Detailed post, but it doesn't seem to address two things.
1. The WSJ report noted that Apple was concerned that " AppGratis was pushing a business model that appeared to favor developers with the financial means to pay for exposure."
Simon hasn't addressed this point. Do they make paid recommendations ?
If they do make app-recommendations based on payments, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to ban them. As an iOS (and Android) developer, I personally think that paid-recommendations are bad for the ecosystem (though I'm sure that some giant shops paying for recommendations may disagree). At the least, I think users of AppGratis should be told if the recommendations are "paid for".
2. Simon's discussion of rule 5.6 doesn't really address the problem. Rule 5.6 says "Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind."
Simon counters by saying that they only send one notification per day and that users opt-in. However, neither claim refutes the fact that they''re violating rule 5.6. All iOS push-notifications are opt-in anyway. Rule 5.6 says 'no advertisement , no promotions,.... no direct marketing'. It doesn't make exceptions for apps that only send one notification per day. Now Simon could argue that Rule 5.6 is bad for the user and that push-notification-advertisements/promotions are good. That may be a debatable point. However, it is clear that his claims do nothing to counter the fact that AppGratis violates Rule 5.6 (as it is written)
Pay for exposure already exists within the app store. Large companies pay around $10-$20K a day depending on the category on crap ad networks (won't name them) that incentivize the users to download the companies app in order to "get to the next level" or something like that. The downloads are incredibly cheap and you get thousands and thousands of them. The app store ranking is almost entirely based on download velocity, so your ranking goes up. Once you get in the top 12ish the organic downloads start pouring in just from being near the top. The value per user of those organic users is so high that it more than off sets the cost for the crap/incentivized downloads. Almost everyone who can do this, does this.
Just to nitpick a little. It's not that those organic users are so valuable that everyone who can promote does just to get them. It's that organic users + incentivized users lowers your eCPI and can make your app (usually a game) profitable. But you can totally be profitable with just incentivized users as well...you just need to make sure your retention and revenue per user are higher than your costs in acquiring them :)
> The app store ranking is almost entirely based on download velocity, so your ranking goes up.
I wonder how much the App Store's rankings would change if Apple only counted a download "impression" once the app had had, say, 10 minutes of (non-contiguous) runtime on your device? These perversely-incentivized game users would be filtered out of the metrics, but all the drive-by "download, look around, oh this app isn't what I wanted, delete" users would as well.
This wouldn't work well for all apps. For example, I went on a trip to the Rockies in November and wanted to check the elevation at the lodge I was staying at. I downloaded and ran elevation app to find out. Took only moments to find out and even with fiddling around the the app while hiking I probably spent no more than 5 minutes on it but it was completely useful for the purpose I had downloaded and used it for. Should limited use/one-time use apps not be counted simply because they weren't used for an arbitrary amount of time?
Lets say you need 20k DLs to get top 5 in a notable category. Lets say you get another 20k of real DLs from the app store ranking. Incentivised DLs are $0.35 each, but they are Dls and not real users. So $7k for 20k DLs.
You usually want a LTV of 3:1. So your LTV would need to be $2.10 per user. These users are way worse than acquiring them from other channels because they only briefly see your logo and a brief description. Let's say they are only 25% as good. So now you need a regular LTV of $8.40. Very few apps have a LTV of over a dollar.
The "let's say they are only 25% as good" is a bad assumption. The real downloads you get from increased app store ranking are as good as any others you'll get.
The ratio - 20K real downloads from 20K incentivized, or 1:1 - is also a bad assumption. Here the actual ratio varies wildly, depending on how much the incentivized installs actually influence your app ranking. It's a feast or famine situation - spend too little, and your ratio will be closer to 1:10, since your ranking won't have moved enough to influence organic traffic. Spend sufficiently, and your ratio will be closer to 10:1, if not higher.
The LTV of 3:1 is also a bad assumption - I've worked with firms who would spend at breakeven all day long, often because they wanted to grow their user base into an acquisition or use it for future in-house cross-promotion. Many others are happy to make (say) $1.50 on $1.00 spend.
My experience agrees with the parent comment - anyone that has the budget to buy incentivized downloads does buy incentivized downloads, except for a small proportion of developers who strongly disagree with the practice. It simply works too well.
Completely different to AppGratis. Facebook allows you to target (based on gender, location, likes, workplace) and advertise your app. Users have no incentive to DL your app and actually have a need for your product.
I've had a lot of success on FB mobile install ads.
This isn't quite the same thing. Facebook is letting people advertise apps on news feeds, they're not forcing downloads via a game mechanism.
What GP is talking about is the much sketchier model of blocking (or greatly slowing down) access to an app unless the user goes and downloads an affiliated app. This is artificial download inflation by bending the user over a barrel, not advertising.
I don't think Apple will approve an app that blocks a user or slows them down unless they install a 3rd party app. What usually happens is an advert pops up during normal app usage, the user has to exit or let the ad go away, then they can continue using. It's a normal advertisement. Its not unlike when the NYTimes does a full site takeover for some Buick commercial and you have to minimize the ad before you can continue reading. But going out and buying a Buick certainly doesn't decrease your access time to NYTimes articles.
I've seen many games that let you "earn" ingame currency by downloading apps or completing surveys. A few of these games _indirectly_ require you to download the incentivized apps by providing very few coins in the actual game, or making the ads the only way to get coins (other than with real money). Apparently that's sneaky enough for Apple.
For iOS apps there's something called "custom url schemes," which is basically a string that every app is self-assigned (if at all) that can be used to open up the app from within another app (or check the app's existence).
I'm not sure if this is how the specific ones being talked about might be working, but a simplified way of doing it would be that when APP A is installed it connects to a server and tells it that it has been installed with UNIQUE DEVICE ID, that way APP B can connect to the server and see if APP A has been installed on UNIQUE DEVICE ID. You can imagine ways to do the same with viewing ads etc.
This won't work - Apple no longer allows access to the unique device ID. You can generate your own random ID and register it with a server, of course, but this ID will not persist between apps.
More commonly this is done by IP tracking.
- Device taps on button/ad in app A to download app B.
- URL is specially encoded to identify app A.
- Server registers some unique information about the device.
- Server redirects to app B's app store page.
- User downloads app B.
- User launches app B, which reports back to Server. Server recognizes device and is able to associate this install event with the original tap from app A. App A's servers are contacted to this effect.
The trick here is that the uniqueness of the device here is pretty limited and temporary. If the user downloads app B, then does not launch it, their IP address will soon change (cellular networks and the such). It's not a foolproof system.
I've heard from one investor in Spain who was recently pitched by an AppGratis competitor that, depending on the client, AppGratis might charge big companies between $12/14K a day to promote their apps.
Take it with a grain of salt as this information comes from one of their competitors. But I wouldn't be totally surprised if they charge that amount.
They have even higher rates for free apps with in-app purchases.n. We were told $3 per install or $100k flat rate for 1 day. This was roughly a month and a half ago.
Does 5.6 apply to all apps? Is it a black and white issue? For instance, the Southwest Airline app, Ding, sends me push notifications when there are sales.
If the user consents to receiving special deals or time limited sale announcements, I don't see the harm. But Apple's TOS seems at best capricious and unevenly applied. I'd like to see them pull Southwest or another popular brand who offers announcements of sales. By that token, they might as well pull Twitter, Mail, and other apps, since they all have the potential for pushing advertisements of time limited sales.
And, what about Groupon and Living Social? All they do is promote a different business every day... If Apple is going to make rules like this, they need to be consistant on how they enforce it.
For a lot of reasons. First, if I'm spending time creating an app, it would be nice to know with 100% certainty that it will be accepted in the app store. Second, it's unfair if competitors don't have to run by the same set of rules. Third, because it's extremely confusing and could turn developers off from creating on their platform.
That is a very good question. Their rules, their interpretation. I could see that line of thought.
I guess it would help me as a consumer from the standpoint of any confusion. I don't develop IOS apps, so I can't speak to the fairness of the process. I am an IOS user and it would irritate me if an app I like, such as Southwest's, is pulled all of the sudden for a rule that wasn't enforced consistently.
Re (1): Well-disclosed paid-promotion should be fine: Apple does it (iAds), Google does it (AdWords). If that's the issue it should be fixable.
Re (2) If a notification that "today's [no-additional-cost] deal has arrived!" counts as "advertising, promotion, or direct marketing", then it seems every other push that aims to improve app usage, by announcing new content or features, would also be verboten. Is that what Apple is saying? If so, a lot of other apps are going to have to go...
That sounds exactly like direct advertising, promotion or direct marketing. Mentioning you have a new feature isn't any of those things. Advertising a daily offer? That's definitely one or all of them,
When I get a notification via Google Plus app, driving me to their app because there's something that I've expressed interest in, is that "advertising, promotion, or direct marketing"? Or from a Facebook app? Or any game informing me it's my turn?
Yes, they drive app use, and perhaps even later revenues, but in a way that's in harmony with my intent when installing the app and expectations. It's like "you've got mail (that you requested)". You can squint and call it marketing, but then almost every notification that increases use of a profitable app is also marketing.
Yes. From the developer agreement(which is more explicit than the submission guidelines), pretty much every app violates this:
2.2 You may not use the APN or Local Notifications for the purposes of advertising,
product promotion, or direct marketing of any kind (e.g., up-selling, cross-selling, etc.), including,
but not limited to, sending any messages to promote the use of Your Application or advertise the
availability of new features or versions.
Thanks for that pointer. I'm surprise that highlighting new versions or existing features is prohibited. I've received quite a few such messages from major apps -- Zynga, Facebook, other leading games. Are they all being kicked out of the App Store?
I was once tasked almost word-for-word in violation of this(at a small company). I argued and quoted and the executive response was 'everyone else is doing it so we'll do it until we get caught'
Hi, I'm one of the developer of Meon https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/meon/id400274934?mt=8 . We have been promoted twice by App Gratis, each time we've never paid anything. The App Gratis campaign generated more than 400K downloads and push us in the first place in the French App Store (for a few days). Of course App Gratis use iTunes affiliation to get revenues, but they didn't charge us for anything.
I'm always surprised that iTunes affiliation is not very well known. It's in fact the base of a lot of business model: Apps Gratis, Free App the Day etc... Assuming you're sending a customer to the App Store from your app or your website, by any means (link to a free app, link to a paid app etc...), you're becoming an App Store affiliate and get a percentage of everything that buys this customer for 72 hours. I think this percentage is something like 5%...
Affiliation is not limited to Apple App Store, affiliation exists also on Amazon for instance, but not on Google Play, for the moment.
It's important to note that you can becomes affiliate even if your send a customer to the App Store with a free app (for instance Angry Birds Lite), and that at any time there is only one affiliate by device: that's why any apps recommendation will send you push notification each day to remain the current affiliate.
And affiliation is not directly managed by Apple but by LinkShare for US, and TradeDoubler for Europe.
Re: Rule 5.6. Aren't all commerce apps - especially Flash Sales apps violating Rule 5.6? I could get an app every day from Fab, Rue La La, Threadflip, Gilt, and others, and every week from Postmates, Instacart, etc...
Rule 5.6 seems crazy to me, unless I have misunderstood something. What are the apps that are using push notifications for other reasons than what Rule 5.6 prevents? Communications apps?
If that's the case, then Urban Airship needs to pivot very fast, because their business is built on something forbidden!
I think Simon's point regarding #2 above is that the push notification is just letting the user know about an event ("deal is ready"). It is not pushing advertising or promotion. I wonder if it would be in violation of the rule if the app sent push notification stating, "It's noon. You know what to do!". Of course, this is not in the spirit of the rule...
None of these rules are brand new and AppGratis had been approved by Apple staff time and time again and worked with the company when there were problems.
The fact a new person can come along and totally pull the rug out should highlight just how wildly inconsistent the approval system is.
+1 AppGratis is in violation of the TOS and are rightfully upset, but I think they were banned for good reasons.
I care more about the health of the app store ecosystem than one company. They claim to promote great free apps but in reality is spamming all their users with paid promotions to the highest bidder.
"I can't believe that it's 2013 and people are still basing their entire company around the App Store with it's murky rules"
"But there's a lot of money to be made there, it's worth it!"
"Apple needs to change their procedures"
They're all true. Basing a business around an app is both risky and potentially very profitable. Apple should change their practises but have little incentive to. So, for now, I can just express sympathy- this situation sucks.
I've been recommending Android for a while, and here is another concrete reason why. Every time one of these stories appears I write the following: I develop for iPhone and I used to love OS X. The iPhone in entirety and OS X lately are aimed directly at people who don't know how to use computers even if it comes at the expense of those who do. Everyone do yourself a favor and switch to Linux on your computing platforms.
Regarding the OP; I hope the blog post kicks up enough noise that they allow the app again. Having a large public outcry is the only way to get Apple to do anything other than sue Samsung in attempt to prevent them from innovating faster.
> are aimed directly at people who don't know how to use
> computers
What does it even mean? iPhone and OS X are aimed at people who want to use their computers, instead of getting CS degree. I've heard that majority of cars in US are with automatic transmissions and few people know how to drive "stick". Are there voices suggesting that auto manufacturers are aiming their products at people who don't know how to drive a car?
For the most part, yes, though it depends on your definition of "drive".
If you base your definition of "drive" as "being able to do the most basic of tasks", then sure, most everyone can drive a car. However, if you're an auto enthusiast, then to you being able to "drive" takes on a whole new definition; can you J-turn? How about drift? Can you jumpstart a car with a dead battery by push-starting? Can you correct your trajectory after losing control? To the hardcore drivers, these are the types of skills that will prove whether or not you can really "drive".
Just as with computers, I'd wager most people don't give a crap. Most people use cars to get from one place to another. Hauling groceries, kids & whatever else. Most people use computers to check email, Facebook, pay bills, write letters and play a couple of casual games. In both cases, there are users and there are enthusiasts.
Sure, most people don't care about what the car can or can't do most of the time. Many new cars do not allow unlicensed people to repair the car. You need a signed key to do changes to the car, repair it, or adjust the engine.
In the end, most people will get the normal use out of their car. It might be a bit more expensive and inconvenient, but in the end it will be just enthusiasts that actually care about being able to install custom parts on the car, or adjust the engine, or for that matter do repairs themselves.
Way to take his statement out of context to set up a piss-weak strawman argument.
His original statement (and what you excised, in italics):
> The iPhone in entirety and OS X lately are aimed directly at people who don't know how to use computers even if it comes at the expense of those who do.
That's basically a truism. What's been happening over the past three releases of OS X is testament to that.
There will come a day when users like me can no longer install and run whatever they'd like on their Apple computers; all application downloads will be funneled through the App Store, and you'll have to "jailbreak" your laptop just to do anything useful with it. I may have already purchased my last Mac.
> hacker - A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and stretching their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.
i am sorry, but this is the largest density of drivel in a while posted here.
android, linux, suing samsung, lack of innovation - it's like reading an Engadget comment.
apple's business model around the app store is to protect users from CRAP. malware, viruses, etc. it acts like a spam filter of sorts. just like any spam filter there are false positives, some things get through, etc. but this concrete case? good riddance.
and watch how google will tighten the screws in their play store due to facebook, malware, etc. they run ads for nexus without mentioning android. they run ads for chrome.
apple's business model around the app store is to protect users from CRAP
Apple's business model around the App Store involves protecting users from crap, but it also has healthy doses of limiting competition and establishing first-party app dominance.
Well, yes and no. We don't get any viruses that run themselves and have access to our data, but we also have no way to share data between apps intelligently, nor can we prevent an app from sending our every interaction to Flurry, and we had to wait for an OS upgrade before accessing contacts asked permission first.
I haven't seen any significant innovation on their end since Notification Center. Android already has alternate lock screens, alternate keyboards, widgets.
My opinion is this; Android is both more innovative and more free. Since I know how to protect myself from malware reasonably well there's no benefit for me using the iPhone. My next phone will be an Android. It [Edit: the iPhone] would be good for, say, my wife, because she could care less about using it as a computing device and just wants to have something that works and takes photos.
PS Google can tighten the screws as much as they like; Android users can just sideload APKs without using the store AFAIK. I think that's far more appropriate. Lock down the store but allow alternatives.
i wouldn't need to trust google; there would always be a way to get my app to users who want it whether or not google wants it in their official play store. that is the huge difference between apple and google - google says "if we think your app is good quality we'll carry it in our store, otherwise find some other way to promote and sell it"; apple says "if we think your app is good quality we'll allow it on the iphone". with apple, there is no "otherwise".
bold prediction on my part: nexus phones and tablets soon will only be able to access the official play store. and launcher replacements will get kicked out.
You should be aware that a hefty percentage of software developers use OSX, I'd say 70% around here. They are easier to use for everyone, not just "people who don't know computers", and one of the best unix environments for development.
They are certainly (specially iOS) not aimed at people who like to spend hours messing with a thousand settings screens, buttons and checkboxes - self-proclaimed "power users".
He did say "OSX lately", and I agree. Snow Leopard was probably the best version of OS X, it's just been downhill from there. I don't want/care for things like Launchpad being in my OS.
Why does this actually matter? This is an honest question. I don't use Launchpad, but its presence on the system doesn't affect me any more than the presence of Photo Booth does.
I've been using OS X since version 10.2, I think (maybe even 10.1, looking at the timeline), and came to it in large part because it married things I liked about the Mac--but never quite enough to justify buying one--with the things I liked about FreeBSD and, to some degree, BeOS. And with every iteration of the OS it got easier for everybody to use.
But it's also gotten better for power users to use. Automator keeps seeing improvements. AppleScript, for both better and worse, doesn't seem to be going away. The Terminal app has gotten improvements with every release. And Mission Control -- whether you personally like it or not -- represents the latest in what's very clearly a quixotic quest on Apple's part to get everyone in the world to love virtual desktops. Mission Control may not be nerdy enough for you personally, but its very existence is pretty nerdy. (And I actually think power users should give it a chance; it's certainly not like anybody else's virtual desktop management system, but once I got used to it I found it struck a really nice balance between power and usability.)
Certainly, OS X is getting better at catering to neophytes and is bringing over ideas from iOS. But I don't see anything substantial that they're taking away from OS X in the process, and that should really be what concerns us, shouldn't it? If you start hearing credible rumors that they're taking away your shell prompt, then the sky may really be falling. But as long as you can still do everything you could before, complaining about the fact that you can also do swipey stuff on your trackpad and pull up a big iPhone grid of applications seems just a little silly.
They're slowly locking down the ability to install what you want from the Internet. Sooner or later, it'll be App Store-only or jailbreak. The (not-quite-a-rumor) transition from x86 to ARM will only hasten this.
I don't understand why people complain about Launchpad. It's no dumber than Front Row, which shipped on Snow Leopard and several versions prior, and like Front Row, it's totally hidden unless you choose to invoke it.
I liked SL for it's stability and performance, but nothing changed much in my workflow after ML. Sandboxed apps are nice, now I don't have to worry about every download. Launchpad doesn't do anything unless you launch it, and it can be disabled.
As a developer I use OS X only because I do iOS development. I wouldn't say OS X is easier for everyone, it's not easier for me than my Linux or Windows machines.
install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.
I can legally run Windows on my Mac or Linux boxes but I can't run OS X anywhere besides an official Mac. To which I say, get bent Apple, I have work to do.
BTW, I'm sure all Apple Boot Camp and Parallels users pay the $250 Microsoft license, NOT.
Just so I'm clear, where is the list of which ToS and EULAs are OK to break and which ones aren't? AppGratis seems to have gotten boned for violating one, yet you're advocating people break another in the same thread?
Sure, the odds of Apple coming after you are low. But that doesn't mean that it's any less of a violation of the license agreement that you agree to when installing the software. AppGratis also thought they were in the clear with their ToS issue.
EULAs are crap, as they attempt to tell me what I'm allowed to do with an entity that I own. Once the transaction is complete, we're done, and the creator doesn't get to control what I do, beyond the restrictions laid out in copyright law. If I violate a EULA, the creator has no recourse but to sue, and they'll be suing me for taking legal actions with my own property.
A ToS, on the other hand, lays out terms for the ongoing use of a service. If I violate the ToS, the service provider is within their rights to decline to provide me service. They're within their rights to do that anyway for nearly any reason they feel like, because this is an ongoing relationship and I don't have them enslaved. Beyond that, they could also sue, at which point things get a bit murky.
There's nothing wrong with breaking a EULA, and their legal enforceability is worrying. There's also nothing wrong with a service provider terminating service when a user breaks a ToS, which is what happened here.
Isn't it obvious? It's OK to violate the EULA if there's no chance of them catching you, and if other people haven't been caught before. No end user has ever been caught or sued by Apple for running OS X in a VM, because that's not easily detectable and Apple doesn't care about it. But stories of App Store EULA violation nightmares are a dime a dozen.
I have an OS X machine. Otherwise I would jailbreak the device for developing and buy a Mac Mini or something if it turns out I need OS X to do codesigning when I submit it.
If anyone develops for iPhone without Xcode I'd love to hear it. I'd switch in a second if something could provide even half the functionality as long as it had half the usability issues.
Basing a business around an app is both risky and potentially very profitable.
Yes, which is why you should treat your ambiguously legitimate AppStore business like a vein of gold which might suddenly run out. You make sure you can put the money in your pocket as you go (note: fundraising can hurt your ability to do this), you don't invest too much in crazy expansion (forty-five employees? hopefully it was all sales) and you don't get too attached to future plans.
It's an unfortunate situation for AppGratis, who did the best they could to keep the wolf from the door in the face of uncertainly, but this was pretty likely to happen eventually.
you should treat any appstore business that way. seeing as how there's no consistency in apple's enforcement of the "rules", and they feel free to change them any time they please, dealing with the appstore on any level is basically a crapshoot.
Yep. Now you can present the "Be Your Own Bitch" argument that it's like any business relying on a single source of traffic/income. A desktop-facing service nimble enough to pivot after an algorithm shift cripples their organic search rankings at least has options. If you're a local business, you can buy another billboard or do something else if your gravy train goes away.
The problem with the app market is that you literally can't be your own bitch. Your entire business lies in the hands of either Apple or Google. And until HTML5 (or non-native alternatives) gain traction and press Apple/Google into changing their ways a little bit, what is the solution?
AppGratis business model is dirty at its core because basically it's just a way for developers with cash to splash to have a big burst of downloads to help them climb the App Store Rank and get "organic download".
An even dumber thing is to bet everything its iOS app when you saw that a far superior product from one of your competitor was banned from the App Store 4 months ago (App Shopper) . I hope that the App Shoper banned at least made you think about the possibility that could await AppGratis and took preemptive measure. But No, instead you build an iPad app...
Now you come crying to the public in hope that a significant public outburst will make Apple changes his mind and reintegrate AppGratis in the store, I hope Apple stands firm on its decision.
I'm in no way an Apple fanboy or whatever, from a business point of view it make no sense. You knew the rules, you got burned and now you cry.
The only sympathy I have is toward AppGratis' 45 employees.
Oh come on. It's certainly "dirty" to push your app up the charts with fake downloads from bots, but this is just advertising. There are much worse things happening in the world... and in the App Store.
Plus however you might feel about apps like this, the much larger issue is that Apple is now pulling apps it doesn't like. While it's of course within their rights, this really shouldn't be just happening like this. With over 400 million or so iOS devices out there, even if it's no monopoly, there should be some regulation to prevent Apple from screwing around like this. There is a difference between rejecting apps based on an intransparent process and pulling apps afterwards because they don't fit with your business model.
I would agree, that if Apple had somehow managed to obtain a monopolistic position in mobile, such that people didn't have any real alternative to their platform, and they had to chose iOS if they wanted a smart phone, that it might be reasonable to put some restrictions on what they enforced people to do with their ecosystem. With monopoly market power, comes greater responsibilities (at least in the United States - but similar legal theories exist in other countries).
But, I think we can all agree, that Apple does not have a monopoly on the mobile platform, and, there is in fact at least one reasonable alternative (Android) - Some might go so far as to suggest that Microsoft's "Windows Phone" platform, and, for that matter, even Blackberry could be considered reasonable alternatives to the iOS platform.
And, regardless, 5.6 is pretty clear, ""Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind."" - If anything, Apple has simply failed to chase down all of the other apps that are doing this.
Regulation? Do you _really_ want to open the door for further Government regulation of tech? How about: if you're building something important (e.g. software that forms the basis of a 45-employee business), don't use iOS.
These days, there is zero excuse for being ignorant of the way the software 'market' for iOS works. Which means that companies that continue to depend upon iOS software sales are either taking an incredible gamble, or simply aren't performing any sort of risk analysis as part of their business process.
I don't feel like the larger issue was addressed by the CEO in the post and Apple seems to be avoiding it as well.
According to the AllThingsD article [1],
"But sources close to the company [Apple] say it was more than a little troubled that AppGratis was pushing a business model that appeared to favor developers with the financial means to pay for exposure. ... In other words, app-discovery platforms built on paid recommendations aren’t going to fly with Apple."
If this is their business model and this is really the issue, then it needs to be directly addressed by both sides.
This is an interesting point. Just curious why did the AllThingsD article cross out: "In other words, app-discovery platforms are fine as long as they’re not built on paid recommendations." and replace it with "In other words, app-discovery platforms built on paid recommendations aren’t going to fly with Apple."
I hate the idea of AppGratis and I'm glad its been removed.
Who really benefits? The cheap user who will not normally pay for a high quality app? The app developer who spends $$ to get featured in AppGratis to then artificially climb the app store ranking?
Dls are one of the worst vanity metrics out there. Devs should focus on building high quality products, monetize, then acquire quality users in a sustainable manner.
Happy AppGratis customer here. Note: we never paid for their services in cash but cross promotion.
A game of ours have been featured by AppGratis twice. They blow our charts what was then followed by a reasonable amount of paid players. That made a _huge_ difference for us. 2.5 months after the deal, there are still more downloads than was after 2 weeks of the release.
If you are a small team with very very limited resources. AppGratis is a really good way to get exposure this way. Would happily recommend them.
BTW, you can use other services to climb up the charts, like Chartboost or FB ads and I don't think any of them is any better or worst than the paid service of AppGratis.
Building great apps is hard. So is their marketing.
I've used it to try out paid apps that don't have a free option. I'd see a great deal of benefit for a small app being featured. They'd essentially go from their current user base to potentially millions in a day.
My app is a 5 starts app, it never moves in the stupid rank (always around 300) cause I refuse to pay 5K-10K to scammers that put a tiny icon in their f* ads network.
I advertised with AppGratis for free in 3 occasions, got almost a million downloads total and many more 5 starts reviews..first overall place in many countries, fourth in my category in USA..that saved my app, three months after last time still feeling the effect (but also as now back to the invisible part of the rank)
The problem is low quality software and no trials. I can't tell you how many times I've seen an app, paid $2.99 for it and then found out it was garbage.
Dunno why Apple doesn't do as Google does (at least did when I had a Droid, pre-Play store), where you had 24 hours to get a refund, presumably with some sort of fraud trigger if you request too many refunds.
Devs that actually use a freemium model in this way (for games, at least) are very few and far between.
Any time I see a free game with IAP I always say to myself "ah, here's where they charge for gold/xp/coins/whatever".
Even more outrageous are the ones that provide a pay app, then transition to freemium+IAP. Nothing says "Hey, thanks for being an early adopter" better than that.
I used to hate IAP, especially after my nephew spent hundreds of real money into golds dragons or whatever.
However I changed my point of view as fremium+IAP does solve the problem of being able to try the real app.
From a developer point of view it's only one app to maintain. If further features are added, you have to pay to unlock them.
Also developing a new version of an app always been a headache for a developer : without IAP, the only way is to create a new bundle so you're back to square one when you have to maintain several versions of the same app (which Apple forbid anyways in their TOS).
On any case we never really owned any software anyway. E.g. our copy of Microsoft Office always been a licence from Microsoft allowing us to use their software.
So "App as a service" doesn't seems a bad model and in-app-purchase fit that model nicely.
Now the real problem is the security and as my iPad is used by the whole family, I deactivate the IAP on the settings and only reactivate when I need it.
If somebody want a purchase, s/he need to ask me first. It's not ideal but does one thing I love : it kills the "instant gratification" process. And that only save a lot of money to the whole family!
Windows Phone does this well with trial mode, you download the full app but it has a trial switch that the dev can choose to limit features. If you then buy it, the switch reverts, you don't need to download again. Works well for games especially
"I can't tell you how many times I've seen an app, paid $2.99 for it and then found out it was garbage."
No offense, but if you can't take the time to Google around for reviews and screenshots of an App to filter out the garbage, you deserve what you get. Blind purchases are always going to be a gamble, and I don't get how you don't get that.
That is a very presumptuous observation. Reviews are subjective by definition. I have also spent a certain sum of money buying apps I could not return, despite the great reviews. For instance, many apps have very backwards UI's that I have no patience for, but some reviewers are seemingly OK with.
Apple certainly doesn't owe anyone a trial system, but more than anything I find it odd they don't see the value of it. For instance, it would arguably result in far more impulsive purchases.
It also discourages developers from making high-quality apps. If I have to buy 5 different apps for $3 to find the one I like best, I've just given $12 to the developers of apps I'm never going to use again and the best app developer still only gets $3. So where's the incentive for anyone to improve the quality of their apps if they all get paid? This doesn't hold true in cases where there's one clear leader in a category, but I've definitely seen it in more specialized categories or ones with multiple popular titles.
I'd much rather get a free 1-day trial on each of those 5 apps and pay my whole $15 for the one I like best. The problem with this is that it'd kill all the mediocre to lousy app developers, but I just see that as a problem for those developers. It's a win for Apple and consumers, right?
They are just playing the game as Apple built it to be played. They were just playing it a little bit to well. Apple doesn't want to see high quality apps with sustainable growth, they don't not want to see that either, but what they really want to see impulse-buy shovelware that keeps lots of money flowing in every day from kids pockets who have the most disposable income and interact with iOS the most. If AppGratis is twisting the game so that they are receiving the marketing money, and they're building more analytics by capturing the market, then Apple is not very happy. I think this is pretty clear and transparent.
> Apple doesn't want to see high quality apps with sustainable growth, they don't not want to see that either, but what they really want to see impulse-buy shovelware that keeps lots of money flowing in every day from kids pockets who have the most disposable income and interact with iOS the most.
AppGratis is a pay-to-play platform. About $20k per app. If you watch the performance of one such AppGratis recommended app, Recorder Pro. The $20k couldnt even keep them in the top-50 in the biz category for a month. Seems a waste of dev mkting $$$ imo.
Simon should stop whining and just shift to Android. God knows it needs curation. The amount of filth in goog play is unbelievable.
There are a few ways you can work with AppGratis, but 20k per app is no where near close. They're good people to work with and as an advertising medium for a small shop are excellent value compared to running ads elsewhere.
That was also a very useful app that provided real functionality that is missing from the Apple Store, like price history and price sale alerts. But Apple doesn't want to make it easier to figure out if you should wait to buy an app. Good for Apple, bad for users.
I cannot understand why the developer would be surprised, since guideline 2.25 explicitly warns not to create an app whose purpose is to promote others' apps in a similar fashion to the app store?
Did they not stop to consider this could be a problem for even a second?
According to the article they had contact with Apple over this guideline, and successfully argued their service was satisfactorily different. They also claim they had a version accepted between that conversation and this takedown.
Apple needs to fix this process or they WILL lose developers.
I have no problem with simple humans making a decision to list an app in the App Store according to subjective guidelines. It helps get through a lot of submissions fast.
But delisting an app should involve a serious review process involving several levels of people on both sides.
And the depth of the review process should directly correlate to the number of installs and the time the app has been in the store.
This means that something like AppGratis has at least an assurance that their 45 staff wont be out of a job simply because they got someone in a bad mood.
The whole "no sympathy" bullshit is talk from people with nothing better to do that shit upon a fellow HN reader.
Imagine if Apple decided to pull Zynga's apps because they use notifications to promote themselves. There goes a public company up in smoke. The FTC will surely have something to say about that.
It still blows my mind that you can't pay $X,000-$XX,000 a year to get into a different line at Apple and get some damn feedback. Companies are investing hundreds of thousands of dollars a month building iOS apps, and they get the same treatment as a guy making an alarm clock app one Saturday morning. And I say that as a former alarm clock app sideproject maker and now professional app developer.
The really annoying thing is not that these rules are selectively enforced or that they are bullshit to begin with. The really annoying thing is that you could have a business that is legit under today's rules and that next week Apple will update their terms-of-service and that the week after you will be out of business.
AppGratis was doing a-ok under the 'old' rules and with the 'new' rules under the previous reviewers. Suddenly they're dead in the water because the 'new' rules forbid some behaviour (which given the apps popularity serves a need both on the consumer side and on the business end) which you may actually get a pass on during a review, and which then gets turned around a few weeks later.
If you're currently a successful vendor of any app in the appstore you may want to look carefully at what your 'plan B' is, just in case.
If you write for iOS, you are sharecropping. Your income exists at the sole discretion of an entity that has more power than you and very little incentive not to misuse it. Further, your income is more, not less at risk, if you are successful. If you lose, it's your loss. If you win, they take your niche, call you a plagiarist and kick you out with nothing. And if you are just puttering along, that's no guarantee you won't be sideswiped by a strategic or bureaucratic decision you can neither anticipate nor control.
It's all fun and games until an American technology company leverages their market share and business model to decimate a European technology company. A couple more of these and the EU will start dragging them in front of committees with little need to be concerned about a backlash.
Regardless of if you are in the "It's Apple's store, they can do what they want" camp or the "Apple should not be allowed to have this level of control" camp I think we can all agree that it's not good when one single entity holds this amount of power over arguably one the world's most important computing platforms.
Essentially, Apple can block any app they want for any reason they want. Even if you play by their rules they can change them tomorrow.
While I'm a free market supporter I don't think this is a good situation. It breaks innovation and makes our smartphones less capable than they should be. Sad.
Go and innovate on Android, what's the problem. Or make your own platform and innovate there. Or use HTML5.
What makes me sad is constant whining about stuff like this.
Well the problem is, as I mentioned in my comment that the owner of the world's biggest computing platform can shut down a 45 person company without even giving a hint of warning or telling them what needs to be changed. I think even you can agree that's not a good thing for us developers, no?
Also, if I build an Android only app I limit my audience. It's like saying I should create a website only for Firefox in 2005 when IE was dominating.
But to your point, I as a developer will absolutely shy away from the iOS platform after reading this and I hope others will until they change their policies.
> Well the problem is, as I mentioned in my comment that the owner of the world's biggest computing platform can shut down a 45 person company without even giving a hint of warning or telling them what needs to be changed. I think even you can agree that's not a good thing for us developers, no?
That's what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. If you make pre-prepared food for a grocery store chain and they suddenly decide to stop selling your products (for whatever reason, justified or capricious), you're going to be in deep trouble. How many small companies get >75% of their revenue from just one client?
It's a risk/reward tradeoff to hitch your wagon to someone else; they just got a large dose of the "risk" portion.
It's interesting how many people are coming out and saying this. It's like they want to be that little company that wants to make >75% of their revenue from one single company.
The point I'm trying to make is that for us developers iOS is one of the most important computing platforms. All else being equal we would benefit from it being more open. The more consumers you can reach with your products, the better.
Now if you want to do mobile apps you have to take huge bet when addressing 50% of the market. I think we should be working on fixing that situation sooner than later.
> I think we can all agree that it's not good when one single entity holds this amount of power over arguably one the world's most important computing platforms.
That's not going to fly long term. Microsoft created Windows and Internet Explorer while you could use Linux or Mac OS - the DOJ was not happy about it. Android is a god send for Apple in that regard, if Apple had 90% of the market and Blackberry was the only other game in town, the DOJ would be all over them by now.
Android exists. Samsung is on Apple's heels. Now that Steve is gone I'm seriously considering how long will Apple be able to keep it up so I would not worry too much. Tim Cook is just another business guy, no comparison to Steve Jobs the artist, visionary, distortion field inventor, (and yes an ass*hole too but that is OK because he gave us the iPhone,iPad,Mackbook,iPod). I don't envy Tim Cook, he took over Apple at its peek and without a strong vision he will probably rule over its decline (I hope I'm wrong).
A former colleague of mine had a series of "cheat" apps which included answers to popular games on the app store. He started to see his apps pulled on Sunday. It could be a coincidence, but he had upwards of a million active users and never had an issue before either. Maybe Apple decided it was time to crack down on some of the rules they hadn't been enforcing.
Is it really that simple to raise 12 million dollars of funding - for a company which can be destroyed pretty much overnight by Apple. Do the investors not think about this? The world really has gone mad.
It's a risk-benefit analysis. For investors it's a lot more reasonable than for founders and early employees, as investors usually can diversify. That is, if you invest in ten startups, nine goes bust, and one gives you 30x returns, you're net ahead.
But this is an amazing way to deal with the situation. He's frank, honest and comes off looking like he's got the situation under control. Marketing types should bookmark this for future reference - great way to address a situation.
They're not out, but their main cashflow item is now removed. I'm 100% certain there's some cloud of doubt around the company morale. It can't be an easy thing to ride out.
"We see so much growth that we’ll be past 100 million users in the next two years. There’s such a huge shift from desktop to mobile that the potential for growth is unlimited."
This is a little confusing to me; if the issue is the push notification why don't they simple stop doing the push notification? Or is it already too late for that?
I believe the issue has less to do with that than with capricious enforcement of rules, and little in the way of recourse for the victims of such.
If there were a formal review procedure with rules for when an app gets notified about scheduled future actions (and when those can be superseded when needed), as well as a procedure for fixing problems before negative actions (if there is it sure doesn't seem it's followed), then we would see less of these stories.
The lesson here to me is simple. If you do not have an email address, you have not 'acquired' a user. If they had email addresses, they could have focused on sending out emails while trying to seek other platforms to develop for.
As for the people offended about AppGratis' business model. Can you explain the difference between it and Groupon? Or any super bowl ad? It is wrong for someone to have money to promote their apps?
i'm not offended by AppGratis' business model but i am offended by the notion that Apple are in the wrong for cracking down on paid installs. AppGratis can do whatever they want but they shouldn't expect Apple's support
ok, Appgratis was "curating" the apps, and their reviews were quite funny sometimes, but still, their business model was not "editorial", you need to pay to get reviewed. And why would you do that? Well...to boost your rankings within the App Store.
With that developer/advertiser money Appgratis can then do their own paid promotion to acquire more downloads, then go back with an even bigger claim to advertisers/developers and resell that inventory. This is basically an arbitrage model and i can understand why Apple wouldn't like that.
Anyway, they've got $13M to pivot, so they should be fine.
But the fact is that there are a huge number of other famous applications which do that and still not banned, it looks like a selective ban - and that has become kind of an Apple culture now.
This whole situation highlights another problem, you should never base a business around a third party API or service. Remember when Twitter changed their guidelines and API usage rules basically destroying companies that had built a product based around Twitter only for it to be deemed in violation of the new rules? This situation should be a warning to others thinking of putting their eggs in one basket, because if the service you've come to rely on has the final say in the end for how your product should function and if that understanding is based on loose interpretation of company rules, you are at the mercy of that reviewer.
I hope AppGratis sorts this all out, it's a heartbreaking story. I know from experience what it's like to spend months working on something only for it to be rejected.
Never? There are many cases of highly successful businesses being based upon a 3rd party API. E.g.: every successful software company that sold CP/M, DOS, Windows or UNIX software.
Perhaps a better statement would be: understand that there are risks inherent to building for any given API, study those risks, and mitigate them.
CP/M seems to be dying off? Hope you've started your DOS port already :)
You make a valid point, but I was referring more specifically to web based services and more tightly controlled micro-commerce platforms and operating systems. Considering the high market share of Android I can't fathom ever not building both an Android and iOS version of an app, regardless of cost you have one or the other to fallback on. If both fail however, then you have a mega problem.
From what I understand, AppGratis was pushing apps to top ranks. For Apple this is probably equivalent to bots behavior. A company that guarantees top ranks is not welcome in the App Store.
In addition being a user myself i have observed that many times if not all the time, apps they promote are not disclosed as advertising to their users and in addition many times are not deals at all when the company is promising one paid to free apps every day. For example today apps being promoted is Mobli, which was always free (Right?).
One more thing, they were also claiming "negotiating" those deals with developers. But here also I noticed that many times they were just taking the deals from others like Apple free app of the week. Is that wrong? no.... but they were presenting it in a way that makes a user believe the deal was brought by them and not by Apple or whoever.
I also never liked how the company is forcing me to tweet before getting a deal to download.
Probably the company was too "agressive" and this is what Apple did not like. They are referring to the rules the company violated but in my opinion and again as a simple ex user observer it looks that the company was very agressive in their business practices.
Time to pivot, go web mobile, retain user base, launch from there maybe, - but overall you should of seen this coming, any time you get "tooo" close to app core apps, especially the app store models no matter how much you "fix" their problem, you will get pinched.
And the paying 20k for app promotion, or taking rev share on apps sold, that was just plain stupid given that you provide apple more ammo.
If your business model is complete and utterly depended on a single third-party company, one need to be aware of the risk. It should be in every iphone exclusive company mind that Apple is in complete control, and are the sole dictator in what business models is allowed to exist on the phone.
Startups should thus do risk analyzes as part of creating a business plan. If your depended on a single supplier, then it need to be calculated in. If the supplier ever feels threatened, or has reason to enter your market, then there is nothing one can do to prevents them from cutting you of. The only option is to either gamble that it wont happen, or diversify your business to the point where you are no longer in a fully depended relationship with the supplier.
It should be mentioned that the business model of service providers when they implement a "walled garden" (Closed platform) is to retain a complete level of control. If app developers would refuse to develop to walled gardens, then this kind of problems would not exist.
Yep, sucks to be a developer though. You can spend a year developing an app only to have it pulled from the store. Of course, the risk is low so you might try anyway but the situation sucks.
Heres why you should persevere though: I have 5 ios apps; together, they pay for my property tax and my mortgage. My house costs $1.1 mln btw. Prop tax in CA is ~1.25%. I am not deeply wedded to ios btw inspite of my revenue. I moved my client side code to Android. Took me ~3 weeks. Unlike Simon, I hedge my (appstore) bets.
Is being listed in the App Store a contract? Does it matter that my app was good to go at one point but could be pulled at any time if they introduce a new guideline? How do they justify unilaterally affecting what has to be a billion dollar industry that relies (or what could amount to legal reliance for equitable reasons) on them?
There is a contract, the developer agreement. If you read it, it says that Apple can reject your app for violating it's rules. It also says that Apple has full latitude to reject your app even if it doesn't violate any of the rules because Apple decides it's in their best interest.
Apple can basically pull any app at any time. You can choose not to develop for them, or you could try to sue them (you'd probably have to prove that they did something anti-competitive to get past the contract).
Although I do agree that this is nerve wracking, I think the situation will resolve itself.
The one question I have is ... why did they use push notifications to send a daily message, when they could have just scheduled them locally? Clearly Apple notices anomalous traffic for non-transactional notifications, such as one that's sent once a day to everyone, and that's probably what alerted some unrelated guys in the app store. I imagine the guy wanted to follow up and then, unable to reach the CEO, pulled the app.
I would say the company with so many employees should probably have other people to pick up the slack for the CEO when he is on a plane.
Of course, what do I know. We have a completely different structure, and are distributed around the world.
It's not stated that they used "remote" push notifications, maybe they're talking about local push notifications.
Also, I guess Apple only tried to reach the CEO because when you summit an iOS app, you have to give them the information a person to contact in case they need to. I guess they gave them the CEO information.
Work for a tyrant and you will eventually get screwed over - a good lesson for developers who target Apple products.
Stallman remains very right on Apple - it is the antithesis of openness and hacker culture, and the fact that good programmers choose to be Apple serfs is very disappointing.
For those who say developers have no choice but to target Apple products or lose a big chunk of revenue - if developers had refused to develop apps for Apple from the outset, and only targeted open platforms, they wouldn't be in a dominant position in the first place.
This German site [1] had an article on the bare cost AppGratis asked the developers to pay:
In Germany you pay 15.400€ for a slot.
They work on a CPI basis. The CPI rate is 1,1 euro for iPhone and 2.2 for iPad. They list the amount of downloads that they "generally can achieve in Germany, Austria and Switzerland"
Why, when I CTRL+ their site does the text get smaller and smaller while the images get larger and larger? I have a 1920x1080 display and don't have super-human vision...
Anyone that basis their entire business on a single platform controlled by a draconian company like Apple should not be surprised when things like this happen
Specially since they are being a little shady, creating their app store inside the App Store. Apple can interpret their TOS however way they want and ban their app at any time.
A company like Apple can be lordly and draconian in their practices, but it would still pay a dividend for them to be consistent, fair, and to have a reasonable review and communication process that distinguishes between some kid writing malware and a mature company with a serious investment in iOS and a history of asking questions and getting approval for their product as it develops.
They pulled AppShopper, now they pull AppGratis. This is stupid. Apple's store sucks. You can't discover anything unless it comes out that week and has the hype of Apple's week one marketing behind it unless someone you follow on Twitter starts pimping it.
I'm probably going to get like a hundred downvotes for this, but don't develop for Apple. There rules are not clear, and they ban apps based on their whim. Especially if you are famous and a threat to their current or future apps.
Hmm, even just reading his blog post I think his daily push message promoting a deal on another app violates the guidelines - and that's his side of the story which should be the most favorable, heh.
1. The WSJ report noted that Apple was concerned that " AppGratis was pushing a business model that appeared to favor developers with the financial means to pay for exposure." Simon hasn't addressed this point. Do they make paid recommendations ?
If they do make app-recommendations based on payments, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to ban them. As an iOS (and Android) developer, I personally think that paid-recommendations are bad for the ecosystem (though I'm sure that some giant shops paying for recommendations may disagree). At the least, I think users of AppGratis should be told if the recommendations are "paid for".
2. Simon's discussion of rule 5.6 doesn't really address the problem. Rule 5.6 says "Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind."
Simon counters by saying that they only send one notification per day and that users opt-in. However, neither claim refutes the fact that they''re violating rule 5.6. All iOS push-notifications are opt-in anyway. Rule 5.6 says 'no advertisement , no promotions,.... no direct marketing'. It doesn't make exceptions for apps that only send one notification per day. Now Simon could argue that Rule 5.6 is bad for the user and that push-notification-advertisements/promotions are good. That may be a debatable point. However, it is clear that his claims do nothing to counter the fact that AppGratis violates Rule 5.6 (as it is written)