Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Advertising EU Software The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online Apple Games

Google To Stop Describing Games With In-App Purchases As 'Free' 139

Posted by Soulskill
from the insert-coin-to-continue dept.
An anonymous reader writes After a series of investigations, lawsuits, and fines over how in-app purchases are advertised and communicated to users, Google has agreed to stop labeling games that use in-app purchases as "Free." This change is the result of a request by the European Commission to stop misleading customers about the costs involved with using certain apps. "Games should not contain direct exhortation to children to buy items in a game or to persuade an adult to buy items for them; Consumers should be adequately informed about the payment arrangements for purchases and should not be debited through default settings without consumers' explicit consent." The EC notes that Apple has not yet done anything to address these concerns.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google To Stop Describing Games With In-App Purchases As 'Free'

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Lord almighty we are free at last

    • by Kkloe (2751395)
      buy this box of /.-coins and you will be super free, 9.99 just toda
  • by printman (54032) on Friday July 18, 2014 @03:40PM (#47485127) Homepage

    Free apps with in-app purchases show that fact right under the 'Buy' button. And a simple setting controls whether in-app purchases are allowed at all, require approval, or can go through automatically (default is require approval). And iOS 8 has the proxy stuff for family accounts (parental approval for everything if you want).

    How is this Apple 'doing nothing'?

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by i kan reed (749298)

      Because they're still listed as "free" categorically speaking? Which is deceitful to consumers?

      I get that as an apple product owner, you have an understanding that your job is to consume on command, but the rest of us actually want to be frugal sometimes.

      • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot@ w o r f.net> on Friday July 18, 2014 @03:53PM (#47485227)

        The only one problem with this is there are a few good games where you can play it all for free and the in-apps are completely optional.

        Sure, the vast majority of freemium games are crap and serve only to milk people of money, but there are some (Jetpack Joyride, say) where not paying is completely an option - you're really just doing a time-money tradeoff. Play it often and you can get everything, play it a little and pay up to get the thing quicker.

        So it's not correct to say that game isn't free, either - it can be played completely for free.

        Granted, I did say the vast majority of apps don't qualify for this, but there's still a few that can be played completely to completion without investing a single dime.

        Then there are ones that offer in-apps that do stuff like remove ads - and that's it. Is it a free app, or a paid app? You can use the full thing either way, just one has ad content on it.

        • World of Tanks and other titles from wargaming are IMO "free to play" in the original spirit of the idea, you can get the same in-game advantages with points as you can with a credit card. The credit card just means you progress in the meta-game much faster. But the meta-game is never ending, so who really cares how fast they progress?

          Disclaimer: I have been playing video games on and off since ~1970-71, WoT is the only game I currently subscribe to, after a year of playing for free I was convinced they
        • The only one problem with this is there are a few good games where you can play it all for free and the in-apps are completely optional.

          That's not a problem. The answer is contained in your message. Label games and other applications that come free but offer in app purchases as "Freemium". Such that at every place in the store that there are the possible categories "Paid" or "Free", make a third one that is "Freemium".

          It's not a problem as Freemium is describing exactly what it is. It's not saying it's a scam.

          I don't believe Apple's current solution to have a "Free" button with "Offers In-App Purchases" listed below is not sufficient. Because there are plenty of places, such as the front page, where they are just listed as free. This needs to be a whole separate category different from truly free apps.

          I'm unfamiliar with what Google currently do and what they are promising to do in future, so I can;t comment but the solution I suggest for Apple would be good for them too.

      • Because they're still listed as "free" categorically speaking?

        Well... "free" as in you don't have to pay money to play.

        But as this holds true for "pay if you like the game and get a free party hat", the "come on, the first shot is free" and the unplayble Nag-A-Thon that starts begging for your money right from the beginning, I doubt that there will be a one size fits all solution.

        • I've noticed lately a lot of "free" to download apps won't let you download them unless some form of credit/debit card is attached to the Playstore account. This only started happening recently.
      • by kwbauer (1677400)

        Just like amazon.com and cabelas.com and walmart.com, etc are free to use and catalogs and advertising that companies mail to you are free to read. Even their brick and mortar stores are free to wander around in. If the game can be used without purchasing anything then the game is free and there was no fraud. I guess Europeans are simply too stupid to understand that when asked to purchase something that it won't be free in even the venue you are wandering around in is. Good thing they've hired a bunch of n

    • by mick129 (126225)
      This is exactly right. The article at TheVerge even states this:

      Apple has also agreed to make changes at the behest of the commission, but it hasn't agreed to any specific actions or any time line. This is much to the commission's disapproval, but Apple doesn't seem particular concerned. In a statement to the BBC, Apple actually says that it's doing "more than others" to protect consumers from in-app purchases, pointing specifically to the upcoming iOS 8 feature Ask to Buy, which prevents children from making purchases and instead allows them to send that purchase to a parent for approval.

      The summary is flamebait.

      • by Jack9 (11421)

        > it hasn't agreed to any specific actions or any time line. This is much to the commission's disapproval, but Apple doesn't seem particular concerned. In a statement to the BBC, Apple actually says that it's doing "more than others" to protect consumers from in-app purchases, pointing specifically to the upcoming iOS 8 feature Ask to Buy, which prevents children from making purchases and instead allows them to send that purchase to a parent for approval.

        Lots of talk and a different approach that's speci

        • by mick129 (126225)

          The summary is accurate.

          The summary can be both accurate and incendiary. Being flamebait does not mean it is inaccurate.

          In this case, the EC considers the actions Apple has made to be insufficient. That's a less biased way to state the same information than "Apple has done nothing" is.

          If it wasn't, there would be a filed issue with the EC.

          Citation needed. Why do assume that the EC is functioning at perfect efficiency? There is no situation in which there isn't a filed issue?

          You WANT Apple to be in the right...

          Citation needed. I have issues with the way Apple's App Store works. Your mind reading leaves something

          • by Jack9 (11421)

            > The summary can be both accurate and incendiary. Being flamebait does not mean it is inaccurate.

            I didn't characterize it in any other way. Quit your kneejerk.

            > =There is no situation in which there isn't a filed issue?

            Apple doesn't seem to care (as per the summary) would be a situation. Apple certainly would take the opportunity to say "Nuh uh" as any corporate entity loves the PR blame game. Information isn't perfect, but it's not a case where it's really necessary. Maybe something will come out t

            • by mick129 (126225)

              You WANT Apple to be in the right...

              I have issues with the way Apple's App Store works. Your mind reading leaves something to be desired.

              "Mind reading", yet calling the story flamebait...ironic.

              You told me what I truly WANT in all caps, but have issues with me characterizing that as "mind reading"?

              The summary is accurate. If it wasn't, there would be a filed issue with the EC.

              Citation needed.

              Apple doesn't seem to care...<snipped>... Apple certainly would take the opportunity to say "Nuh uh"...<snipped>... Apple didn't claim one. You're using "Citation needed" to ask for the assertion of something that doesn't exist?

              You state that the article and summary must be accurate or there would be an issue on file with the EC. I asked for some support of this statement. I have no idea what your response meant. Are you okay? Let's try this a little more explicitly...

              The EC and Google are doing some business. It is only tangentially related to Apple, in that the EC is taking this opportunity to say something incendiary ab

        • by rtb61 (674572)

          The claim that parental approval is required can only be made if parental access is properly validated. Threatening to charge the child with fraud if the parent refuses to pay, is not by any stretch of the imagination seeking parental approval prior to the pay to win virtual sale of imaginary goods. Also refusing to refunds especially when the product suffers no wear and tear or re-stocking cost is also pretty extremely corrupt.

    • by DrXym (126579)
      Free apps with in-app purchases show that fact right under the 'Buy' button. And a simple setting controls whether in-app purchases are allowed at all, require approval, or can go through automatically (default is require approval). And iOS 8 has the proxy stuff for family accounts (parental approval for everything if you want). Not really. An app could be genuinely free and the in-app purchase permission might be to sell extra content, or some enable some additional functionality, e.g. maybe a word proces
      • There is no way to tell these sort of apps apart from some scummy Skinner box which hits you up for cash after you're sufficiently hooked.

        Sure there is. On top of "Offers in-app purchases" being displayed right next to the Download button, all of the available in-app purchases are listed on the app's page along with their prices. The App Store rules also require that IAP purchase descriptions must "accurately describe what each item and how the item is used within your app".

        • by DrXym (126579)
          So tell me the difference between a "Gem powerup" in app purchase which is optional to a game which hands out gems fairly liberally, and "Gem powerup" which is almost mandatory because gems unlock time sinks and other barriers. You can't.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Free apps with in-app purchases show that fact right under the 'Buy' button.

      As an outsider (haven't used iOS in a few years, and even back then, I rarely used the store thing), all I've got is your description, and it just raises questions:

      A "Buy" button for something that is free? I don't understand what people would be buying. Does it really say "buy" or something else ("install" maybe?), whenever price==0?

      And for ones where it's free-but-also-not-free, does it come up in searches for free things? If s

      • The button says "Buy" if there's an up-front cost, and "Free" for truly free and also freemium apps.

        I agree that at every point, freemium apps should be listed separately from truly free apps.

    • by reanjr (588767)

      Android has also done the same for quite some time. This is going above and beyond those feeble measures.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      The problem is the word "free". Technically it may be true that you can play for free, but realistically kids are not going to want to stop playing for hours or even a day when the offer of paying some cash to carry on is thrust in front of their faces. The EU does not accept bullshit technicalities as justification for misleading advertising, so such games should not be described as "free" when for all practical purposes they are not.

    • Free apps with in-app purchases show that fact right under the 'Buy' button. And a simple setting controls whether in-app purchases are allowed at all, require approval, or can go through automatically (default is require approval). And iOS 8 has the proxy stuff for family accounts (parental approval for everything if you want).

      How is this Apple 'doing nothing'?

      Can purchases still be made for a while (10 minutes? Half an hour?) without reauthenticating? If so then they are still allowing an avenue of unexpected charges.

      For example, the child says, "Mommy mommy! I want to add this Free application to my iPad. Can I please please have it?", so the mother thinks to herself that the app is free so what is the harm about logging in to the app store and installing the app on her child's iPad. The app installs and the child is then given the iPad... but for the next X am

      • by cmdrbuzz (681767)

        No.

        The "Purchase app" within 15 minutes without re-prompting for a password (which is configurable) is a separate 15 minute timer to the "In-App purchase" one.

        And you can easily set "ask for password for each purchase" in the settings, along with "disable in-app purchases"

  • I can't stand the whole "pay money to get to the next" level thing, it's like you're not really playing a game anymore. On the other hand I find the game DLC [steampowered.com] to be strangely inviting.

    • by danbert8 (1024253)

      Yeah, like the free games are stupidly hard and you can realistically only complete it if you pay for an upgrade or hints.

    • by Cinder6 (894572)

      I really wish more games adopted a model where you just pay for access to the next level instead of placing toll bridges or a "pay to win" option. The first stage or area of the game is free (like a demo), and if you like it, you pay $X for the next area, and so on. That way, you only pay for what you actually consume, and anything you unlock is unlocked permanently.

      • Yes, that's the model that ID and Apogee used to use back in the olden days. Play through a fair sized set of levels for free - several hours of play - and then pay for the rest of the levels.

        But they could do that without in-app purchases. Simply have a free app for the initial level set, and a paid app for the rest. At the end of the free app, have a hyperlink which goes to the store for the paid app.

        I wish the in-app-purchase freemium model had never been introduced. It's a can of worms. But given that t

  • by danbob999 (2490674) on Friday July 18, 2014 @03:53PM (#47485223)
    We should be able to filter out adware applications too. I don't understand how people tolerate adware and nag screens on their cellphone. I thought the days of the infamous WinZIP "I agree" were over. I certainly wouldn't use a file browser, instant messaging client or or text editor on my PC with ads. I don't see why it would be anymore acceptable on phones.
    • by jellomizer (103300) on Friday July 18, 2014 @04:11PM (#47485367)

      I Want a game of decent quality, with no add, no in app purchase, no attempt to try to get you to purchase a full version, no attempt to try to upsell an other service and all free.

      Heck why limit it to game or software. I want all my products for free with no strings attached. However I want to be sure my employer pays me for my job of writing software.

      • Yeah. It's such bullshit that Porsche wants me to give them $180,000 for a 911 Turbo. It's just a couple pieces of metal and four wheels. They should be free.

      • by Garfong (1815272) on Friday July 18, 2014 @04:24PM (#47485467)

        I don't want it all for free, but I think companies should be honest about their business model. I think they should distinguish between "Free" trial, "Free" with paid upgrades, "Free" ad-supported, etc.

        • Or you could be like Deadpool [zoom-comics.com] and just realize if something costs money to make, you're going to have to pay for it one way or another.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Yeah, its not like people will make something and give it away for free!

            https://www.libreoffice.org/
            http://www.linuxmint.com/
            http://www.gimp.org/

            • That extends well to tools used by businesses to do business. It doesn't extend so well to things like games.
            • Yes. but you get what you pay for. Libreoffice is far worse than MS Office. Linux is far worse than OSX and Windows, and Gimp is far worse than Photoshop or Pixelmator.

            • Nothing GPL'd is free. They expect payment in the form of new code, and word-of-mouth advertising (you must make available the code, leave the GPL boilerplate on, yadda yadda).
        • I don't want it all for free, but I think companies should be honest about their business model. I think they should distinguish between "Free" trial, "Free" with paid upgrades, "Free" ad-supported, etc.

          Agreed. I'm very happy to pay for a good app. In fact, contrary to the stupid current pricing model, I'm willing to pay WELL for a *great* app. If an app does what I want, has a good featureset, and is stable, I'd gladly drop $10 or $20 or perhaps even more on it.

          But I'll only pay for something like that if I'm guaranteed not to have a bunch of crap like ads or nag features or whatever. I'd rather pay well for a handful of great apps that work well than a boatload of free crap.

          So, I don't just want

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Why stop there? Why not demand free housing, free food, free electricity, free water?

        I'm sure you wouldn't mind if someone stopped by to freely partake in the goods and services in your control. After all, everything should be free, Free, FREE!

      • I understand some people are honestly trying to make money by selling quality software. But others write a crappy application that they wouldn't even use themselves, put ads in it, and then hope that some people will be stupid enough to keep it for a few days on their phone and then make a few cents with advertisement. At least if those applications were in an "ad-supported" category, we could filter them out.
      • by steelfood (895457)

        Well yeah, they'll just collect all your phone's data and sell it to other companies instead.

        I'll take an ad-encumbered game or an in-app purchase game that doesn't collect my info over one that has none of these but does. Of course, the ad-encumbered and in-app purchase required apps probably still collect my phone data for sale anyway.

    • I see what you're saying, but I very much like when there is a free, ad-supported version of a program, that I can try-before-I-buy, with the author either releasing a "pro" version or some such, that is $1-2, ad-free, or an in-app purchase to remove ads. However, if he made the second type of program, it would likely be grouped together with the freemium games that require daily purchases of $1 buckets of water to make your crops grow, etc. That's the problem I see with the EC ruling.

    • We should be able to filter out adware applications too.

      Sure, but under what justification? If you download an adware app, you're not out anything. You can delete it. You can duct tape over the add portion of your screen. Unless it's "adware with IAP", which would place it in the non-free category, it's factually free in every practical sense.

      I find adware annoying and I steer clear of it, but I can't imagine a reason to label it as non-free when it costs me no money to download or use it.

    • I am a developer and I say why should I not get paid for my work. I do all of my own coding, where my fiance dioes the art. I know that my time will be paid out nicely once I get my app in the store and people download it. I usually put two versions of my app up, a pay version with no ads and a free version with ads. Now if you like the free version fork up the dollar and pay for the no ad app. But if you want to continue using the free version don't comlain when an ad comes up while you are using it.
  • by sinij (911942) on Friday July 18, 2014 @03:57PM (#47485261) Journal
    These "free" games use the same addiction mechanisms, called operant conditioning, as gambling. I am surprised targeting these at minors is even allowed.
    • by geekmux (1040042)

      These "free" games use the same addiction mechanisms, called operant conditioning, as gambling. I am surprised targeting these at minors is even allowed.

      As legal gambling spreads across the country, you're really questioning this?

      You don't exactly have to drive to the middle of the desert to gain a horrible addiction anymore.

  • Freemium vs DLC (Score:4, Interesting)

    by santiago (42242) on Friday July 18, 2014 @04:06PM (#47485323) Homepage

    What I wish app stores made it easier to do is to distinguish between apps that offer one-time DLC in the form additional content (e.g. more levels, maps, factions, game modes, etc.) vs freemium apps with repeatable purchases for in-game currency and power-ups (which you need to get around the "free" game's increasing difficulty and enforced waits). The former is fine, and a good way to let people try-before-they-buy, but the latter is a toxic plague of money-grubbing crapware. As-is, I have to do things like drill down into the list of top in-app purchases and read the titles to see if consists of things like "level pack" or "10,000 gems". I'd also love it if they showed what percentage of users buy which in-app purchases, or the median amount of money spent per user on in-app purchases.

    • Those would be a great metrics, average $ spent over total usage, and average $ per hour usage, and % of screen per minute that is occupied by advertising.

    • by Cinder6 (894572)

      I think we would both become depressed if we saw how much money people waste on Candy Crush Saga, Dungeon Keeper, Clash of Clans, etc....

    • At the very least they should show if the in-app purchasables are something that you can buy just once, or repeatedly. That would be a good indicator of actual upgrade vs paid consumables. I have no problem with free, ad-supported apps that have a $1-2 "remove ads" in-app purchase. If it is a quality app, then I have no qualms about supporting it either with the ad views, or by paying to remove ads.

    • These tend to be pretty easy to detect though at least. I like the app stores that show you the most frequently purchased in-app items. You'll quickly see the in-app "currency" and know that it exists, versus the one time purchases (or in some cases, both).

      I've come to rely on the fact that just about everything on the "Free" list has in-app purchases, most likely to move along in the game. It just turns into determining if they are 100% required, or just make things easier.
    • by ljw1004 (764174)

      I seem to recall reading something like 1% of customers generating 98% of the in-app purchases, as a general trend across the industry. Can't remember where I read it though.

    • by BronsCon (927697)
      I've seen apps sell an additional app to unlock features like this, rather than a simple in-app purchase. AutoGuard is an example of this (and worth the $5 if you have a dash mount for your phone), and the way they implemented it works quite well; the features literally don't exist in the main app, which attempts to launch the upgrade app in the background and lets you know you can upgrade if the app is not found.

      Game DLC could be handled the same way, with the DLC app unpacking content onto the filesyste
  • by tom229 (1640685) on Friday July 18, 2014 @04:15PM (#47485399)
    Nothing is free. If Google has to explain that to you, you might have a hard time with the rest of your life.
    • by Piata (927858)
      You don't feel it's false advertising to say something is free when it's not? If people feel genuinely tricked by these revenue methods than it's worth addressing. It's akin to telemarketers calling and saying you won a free trip to the Bahamas; all you need to do is provide your credit card number and a $200 deposit.
    • Re:Really people? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Iamthecheese (1264298) on Friday July 18, 2014 @04:34PM (#47485553)
      You're right: absolutely nothing is free. Except Linux and Chrome and Internet Explorer and Java and TCP and pictures of the Alps and FreeCiv and Libre Office and Wikipedia and the RepRap design and CERN data and the open hardware repository and NIH publications and water filter designs and Acura NSX blueprints and clothing patterns and Project Gutenberg and the Internet Archive and don't even think about saying they're "not really free". In all cases we're talking about voluntary contributions of work. Games are as digital as all of these others and claiming no game is free in that context is total bullshit.
      • Re:Really people? (Score:4, Informative)

        by steelfood (895457) on Friday July 18, 2014 @05:27PM (#47485947)

        Uh, no. Those aren't free. They're free for you the end user. But somebody pays for them. Just because it's not you doesn't make it automatically free.

        In most cases, those people are called donors. Donors can be someone unaffilliated with the organization, or they could be the very same people providing the service. Likewise, donations can come in numerous forms like time, resources, goodwill, even money.

        Sometimes, society pays, i.e. everybody pays. And when everybody pays so that only a few people benefit, that's when there are problems. Fortunately, none of those on your list fall into that category.

        So no, those things you listed aren't free. To claim that they are free is to ignore the people who've paid for them so that they can be free for you.

        • Irrelevant, and bullshit.

          Bullshit, because it is free as in speech. Maybe not gratis as in beer.
          Irrelevant, because if a donor makes it gratis for everybody it is still gratis.

        • Re:Really people? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DRJlaw (946416) on Friday July 18, 2014 @07:37PM (#47486673)

          They're free for you the end user.

          So you agree that they're free in the sense that everyone in the discussion has been using the word "free."

          So no, those things you listed aren't free.

          I'm confused. You admitted that they're free "for you." Who has been arguing that they are costless for all? Who has defined "free" as costless for all? How do you reconcile costless for all with "free for you?"

          Actually, I'm not confused at all. You've constructed a pseudo-syllogism using a false proposition in an attempt to belittle the GP while making yourself feel authoritative and smart.

          Free doesn't mean what you think it means [cornell.edu]. You're not even a pedant, you're simply wrong. Go away.

      • by tom229 (1640685)
        Even though a lot of those things you listed aren't free (Chrome data mining, IE requires a windows license), I will submit that it's not entirely accurate that nothing is free. Charity is certainly free.

        Regardless, I was making a generalization. And every person should live day-to-day based on the assumption that nothing is free. Then we can go back to having an informed, intelligent, and responsible society that doesn't require babysitting via regulation in every aspect of their lives. I don't really ap
    • Nothing is free (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phorm (591458) on Friday July 18, 2014 @04:39PM (#47485615) Journal

      In terms of monentary cost, many useful things are. Free software also used to be less of a crapshoot (is it *really* safe, a virus/trojan, adware, or nagware)?

      Apache: Free
      OpenOffice/LibreOffice: Free
      Java: Free

      There were/are also a lot of free utilities that - while not pretty - were basically in the realm of "hey I made this to solve X for myself and thought somebody else might find it useful."

      There may be some learning involved to *use* the product, and certainly many FOSS solutions involve community-provided updates, but in terms of personal cost it's free for me.

  • Worse yet.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GrBear (63712) on Friday July 18, 2014 @04:46PM (#47485653)

    Worse yet are PAID apps that have in-app purchases. Companies double-dipping piss me off to no end. Either make your app free with in-app purchases, or sell it to me without extra charges later.

    • by Tukz (664339)

      Or the "apps" (any piece of software really) you paid for, still contains adds (here's looking at you Xbox Live)!
      Sometimes really obstrusive ones.

  • If you are too stupid to figure out that 'buy' = $ then perhaps you are too stupid to have a digital device in the first place.

    What is next, a disclaimer at the car dealer "you have to buy gas and tires.. " so they cant be sued?

  • Google play has scads of 'free apps' that are either severely crippled or time limited. Moreover, is it a 'free' app when there's popups telling you to 'remove advertising' eg. buy the "pro" version?

    • by Dutch Gun (899105)

      For crippled or time limited apps, we have a term that applies for that: demo. That moniker should be required, because simply calling it a free app is completely disingenuous.

      If the free app is only ad-supported, I think it should still qualify as "free". After all, broadcast TV, radio, and the internet is largely ad-supported, and we talk about that being "free" as well. However, I think apps should be required to indicate whether they are ad supported or not, or whether they offer purchase of a "premi

  • See. what I thought would be a useful stat to show would be "the average amount that those who spend, spend". In other words, if Google showed how much was spent on a given "freemium" app by those who spent >$0. This would give users a meaningful metric with which to decide whether it's worth it to attempt to use the app, because they could, on average, expect to spend that amount. If an app has a spending average of precisely $4.99, and the pro version costs $4.99, then it's fair to assume that users on

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Friday July 18, 2014 @06:15PM (#47486225) Homepage

    It's called rooting and replacing the hosts file with a adblocking hosts file. OMG is android so much nicer after you do that.

    • Google's onto that. It doesn't work in KitKat on the Nexus 5, for example.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        It works on KitKat (4.4.4) on my HTC ONE M8, I wonder why the Nexus 5 is crippled? Install CM11 on your Nexus 5 and fix that issue.

        • by GuB-42 (2483988)

          hosts files are a common attack vector, this is why OSes tend to limit its use. It's also a bit limited as a way to block ads.

          There are plenty of other ways : xposed modules such as minminguard / youtube adaway / unbelovedhosts, proxy servers, alternative dns, adblockplus for firefox mobile, pay for "pro" (no-ad) versions of apps, etc...

          The two last points are very effective (especially the last one :p) and do not require root.

          • I used several of those options: my local DNS periodically imports the MVPS list as a local blacklist, and adblockplus wasn't too bad. If it wasn't for many other issues I had that made KitKat a non-starter, I probably would have kept the Nexus instead of replacing my dead Evo 4G with a refurbished Evo 4G. :)

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Did someone say hosts?

      APK

  • Maybe they should print the average or median price for the app, including the in-app purchases. That would be more fair. "People using this app have made 3.55$ in app purchases, in average"
  • I like this idea as some apps are deceptive in that they appear free but are really not due to micro transactions. Others are also labelled as "free" when they are really just shareware that requires a purchase to unlock all the functions. Apple should really follow suit as the same problem exists in that app store too.

    I always liked the notion of having a feature complete free version that is Ad supported only and then a paid one that is ad free rather than micro-transactions but that's just me.

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr

Working...