Is The Apple Watch IAP A New Trend?

In real life (or, rather, my personal life), I’m a pretty heavy Twitter user. That’s a rare thing, too, as I’ve never really taken to any social network before or since. Facebook is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a terrible UI, and Snapchat is even worse. Google+ made no sense, and Myspace (or My____ or whatever it is these days) is dead and gone. Instagram and Flickr and Tumblr et al. are interesting but ultimately confusing. But Twitter, with its ultra-simplified approach, actually makes sense to me, and I use the heck out of it.

Of course, the “official” Twitter experience on Apple Watch is awful. You can’t actually do anything functional, and the service doesn’t even let you view your mentions — you know, the whole reason you use Twitter to begin with.

However, there are perhaps better alternatives. Tweetbot 4.1 was just updated with Apple Watch support, but I’m unwilling to shell out $5 — much less the app’s full $10 asking price — just to view my mentions on a tiny screen. That’s because I can’t fathom the experience being worth it. Twitter — like most social media offerings — doesn’t belong on the wrist. Even with its comparative paucity of data requirements, it’s still too robust to be meaningful as Glance or notification, and it requires too much tapping within its core interaction model.

But I still wanted to see how Twitter mentions on Apple Watch might work, and another third-party Twitter app, Twitterific 5, allegedly supports that, too. Better, it’s a free download. So download I did.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to test out Twitterrific‘s wearable component because it requires an in-app purchase to unlock. In other words, the only conceivable reason I’d even consider buying the app — that is, how cleverly it translates to the wrist — is hidden behind a paywall:

This speaks to a few pressing Apple Watch issues. First and most obviously is the sure-to-be popular trend of offering Apple Watch support as an IAP in existing apps, which I think is a huge bummer. Universal iPhone/iPad apps might have their initial price points built around that parity, but at least it’s all upfront. This, while not technically a bait-and-switch, kind of feels like one, and it sours the overall Apple Watch “discovery” experience considerably.

The second issue is one that also faces the new Apple TV: Price-gouging. Again, that’s a bit of an exaggerated characterization, but by and large, Apple Watch apps are overpriced for what they offer. It’s one thing to support a promising developer’s unique approach to wearable-specific utilities (or games), but it’s quite another to ask actual money for wearable versions of stuff like this and this:

The general approach with developers should be the opposite of the norm we’re currently seeing. Watch Apps should be largely gratis, with game-makers offering a few free titles to draw the user in before charging for bigger and better things. Similarly, service-based apps that have a freemium structure should offer basic Apple Watch integration as part of their “demo” builds, much like Weather Underground so generously does. There’s no reason this can’t be a little limited to entice full app unlocks, but as Apple’s ecosystem evolves, users are going to want functional previews of freemium apps across all supported devices, especially Apple Watch.

Maybe the App Store’s history of inexpensive quality apps has spoiled my perception a bit, but developers need to be mindful of the disparity between the two systems and the capabilities thereof when pricing out their wearable wares for this first generation.

Unless you’ve got a home run idea, right now is the time to build credit, not coffers.