One of the phrases I most often hear in relation to the ever-present smartphones in the world is, “Pssh, no. I never pay for apps.”
Well, why not?
The most valuable characteristic of the smartphone market is not so much the hardware we hold in our hands, but the vast arsenal of software at our potential fingertips. We love our apps, yes we do, and we depend on them a lot for helping with everything from everyday tasks to just killing time. The kind of indignation people display when it’s suggested that they actually pay for one is rather surprising to me, considering the amount of return you get on one app that costs a whopping $0.99.
There seems to be a mentality that Internet and software — intellectual property — are exempt from the rules of “real life” commerce. If people can possibly get it for free, then they’ll surely find a way to. This rings true for apps and software as much as pirated movies and music files.
I play a game called Chess, which I downloaded for free off of the App Store. It’s a person-to-person chessboard that was developed by the same people who created the popular Words With Friends app. The free version of Chess is no different from the version you pay for, but with one catch: between each move the screen redirects you to what is essentially an in-game commercial, which you have to exit out of. It’s one way a free game makes money to pay its developers.
Apps like this bother me. I think Chess is a really neat game, but I worry that the heavy dependence on advertising is taking a toll on development. People are less likely to pay for a non-essential program — be it on a phone or full computer — and so I wonder how much the quality of the content suffers when developers have to sustain themselves on advertising, rather than just be paid for their work by the consumer directly.
The news industry is facing a similar dilemma, as we at the J School have heard time and again: if the internet is right in front of us, and it’s free, then why should we subscribe to the New York Times?
The answer is simply because they produce something valuable, and they’re good at it. The Joker taught us that if you’re good at something you should never do it for free. All that advertising space muddles the print anyway.
It was recently announced that the New York Times would begin charging users to view online content. Readers would have a certain allotment of free content to view, and then after that limit is reached they can opt to pay a flat subscription fee for further uninterrupted reading. Those who carry print subscriptions would be uninterrupted as well.
Though I am a poor college student and this greatly inconveniences me, I’m grateful that it’s a step towards a more direct exchange between producer and consumer.
Something that maybe hits even farther home is Facebook. Without Facebook, many people are basically headless, and I often overhear complaints about bugs, how the new layout is terrible and how dare Facebook be down for a few hours and completely derail my life? The reality is, Facebook is a free service, dependent almost entirely on advertising. As an arbitrary user, you have no guarantees. You pay no subscriptions. You have no rights.
The game changes when you pay for things directly, the dynamics become more clean-cut. The relationship between client and developer is clearly defined, and so certain expectations can always be met. So many free electronic goods and services are dependent on advertising that it’s sometimes difficult for me to see how developers are able to sustain themselves. It makes me wonder if there’s some sort of bubble waiting to pop.
And that would be bad for all of us.
