1 Attachment(s)
Wallpaper setter "free" is not a free app...
I was surprised when I tried this last week to use the "free" version of Wallpaper setter. it is asking now to purchase the commercial version if the user wants to continue to use it....
Attachment 125371
this is a dishonest practice of doing business.
The "free" version is still claimed as a free app, when it should be more proper to declare it as a "trialware".
I contacted the developer by E-mail, but didn't receive any reply from him.
I will uninstall this app right now and will never use it again.
Re: Wallpaper setter "free" is not a free app...
If you click Maybe Later, does the app not work?
Re: Wallpaper setter "free" is not a free app...
Re: Wallpaper setter "free" is not a free app...
Yup this happened with an update about a week ago so if you haven't already updated then don't. I thought it was a little sneaky of the Dev so I won't be using this or any other apps from them.
Re: Wallpaper setter "free" is not a free app...
A bit off topic.. But how is the free version different from the paid version? Only the banner?
Re: Wallpaper setter "free" is not a free app...
Same here, and it was working really well.
Re: Wallpaper setter "free" is not a free app...
I had the free version (before I deleted it for the reason mentioned above). Every time I did a restart I would lose my wallpaper. I don't know if this is the free version trial version issue only or if it happens with the paid version.
Re: Wallpaper setter "free" is not a free app...
This tactic absolutely drives me nuts, it's pathetic, and more worrying, becoming a trend.
For the developers reading this, take note... even if your app is first released as a "free lite app" and I absolutely LOVED the application, once I'm asked to pay for it in the next upgrade, I instantly delete it without blinking/thinking once. I download this (not necessarily this, happened with different apps) app because it was a free one and it should stay that way. If your motives are to charge for it (and there's nothing wrong with that) do so from the beginning or mention that it's a trial version. All you're doing here is pissing people off. I believe some developers do this to accelerate the download of their application for more exposure (top downloads) - once the app is up there, they switch to charge-mode. If this is the case, RIM should do something to control this.
Free apps should stay free for those who have already downloaded them. If the developer decides to start charging for it, then do so going forward for future customers. If the developer decides to starts charging both (past and future), then they should release a trial version and a full version, not a "free" version that later transforms into a paid app for everyone.
/rant