Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Aura, Native OS X Notifications for Gmail and Google Apps

crosscoded.com

1–10 of 22 posts

Re: Show HN: Aura, Native OS X Notifications for Gmail and Google Apps

#4
post #3

Happy to answer any questions, this has been a little side project of mine with Swift and Google's Gmail API.

Why in-app purchase instead of just making the app $5?? This is akin to a demo version and it's a bit misleading to call it Free.

Re: Show HN: Aura, Native OS X Notifications for Gmail and Google Apps

#5
post #4
post #3

Happy to answer any questions, this has been a little side project of mine with Swift and Google's Gmail API.

Why in-app purchase instead of just making the app $5?? This is akin to a demo version and it's a bit misleading to call it Free.

My reasoning was that most people only have one email account and thus would be fine with the free version.

As to why in-app purchase, I wanted people to be able to use it first without payment. In-app purchase has been growing in popularity on the App Stores lately and I think this is why. I also feel it's cleaner not to have two separate versions on the App Store.

But thanks for the feedback, I guess you're right. It's misleading to call it free. I will amend the landing page to make it clearer.

Re: Show HN: Aura, Native OS X Notifications for Gmail and Google Apps

#9
Interesting. Not a huge fan of marketing it as "Absolutely Free" and not mentioning the charge for multiple accounts.

I currently use Checker Plus for Gmail Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/checker-plus-for-g.... Does the job very well.

Re: Show HN: Aura, Native OS X Notifications for Gmail and Google Apps

#10
post #5
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why in-app purchase instead of just making the app $5?? This is akin to a demo version and it's a bit misleading to call it Free.

My reasoning was that most people only have one email account and thus would be fine with the free version. As to why in-app purchase, I wanted people to be able to use it first without payment. In-app purchase has been growing in popularity on the App Stores lately and I think this is why. I also feel it's cleaner not to have two separate versions on the App Store. But thanks for the feedback, I guess you're right.…

I don't find it misleading, just to offer an alternate point of view.
Post reply on HN