[besson3c]

What do you think of this idea?

Once the Mac App store gains wide adoption, it is extended to allow purchase of additional features for the purchased app. There is so much clutter in some of the apps that I use that I would almost prefer a lite version over the kitchen sink, especially if that meant that the lite version was cheaper and I didn't have to pay for features I didn't use.

This would also allow for developers to make additional money in doing stuff like, for instance, selling import/export features to particular formats, or selling support for some sort of web service. Obviously the apps would have to be coded to support dropping in new features this way, but I think that the developers could also create stubs where the feature would normally go with links to purchase that feature. This would have to be done elegantly to prevent the whole 239048239084 versions of Vista syndrome, but then again, unlike Vista purchasing less than what you needed would not be an irreversible decision, and one that could be rectified with a few clicks.

I'm not sold on my own idea, but I think there are some cases where something like this would be nice if it could be implemented elegantly.

What do you think? Crazy?

[turtle777]

Not crazy at all.

Since iOS already has in-app purchases, it will only be a matter of time until that API is extended to OS X.

-t

[lpkmckenna]

I agree. Great idea.

[Spheric Harlot]

The function you describe is called "In-App Purchases", is kind of a given seeing as the iOS App Store has had it for quite some time now, and lo and behold! Apple has already implemented it:

Mac App Store To Get In-App Purchases, Push Notifications, Sandboxing And More [WWDC 2011] | Cult of Mac

Final Cut Pro X already incorporates something of the sort, where authorized downloads (content) are offered automatically after you launch the App-Store-bought application the first time.

[mduell]

Users don't want to feel nickle and dimed.

[Spheric Harlot]

Users are happily in-app-purchasing all over iOS.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Users don't want to feel nickle and dimed.

This is true, but if you start with a lower price for a lesser feature set, users may also see this as having enticing value. Or, if you just price your app aggressively for what it offers there may be users that try it out, really like it, and would have no problem paying you for more features as a sort of gesture of support for your fine work.

Also, when I refer to a lesser feature set I don't mean useless crippleware, I mean stuff like supporting additional file formats, exporters/importers, and other sorts of things that are a little more special case sort of features. For instance, crippleware would be an email client charging for the ability to forward messages, but I don't think I would be put off to be charged more for PGP support or something...

It's all about execution.

[besson3c]

By the way, if you want the chinese version of besson3c you'll have to pony over $29.99...

[Spheric Harlot]

I don't feel nickel-and-dimed when I can get an app cheap and buy additional functionality as needed, rather than paying $30 more up front for a bunch of crap I'll never need (think navigation apps for iPhone, for example, where you can buy additional maps as you need them, or speed limit warnings, or additional voices, or advanced lane guiding).

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Users are happily in-app-purchasing all over iOS.

Really? Are they?

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source...g8PQkkQCWk4c_A

All really happy customers writing those reviews.

[turtle777]

Worst example ever. Seriously.

This has NOTHING to do with in-app purchases par se, and all to do with a rip-off game concept.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What do you think of this idea?

Once the Mac App store gains wide adoption, it is extended to allow purchase of additional features for the purchased app.

This sounds like the Mac equivalent of DLC.