[Superfly_FR]

Guys, if you download and play an app that makes you feel better ... don't forget to review and quote the app. We need to encourage the *early developers*, like we do with (near-)early adopters !

To evaluate [AFTER you have took time to understand how this app works and meet your attempts ;-)]:
---------------
- Launch AppWorld on your PB
- Tap "My world" (top screen menu)
- Tap on the App you want to review and rank
- Scroll down (if needed) the description in the right column
- Click on the "Add" button under "Average score" (yellow stars)
- There you go, type a title, select the number of stars, type a quick review
- Tap "Send review".
Et voil���� !

No "shoeshine" here, just a legitimate recognition ... you like it ? Thank them,furthermore if it's free !

[P.S: @jefflemon: this is the bright side of the moon ...]

[BuzzStarField]

Can this be sticky-fied?

[menaknow]

+1 for Sticky

[skyscraper04]

I would like to thank air browser,scrapbook,poynt,etc for being free and productive.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[SCrid2000]

No joke. Same goes for BlackBerry apps

Sent from my NookColor using Tapatalk

[Superfly_FR]

@ moderator : since you've nicely moved the post I made in the other section, these are duplicated now ... sorry for this. Could you merge them (or delete one ? sry for the contributors in that case).

[simpsonsguy316]

I agree exactly. My app has only been bought around 10 times and only one review has been made. If more people wrote what they thought about my app then it could probably be improved greatly.

[LimeTripBlog]

I agree exactly. My app has only been bought around 10 times and only one review has been made. If more people wrote what they thought about my app then it could probably be improved greatly.

Why dont you include a line in your app description asking people to review the app for further improvements. When people read it they will definitely rate your app.

[BuzzStarField]

Why dont you include a line in your app description asking people to review the app for further improvements. When people read it they will definitely rate your app.

Sorry, I think that this is bad advice. Remember that you can review an app only once and you cannot edit or delete your review if you change your opinion of an app after an update.

Besides, it seems to be a bit unbecoming to fish for compliments and I doubt that it is an effective way to increase your review count anyway.

And if someone has a problem and would be inclined to write a poor review, I would much rather that person contact me via the support email address so that we can talk about issues. Same thing applies to requests for "missing" features and suggestions for improvements

[peter9477]

Since Free! apps get far more ratings, I wonder what happens if you launch an app as free, then switch after a while to paid. If you get to keep all the reviews, your position in the list will be far higher than it would otherwise have been.

And, since the way App World works currently, it as good as forces people either to pay for the upgrade, or uninstall, you may not even lose much revenue.

Has anyone seen this happen yet? I'm not sure I like it, but it may be a viable technique for some to use, shifty though it seems.

[MADBRADNYC]

Since Free! apps get far more ratings, I wonder what happens if you launch an app as free, then switch after a while to paid...

With a bait & switch like that, from that day forward ALL reviews will be negative, and the star rating would never recover. Not all users immediately write a review. Many wont care, and not bother. But let an update come, sometimes months afterwards, and those same user's cant get it without payment, there goes the neighborhood. Those will be the ones that will kill it.

But it may be a viable technique for some to use, shifty though it seems...

WoW. What a way to turn an honest, viable, and needed thread into garbage...

[BuzzStarField]

With a bait & switch like that, from that day forward ALL reviews will be negative, and the star rating would never recover. Not all users immediately write a review. Many wont care, and not bother. But let an update come, sometimes months afterwards, and those same user's cant get it without payment, there goes the neighborhood. Those will be the ones that will kill it.

WoW. What a way to turn an honest, viable, and needed thread into garbage...

Peter was just asking a question. Are you saying that this approach is never a legitimate way to monetize an app? What if I want to release my beta version as a free app and then charge for it when it has been improved?

My app was in this situation. I didn't think that version 0.9.1 was worth $0.99 but I released it just to see if it would float. Nevertheless it was well received and got lots of good reviews. I released What's up as a separate app retaining first app as a demo. Therefore my paid version had to start out with zero reviews.

[MADBRADNYC]

Peter was just asking a question. Are you saying that this approach is never a legitimate way to monetize an app? What if I want to release my beta version as a free app and then charge for it when it has been improved?

You said it yourself... A beta application... This is not intended to be a fully functional released free version of an application. I'm sure you called it beta for a reason, correct? Beta applications are always tossed around to get a feel of an application. It is the developer's prerogative to charge for the fully developed versions. I have no problem with that. You can clearly see this was not the case in Peter's post, correct? You are adding your own "beta" spin to it. It was just plainly stated to release an application as free, then charge for it later to avoid possible negative reviews.

My app was in this situation. I didn't think that version 0.9.1 was worth $0.99 but I released it just to see if it would float. Nevertheless it was well received and got lots of good reviews. I released What's up as a separate app retaining first app as a demo. Therefore my paid version had to start out with zero reviews.

From what I am reading and saw myself in the history of your app is that you had a version out that you yourself claimed you did not believe was worth the price. It was never labeled as a beta product though (this is something you now interject into the equation). You felt as if it needed to be in the public for feedback purposes. You then released "What's up", a separate app. And, you felt kind enough to keep a demo version live of the prior version for those who want to remain at that price point for the services provided. Choice is good. You did not have to do so. As I continue to point out.... You stated it was a totally separate application. Not the same application that is suddenly charged for at a whim as stated.

That's all I'm saying. As a customer, I did not appreciate the statements made. I believe that at this point, in this climate, all developers should try to have the decency to appear to have some scruples. Obviously the tone of that post says to me, let's trick, deceive, let's get around the system. I think this thread was very positive & worthy; however, I believe that kind of thinking turns people off. It even has you defending it now. But I think you are mixing apples & oranges.

BTW... I absolutely love What's Up!

[peter9477]

WoW. What a way to turn an honest, viable, and needed thread into garbage...

I don't understand what you're saying here. You think the quality of my post was poor in some way? Was I being dishonest? Could you explain please? As far as I can see, I asked a legitimate question, which seemed relevant to the topic at hand, and made a couple of observations. What about it deserves the term "garbage"?

[MADBRADNYC]

I don't understand what you're saying here. You think the quality of my post was poor in some way? Was I being dishonest? Could you explain please? As far as I can see, I asked a legitimate question, which seemed relevant to the topic at hand, and made a couple of observations. What about it deserves the term "garbage"?

Read the thread again. You may not want to acknowledge it; however, the answers are clearly there with no punches pulled.

[peter9477]

Oh, wait... now I get it, I think.

You believe I was advocating that approach? Please read my post again, more carefully, noting words like "I'm not sure I like it", and "shifty though it seems"... words you even emphasized in your reply.

As BuzzStarField said, I was asking a simple question, not advocating an approach.

[BuzzStarField]

@MATBRADNYC

Points well taken. But I do believe that Peter's post was only an invitation to discuss some important issues and not an invitation to participate in questionable behaviour. The first issue is hat switching an app from free to paid is a legitimate strategy to retain reviews. The second issue is that developers are afraid that it may be construed as a sleazy marketing strategy when, in fact, it is not. I had hoped that his post would spark a healthy debate. Here are my concerns..

I did a lot of research before I issued my paid version. There was every reason to feel that my motives were going to be questioned if I changed my initial app from free to paid. I also made my free demo version operational with restricted functionality after the end of the demo period. I made this decision because my research suggested that consumers would be up in arms because I would have the gall not to support an app that they had downloaded in good faith and expected to be free forever.

Looking back, I wish that I had simply changed my app from free to paid and taken the flak from my user base:
1. I "lost" 24 pretty good reviews on the free app which would have raised the profile of the paid app.
2. Nobody is adding positive reviews to the demo version. The reviews that I do get are unflattering and unfair and I routinely deny them. (Some consumers are downright nasty)
3. I cannot drop the free app nor reduce its functionality even though it is out-competing my paid one. The rate of conversion from the demo to the paid version is extremely low.
4. There are serious problems in the App World install process which leaves phantom duplicate entries in My World causing the user to mistakenly delete the app.

[MADBRADNYC]

Oh, wait... now I get it, I think.

You believe I was advocating that approach? Please read my post again, more carefully, noting words like "I'm not sure I like it", and "shifty though it seems"... words you even emphasized in your reply.

As BuzzStarField said, I was asking a simple question, not advocating an approach.

Yep. Ya you got it....

but it may be a viable technique for some to use, shifty though it seems.

Actually, unlike yourself, I did read your post thoroughly. When you clearly state it is a "viable" approach what do you really believe you are saying??? Just because you put a disclaimer on it such as "I'm not sure I like it", does not mean you are not advocating for this. You sound like every other tired post that starts with... "I love my PlayBook/BlackBerry, but...". Then all the complaints. Are you saying that just because you added that qualifying statement, that the rest of your post should be ignored because you actually don't believe in your own statement? You even state yourself that it sounds "shifty", so what should others think? Please.

How about if I say...
I want to be famous... Be on the news...
Question: How about if I go out and massacre some children in a school????
Then say...
"I'm not sure I like it", but it may be a viable technique for some to use, shifty though it seems.

Yes, an admittedly extreme example, but the same none the less.
C'mon

[MADBRADNYC]

@MATBRADNYC

Points well taken. But I do believe that Peter's post was only an invitation to discuss some important issues and not an invitation to participate in questionable behaviour. The first issue is hat switching an app from free to paid is a legitimate strategy to retain reviews. The second issue is that developers are afraid that it may be construed as a sleazy marketing strategy when, in fact, it is not. I had hoped that his post would spark a healthy debate. Here are my concerns..

I did a lot of research before I issued my paid version. There was every reason to feel that my motives were going to be questioned if I changed my initial app from free to paid. I also made my free demo version operational with restricted functionality after the end of the demo period. I made this decision because my research suggested that consumers would be up in arms because I would have the gall not to support an app that they had downloaded in good faith and expected to be free forever.

Looking back, I wish that I had simply changed my app from free to paid and taken the flak from my user base:
1. I "lost" 24 pretty good reviews on the free app which would have raised the profile of the paid app.
2. Nobody is adding positive reviews to the demo version. The reviews that I do get are unflattering and unfair and I routinely deny them. (Some consumers are downright nasty)
3. I cannot drop the free app nor reduce its functionality even though it is out-competing my paid one. The rate of conversion from the demo to the paid version is extremely low.
4. There are serious problems in the App World install process which leaves phantom duplicate entries in My World causing the user to mistakenly delete the app.

Well if someone says that the idea that is presented is admittedly shifty I do have a problem with it. Period. That is all I'm saying...

Again, your situation, with your app, and ecosystem that it survived in is a totally different situation than what was stated in that post. You need to realize that, and I wouldn't be comfortable saying that you understand that strategy. That's all Bro. At least I have found you have done some research to come to the conclusions that you did regarding your releases. I see no problem with anything you are stating at all. You definitely should be able to upgrade to a paid application if you provided true functional updates, and not make people pay for just bug fixes of the prior free version. This makes it a totally separate application in my eyes. AppWorld also is not holding any hands either.

[BuzzStarField]

@MADBRADNYC

Put yourself in a developer's shoes for a moment to consider these rhetorical questions (no response required):

Would it be ethical to offer your excellent app for free! as a limited-time offer (in order to get good reviews) and then change it to a paid app (without updating it) on the scheduled date? How likely is this approach to backfire by attracting negative reviews? Does the pre-announcement mitigate any of these concerns?

These are the types of ethical questions that developers deal with all the time. It is impossible to please all consumers all the time. Further, we can't afford to just reject some ideas out-of-hand just because we feel somewhat uncomfortable with the methods. There are often things we can do to mitigate the downside of these (viable) techniques.

I still believe that Peter was trying to be helpful and I'm sticking to that story.

[peter9477]

I still believe that Peter was trying to be helpful and I'm sticking to that story.

I appreciate this, and it's the only thing keeping me from going completely ballistic here.

BuzzStarField, sorry we can't hold a useful discussion about whether what I was suggesting would actually work, and whether, for example, it would therefore be worthwhile to point this out to RIM to get them to close yet another loophole, and other related topics I thought might come out of my innocent observation.

I feel like I've discovered that newly passed tax legislation inadvertently will allow some rich fat cat to avoid paying any taxes, and I brought it up in a discussion, asking "would this actually work? It seems like it would." only to be viciously attacked by someone else for suggesting it.

I won't participate in a discussion where I'm slandered, and have my motives impugned.

This is my last contribution to this thread.

[SCrid2000]

Wow, way off topic guys.
I see no problem with a developer offering an app free of charge for a limited time to gain interest and disclosure.
And, the people who got it free got something they wouldn't have had otherwise. I have several apps that I got free from App World before they were changed to paid apps.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[MADBRADNYC]

Would it be ethical to offer your excellent app for free! as a limited-time offer (in order to get good reviews) and then change it to a paid app (without updating it) on the scheduled date? How likely is this approach to backfire by attracting negative reviews? Does the pre-announcement mitigate any of these concerns?

Again just like the beta statement injection earlier, you are projecting your own thoughts onto another persons post. However, why do it just for good reviews??? That to me is the ethical question. Not because you feel that the product deserves the cost of the effort/features put in. You are now basically saying you want to manipulate the system, flawed as it may be, not improve upon it. A gimmick to get good reviews?!?! You say an "excellent app for free". If that is the case, good reviews will be there...

Actually, what you describe is not uncommon. Being a developer you must know this. There are applications that are offered free initially for a period of time, and then become paid applications (without updates). However, this is always prominently displayed. eg "Free For a Limited Time"... So, yes, as we all have seen a "pre-announcement" as you call it, does show your future intent. Sometimes, the offers are even further limited to where a developer may only offer 100 free copies before any requests for payments start. The former example would apply here mostly, just for the fact that AppWorld does not allow for coupon codes and such at this time.

These are the types of ethical questions that developers deal with all the time. It is impossible to please all consumers all the time. Further, we can't afford to just reject some ideas out-of-hand just because we feel somewhat uncomfortable with the methods. There are often things we can do to mitigate the downside of these (viable) techniques.

Again, I never had a problem with you attempting to fix a developer's dilemma dealing with AppWorld. Also, at least you can say you would feel uncomfortable with this methods. But, with that in hand, that is the exact reason I do not think the idea is rejected "out-of-hand". That is an oxymoron. If you would question yourself about it, that would be a good reason to reject it, correct? Not out-of-hand.

I still believe that Peter was trying to be helpful and I'm sticking to that story.

Hey, I stick to mine as well. However, I have not questioned on my methods, you would/do about the approach presented.
I can sleep at night.

Enjoy.

[MADBRADNYC]

Wow, way off topic guys.
I see no problem with a developer offering an app free of charge for a limited time to gain interest and disclosure.

I never had a problem with this at all. I do however, have a problem if it is changed from a free application to a paid application on a whim to manipulate reviews. That is what was quoted, and what I'm discussing. All of the other variables are suddenly being put in the equation.

[MADBRADNYC]

I appreciate this...

<snip>
I'm sure you do. You can change topics all you want, but what you stated is not commendable to say the least.

This is my last contribution to this thread.

How hurt we are...