BreakingSports delivers everything sports in a slick and quick Material Design package
Speed is something that both sports and mobile applications require. Why not combine the two? That is what BreakingSports claims to do by packaging an in-depth, efficient sports app covered with Material Design. The app, which is available for free in the Play Store, covers all areas expected from a sports app.
It does add an abundance of options for notifications. Users can deem the importance of notifications for headlines, injuries, suspensions, lineups, rosters, scores, stats, rumors, and trends. BreakingSports will then forward notifications when necessary. This is especially handy during the ongoing NCAA Tournament. Fire up BreakingSports and users are greeted with the Material Design goodness that we have come to know and love.
Hit the break for the gallery and download links.
Come comment on this article: BreakingSports delivers everything sports in a slick and quick Material Design package
Facebook debuts Messenger Platform, allows third-party apps to integrate with Messenger
Today at the company’s F8 event, Facebook unveiled its plans to make Messenger much more useful to its users. The social network announced Messenger Platform, which allows developers to integrate applications into the Messenger service.
Users will now easily be able to send GIFs, audio tracks, videos and more by simply downloading an add-on for Facebook Messenger through the designated Messenger store. For instance, if you’d like to send a GIF with Giphy, attach an image with Imgur or send personalized stickers with JibJab, you no longer have to go to each website to complete these actions. Just download each app and you’re all set.
Over 40 applications are already on-board with Messenger Platform, and there will obviously be many more added in the future. You’ll be able to find many of these add-ons from within the Messenger app. Additionally, if your friend sends you a message with an app that you don’t have installed yet, you’ll be able to easily download and install the add-on with a few clicks and respond accordingly. If you’d like to check out a full list of compatible applications so far, head to Facebook’s Messenger Platform Showcase.
Facebook didn’t just focus on add-ons at the F8 event, though. The social network also unveiled a service called Businesses on Messenger, which allows users to easily communicate with businesses through the Messenger app. After purchasing something from a website, users will be able to receive receipts, track/cancel orders, and even have a conversation with the business regarding the order. Of course, you don’t have to receive your updates through Messenger if a business supports it, but the option is now there if you’re interested.
Facebook will launch the new Businesses on Messenger feature with a number of different partners, but there’s no word yet as to when the service will be available to everyone. With all that said, if you have yet to download the Messenger app, now may be a good time to do so.
NASA’s asteroid capture mission is a testbed for trips to Mars
NASA is finally done assessing its two options for the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). Its final choice? Option B: it plans to grab a chunk of its target asteroid and take the boulder-sized piece to the moon’s orbit. While Option A sounded more exciting — it entailed capturing an entire asteroid — NASA has decided to go with this one, because it will allow the agency to test new technologies for future manned trips to Mars. One of those technologies is called Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP), which uses sunlight instead of traditional fuel. More specifically, it uses solar arrays to convert sunlight into power, which propels charged atoms that move the spacecraft — it’s not as fast as rocket propulsion, but it could save manned missions a lot of money.
The agency will name its target asteroid in 2019, a year before the ARM spacecraft is scheduled to launch. It’s eyeing Itokawa, Bennu and 2008 EV5 at the moment, but it’s still looking for more viable candidates. Once it finds its target, the spacecraft will spend 400 days circling the asteroid to test a technique that could prevent one from crashing into Earth. No, not drilling and embedding an explosive into it, but using the spacecraft’s gravitational field to alter the asteroid’s orbit. After that, the vehicle will deploy a robotic arm to the surface of the celestial object to dig up a boulder, and then embark on a six-year journey to bring the sample rock to the moon’s orbit.
The mission doesn’t end there, though. In mid-2020s, after the boulder reaches its destination, NASA will send a manned spacecraft aboard the SLS rocket to rendezvous with and collect samples from it. At the moment, the agency’s planning to deploy a two-person crew to the site for 25 days, but that might change when the time comes. That will serve as some sort of trial phase for the astronauts, giving them ideas on how to best collect and return samples from Mars.
[image credit: GETTY/Elenarts]
Filed under: Science
Source: NASA
VisionTek Wallet Drive review: Great looking, great storing
Having a 2.5-inch hard drive/SSD sled comes in really handy. When it looks great, it’s even better.
Whether you’re a field tech or an armchair computer mechanic who occasionally has to do some triage on a hurting system, having a 2.5-inch USB drive sled in your tool kit is mandatory. VisionTek’s new Wallet Drive combines plug-and-play simplicity with executive looks.
The Good
- Inexpensive
- Simple to use
- Good looking
- Integrated USB 3.0 cable
- Toolless installation
The Bad
- Floppy cable
The Wallet Drive is first and foremost a drive sled for any 2.5-inch SATA-equipped solid state or hard disk drive up to 9 mm tall. Support for 6 gigabyte per second SATA interfaces guarantees lightning-fast data throughput.
Diagnosing and fixing problems becomes as easy as plugging the cable into the Mac, turning the Mac on, and holding down the Option key to boot off the external drive. It’s a really handy way to be able to troubleshoot Macs that are having difficulty.
SATA Drive sleds can be ugly, functional devices – warts that plug in to the back of a bare drive or cheap-looking plastic sleds. VisionTek decided to go the executive route with this case design, so it’s padded in a leatherette case.
The USB cable wraps around two sides of the sled and tucks beneath a magnetic clasp that holds the wallet closed. The cable works, though I’d prefer if it were more integrated into the Wallet: Even with the clasp in place, the cable looks like it’s dangling.
The sled holds the SATA storage device in securely. Plastic tabs integrated into the sled hold the drive in place once you’ve connected it to the SATA interface: They align with the mounting screw holes 2.5-inch drive makers drill as part of the standard drive chassis design. The tabs offer a satisfying “chunk” noise when the drive is place, letting you know that it’s resting securely.
Obviously tech support and field service is only one use for the Wallet. It also looks nice on your desk as it does Time Machine backups or acts as supplemental storage for your Retina MacBook Pro or any other use you can dream up.
The bottom line
The Wallet Drive is an attractive way to store and carry a 2.5-inch hard drive. Whether you’re using it for backup, supplemental storage or as a forensic device for field service like I do, it’s sharper and cleaner looking than other USB drive sleds. And sometimes, presentation counts.
- $24.61 – Buy now
Google Play Newsstand expands paid content to Austria, Belgium, Ireland, and Turkey
Starting today, those in Austria, Belgium, Ireland and Turkey can enjoy paid content from Google Play Newsstand.
With these additions, folks in the aforementioned countries join a fairly limited number of countries that have access to paid content from Google Play Newsstand.
New Android 5.1 build LMY47I factory images now available for the Nexus 5 and Nexus 6
Google has released a new Android 5.1 build for both the Nexus 5 and Nexus 6 today.
Coming roughly a week after the last updated build for the Nexus 6, the new factory image for the Nexus 5 and Nexus 6 clocks in at build number LMY47I.
Apple Stores will reportedly give Apple Watch Edition customers extra hands-on time
Apple will reportedly allow customers interested in the most expensive variant of the Apple Watch 30 minutes of hands-on time to check it out.
The expanded appointment window for the Apple Watch Edition would be double the standard 15-minute window offered to customers trying out other models. International Business Times reports:
The standard appointment will be 15 minutes, but the company will offer an additional 15 minutes of try-on time to shoppers who express interest in the most expensive Apple Watch Edition versions, which start at $10,000 and finish at $17,000.
This follows a report from earlier today that interested customers won’t be able to start booking appointments to try the Apple Watch out until April 10 — 14 days ahead of the wearable’s April 24 launch date. Customers will be able to book appointments through both the Apple website and the Apple Store iOS app.
Source: International Business Times
<!–*/
<!–*/
<!–*/
.devicebox
background-color: #5CB8DB;
border: 1px solid #E2E9EB;
float: right;
display: block;
margin: 0 0px 10px 10px;
max-width: 350px;
overflow: hidden;
width: 50%;
.devicebox h3
background: #8D98BD;
color: #fff;
font-family: “camptonmedium”,sans-serif;
font-size: 20px;
margin-bottom: 0;
margin-top: 0;
padding: 0;
text-align: center;
.devicebox h3 a
display: block;
line-height: 30px;
padding: 0 10px;
.devicebox h3 a:hover
background: #7e88aa;
text-decoration: none;
.devicebox .video
margin: auto;
border: 0px;
.devicebox p,
.entry-content .devicebox p > img,
.devicebox img
margin: 0px;
max-width: 100%;
padding: 0px;
.devicebox,
.devicebox a,
.devicebox a:active,
.devicebox a:hover,
.devicebox a:link,
.devicebox a:visited,
.devicebox p,
.devicebox ul,
.devicebox ul li,
.devicebox li
color: #fff;
.devicebox a:hover
text-decoration: underline;
.devicebox p,
.devicebox ul,
.devicebox ul li,
.devicebox li
border-width: 0px;
font-family: “camptonlight”,sans-serif;
font-size: 16px;
padding: initial;
.devicebox ul
margin: 0;
padding: 0.5em 1em 1em 30px;
.devicebox ul li
display: list-item;
.devicebox ul,
.devicebox ul li,
.devicebox li
line-height: 24px;
list-style: disc outside none;
.devicebox ul li:before
display: none;
.devicebox p ~ p
padding: 0px 15px 15px;
line-height: 1.25;
.devicebox p:first-of-type + p
padding: 15px;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox
float: none;
margin: 0 auto 30px;
max-width: 700px;
min-height: 225px;
position: relative;
width: 100%;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video
bottom: 0px;
left: 50%;
position: absolute;
right: 0px;
top: 30px;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe
height: 100%;
padding: 0px;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox p,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox p
width: 43%;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p
bottom: 0;
left: 50%;
overflow: hidden;
position: absolute;
right: 0;
top: 30px;
width: 50%
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p img,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p img,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p img,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p img,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p img,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p img
float: right;
height: 100%;
width: auto;
@media all and (max-width: 500px)
.devicebox
float: none;
margin: 0 0 30px;
max-width: 100%;
width: 100%;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video
left: 0;
position: relative;
top: 0;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox .video_iframe,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox .video_iframe
padding-bottom: 56.25%;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox h3 + p,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox h3 + p
left: 0;
position: relative;
top: 0;
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ul,
.field-items p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.slide p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul,
.article-body-wrap p:last-of-type + .devicebox ~ .devicebox ul
width: auto;
/*–>*/
/*–>*/
/*–>*/
Motorola lacks “any plans” for tablets, points to Lenovo for that
Lenovo sells multiple tablets. Motorola sells none. Don’t expect that to change for the foreseeable future. Rick Osterloh, Motorola’s President, hosted a brief Q&A session on Twitter earlier today in which he shot down the idea of the company releasing a tablet this year.
During the #AskRickO forum, Osterloh was asked if Motorola would be involved with tablets in 2015 to which he responded that “we don’t have any plans.” Instead, he redirected interested consumers to Lenovo’s tablet lineup. Motorola’s parent company currently sells sixteen Android and Windows tablets through its own online store. There, Osterloh believes a consumer can find a fitting tablet. Osterloh specifically recommended one of the YOGA tablets introduced in late 2014.
Source: Rick Osterloh (Twitter)
Via: Phone Arena
Come comment on this article: Motorola lacks “any plans” for tablets, points to Lenovo for that
Things the Google Play Store could improve: Part 2 – In-App Purchases
Editor’s note: this is the second article in this series discussing some potential Google Play Store flaws and what Google could do to improve user experience. Feel free to join the discussion and suggest new topics. You can find a link to part one at the bottom of the page.
In-app purchases have been a sore spot for both Google and consumers for a long time. Despite the overwhelming success of in-app purchases, many consumers are unhappy about the unscrupulous methods that some app and game developers use to procure money from their users. Of course, Google has had minor nightmares of their own, culminating in the FTC decision to make Google pay $19 million to parents when their kids made in-app purchases. In-app purchases are a big deal for developers, but more could be done to make it a more pleasant experience for consumers.
Please note, this is commentary on how the Google Play Store handles in-app purchases and not how app developers actually use them. That’s a wholly different conversation that we’ll all have together eventually.
What is the problem?
In-app purchases have made a negative name for themselves in some circles. The “cash cow” philosophy has been a subject of intense ire from many consumers and it’s even been parodied on shows like South Park. Of course, the stats don’t agree with the criticisms, as in-app purchases account for over 95% of sales in the Google Play Store and has allowed developers to make more money than ever before. So what’s the problem?
In-app purchases account for over 95% of the revenue generated in the Google Play Store
The problem can be summed up in one word: transparency. Let’s do a little thought exercise. Go to any app or game (with in-app purchases) in the Google Play Store that you have never downloaded, used, or even heard of before. Now, using the information only available on the app description page, try to discern the following:
- How many in-app purchases are there in total?
- What kind of in-app purchases are there? Are they consumables (gems), expansions, the pro unlocker, or a subscription?
- How much money is the developer going to ask you to spend?
- What exactly are you getting yourself into?
The fact is that you cannot answer these questions with the information available on the app description right now unless the developers go through the trouble of explaining it themselves. When you combine that closed-doors approach with a few bad experiences with “cash cow” apps and games, you end up with a consumer base that not only distrusts the whole system, but actively dislikes it. Let’s discuss these issues a little more in depth, shall we?
Problem #1: What are we actually paying for?
The core problem is that we simply can’t educate ourselves about an app or a game without downloading it. This wouldn’t be too much of a problem if there were only a few apps and games. However, there are currently well over one million apps and games in the Google Play Store. That means the process of finding and downloading each app and game that might look interesting just to see how much it will cost us is counterproductive and even a bit tedious. Without proper information, it severely bottlenecks the experience consumers could (and dare we say: should) be having.
Downloading each app and game just to see how much it’ll cost is counterproductive.
The questions begin to arise. Why doesn’t Google just give us a labeled list of all of the in-app purchases? It’s a good question and even I don’t understand why Google hasn’t done something like this yet. iTunes actually does this very well. If you look at the Clash of Clans iTunes page, you’ll see a list of the popular in-app purchases. You can clearly see that each in-app purchase revolves around buying a certain denomination of gems and, using a bit of logic, you can deduce that Clash of Clans operates using consumable in-app purchases before you ever download it.
It would almost be better if the price range didn’t exist at all.
Currently, there is a less-than-useful “price range” feature that labels all in-app purchases as “items”. The price range shows the cheapest and most expensive in-app purchase an application has or, if the app only has one, it will show a single price. It would almost be better if the price range didn’t exist at all because it doesn’t provide any useful information. Yes, apps with in-app purchases do, in fact, contain items. Yes, those items cost anywhere from $0.99 to $99.99. These are all things we knew the moment we saw the “offers in-app purchases” label.
The long and short of it is simply this: Google does a bad job at showing what these applications have to offer and what few attempts they’ve made to help feel halfhearted and rushed.
Problem #2: Subscriptions
Subscriptions are a huge problem in the Google Play Store for three reason:
- Subscription prices don’t appear in the “price range” portion of the Google Play Store. Don’t believe me? Look at Spotify’s app. It shows that there are in-app purchases, but no price is given. In fact, there’s isn’t so much as a dollar symbol anywhere on the page. There is something wrong with that.
- Apps and games that require a subscription do not have to use Google’s in-house system to process payments. Spotify, most VPN apps, and most antivirus apps have accounts that you can create and manage independently from Google. That makes them almost impossible to police on Google Play.
Subscriptions live in a reality all on their own.
- A few apps, such as Google Play Music, have a subscription service but there’s no mention of it anywhere. Again, if you don’t believe me, look for yourself. There is no price, no dollar sign, no in-app purchase label, or anything to indicate a cost. Spotify does a little better because it at least gets labeled for having in-app purchases. Humorously enough, Norton Security has the label and the subscription price listed in the price range section of their Google Play page.
It appears as though subscriptions live in a reality all on their own. On top of being wildly inconsistent, they appear to be able to skirt the rules other apps have to play by.
How does it get fixed?
Thankfully, most of the problems could be easily fixed with a bit of effort. Here are a few ideas we had:
- Show us all of the in-app purchases – It’s really as simple as that. Put all of them there and show us what they are. Google Play uses a modular UI and I don’t think anyone would be bummed out if they added a module that showed us the in-app purchases in their entirety, including cost and name. Bonus points if they tell us what kind of in-app purchase it is (consumables, pro versions, expansions, subscriptions, etc). If Google cannot grab this information using their APIs, give developers a box in the publisher dashboard where they can input the prices themselves.
- Create a standard for subscription services to follow – There currently is no standard for subscription services. Some show prices, others do not. Some are labeled as offering in-app purchases, others are not. Google needs to figure out a standard and begin to hold everyone (including itself) to it. The box in the publisher dashboard idea would work well here as well, especially for developers who don’t use Google services to charge for subscriptions.
-
Create a bottom line requirement for labeling apps – There seems to be no real standard for what counts as “having in-app purchases” and there really needs to be. Amazon Shopping and Google Play Music both allow you to spend money in the app, but don’t carry the IAP label. Spotify does have the label but doesn’t show a price. Grand Theft Auto titles are labeled as having in-app purchases but they actually don’t have any at all. It’s maddeningly inconsistent.
In-app purchase labels are maddeningly inconsistent.
- Allow us to refine our searches for certain types of in-app purchases – This one is a bit complicated. A majority of people who feel disdain for IAPs really only dislike certain types of IAPs such as consumables. If consumers can search for apps and games without those specific kinds of in-app purchases (or no in-app purchases at all), they will be able to find more apps that are suited to their liking and that will ultimately improve their experience.
- Give apps with in-app purchases their own top charts – This is the totally crazy, shot in the dark suggestion with a lot of potentially positive repercussions. With the apps and games with IAPs in their own category, it helps level the playing field for the standard free and free-paid paradigms without excluding IAPs entirely. This cleaner, more organized layout would result in people finding popular free apps and games and popular paid apps and games with no in-app purchases far more easily.
Wrap up
Listen folks, in-app purchases are a good thing. Revenue to developers has increased by leaps and bounds since its inception and they really are making more money now than ever before. That has translated to more content and higher quality content. There is no arguing that fact. Back in 2010, we had 700,000 apps and the best of the best were Flickster, Angry Birds, and Skype didn’t even allow for video calls on mobile yet.
Today we have more than double what we had in 2010 and they include massive, gorgeous games and innovative, beautifully designed apps. In 2010, Google Play (formerly the Android Market) made just over $100 million in total revenue. In 2013, after the first full year of in-app purchases, Google Play made an estimated $1.3 billion. It has only gone up since then. Even if you’re against the practice ethically, no one can argue with the results. IAPs are why most developers make money on Android.
IAPs are why most developers make money on Android.
However, I’m not so stuck in my ways that I can’t admit that there are a few bad apples (proportionately speaking) that make the whole bunch look bad. With the suggested improvements, the transparency will allow consumers to make better, more informed decisions about what apps they want to download. There is even a small, outside chance that “cash grab” developers may use the pressure of full transparency to tone down their aggressive strategies and try to compete by simplifying their pay structure and building better games. Nothing gets the ball rolling like transparency.
By giving consumers more control and information with the transparency, improved charts, and refined searches, a lot of the negativity could potentially subside as frustrated users will enjoy a new-found proliferation of apps and games that they actually want instead of being forced to browse through stuff they do not.
Who knows, one day maybe being labeled as having in-app purchases won’t be such a bad thing but it’s definitely not something that is just going to happen organically. As always, we’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter in the comments!
Check out the other parts of the series:
Things the Google Play Store could improve: Part 2 – In-App Purchases
Editor’s note: this is the second article in this series discussing some potential Google Play Store flaws and what Google could do to improve user experience. Feel free to join the discussion and suggest new topics. You can find a link to part one at the bottom of the page.
In-app purchases have been a sore spot for both Google and consumers for a long time. Despite the overwhelming success of in-app purchases, many consumers are unhappy about the unscrupulous methods that some app and game developers use to procure money from their users. Of course, Google has had minor nightmares of their own, culminating in the FTC decision to make Google pay $19 million to parents when their kids made in-app purchases. In-app purchases are a big deal for developers, but more could be done to make it a more pleasant experience for consumers.
Please note, this is commentary on how the Google Play Store handles in-app purchases and not how app developers actually use them. That’s a wholly different conversation that we’ll all have together eventually.
What is the problem?
In-app purchases have made a negative name for themselves in some circles. The “cash cow” philosophy has been a subject of intense ire from many consumers and it’s even been parodied on shows like South Park. Of course, the stats don’t agree with the criticisms, as in-app purchases account for over 95% of sales in the Google Play Store and has allowed developers to make more money than ever before. So what’s the problem?
In-app purchases account for over 95% of the revenue generated in the Google Play Store
The problem can be summed up in one word: transparency. Let’s do a little thought exercise. Go to any app or game (with in-app purchases) in the Google Play Store that you have never downloaded, used, or even heard of before. Now, using the information only available on the app description page, try to discern the following:
- How many in-app purchases are there in total?
- What kind of in-app purchases are there? Are they consumables (gems), expansions, the pro unlocker, or a subscription?
- How much money is the developer going to ask you to spend?
- What exactly are you getting yourself into?
The fact is that you cannot answer these questions with the information available on the app description right now unless the developers go through the trouble of explaining it themselves. When you combine that closed-doors approach with a few bad experiences with “cash cow” apps and games, you end up with a consumer base that not only distrusts the whole system, but actively dislikes it. Let’s discuss these issues a little more in depth, shall we?
Problem #1: What are we actually paying for?
The core problem is that we simply can’t educate ourselves about an app or a game without downloading it. This wouldn’t be too much of a problem if there were only a few apps and games. However, there are currently well over one million apps and games in the Google Play Store. That means the process of finding and downloading each app and game that might look interesting just to see how much it will cost us is counterproductive and even a bit tedious. Without proper information, it severely bottlenecks the experience consumers could (and dare we say: should) be having.
Downloading each app and game just to see how much it’ll cost is counterproductive.
The questions begin to arise. Why doesn’t Google just give us a labeled list of all of the in-app purchases? It’s a good question and even I don’t understand why Google hasn’t done something like this yet. iTunes actually does this very well. If you look at the Clash of Clans iTunes page, you’ll see a list of the popular in-app purchases. You can clearly see that each in-app purchase revolves around buying a certain denomination of gems and, using a bit of logic, you can deduce that Clash of Clans operates using consumable in-app purchases before you ever download it.
It would almost be better if the price range didn’t exist at all.
Currently, there is a less-than-useful “price range” feature that labels all in-app purchases as “items”. The price range shows the cheapest and most expensive in-app purchase an application has or, if the app only has one, it will show a single price. It would almost be better if the price range didn’t exist at all because it doesn’t provide any useful information. Yes, apps with in-app purchases do, in fact, contain items. Yes, those items cost anywhere from $0.99 to $99.99. These are all things we knew the moment we saw the “offers in-app purchases” label.
The long and short of it is simply this: Google does a bad job at showing what these applications have to offer and what few attempts they’ve made to help feel halfhearted and rushed.
Problem #2: Subscriptions
Subscriptions are a huge problem in the Google Play Store for three reason:
- Subscription prices don’t appear in the “price range” portion of the Google Play Store. Don’t believe me? Look at Spotify’s app. It shows that there are in-app purchases, but no price is given. In fact, there’s isn’t so much as a dollar symbol anywhere on the page. There is something wrong with that.
- Apps and games that require a subscription do not have to use Google’s in-house system to process payments. Spotify, most VPN apps, and most antivirus apps have accounts that you can create and manage independently from Google. That makes them almost impossible to police on Google Play.
Subscriptions live in a reality all on their own.
- A few apps, such as Google Play Music, have a subscription service but there’s no mention of it anywhere. Again, if you don’t believe me, look for yourself. There is no price, no dollar sign, no in-app purchase label, or anything to indicate a cost. Spotify does a little better because it at least gets labeled for having in-app purchases. Humorously enough, Norton Security has the label and the subscription price listed in the price range section of their Google Play page.
It appears as though subscriptions live in a reality all on their own. On top of being wildly inconsistent, they appear to be able to skirt the rules other apps have to play by.
How does it get fixed?
Thankfully, most of the problems could be easily fixed with a bit of effort. Here are a few ideas we had:
- Show us all of the in-app purchases – It’s really as simple as that. Put all of them there and show us what they are. Google Play uses a modular UI and I don’t think anyone would be bummed out if they added a module that showed us the in-app purchases in their entirety, including cost and name. Bonus points if they tell us what kind of in-app purchase it is (consumables, pro versions, expansions, subscriptions, etc). If Google cannot grab this information using their APIs, give developers a box in the publisher dashboard where they can input the prices themselves.
- Create a standard for subscription services to follow – There currently is no standard for subscription services. Some show prices, others do not. Some are labeled as offering in-app purchases, others are not. Google needs to figure out a standard and begin to hold everyone (including itself) to it. The box in the publisher dashboard idea would work well here as well, especially for developers who don’t use Google services to charge for subscriptions.
-
Create a bottom line requirement for labeling apps – There seems to be no real standard for what counts as “having in-app purchases” and there really needs to be. Amazon Shopping and Google Play Music both allow you to spend money in the app, but don’t carry the IAP label. Spotify does have the label but doesn’t show a price. Grand Theft Auto titles are labeled as having in-app purchases but they actually don’t have any at all. It’s maddeningly inconsistent.
In-app purchase labels are maddeningly inconsistent.
- Allow us to refine our searches for certain types of in-app purchases – This one is a bit complicated. A majority of people who feel disdain for IAPs really only dislike certain types of IAPs such as consumables. If consumers can search for apps and games without those specific kinds of in-app purchases (or no in-app purchases at all), they will be able to find more apps that are suited to their liking and that will ultimately improve their experience.
- Give apps with in-app purchases their own top charts – This is the totally crazy, shot in the dark suggestion with a lot of potentially positive repercussions. With the apps and games with IAPs in their own category, it helps level the playing field for the standard free and free-paid paradigms without excluding IAPs entirely. This cleaner, more organized layout would result in people finding popular free apps and games and popular paid apps and games with no in-app purchases far more easily.
Wrap up
Listen folks, in-app purchases are a good thing. Revenue to developers has increased by leaps and bounds since its inception and they really are making more money now than ever before. That has translated to more content and higher quality content. There is no arguing that fact. Back in 2010, we had 700,000 apps and the best of the best were Flickster, Angry Birds, and Skype didn’t even allow for video calls on mobile yet.
Today we have more than double what we had in 2010 and they include massive, gorgeous games and innovative, beautifully designed apps. In 2010, Google Play (formerly the Android Market) made just over $100 million in total revenue. In 2013, after the first full year of in-app purchases, Google Play made an estimated $1.3 billion. It has only gone up since then. Even if you’re against the practice ethically, no one can argue with the results. IAPs are why most developers make money on Android.
IAPs are why most developers make money on Android.
However, I’m not so stuck in my ways that I can’t admit that there are a few bad apples (proportionately speaking) that make the whole bunch look bad. With the suggested improvements, the transparency will allow consumers to make better, more informed decisions about what apps they want to download. There is even a small, outside chance that “cash grab” developers may use the pressure of full transparency to tone down their aggressive strategies and try to compete by simplifying their pay structure and building better games. Nothing gets the ball rolling like transparency.
By giving consumers more control and information with the transparency, improved charts, and refined searches, a lot of the negativity could potentially subside as frustrated users will enjoy a new-found proliferation of apps and games that they actually want instead of being forced to browse through stuff they do not.
Who knows, one day maybe being labeled as having in-app purchases won’t be such a bad thing but it’s definitely not something that is just going to happen organically. As always, we’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter in the comments!
Check out the other parts of the series:
AIVAnet 
