[gte910h]

They should release two, an upgradable free app and a paid app. Because as they say, there is little overlap between free and paid users, only time paid users download your app if it's free is if they independently look for it due to advertising, etc.

>Free/Paid/Upgrade Combo

>This has been broken down really well by others, but just to reiterate, there is little overlap in user bases, as they rarely ever upgrade. We’d also be forced to maintain two versions of the app. Meh.

Your "being forced to maintain two versions" is a build flag with a #ifdef. It's an easy peasy two versions.

[mikeocool]

Hey there, I'm one of the Co-founders of Nestio. Two versions was certainly a consideration for us, and as you point out certainly not the most difficult thing in the world to implement in the code. However, that code produces two binaries that essentially double the time then needed to QA, distribute to our beta-testers, maintain and submit the app. Given that we have a pretty small team actually gets to a pretty significant time suck.

Regardless, that additional work definitely could have the potential to be worth it if users typically tried out the free-app and then followed and upgrade path to the paid app. But after gathering some data from devs who have gone the two-app route, it looks like generally they don't. People who download the free app stick with the free app forever, whereas when you only have paid, a portion of the folks who would have downloaded the free app, are willing to pay when that's the only option.

[gte910h]

Generally speaking, you're not going to see people who buy paid apps ever seeing your app if you go completely free.

It's two completely different audiences.

I've seen lots of people report "ignore paid, go free with in-app adds, especially ads you sell yourself or get through a non-commodity partner".

With what you're helping them find, I am surprised you can't get commissions from sales or the like instead to pay for your operation.

Additionally, it doesn't come anywhere near doubling the QA time to just add a second version, especially if you make the fully paid version use the code branches that a person who buys the free version and completely upgrades gets. The rest of the stuff definitely does double.

Also: 99/1.99 are horrible price points to fight at, especially 99 cents. For games, perhaps, but not for real apps. While your demand curve is as different as anyone else's, you may want to try a higher price point then occasionally drop it for promotions.

[pagekalisedown]

It's a bit more complex than a simple #ifdef.

In-app purchase is the way to go.

[allenp]

In case anyone is curious, here is a way to go about using #ifdef in your app: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/549462/how-do-i-manage-bu...

I would argue that it really depends on how many places you need to put the #ifdefs to see if it is worth the added complexity.

[gte910h]

>>an upgradable free app

>It's a bit more complex than a simple #ifdef.

Yes, I know in app purchase is more complex than a simple ifdef. However the secondary version (the fully paid version with no in-app purchase) is just an ifdef from the in-app upgradeable one. You take out the ads and in-app registration code and voila, fully paid app.

(I know, I wrote said ifdef in an optionally upgradable app this week for a client).