Show a paid app w/ a "trial" option in the "free apps" category
When I create a paid app with a trial option, many users blow right by it because it doesn't show up in the "free" category even though a light version of the app is free (via the trial).
Some people are resorting to the super-inefficient Apple app store method of releasing 2 versions of the app... one that shows up in the "free" category and another that runs as a paid app. The "trial" is a fantastic concept, but it is hobbled by this oversight
Jeff B. commented
I started putting the text "Trial version is non-expiring (ad supported)" as the very first line in my description and it has helped somewhat with downloads. However, I am strongly considering adding a second " - FREE" version of the app as well, although I really don't want to have to do that. Being able to include these in the "free" section (or another section such as "Ad Supported") would be a great improvement.
Graham O'Neale commented
Also solution I see is free+paid should be a category. Honestly, in the end they are both free to download. If you wish to upgrade the features, or remove ads, or something like that, then you can pay. It should still initially be listed under free because it is (at whatever functionality level has been set by the developer).
Graham O'Neale commented
If Microsoft haven't realised this is a massive problem and oversight yet, I don't know what hope we have of it been done in the future :( I too release two versions, free and paid, get about 20x more downloads (honestly) than trials.
Vsevolod Alekseyev commented
I feel I'm losing trial downloads to sticker shock. My app is perfectly functional in trial mode, but I feel that when people see the price tag, they don't even consider that - they're scared away. Compared to other platforms (that are neither Android nor iOS), my WP8 trial download count is miniscule.
For now, I'm going to reengineer my app to use in-app-purchase-based licensing so that I can list it as free.
I buy sm app and nxt tym i see d same app, it gives two option either try or buy.
Another suggested options (should be visible in free and not called trials):
- Free with option to donate for the app...
- Free with ads, paid without ads
how can i get it
An app is either FREE or its not, there is no grey area
Lite versions of apps are just trials in disguise,
My definition of a FREE app is a fully functional product that i dont have to pay for
David Lorenzin commented
Best solution is to have 3 sub-choices
in case of Trial
- time expires
- time unlimited but feature limited (in this case to be listed on FREE too!)
- with banner
Free = no cost and no strings. Creating a new category is a better option.
Ravi M commented
yes, technically trial apps are free apps for limited time or with limited functionality.
This is a terrible idea. If you have a paid app and the same app free but with ads then there SHOULD be two versions, trial is supposed to be a taste of a paid app not a fully featured app with a different business model.
By the way, wouldn't your solution cause an inflation of fake trial apps, just to go under the free section ?
@paul, yep, understood that too, but in my opinion there are less free-plus-paid apps which are "illegitimate", rather than the opposite,free plus trial-double as paid... Meaning I've seen more free, functional, legit apps/games, that have a paid counterpart, than free plus paid with trial double
Anyway, something could be done for apps visibility in general. In this regard, I regrettably think the marketplace team is sorely closed on feedback, judging from previous issues.
My only concern is that really free apps are only listed in their section...
Paul Harman commented
@andycted - understood, but any solution that doesn't have trial apps appearing in the free section is going to cause "app inflation" where developers submit their trial-crippled apps into the free section with in-app upgrades [something I hate, but if it's the only way to get any kind of exposure...]. So Microsoft would have to crack down on that too.
Mmmh, actually I think that would clog the free section, in absence of a differentiation between real trial-before-you-buy apps and free trial plus bonus content ones.
I think a filter in the paid section would be better
Paul Harman commented
Trial apps could appear in the free list, but with the detail "Free trial - full app $2.99" (or whatever) where the price information would normally sit.
Arkady Elterman commented
A fully functional ad-supported app should be listed as free, period. It should not be presented as a "trial" version — because it isn't — even if the app offers the user an option to upgrade and go ad-free. No need for a separate category, no need to mention that the app has ads or that there is an upgrade option. Why bother?
Alternatively — and similarly to the current setup where a paid app is marked as having a trial version — a free app can be marked as being ad-supported an upgradeable.
And I don't see a problem with the same app being listed under both categories — free and paid.
@Marios Karagiannis: but not every trial is a lite version. Many trials are just said 3,5 or 10 day trials for example. To make this suggestion happen, there should be a new checkbox in the submission process: "trial version is lite version" or something like that. But I'm still not convinced. Sure, bad for you that the users don't see your app, but this is really about user experience...
Lyubomir Dokov commented
I agree with another category approach. A category that displays apps that are free but show ads unless purchased. Maybe put a max price for those apps.
Or another approach - in-app purchases - even better.