We analyzed this app across 2 independent signals and corroborated nothing unfair. That is a signal, not an audit.
This analysis describes version 13.5.12 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 13.5.12, updated 2026-07-02.
What the analysis found
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
Bait and switch… — After I purchased the app, they switched to an annual subscription model. Total money grab.
Bait and Switch — Paid for lifetime subscription, 2009. Paid for expansion, 2018. Developer switched to subscription only in 2023. Now, developer is back to offering a lifetime subscription but will not restore access for those who have…
Bait and switch — A batrayal to those who supported this business by PURCHASING the app, only to later be forced into a subscription. Not even the best birding app to begin with….I will now remove it from my device. Goodbye Ibird Pro!
States a price, or offers a one-time purchase
Make me an expert — I bought this app because I like having all my tools in one place. Not all that excited about a subscription but the price is fair and I hope I see some updates soon. The filter by state and month really has helped me…
Long-term iBird Lover — Like many others, I was surprised when my iBird app was replaced by a subscription version. I bought my first copy of iBird Pro for $14.99 in 2012. Over the years, this averaged out to about $1.25 per year. During…
Unhappy to leave App — I am a casual birdwatcher living on 40 acres of mostly wooded land. I have enjoyed using this App and telling everyone with whom I share the interest about it. It is disconcerting to have to leave. It is quite a…
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Two independent signals are read — user reviews and the store listing — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.