Music Player worth $500 for your Windows Phone 8?

[Gautam Kabiraj]

Hi guys! :smile: Today as I was just browsing the store randomly when this thing attracted my attention: A music player (<1 MB) claims $499.99. I'm bewildered. Is it a typo like developer wanted to price it $4.99 or something? Even if so, how come MSFT had no objection putting it in store with this price tag? :shocked:



Music Player | Windows Phone Apps+Games Store (United States)

 

[Dario Federico]

Oh god I hope wp store doesn't end up like the play store, that app has to be removed I think..

 

[Gautam Kabiraj]

Oh god I hope wp store doesn't end up like the play store, that app has to be removed I think..

I also think so. For god's sake no multimillionaire (half headed) has bought it yet. I wonder how MSFT didn't even notice it? And they say MSFT verifies each app and takes a bit longer than other stores before it get published because of security risks... :straight: I think they should limit the price tag to an extent. No one would like to buy an app at the cost of several phones and game consoles...

It says it was last updated on 1/9/2013 ....

 

[Localhorst86]

I also think so. For god's sake no multimillionaire (half headed) has bought it yet. I wonder how MSFT didn't even notice it? And they say MSFT verifies each app and takes a bit longer than other stores before it get published because of security risks... :straight: I think they should limit the price tag to an extent. No one would like to buy an app at the cost of several phones and game consoles...

It says it was last updated on 1/9/2013 ....

This might be an unpopular oppinion, but I think MSFT shouldn't have a say in what developers can charge for their efforts. That's why it went through the checks: If the developer thinks his efforts are worth $500 per app install he should be allowed to charge that much. And I, as a customer, should be allowed to not buy it if I don't like it. Let the market decide what sells and what doesn't

If I decide to make an app that allows you to have a tile on your screen that says "i paid $800 for this app", I should be allowed to do that, as long as I clearly state that this is all it does (i.e. I do not do false advertising telling you it'll do stuff that it actually wont.)

But you should also not forget that there can be valid reasons for such a high price tag. The price could include services, licenses, fees or subscriptions.

Far more importantly, I think there should be a proper return policy for apps on the marketplace that would allow customers to return a unwanted paid app (accidentally paid, false advertisement etc.) in a reasonable time frame (not the useless 15 Minutes of the playstore but a few hours if not a full day!)

 

[freestaterocker]

If it works with my Xbox Music Pass content and the only feature it adds over the stock player is gapless playback, I know what I'm spending my income tax return on... /S

 

[Gautam Kabiraj]

This might be an unpopular oppinion, but I think MSFT shouldn't have a say in what developers can charge for their efforts. That's why it went through the checks: If the developer thinks his efforts are worth $500 per app install he should be allowed to charge that much. And I, as a customer, should be allowed to not buy it if I don't like it. Let the market decide what sells and what doesn't

Sure, I agree MSFT shouldn't be a cause of interference for app pricing but then there should be some limit. This case made me think so. Sometimes all IAPs can sum upto 100 times or even more than the cost of original app. Take Asphalt 8 or Star Warfare and many others for examples... but that make sense.

But you should also not forget that there can be valid reasons for such a high price tag. The price could include services, licenses, fees or subscriptions.

Well that's your opinion but I highly doubt about the crowd out there, if any of them would ever buy "any" app for $500 despite nothing about services or subscriptions or anything mentioned in the app description itself. Coming from your opinion, Nokia Music for example includes subscription features but they have valid reasons for what they charge. Everyone knows app development requires a lot of hard work, resources and most important, investment. But I find raising the price to this height pretty meaningless if app description is nil and no one would ever buy it and especially in this case, where the app happens to be a "music player".

Far more importantly, I think there should be a proper return policy for apps on the marketplace that would allow customers to return a unwanted paid app (accidentally paid, false advertisement etc.) in a reasonable time frame (not the useless 15 Minutes of the playstore but a few hours if not a full day!)

I agree with that point.

 

[Localhorst86]

I highly doubt about the crowd out there, if any of them would ever buy "any" app for $500 despite nothing about services or subscriptions or anything mentioned in the app description itself. Coming from your opinion, Nokia Music for example includes subscription features but they have valid reasons for what they charge. Everyone knows app development requires a lot of hard work, resources and most important, investment. But I find raising the price to this height pretty meaningless if app description is nil and no one would ever buy it and especially in this case, where the app happens to be a "Music player"

I think we should not mix IAP into this. This is about the purchase price of an app, and I could imagine niche apps need to be more expensive to monetize.

A scenario that I made in my had is a business companion app for whatever business software.

A thought experiment: Let's imagine a software from SAP that allows you to manage your SAP ERP system from your windows phone. It connects to your SAP system via a secure SAP B2B proxy. Now, SAP wants to offer this as a premium service for the power administrator so in a big company only 2 or 3 people would need it. I don't see why SAP should not be allowed to charge $600 for the app. The costs from this app would be for support, maintenance and the whole secure infrastructure being provided.

Of course that is a very specific scenario and I can't see the average consumer paying that much for an app, but I don't see why a developer can't or shouldn't be allowed to say "this music player I wrote is worth $500". If the consumer agrees, he will buy it, if not the developer will stay without revenue. As capitalists would say: let the market decide.



That all being said: afaik MSFT only checks new app submissions (if you update the actual app) but you'll still be able to update the app subscription, pricing and region availability without it causing a recertification. So the developer could have uploaded it with a $2 price tag and later modified the price.



All in all, there's a button that allows you to report suspicious apps to Microsoft. I am pretty sure that if you report it, MSFT will take appropriate steps.


Sent from my Lumia 920 using Tapatalk Beta

 

[Curtieson]

That reminds me of the start of WP7. There were obviously not a lot of apps in the marketplace, and VERY few from big time companies. Anytime you searched for "Chase" as in Chase Bank, some dev created an 'app' that was a picture of a $1, $5, $10, $100 Bill (and also all the denominations in Euros too I believe). And then wanted to change you $99.99 for the 'app' that was a picture of a $100...and $4.99 for the $5 and so forth.

It kind of pissed me off, because the sole reason for the apps is to hope someone mis-clicks really. I do agree that the market should dictate the price and you should be allowed to charge $5000 for an app...but I think any app over $50 should get flagged for special MS Certification and also be subject to a 24 hr refund process.

 

[genuine555]

This might be an unpopular oppinion, but I think MSFT shouldn't have a say in what developers can charge for their efforts. That's why it went through the checks: If the developer thinks his efforts are worth $500 per app install he should be allowed to charge that much. And I, as a customer, should be allowed to not buy it if I don't like it. Let the market decide what sells and what doesn't

If I decide to make an app that allows you to have a tile on your screen that says "i paid $800 for this app", I should be allowed to do that, as long as I clearly state that this is all it does (i.e. I do not do false advertising telling you it'll do stuff that it actually wont.)

But you should also not forget that there can be valid reasons for such a high price tag. The price could include services, licenses, fees or subscriptions.

Far more importantly, I think there should be a proper return policy for apps on the marketplace that would allow customers to return a unwanted paid app (accidentally paid, false advertisement etc.) in a reasonable time frame (not the useless 15 Minutes of the playstore but a few hours if not a full day!)

You have to stay "real" though. If you check the store description, the dev hasn't even put up any kind of description at all. Not a word.

That in itself shows the intention of the dev.

If this was really worth the money, and tied to some extra "service" or licence, he would have put it in some kind of description.


So it should be very obvious here.




First thing I would state is that MSFT shouldn't be allowing ANY app in the first place without a proper description. That should be rule #1.
That would give ALL devs only two options: either tell the truth about the app...or lie. And a lie would then most probably come out after a little while anyway.

 

[z33dev33l]

Reminds me of the guy who put his WalMart RSS reader up for $50 and his supposedly official instagram up for $10. He actually posted on these forums. We tore him a new one.

 

[Mark section]

Our Kevin from crackberry once bought a 500$ app(just a clock)

Sent from my MIND

 

[Localhorst86]

You have to stay "real" though. If you check the store description, the dev hasn't even put up any kind of description at all. Not a word.

That in itself shows the intention of the dev.

If this was really worth the money, and tied to some extra "service" or licence, he would have put it in some kind of description.


So it should be very obvious here.




First thing I would state is that MSFT shouldn't be allowing ANY app in the first place without a proper description. That should be rule #1.
That would give ALL devs only two options: either tell the truth about the app...or lie. And a lie would then most probably come out after a little while anyway.

the dev hasn't even put up any kind of description at all. Not a word.

That in itself shows the intention of the dev.

If this was really worth the money, and tied to some extra "service" or licence, he would have put it in some kind of description.

So it should be very obvious here.

First thing I would state is that MSFT shouldn't be allowing ANY app in the first place without a proper description. That should be rule #1.
That would give ALL devs only two options: either tell the truth about the app...or lie. And a lie would then most probably come out after a little while anyway.

His Intention is clear: Sell his work. That's what he wants to do. Apparently he thinks his work is worth $500 and if a customer agrees with him, so be it. It doesn't even need added value to justify the price tag, its the developer'd decision.

I can see you're implying his intention is to rip off gullible fools, but I do not agree. If it was, he would have made the description more detailed. Simply putting a description "Music Player" onto an app wont get people to recognize it. There's no sign of the author trying anything to get his app purchased or tricking people into buying it.

Forcing an app description - even though I like that idea - comes with a major drawback: who decides what makes a good description and what doesn't? MSFT would have to individually check the quality of each app description. That's quite a lot of work. Automating it seems pretty much not like a viable solution t the problem because a computer/machine can't judge the real quality of a description.

A compromise would be to only manually check app descriptions for apps more expensive than a certain price point.

 

[ShreyansShah]

plz check
http://forums.windowscentral.com/windows-phone-apps/255834-most-expensive-app-wp-store.html

there are other apps similarly high (extremely high priced), we were discussing about.

 

[mgkeath]

This isn't a first for the store. There have been a few apps with these kinds of price tags. Some that I can remember were simply titled things like: Millionaire., Riches, etc. I'm sure others will pop up, but for the most part, it hasn't been real prevalent on the store yet.

 

[Gautam Kabiraj]

plz check
http://forums.windowscentral.com/windows-phone-apps/255834-most-expensive-app-wp-store.html

there are other apps similarly high (extremely high priced), we were discussing about.

At least it has got a "TRY" button.

 

[AndrewL920]

Hi guys! :smile: Today as I was just browsing the store randomly when this thing attracted my attention: A music player (<1 MB) claims $499.99. I'm bewildered. Is it a typo like developer wanted to price it $4.99 or something? Even if so, how come MSFT had no objection putting it in store with this price tag? :shocked:

View attachment 57240

Music Player | Windows Phone Apps+Games Store (United States)

seriously that app isn't worth downloading even if it is free. Look at the details and screenshot of the app. Do you think this app is better than the default music player, moliplayer, anr Nokia music? Seriously $500 for an app? I could buy a brand new 1020 for that price. If there is a try button, I will download it and give 1 star and negative comments. But honestly that $500 super cool music player app does not deserve to be downloaded or given a 1 star rating. If I am working in a windows phone store department, I would take down that worthless $500 music player app as soon as possible and blocked that developer.

 

[Gautam Kabiraj]

seriously that app isn't worth downloading even if it is free. Look at the details and screenshot of the app. Do you think this app is better than the default music player, moliplayer, anr Nokia music? Seriously $500 for an app? I could buy a brand new 1020 for that price. If there is a try button, I will download it and give 1 star and negative comments. But honestly that $500 super cool music player app does not deserve to be downloaded or given a 1 star rating. If I am working in a windows phone store department, I would take down that worthless $500 music player app as soon as possible and blocked that developer.

I too think so. But looks like Localhorst86 is digging a way too deep in the matter not expected to be with simple given facts and indications by the developer him/herself. I won't really like to take down the app from the store or report it to MSFT since it won't harm me with its existence but in real sense, it's still meaningless. I Agree with Localhorst86 with his example of an app being from SAP. But can't you all see it's a simple music player? Not every user is a developer and they can't really understand that the developer is trying to sell his code (as indicated by Localhorst86). What features can you expect from an app <1MB? I've seen other apps from this developer and I really can't expect anything more than nothing from this app to be honest.

 

[AndrewL920]

I too think so. But looks like Localhorst86 is digging a way too deep in the matter not expected to be with simple given facts and indications by the developer him/herself. I won't really like to take down the app from the store or report it to MSFT since it won't harm me with its existence but in real sense, it's still meaningless. I Agree with Localhorst86 with his example of an app being from SAP. But can't you all see it's a simple music player? Not every user is a developer and they can't really understand that the developer is trying to sell his code (as indicated by Localhorst86). What features can you expect from an app <1MB? I've seen other apps from this developer and I really can't expect anything more than nothing from this app to be honest.

the app should be taken down as soon as possible because the developer is trying to trick the customer. What more dangerous is the accidental purchase that could possibly happen.

 

[Localhorst86]

I Agree with Localhorst86 with his example of an app being from SAP. But can't you all see it's a simple music player?

The SAP example was merely to demonstrate that there can be valid and very reasonable reasons for a high price of an app. I can clearly see that the app in question is just a music player (or at least that's what the apps title, description and screenshots indicate) and I wouldn't even dream about paying that much for a music player software, no matter how good it is. If Microsoft were to allow arbirtrary price limits this could potentially limit or stop the release of apps that have a valid reason for a high price point, no matter what the use case is.

the app should be taken down as soon as possible because the developer is trying to trick the customer. What more dangerous is the accidental purchase that could possibly happen.

The accidental purchase is really the only threat I can see from this app. The app description and screenshots are just way too vague for anyone to actually consider buying the app. In my oppinion the developer is not even trying to actively trick people into buying it. There is no false advertising, there is no "me-too" tags, words or anything in the description that will cause this app to show up in any reasonable search results. Clearly this app was either falsely priced (maybe by selecting a wrong currency when he set the price or a simple typo) or purposely priced that high for other reasons, but I do not feel this is a scam as it lacks the initiative to trick gullible people. But then again, I am pretty sure MS will agree with you if you report the app. That's what the link is there for

My argument is really simple: MS shouldn't have to enforce any price limit as there can be valid reasons for a high price. Instead, we need to find another way to stop scammers from trying to fool people into accidentally buying a high priced or any other scam app. I'd say lower priced scam apps would be even more concerning as more people could be tricked into buying it than a non descriptive music player for $500. That's why I believe MS should introduce a way to return and refund an app after purchase. That way we can reduce the risk of scammers to a minimum.

I know Google Play has such a policy but it simply is too short. You only have 15 Minutes to return an app, after that time period the purchase is final. I bought a game on google play once (a racing game by a big publisher located in Redwood City, US) that required an additional download which took about 16 minutes. After the download was finished, I was greeted with an error message. Searching for the error message on the internet revealed that that was a common error message for my device (and similar devices) since the screen resolution was not supported by the game. Of course, since the 15 Minutes were already over, I couldn't refund it using google play. Since the app was only 69 cents I didn't even bother to contact any customer support, I just made my decission to never buy another game by Electron.... said big game publisher.

 

[Gautam Kabiraj]

The accidental purchase is really the only threat I can see from this app. The app description and screenshots are just way too vague for anyone to actually consider buying the app. In my oppinion the developer is not even trying to actively trick people into buying it. There is no false advertising, there is no "me-too" tags, words or anything in the description that will cause this app to show up in any reasonable search results. Clearly this app was either falsely priced (maybe by selecting a wrong currency when he set the price or a simple typo) or purposely priced that high for other reasons, but I do not feel this is a scam as it lacks the initiative to trick gullible people. But then again, I am pretty sure MS will agree with you if you report the app. That's what the link is there for

I don't think anyone can actually purchase it "accidentally". Just one click / tap over the "buy" button won't buy you the app. AFAIK, I have to pass at least two pages from my bank even if I use the Wallet app. First one to enter my bank PIN and second one to verify my password.
Yeah the app description is really nil (no keywords) making it hard to get through search results.

I'd say lower priced scam apps would be even more concerning as more people could be tricked into buying it than a non descriptive music player for $500. That's why I believe MS should introduce a way to return and refund an app after purchase. That way we can reduce the risk of scammers to a minimum.

LOL! Well that's not so badly said Agree.

I know Google Play has such a policy but it simply is too short. You only have 15 Minutes to return an app, after that time period the purchase is final. I bought a game on google play once (a racing game by a big publisher located in Redwood City, US) that required an additional download which took about 16 minutes. After the download was finished, I was greeted with an error message. Searching for the error message on the internet revealed that that was a common error message for my device (and similar devices) since the screen resolution was not supported by the game. Of course, since the 15 Minutes were already over, I couldn't refund it using google play. Since the app was only 69 cents I didn't even bother to contact any customer support, I just made my decission to never buy another game by Electron.... said big game publisher.

Reminds me of the story when I tried to play Asphalt 5 for the first and the last time in my Xperia M. Google policies are useless in such and for most cases. Luckily WP store shows you only the apps and games supported by your phone if signed-in. But then they should have some refundable policy too.