songs costs more than the 3DS purchase. Of course, Square Enix can set the prices to whatever it wants, but usually the App Store calls for a bit of a break. At any rate, buying a few of your favorite songs won't set you back too far, and the game is just as good as the 3DS version. If you're a Final Fantasy fan, definitely don't miss this one.
Paper by FiftyThree updated with innovative color mixing
Back when TUAW posted a review of Paper by FiftyThree for iPad (free, with in-app purchases for brushes and other features), one of the complaints I had was that the app worked with a limited palette of nine colors and didn't provide a way for artists to mix their own virtual paints. Well, a new upgrade to Paper available today provides a color mixing capability and other new features as well. The new features in version 1.2.1 of Paper by FiftyThree include the Mixer, a way to create your own custom palettes. The Mixer, like many features available in the app, is an in-app purchase (US$1.99) and it uses a virtual "paint pot" to blend colors. If you're not thrilled about mixing your own colors, there are three new palettes included with the app. One of the other great features of the new version is the addition of support for Ten One Design's Pogo Connect pressure-sensitive stylus ($79.95), which TUAW reviewed a few weeks ago. Pressure input works quite well when drawing, sketching or even painting with Paper by FiftyThree. The upgrade, like the app, is available for free on the App Store.
DevJuice: Beeblex offers in-app purchase validation services
The security of iOS in-app purchases is a hot topic after an IAP hacking server was launched last week by a Russian developer. When The Next Web talked to Alexey Borodin, he told them he's since turned the service over to an unnamed third party -- and, as of that conversation, he'd collected only $6.78 in donations to cover his costs. While we strongly advised users to steer clear of this theft-of-service hack, that doesn't solve the problem for developers waiting on Apple to come up with a fix. In the interim, indie startup Beeblex may provide a validation workaround for developers. Some background: The underlying framework for all IAPs in iOS is StoreKit, covered in depth in my iOS Cookbook. Every successful StoreKit purchase transaction contains a receipt. This receipt, which is sent in raw NSData format, corresponds to an encoded JSON string. It contains a signature and purchase information. Apple strongly recommends that you validate all receipts with their servers to prevent hacking and ensure that your customers actually purchased the items they are requesting. You POST a request to one of Apple's two servers. The URL you use depends on the deployment of the application. Use buy.itunes.apple.com for production software and sandbox.itunes.apple.com for development. The request body consists of a JSON dictionary. The dictionary is composed of one key ("receipt-data") and one value (a Base64-encoded version of the transaction receipt data). I normally use the CocoaDev NSData Base 64 extension to convert NSData objects into Base64-encoded strings. CocoaDev provides many great resources for Mac and iOS developers. A valid receipt returns a JSON dictionary. The receipt includes the transaction identifier, a product ID for the item purchased, a unique ID, the bundle ID for the host application, and a purchase date. Most importantly, it returns a status. A valid receipt always has a 0 status. Any number other than 0 indicates that the receipt is invalid. Simply checking for the status may not be sufficient for validation. It's not too difficult to set up a proxy server to intercept calls to the validation server and return JSON {"status":0} to all requests. What's more, the receipt data that is sent along with the validation request can be easily deserialized. For that reason, always use receipt validation cautiously and as part of the overall purchase process, where it's less likely that proxy servers can override communications with Apple. Enter Beeblex. They just launched a free IAP validation service for iOS apps that, according to their marketing text, "verifies IAP receipts against Apple's servers" using time-limited tokens and strong encryption to limit IAP purchase end-runs. Encryption prevents "man in the middle" attacks; time limited tokens prevent replay attacks. Together they make it much less likely that a simple proxy could successfully spoof an IAP reciept and fool your app into providing something for nothing. It's an intriguing option. The advantage seems to be that Beeblex provides a server component for apps developed without one. Still, I'm not sure I'd want my apps to rely on a third party service when any service interruption could create a large angry user base. I wonder how Beeblex will pay for the bandwidth necessary to facilitate this service, and what would happen should they get hacked. Hacking could be a big deal, because it'd circumvent potentially hundreds or thousands of apps, instead of just one. [Update] Marco Tabini, one of the Beeblex developers, writes, "One thing that I wanted to point out is that we have, in fact, thought about the possibility that our service may go down by building methods inside the SDK that would inform the app of transaction failures due to networking errors. Of course, you are completely right that we need to show that we can grow and maintain the service, and we have a lot of work ahead of us in this respect. We'll do our best!" I'd probably feel a lot more comfortable buying from a well-known quantity than relying on a free start-up. Urban Airship doesn't appear to provide this kind of service. I gave them a call and a sales guy said it's not an option. [Update] CEO Scott Kveton replied to my email saying, "Yes we do IAP receipt verification." He adds a note from his team: "This is not really a security problem. It's long been known that you can put your own root CA on iPhones, and at that point you can basically do anything as a proxy. The people being bitten by this on the IAP side are only those that are not doing receipt verification with Apple out of band via a server, which is something we do in our IAP product as a standard. If you do out of band receipt verification, this fails and nothing is purchased/granted." My feelings on IAP and piracy are this (in no particular order): Developers use IAP too much, and often without regard for the user experience. Requiring IAP in apps for kids is, in my opinion, evil -- it should be strongly discouraged by Apple policy. If your app requires IAP to bypass gameplay segments, your game design needs some serious reconsideration. Focus on providing good experiences for your paying users instead of fighting piracy. If your anti-piracy protections tick off even one paying customer you have lost the war. Trying to fight piracy is a losing proposition with one exception. The one exception is scalable server support. If pirates are killing your servers, either find another app to build or try to limit the impact of unpaid customers. Don't save IAP unlocks in plain text files. There are keychains and other more secure solutions available.
Instacast pricing raises hackles: are apps bought or rented? [Updated]
Update: I made a mistake about Instacast's support for notifications in the original draft of this article. Please read my corrections at the end. My apologies, readers. --Rich The release of Instacast v2.0 ruffled some feathers recently. Vemedio, publishers of the popular podcasting app, have taken the unusual step of switching business models with the new release. The old version of the app cost US$2.99; now it's $0.99 for the basic version, with an in-app purchase (IAP) to upgrade to Instacast Pro for a further $1.99. However, several features that used to be in the v1.0 app, like push notifications (update: see note at end of post) and the ability to re-order podcasts in the list, have moved to the Pro version. This means existing customers who upgrade to the new releases have to pay again to access them. (I'm going to dub this tactic the Instacast Maneuver.) Unsurprisingly, this hasn't gone down too well with some longtime customers, who feel they are being unreasonably double-dipped. Angry one-star reviews for the latest version are accumulating in iTunes -- although, to be fair, they are far outnumbered by positive reviews by people who like the new interface. I think this is an interesting story, and it ties into something I've been meaning to write for a long time about the non-intuitive meanings of "ownership" in our increasingly on-demand all-digital world. "It's only two bucks!" One of the most common reactions to the criticism is that it really isn't much money and, basically, people should stop whining. As accurately stated by Harry Marks, we spend more money than this on bad coffee without blinking. Software upgrades of OS X cost $29, and Windows or Photoshop (amongst many others) can cost hundreds of dollars -- does two bucks matter? Certainly, I think it's absolutely fair to say that it's not a lot of money to anyone who can afford an iPhone or even an iPod touch in the first place. We're talking about devices that cost hundreds of dollars -- thousands when often-mandatory cellular contracts are added on. But... Between my iPhone and iPad, I have at least 250 third-party apps. Many of those were free, but if just a fifth of my apps dinged me $2 via the Instacast Manoeuvre, I'd be looking at $100. That's not chickenfeed to me and it probably isn't to you either. So it's my contention that even if you think $2 for Instacast 2.0 is fantastic value, there's still a debate to be had here about value to the end user. If, like Seth Clifford, you don't love Instacast but merely think it "sucked the least of all the [podcasting] apps"; well, then that conversation takes on a different tone. "Support the devs" A similar argument commonly advanced to silence critics is that Instacast is a written by a small dev who needs the money; if you like the app, is it going to kill you to pay a little more for a new version? This is the angle the Vemedio company blog takes and it's certainly one I have some time for. Instacast isn't a top-tier app; many iOS users don't care about podcasts and most of the those who do are satisfied by Apple's built-in support. By definition of what the app does, Instacast is chasing a quite small niche of users and it shares those users with a number of high quality competing apps. So Vemedio needs to establish a regular income stream, hopefully enough to support the firm and permit future development of the app. Presumably, the users want that, so surely it's churlish of them to complain about being asked to chip in a few bucks? The problem is that many of them feel ripped off. Firstly, Vemedio took the unusual step of moving existing features into the extra-cost Pro version of the app. That's a questionable decision. Secondly, because of the App Store rules, there's no way for Vemedio to charge upgraders a reduced fee; it's all or nothing. Which brings us to... "It's all Apple's fault!" The App Stores both Mac and iOS restricts developers to well-defined ways to make money from their software: charge upfront, charge via In-App Purchase for add-ons, and/or charge subscriptions for ongoing services. Notably missing, as veteran Mac developer Wil Shipley of Delicious Monster has written extensively, is any sort of paid upgrade option. Imagine you're GadgetSoft and you've just released WidgetThing v1.0 to great acclaim. All ten of its main features are popular. You have some great ideas for how to expand and improve it, but it's going to take a good chunk of time and effort to do so. At the end of that effort, you'll be able to release WidgetThing v2.0 with five new features in only one of two ways: as an in-place upgrade, meaning all your existing customers get it for free. Or as an entirely new app, in which case your existing customers have to pay all over again. Economics theory tells us that WidgetThing v2.0 should be priced for new customers according to its 15 features, but priced for existing customers according to the extra five features it has over v1.0. It has different values to those two groups of customers, so should have different prices too. Apple, for whatever inscrutable reason, doesn't let app makers do this. Charging longstanding customers full whack for upgrades is likely to be perceived as gouging; giving them upgrades in perpetuity for free is no way to run a business. Inevitably, some app makers simply won't bother. Chances are there are some fantastic v2.0 or v3.0 apps that have never left the drawing board because the developers simply couldn't justify it economically. But why is it so bad to just give updates away for free? Isn't that a bit greedy? The answer is... The race to the bottom We only have ourselves to blame. Picture the dawn of the App Store back in 2008 as a group of users in the middle of a big circle of developers. No-one knew how much to charge for anything; these were untested waters, an entirely new business model for consumers and creators. Nervous developers stepped up and pitched price points and users started buying apps. The savviest developers watched each other like hawks, nudging prices up and down in response to each other -- but mostly down, and down, and down. About nineteen metaphorical seconds later, the nervous circle had turned into the bellowing hustle of the NYSE's trading floor, with everyone hollering lower and lower prices until many apps hit rock bottom: $0.99. The average price of an app today is $2.00, and the modal price is surely the dollar-store low water mark. Look at the initial iTunes reviews of any app costing more than three bucks and someone will inevitably call it expensive. We know that many apps lose money; I have my doubts about the survey those results were drawn from but I think the general conclusion that only a lucky few devs make serious money from the App Store is a pretty common sense one. The race for the bottom -- the race we all subconsciously encourage whenever we held out to buy a $1.99 app in case it goes down to $0.99 in a sale -- means devs of even moderately successful apps are often left struggling for revenue. Is it any wonder developers need to resort to every method they can think of to make ends meet? The workaround Surely this is all a storm in a teacup. Why can't existing users of Instacast v1 simply not upgrade to the new version? Well, Apple doesn't make that very easy. There's no way to mark a specific version as "unwanted" in the App Store upgrade screen. If you accidentally hit Upgrade on that app just once, there's no way back -- unless you have manually extracted a backup of the older version of the app from iTunes, which is less likely than ever in this era of iCloud-powered backups. Worst of all, you have to resign yourself to never again using the Update All button. If you don't have many apps, it might not be that much of a bother to manually upgrade, one by one, every one except Instacast. Other people, however, have hundreds of apps (I'm one) and receive dozens of updates a week (yo). Particularly given the App Store app's baffling habit of kicking you out to the home screen after each press of the upgrade, it quickly moves through tedious and into downright irritating. The bigger picture So far I've mostly been talking about Instacast, but the issues I'm describing affect more than just that one app. Consider Tweetie, Loren Brichter's beloved Twitter app. I paid for Tweetie twice -- once for version one and again for version two, at a cost of $2.99 each time. I was delighted with each purchase, as Tweetie was easily the best-of-breed Twitter client at the time. Until, that is, Twitter bought it, relaunched it as "Twitter for iPhone", and eventually "blessed" it with dubious UI decisions and ads (later withdrawn) and more ads. From the second I upgraded from Tweetie to Twitter, the app I'd cherished and paid for (twice!) was gone, with no easy way to get it back. For another example, consider the recent rumors that Rock Band for iOS would be shut down. EA claim this was "an error", although how that's possible is yet to be explained (particularly given this entry in the company FAQ which has since been removed). Looking beyond iOS, EA is also famous for disabling online support in its console games, sometimes for games as little as seventeen months old. Once the servers are turned off, the entire online portion of the game stops working. The game you paid for is gone for good. These tricky issues of ownership aren't even just about software. Sony removed the OtherOS feature from PlayStation 3 consoles after it emerged that people were using it as a jailbreak vector. A firmware update appeared, and boom -- just like that, my PS3 could no longer run Linux (and unlike many people, I'd actually installed Linux on my PS3). I could refuse the update, as long as I never wanted to play another game online. Not a great choice. There are almost endless examples of these, and things are only getting more complicated as companies think of new ways to use and abuse the power that over-the-air updates and digital downloads give them over consumer purchases. Sooner or later, someone is going to push the envelope too far, and we're going to have some juicy class-action lawsuits over it. Until then, caveat emptor. But let's return to the matter at hand -- the Instacast Maneuver. I think it arose from the limitations Apple has imposed on the App Store combined with the sometimes precarious finacial situation that some app devs can find themselves in. Vemedio are far from the only developers in this situation, so I am sure other app devs are watching how this goes closely as they ponder if they will follow along this path. Overall, though, I have to come down against Vemedio on this one (update: please see the update below.) Not for the use of In-App Purchase itself; I think that was a fairly reasonable way around the lack of paid upgrades on the App Store. What I can't get away from the moving of features, including big ones like push notifications, away from the normal version and into the Pro. I've already bought a version of Instacast that does push. I don't think it's right to charge me, or anyone else, twice for that feature. Update: I have accidentally propogated a common misunderstanding about Instacast, for which I must beg your forgiveness, reader. V1 of the app didn't have true Push notifications; it used local notifications only for some basic alerting. As several of my commenters below and Raphael Fetzer on Twitter have pointed out, the more dynamic Push notificaitons in Instacast Pro are genuinely new. I am grateful for the correction. Vemedio has also announced since this post was drafted (but before it went live) that the forthcoming Instacast v2.0.1 will make Smart Playlists available for free, i.e. in the base-level, non-Pro version of the app. Finally, the In-App Purchase upgrade to Instacast Pro is currently on sale for $0.99. In light of these changes, I humbly withdraw -- and apologise for -- my criticism of Vemedio above.
Ayopa Games to publish Escape from Age of Monsters, Patchwork Battles, more
Ayopa Games is a mobile games publisher that actually has its roots in Chillingo. Founder Johnny Coghlan was a former head of publishing there until Chillingo was acquired by EA. Coghlan has brought his mobile game-finding expertise to Ayopa, and this company's slate is almost as enticing as Chillingo's usual offerings. First up was an update to Dungeon Crawlers, a turn-based RPG developed by Drowning Monkeys. Version 1.1 of the title will add in-app purchases, a feature that was always planned but that the devs "knew wouldn't be in there for launch." The update basically adds a store to the game where players can spend gold either earned from inside the game or purchased with real-world money to pick up extra loot or other helpful items. Version 1.2 is due in another month or so, and that will add multiplayer functionality to the title, bringing in leaderboards and an Arena Mode. Players have also asked for a bestiary of the game's enemies, so that's coming too. Dungeon Crawlers is already a fairly popular title -- though like all turn-based strategy RPGs, it can be a little tough -- so it's good to see the team is supporting it with some sizable updates. Escape from the Age of Monsters is another title from Ayopa. Developed by Massive Joe and made by the same team that made Age of Monsters (plus comic artist Jeff Matsuda), that rock/paper/scissors style fighting game from a ways back. Escape is a endless running game, but while there are walls to punch through and pits to jump over, the big twist is you're running along with a few small children. The game's gag is that you only need to run faster than the children from the monster that's following you. If the monster eats three of them, it's just you left, so you then need to run as long as possible without getting caught. As with Age of Monsters, Matsuda's work brings the whole thing a great graphical look. While gameplay seems somewhat superficial, we'll have to play the title when it arrives in April to see how deep it goes. There were two more games that I thought worth mentioning, and Patchwork Battles is the first one. It's another turn-based battle game, a tactical RPG, but the heroes of the game are made completely out of found materials: things like cloth, foil, and other crafted items. You can combine any five body pieces to customize your characters (or "mimics," as the game's lore calls them). Put a healing arm on a rogue's body, for example, and you'll have a healing damage dealer. The story sounds expansive, and the RPG system seems very deep, so Patchwork Battles could be really amazing. The game should be out sometime this summer, with multiplayer and other features expected post-launch. Pocket Heroes is the last title Ayopa showed off. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see too much of it in action, as it's an online-only title and the Internet wasn't playing nice that day. But it sounds good: a multiplayer, co-op only RPG in which you explore a 16-bit 2D fantasy world with your friends asynchronously. We'll have to wait until the end of the month to see how it actually plays online. Ayopa is a relatively young company, but Johnny Coghlan's talent for picking great iOS games at Chillingo appears to have transferred well. I have no doubt we'll see a few of these games topping the charts in the future and quite a few more quality titles getting published by this company very soon.
Flurry: In-app purchases generating lots more revenue per user
Analytics firm Flurry has announced that in-app purchases are generating $14.66 per user per year in June of 2010, which is a few times larger than it has been in the past. Previously to 2010, the games tracked were generating only a few bucks per user per year, but in January the total jumped to around $9, and it's now in the double digits. Flurry says that money doesn't include ad revenue -- it's strictly profit from in-app purchases, either unlocking features or selling virtual goods. Whenever you talk about making money on free games, you have to talk about Ngmoco -- that company famously choose "freemium" as its business plan, and business appears to be good. Exec Simon Jeffery confirmed exactly that at a conference earlier this week -- while he can't discuss actual revenue, he says things are going well. And of course other companies who already know how to make money from free games (like Zynga, whose Farmville recently released on the iPhone) will see this as a big green light for joining Apple's platform. The revenue per user isn't the only important stat here -- Apple also has plenty of users to offer up. Disney's free Toy Story 3 app released recently, and has already picked up 1.7 million users, a good number of which probably bought the 99 cent in-app game offered up. Lots and lots of users spending a surprising amount of money inside their apps means lots and lots of revenue for both iPhone developers and Apple.
