Is "Payment Required" a good label for your freemium app?

To me, "Payment Optional" would be the "buy me a cold drink if you like it" model.  Fully functional, but accepts donations.

What you're describing to me is more of a "Limited Without Payment" where you can do most things, but need to pay to get full functionality.  This could be one of the more confusing things for end users, with VIP unlock codes, etc.

I concur with mappicus.

The majority of complaints is about apps where you're locked out immediately, basically the new kpay stuff. Here the payment required tag is helpfull to both the developer (less  complaints) and the user (informed user).

For apps that offer good functionality for free out of the box (and additional features after payment) this label does not help the developer (less downloads) nor the user (inaccurate info).

I have the same problem with this. I have a Widget which is fully functional for Free, but users can purchase the premium version if they want all the features. I think an extra label would be very welcome: something like 'In-app pruchase' or 'Freemium' would be better than "Payment Optional" for this kind of app.

If your app requires payment to get all the features it wasn't "fully functional" before.

What is "fully functional" anyway? Hours and minutes on a black background for a watch face? If you add a bitmap background and seconds, is it fully functional now? Are unlocked color options necessary to be able to call it "fully functional"?

Leaving the arbitrary decision about what classifies as "Payment Required" to the developers doesn't work. When money is involved some people will try to bend the rules as much as they can.

The second reason it doesn't work is that app developers would just add basic functionality to avoid the "Payment Required" stamp, and then you are back to just two labels again. Not helpful for the users.

I fully support this change by Garmin, and please, make it possible to choose "free" in the search options.

Yes this is definitely a very good addition. It will make things very clear for the users in a visual way. We also won't get negative reviews anymore because of the app is not free. 

But I more like the approach like the iOS AppStore. Free apps vs Paid apps vs Free apps with in-app purchases. But I agree that watch faces shouldn't have this distinction. But for apps/widgets is will be more useful. And if the 'in-app purchase' is added, this should be clearly reviewed and watched by Garmin.

Actually, with kpay coming into play, the "payment" label for watch faces is needed.  Some devs have 50 watch faces that require a payment to work.

I'm thinking

free - no label.  Just like before

tiered - there's a free level and a paid level with more features, (uses a VIP code, etc)

payment required - won't work or will only work for a limited time unless you pay

BTW, in the CIQ Phone App, if you go to an app with "Payment" and click on that, there's a text description for the user about what it means.

I wonder too how some of the biggest names in the app store are planning to handle this?  For example Strava, TrailForks and Komoot have CIQ apps that do not require a paid account, but getting a paid account on their websites unlocks features that improve the experience of using the CIQ app.

Theres 10days until the deadline... so what do we do now? I don't really want to go through all my apps (again) once a system like the Apple App Store model comes about.

In-App Purchase available etc. 

Also - I'm skeptical how a small / teeny "payment required" tag would negate users complain/feedback and the like? 

Most apps have descriptions of what's needed to unlock full functionality and yet.. 

All apps have the "contact developer" button and yet.. 

Get what I'm saying 

Yes indeed, same for Spotify, Deezer,... They should have that flag as well.