Why AppGratis Was Pulled From the App Store 146
RougeFemme writes "By now, you may know that AppGratis, a popular app discovery app, was recently pulled from the App store. Apple listed violations of the following guidelines: '2.25 Apps that display Apps other than your own for purchase or promotion in a manner similar to or confusing with the App Store will be rejected. ... 5.6 Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind.' Now, the company's CEO, Simon Dawlat, has made a blog post with 'the rest of the story.'"
As it turns out, AppGratis had been cleared by Apple for guideline 2.25 as recently as October, and its iPad version was approved less than a week ago. The brand new Apple review team member who contacted the company isn't able to explain what went into the decision to ban it now. Dalwat says the complaint about guideline 5.6 was 'another surprise for us since we only send one "system notification" a day to our users, coming in the form of a generic, opt-in only "Today’s deal is here!" message, which is precisely how Apple recommends developers to use its push notification service.'" However, the AllThingsD article cites sources claiming Apple 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." Dalwat does not address this in his post.
Live by the walled garden... (Score:2, Insightful)
Die by the walled garden.
Develop open source if you don't want your hard work to live entirely at the whims of someone else, whose interests probably don't align with yours. All the worse if you put all your proverbial eggs in this basket, grew a bit, and had the carpet pulled out from under you (a 45-person company in this case).
I feel sorry for these guys, but the problem is the walled-garden ecosystems which are - unfortunately - proliferating instead of dying out.
They'll all die out eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Die by the walled garden.
And seek publicity for the walled garden (but remember: don't ever call it a jail, or even an internment camp!). /.
According to TFA, their app got re-approved with a few tweaks. The whole thing reeks of being just another crapple crapvertisement from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the article... they had issues in the past, over-came them and believed to be in good standing, then they got pulled again.
It seems quite obvious that their app was very borderline, so getting pulled should not come as a surprise to them or anyone. There's also a small point in the guidelines that says "complaining about a rejection in public doesn't improve your chances of getting allowed back". In the end, iOS users will be able to survive without an app that makes purchase suggestions according to how much money they were paid.
Re:Live by the walled garden... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It would be a surprise if you weren't trying to skirt the lines of the rules already, but they KNEW they were riding the line already. They've been rejected more than once before. It shouldn't really be a surprise when they ban it again, especially if it happens to be for reasons they may not have noticed in testing ... like say, notifications that weren't during the 'testing' phase?
This isn't a quality app so this isn't an issue in that respect, no one is going to miss an app that recommends purchases ba
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If apple wants quality apps in their store, they need to act in a predictable manner that businesses can work with.
Cool story bro. Except that compared to the Play store and Amazon stores, the average quality in the Apple store is higher. We may hate it as geeks, but average users don't. So they're doing something right, even if it keeps me off their products.
Re: (Score:2)
The average quality of things that are available in the store might be, but a great deal of useful stuff is not available. And some stuff that is available is feature limited, so the assertion that it's higher quality is dubious (e.g. compare Kindle app on iOS and on Android).
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to judge the entirety of the App Store based on a single app. If you did, I could write off Android a hundred thousand times over, where specific apps are either of poorer quality or not available on Android.
So, you can only narrow the question question is weather ebook readers on iOS are as good or better than on Android.
Amazon choosing not to take part in Apple's in-app purchase scheme is neither here nor there, other ebook apps do. Indeed Apple has a good one built in.
Re: (Score:2)
I did get to judge the entirety of app store based on the whole selection available to me, and I pronounced it lacking. Kindle is but one example; anyone who owned both an iOS and an Android device can come up with plenty more. Sapienti sat.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny you'd use Kindle as an example. It's much better on iOS than on Android.
Last I checked, I still can't use volume controls on iPhone to flip pages in Kindle. That alone is a killer feature on Android.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a quality app. It's an app that essentially does paid recommendations, and nags people. Part of the reason why Apple's store does have better quality apps in it is because apps do get stopped when they overstep the mark of obnoxiousness.
Re: (Score:2)
What a petty little schoolmistress-authoritarian policy. Assuming app developers are cowed (and hey, they're developing for Apple! You bet they are), the rejection complaints we see are probably the top of the iceberg.
Re:Live by the walled garden... (Score:4, Insightful)
What world do you live in that makes sense?
You're arguing that Apple is petty for telling you that throwing a petty temper tantrum in public won't help you?
Seriously?
Re:Live by the walled garden... (Score:4, Informative)
You got to see this in context of Apple's policies. They've been known to exclude journalists from events because they've said things Apple didn't like.
It's not just that Apple has a reputation for being petty and vindictive. Apple wants that reputation in the industry, so people dependent on them (or dependent on writing about them) talk them up on their own initiative, or at least abstain from criticism.
In that light "complaining about a rejection in public doesn't improve your chances of getting allowed back" must be understood as what it is: a threat. If the app approval process was merely a matter of objectively interpreting the rules, the converse statement ("complaining about a rejection in public doesn't hurt your chances of getting allowed back") would be just as true, and why would they bother to say it then?
But the converse isn't true. The app store guidelines aren't interpreted objectively or fairly, they're interpreted with the customary Apple vindictiveness and jealousy. And they want app developers to know.
Re: (Score:2)
You got to see this in context of Apple's policies. They've been known to exclude journalists from events because they've said things Apple didn't like.
It's not just that Apple has a reputation for being petty and vindictive. Apple wants that reputation in the industry, so people dependent on them (or dependent on writing about them) talk them up on their own initiative, or at least abstain from criticism.
In that light "complaining about a rejection in public doesn't improve your chances of getting allowed back" must be understood as what it is: a threat. If the app approval process was merely a matter of objectively interpreting the rules, the converse statement ("complaining about a rejection in public doesn't hurt your chances of getting allowed back") would be just as true, and why would they bother to say it then?
But the converse isn't true. The app store guidelines aren't interpreted objectively or fairly, they're interpreted with the customary Apple vindictiveness and jealousy. And they want app developers to know.
Wow. What a lot of anger. Can't you find anything interesting in your life to do other than rant against Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
With that "Why do you hate America" answer, I think we can end the debate here.
Re: (Score:2)
With that "Why do you hate America" answer, I think we can end the debate here.
Way to reply without anything. You spew about vindictiveness and jealousy. If you don't like them, fine - don't patronize them. But spending time ranting and raving accomplishes nothing. Chill out.
Re: (Score:2)
You got to see this in context of Apple's policies. They've been known to exclude journalists from events because they've said things Apple didn't like.
Oooh. Of course Samsung is known for inviting bloggers to international trade fairs, where they are forced to staff the booths. True story [thenextweb.com]. Not to mention suing journalists that say things they didn't like. Another true story [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Borderline?
Shouldn't the user get to decide if they want to use it or not?
Malware - shouldn't the user get to decide if they have it or not.
Spam - shouldn't the user get to decide if they want to receive it or not.
People choose to use services that reduce their exposure to crap, rather than do the work of filtering through the crap themselves. The App Store is one of those services.
If people were downloading it and using it and were getting good use of it, it was of value to them correct?
That's a big if. The company's business model isn't in having satisfied customers that buy the app. It's in other app developers paying them to promote their apps. They're not quite at the level of spa
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, iOS users will be able to survive without an app that makes purchase suggestions according to how much money they were paid.
They can live without the multitude of fart apps too, but it seems Apple doesn't think much of its customers given they don't get rejected on the clause "Apps that are not very useful, unique, are simply web sites bundled as Apps, or do not provide any lasting entertainment value may be rejected."
You'd have to be a naive idiot to think they are doing anything but preventing competition in a space they will undoubtedly enter shortly.
Apple hasn't accepted new fart apps since September 2010. Google still does gladly.
Re: (Score:2)
Closed systems are bad um ok
Re: (Score:2)
So if open is so much better for developers, then why are iOS developers making 75% of the revenues from mobile app downloads?
http://www.canalys.com/newsroom/11-quarterly-growth-downloads-leading-app-stores [canalys.com]
Re:Live by the walled garden... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if open is so much better for developers, then why are iOS developers making 75% of the revenues from mobile app downloads?
http://www.canalys.com/newsroom/11-quarterly-growth-downloads-leading-app-stores [canalys.com]
Money != morality
Re: (Score:2)
Money != morality
I would have gone with the much simpler answer:
iOS devs make 70% from app downloads at Apple's forbearance.
Re: (Score:2)
The same percentage that Google Play charges.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's more than ANY of the mobile app stores were paying before Apple came along. I was getting 57% on my Symbian apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Feeding my clones == Immortality
Re: (Score:3)
Letting families starve if family members refuse to perform acts which they would, were their family's lives not held hostage, consider immoral == Immorality == Capitalism.
Android apps tend to use ads more often (Score:4, Insightful)
then why are iOS developers making 75% of the revenues from mobile app downloads?
The article you linked states that though Apple had the lion's share of revenue from priced applications, Google Play Store had more total downloads, paid and free, than downloads from Apple, Microsoft, and RIM stores combined. (Conspicuous by its absence from the article is Amazon, but that's beside my point.)
Let me take a guess as to why Google wins downloads while Apple wins revenue. Apple never launched the iPod touch, iPhone, or iPad in a given country without support for iTunes payment. Google, on the other hand, chose to allow sales of devices with Android Market (now Play) in some countries to which it hadn't yet launched Checkout (now Wallet). To reach customers in those countries, developers had to make their applications available without charge and recoup their expenses through advertising. This set up an expectation among Android users that applications would have an ad-supported version. Didn't Rovio claim to earn more from advertisements in ad-supported versions of Angry Birds than from sale of priced versions?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Acquisition cost (Score:2)
[gigaom.com]
Another article from the same site in September of last year states that iOS used to produce five times the revenue of Android, but the gap is shrinking [gigaom.com]. Even if iOS still draws 40 to 50 percent more revenue per user, acquisition costs per user tend to run lower on Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, making the platform open to competition keeps app prices down. This, in turn makes the platform more attractive.
Re: (Score:3)
That advice is all well and good until you want to actually get paid for your work.
Re:Live by the walled garden... (Score:5, Insightful)
AppGratis is an app where developers pay money for getting their app in the Top 100 rankings and such. You pay them somewhere between 4k and tens of thousands of dollars, then you set your app to FREE for a day they tell you and the send a message to a certain number of users in order to get you pushed to the ranking you paid for on Apple's lists. Some of these users aren't actual users, just accounts used to inflate the rankings.
This is the absolute scummiest type of 'marketing' in existence without flat out lying. Its manipulation of the system for financial gain based on bribes. Apple banning them is a GOOD THING. Might as well be Payola. Apple doesn't want their rankings or their users tainted by scummy advertising scams.
Walled garden or not, you don't want this type of app or system to exist. Put down your apple pitch fork long enough to see the bigger picture.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But, isn't that the Apple business model?
My first thought is Apple has it's own offering coming out that works exactly how AppGratis works.
Re: (Score:2)
What does paying to get "likes" from computer-generated accounts have to do with providing a list of free apps to iOS users?
Re: (Score:2)
sure walled gardens have their pros and cons.. but the Play store would also SUCK if they let developers pay for placement
http://allthingsd.com/20130408/confirmed-apple-kicks-appgratis-out-of-the-store-for-being-too-pushy/ [allthingsd.com]
"In other words, app-discovery platforms built on paid recommendations aren’t going to fly with Apple."
"app discovery" is different than "app PR" how exactly?
some PR firms are into sketchy shit: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/08/25/1946230/gaming-the-app-store [slashdot.org]
CUE the critics. (Score:1)
Buy an Android phone instead (Score:1, Offtopic)
As opposed to Apple's model? (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to their somehow having managed to con local news into covering every stinking Apple Store opening even though retailers and service centers throughout Apple's history have provided the exact same services that the Apple Store provides, for the same price?
Re: (Score:1)
CNN has mentioned linux on air 2 times in a decade.
They've mentioned Apple about a googleplex...
Re: (Score:1)
No its not. Its built on BSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has benefited from the popularity of linux in a number of ways but to say it would be nothing without linux is not at all accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
OS X in particular is a descendent of NeXTStep which predates linux and is closer to BSD.
Wow - I was shocked to discover this timing is true. I remember installing Slackware the same year I bought the Nextstep dev kit, and I could have sworn Linux was older but no: I was just early on Linux and late on Next.
Apple has certainly benefitted from the GNU toolset, but I'm sure RMS would be the first to say "see, that's why the GNU should come first in GNU/Linux".
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to their somehow having managed to con local news into covering every stinking Apple Store opening even though retailers and service centers throughout Apple's history have provided the exact same services that the Apple Store provides, for the same price?
B.S. Back in the day before the Apple store, it was nearly impossible to find a "brick and mortar" retailer that was knowledgable about their Apple products. The sales people would generally steer customers to PCs, and not even mention that they sold Macs. They carried very little if any Mac software if any at all. That's why everyone ordered through catalogs over the phone, from places like MacWarehouse, or directly from Apple. This lack of a physical presence is one of the reasons that Apple opened t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"It didn't say advertising, so it must have been paid for."
Are you advertising your own shitty Video Blog, or are you getting paid for it?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be kidding. How on earth whas the service or retailers before the Apple store the "exact same service". Besides, Apple Stores are like Gap for technology. The business model is being imitated already so please stop this nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to their somehow having managed to con local news into covering every stinking Apple Store opening even though retailers and service centers throughout Apple's history have provided the exact same services that the Apple Store provides, for the same price?
Oh, so Apple cons the local news? Conspiracy theory much? Put down your tinfoil hat and open your eyes. You're blinded by your own hate.
Apple BS... (Score:1)
I would probably find this app annoying, but so is Apple's schizo application vetting & approval policy.
Animal entrails can be read more reliably.
Money that Apple wanted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This "no-promotion" and "no buying of rankings" is no different from Google's "no links for money" policy.
Re: (Score:2)
This "no-promotion" and "no buying of rankings" is no different from Google's "no links for money" policy.
But, but, Apple is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
This "no-promotion" and "no buying of rankings" is no different from Google's "no links for money" policy.
With the difference that Apple actually follows through - http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-embraces-paid-inclusion-13138 [marketingland.com]
Plain-text EULA (Score:5, Funny)
I've decrypted the Apple EULA. It says this:
"Apple must make the majority of any profit to be had. Developers will be paid only a fraction of what their efforts are worth. Loyalty to the Furo--er, Brand is absolute. Apps which go against our brandalist(tm) propaganda are to be banned with immediate effect using one of the dozen or so vaguely-defined rules outlined below. Ka-Pla!"
But more seriously guys... if you're developing for Apple, prepare to be raped. They don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about you, the developer. You should feel privileged to develop for the legacy of the Great Man Jobs. How dare you ask for a fair share of the profit! If you want that, go slink off and develop for (spits) that Anderzoid platform or whatever it's called. Apple is the future. Suck it up, cupcake.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just curious--what do you consider to be a fair share of the profits?
I have no complaint with Apple's policies for their App Store (it's their store, after all). My complaint with the App Store is mostly that it is the only way to get apps on your non-jailbroken iOS device, so there's no competition. If I want to distribute it myself and handle the infrastructure/support for my own store, too bad. If someone else comes along and wants to offer a differe
Re: (Score:2)
I have a soul.
How much does it weigh? What color is it?
Re: (Score:2)
And Visa and Mastercard make far more money per transaction than Apple does.
The average cost of an iPhone app is $1.47. The average transaction for credit card is a lot more.
Plus you're only mentioning the cost that merchants pay. Visa and Mastercard are also benefiting from interest on the debt they build up by enabling easy credit.
Anyone who thinks Apple's 30% is too much just doesn't know what they are talking about. Google has exactly the same. And going back before Apple launched a store, the existing
Re:Plain-text EULA (Score:4, Informative)
I've decrypted the Apple EULA. It says this:
"Apple must make the majority of any profit to be had. Developers will be paid only a fraction of what their efforts are worth. Loyalty to the Furo--er, Brand is absolute. Apps which go against our brandalist(tm) propaganda are to be banned with immediate effect using one of the dozen or so vaguely-defined rules outlined below. Ka-Pla!"
But more seriously guys... if you're developing for Apple, prepare to be raped. They don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about you, the developer. You should feel privileged to develop for the legacy of the Great Man Jobs. How dare you ask for a fair share of the profit! If you want that, go slink off and develop for (spits) that Anderzoid platform or whatever it's called. Apple is the future. Suck it up, cupcake.
Interesting, given that the split on revenue is 70:30 in favour of the developer and for that 30% they handle all of the hosting, distribution, updates, credit card payments and billing etc and just give you the money, greatly simplifying the process of online distribution involving small transactions.
The App Store itself has been an enormous cash cow for developers, large and small alike.
Apple's financial statements tell you exactly how much profit they make on the store (hint: it's extremely low, but it is above zero), and if you think they're lying about that as has been often suggested then file a complaint over fraudulent financial reporting - it's a very serious crime.
Developers, on the other hand, are making hay on the store. I'd be interested to see how you justify Apple making "the majority of any profit to be had" with some actual numbers, or if it's just more rampant, ill-informed Apple bashing as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
30% is far to much, and extremely in excess of any operation costs they may have.
Does that apply to Google's store on Android too then?
Can we have that on the record that if Apple's 30% cut is "extremely in excess of any operation costs they may have" that the 30% Google charges is also "extremely in excess" too?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is, but the difference here is that nobody needs to sell through Google Play to sell android applications. There are several other android stores and developers can even sell applications at their own web sites, as Humblebundle does, for example. If you don't like their fee you are not forced to sell though them and they cannot prevent you from selling your Apps elsewhere.
Ah, so one rule for Google, one for Apple.
Apple doesn't stop you selling your app in other places either, and you can even release it as a web app on iOS if you so choose (less effective than a dedicated app, but some developers have gone that route - Apple even promoted it themselves during the iOS maps fiasco mentioning that the web version of google maps was available while they waited for Google to submit the native version to the store).
But, just to boil your argument right down, you're saying that Goo
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so one rule for Google, one for Apple.
Apple doesn't stop you selling your app in other places either
No, there is one rule, and it is this. If it is illegal to run apps sold in other places on your phone, then you're not actually permitting selling the app in other places. And since that is very much the situation (at least in the USA) the fact is that Android is the superior platform in this case. If you go to install an APK from another source, which is as simple as opening the file, you are prompted to permit installing applications from third party sources. You don't even have that option with an iDevi
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so one rule for Google, one for Apple.
Apple doesn't stop you selling your app in other places either
No, there is one rule, and it is this. If it is illegal to run apps sold in other places on your phone, then you're not actually permitting selling the app in other places. And since that is very much the situation (at least in the USA) the fact is that Android is the superior platform in this case. If you go to install an APK from another source, which is as simple as opening the file, you are prompted to permit installing applications from third party sources. You don't even have that option with an iDevice unless you break the law.
I'm not arguing the "superior" platform, I'm querying the assertion that a 30% cut on Google's store is ok (according to slashdot), but a 30% cut on Apple's store is "extremely excessive" purely because Apple's store (and web apps) are the only non-enterprise/non-hobbiest way to install apps.
The argument is "Google's 30% cut is ok because you can use other stores". I'm arguing that if it's not excessive for Google, then it's not excessive for Apple, and vice versa. Either both are gouging "extremely in exce
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is "Google's 30% cut is ok because you can use other stores". I'm arguing that if it's not excessive for Google, then it's not excessive for Apple, and vice versa
And I'm arguing that you're using specious reasoning for some reason I can't discern, because the situation is clearly different. In the case of Apple, if you want to go to someone who doesn't take 30%, your users have to break the law. In the case of Android, you can distribute directly to the users yourself, and your users don't have to break the law. That's when 30% isn't 30%. In one case it is legally mandatory and in the other case it is not. If you don't see that using the law to enforce your restrict
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is "Google's 30% cut is ok because you can use other stores". I'm arguing that if it's not excessive for Google, then it's not excessive for Apple, and vice versa
And I'm arguing that you're using specious reasoning for some reason I can't discern, because the situation is clearly different. In the case of Apple, if you want to go to someone who doesn't take 30%, your users have to break the law. In the case of Android, you can distribute directly to the users yourself, and your users don't have to break the law. That's when 30% isn't 30%. In one case it is legally mandatory and in the other case it is not. If you don't see that using the law to enforce your restriction changes the situation, then there's nothing I can do to explain this to you.
Developers are legally required to sell on iOS?
Developing for iOS is a choice, as it is on Android. You have *more* choices on Android, but that doesn't change the fact that the official Google store has the same financial terms as the iOS store. 30% is 30%. Your options should you choose not to use the official store on either platform vary, but the stores themselves work the same way. There's nothing specious about it.
The argument is claiming that a 30% cut is excessive. Why is it not excessive for Google
Re: (Score:2)
Developers are legally required to sell on iOS?
No, nor are they legally required to sell on Android. You failed at reading comprehension, because I explicitly stated that I was talking about the requirements of the users. Please try again.
the official Google store has the same financial terms as the iOS store.
Bullshit prevarication. iOS does not have the same functional terms as Android does, because you cannot install apps without the official Apple app store without breaking the law, but you can do so on Android. That is the difference. If you want to sell apps for iOS, then only users willing to break the law are going t
Re: (Score:2)
Developers are legally required to sell on iOS?
No, nor are they legally required to sell on Android. You failed at reading comprehension, because I explicitly stated that I was talking about the requirements of the users. Please try again.
the official Google store has the same financial terms as the iOS store.
Bullshit prevarication. iOS does not have the same functional terms as Android does, because you cannot install apps without the official Apple app store without breaking the law, but you can do so on Android. That is the difference. If you want to sell apps for iOS, then only users willing to break the law are going to buy from you in a venue where you're going to give Apple less than 30%, or as others have pointed out, 33% if you're one of the majority of app developers making less than $3k given the additional $100 fee, to say nothing of the Apple tax. A machine suitable for Android development can be had for $300 or so, how much is a Mac Mini?
The argument is claiming that a 30% cut is excessive. Why is it not excessive for Google just because a developer can choose to "go it alone"?
If you don't see how choice changes the equation, I cannot help you.
I'm aware you were talking about users - I was just using some hyperbole to point out that development on iOS is a choice, not something that a developer is forced into. Your point that Google's store is different because a developer can choose not to sell in it. I'm noting that the same is true of iOS - no one is forcing you to sell on it.
A machine suitable for iOS development can be had for $300 or so too. Why says you have to buy brand new? If the cost of a development machine is a dealbreaker in a busin
Re: (Score:2)
No, are Store A and Store B's 30% cuts equally excessive?
Sure they are.
Is Store B's cut now acceptable because you can use the open air market on the outskirts?
Again, sure it is, and lets forget that in our case it is not only a single market in the outskirts. There is one other big store competing, several mid sized stores, and many open market stalls spread throughout the town.
Store A and Store B own all the land the respective towns are built on
Which is only true for store A. Store B doesn't own the land and cannot prevent you from putting your vendor shack anywhere, even if it wanted.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A) You'll be surprised how you can mislead or completely lie. I mean, how many companies are saying most of their money from outside America for lower taxes? It's not illegal, but certainly "fraudulent"
B) Hosting and distribution (on an electronic medium, this is the same): You can get 500GB for $100 from Dropbox, and this is a customer facing website (not a B2B). The cost of hosting a 100MB file (which is unusual for an application to be this large) would be about 2 cents. (2% of 99 cent application).
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Hosting costs based on a "customer facing site" from dropbox to describe Apple's situation regarding server requirements and bandwidth....
Man, I'm crying with laughter over here. Please, keep going, oh mighty business expert!
Re: (Score:3)
The App Store itself has been an enormous cash cow for developers, large and small alike.
Let's test that theory. First up, who's making the big bucks? corporations [theregister.co.uk]. In fact, over half make Less than $3,000 [tuaw.com]. There are other [thedailybeast.com] stories showing the lack of millionaires pouring out of Apple's "enormous cash cow" as you put it. I mean, besides Apple.
Apple's financial statements tell you exactly how much profit they make on the store (hint: it's extremely low, but it is above zero), and if you think they're lying about that as has been often suggested then file a complaint over fraudulent financial reporting - it's a very serious crime.
And as we all know, fraudulent financial reporting, because it's such a serious crime, doesn't happen very often. Like Enron, the subprime mortgage crisis, the "too big to fail" financial institutions, that debacle with Lloyds of London, and oh the list goe
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I can see you simply don't live in the real world, and you accuse Apple users of being affected by the RDF.
I see you left of payment processing and support, but those are zero costs of course. It doesn't cost you anything to support your customers or handle payments.
As to "renting space in a data center", I imagine you know Apple's needs better than them, but they decided to actually *build* data centres of their own. I guess your armchair quarterbacking has analysed their needs perfectly though. You s
Re:Plain-text EULA (Score:4, Insightful)
And now, GirlinTraining Eats an Apple Fanboy, Except For The Core Of Course ...
Wow, I can see you simply don't live in the real world, and you accuse Apple users of being affected by the RDF.
I accused them of adhering to their mission statement, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.
I see you left of payment processing and support, but those are zero costs of course.
Considering that the developers only get paid when their balance reaches a certain threshold or a certain amount of time has elapsed, yeah, practically zero.
It doesn't cost you anything to support your customers or handle payments.
One of these things is not like the other. Can you spot it?
As to "renting space in a data center", I imagine you know Apple's needs better than them, but they decided to actually *build* data centres of their own.
Actually, I don't. But I do know them better than you [gigaom.com] apparently do. The app store alone brings in six billion a year. Go look it up, I'll wait. The data center, equipment, land, everything, cost 1/6th of that. New. From scratch. Obviously, day to day costs would be lower. A lot lower. You may remember another company that has a very large data center: It's called Google, and as I understand it, they're one of the biggest companies on the planet and they don't charge or take a cut of your website's fees to operate. Their profit margins aren't exactly... tiny. So margins for Apple here are huge. Massively huge. Triple digit huge. And with a six billion dollar market, we're talking holy-fuck I just won the lottery huge payout. Which of course, I know, and Apple knows, but you apparently, did not know. I ascribe this to the fact that you only read about technology on forum websites like slashdot, instead of busying yourself with inventing them, as I do. And possibly having not taken macroeconomics yet.
My point about Apple's financial statements was not that fraud never happens../
Back pedal any harder and you may solve the energy crisis. No, you said fraud is a serious crime and implied that any alleged impropriety that Apple could be accused of was likely false, because said fraud is rare. I responded with common-knowledge news events that stamped this with a giant "Bullshit" in 9 foot tall lettering.
Also, I find it amusing that you consider the $99 annual fee to not only be "hidden" (seriously, wtf?) but that it is somehow crippling.
Well, if your math skills didn't suck so hard they were in danger of creating an event horizon from which no clue can escape, you'd realize that $100 from a developer that's making less than $3,000 in the majority of the cases means Apple's cut from this alone is over 3%. That "Apple only takes 30%" is white-washed Grade A marketing bullshit. It takes more. In fact, when you add it all up, they take about as much as the recording industries do from their artists. Which, big surprise, since it's the same business model, but just has a trendy hipster icon plastered across the front.
- the clear indication here is that hobbyist developers are actually finding success on the store.
Your definition of success would be "made more than nothing." My definition of success is somewhat more mature, and reasonable: Makes enough to live on. When you get out of mom's basement, I suspect your definition of success will be less based on the brand of toys you own and more on your ability to get food into your mouth.
What are the earnings of those same group of sub-3k developers on Android, for example? Or simply those releasing software for any platform via their own distribution method.
We weren't discussing
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe there was more coherence in the rest of the post, but it doesn't look likely. Sorry.
That's okay. I felt the same way about your childish rantings, but it's a slow night at work...
Re: (Score:1)
All this App-Store shenanigans, and yet time and again, developers refuse to port stuff to Android for fear of some extra work (fragmentation). Hitching your wagon to such an unstable horse seems awfully dangerous for a business model.
somebody call the whaaaambulance (Score:2)
Seriously... you know what you're getting into when you develop for Apple's locked down ecosystem, and if you did not realize your survival there will forever be at the mercy of your corporate overlord's whims, you are to oblivious to succeed anyway.
AppGratis, the popular app discovery app (Score:1)
Yo dawg!
I heard you like apps, so I put app discovery in your app so you can discover apps while using your app!
Disturbed by the concept of Advertising? (Score:4, Informative)
In other words they are disturbed by an advertising App whose business model is based on that of every other advertising firm on the planet?
Re: (Score:1)
No, they have nothing against advertising, but it has to be them being paid for serving them, not competition.
Re:Disturbed by the concept of Advertising? (Score:5, Insightful)
The app basically allows you to pay between $4k and tens of thousands of dollars to 'buy' a slot in the apple top downloads rankings for a day.
You give AppGratis 10K, and they tell you to put your app to $0 on next tuesday. Come tuesday you do your part, they notify a bunch of accounts (some real, some fake) about your app, these accounts then go download your free app, you climb up to number 80 on Apples charts for the day. The next day you put your price back up to something non-zero and hope that word of mouth and visibility give you an increased sales rate.
THAT is the problem. Its manipulating the market numbers based on who pays the most. It's buying a spot on the rankings that people think are generated by some form of actual popularity. Its a lie.
You would be pissed if Apple said '$100k gets you #1 app for a day, sign up here!' wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
In other words they are disturbed by an advertising App whose business model is based on that of every other advertising firm on the planet?
No, they're disturbed by the fact that every other advertising firm on the planet can compete under AppGratis' model. The Apple model has only one advertising firm: Apple.
Old Ben (Score:2)
- Benjamin Franklin, writing an angry notice when his app was rejected by Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I value my right to be free of advertising after paying for something. So you are saying that everybody has an essential liberty to splatter ads on my personal stuff? In law, your right to something ends where mine begins. And you have to work a balance out of that notion.
Hate to be cynical .. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So... (Score:2)
hypocritical much (Score:1)
Apple 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."
for a moment there i got confused into thinking apple was troubled by it's own app store
Why? (Score:1)
Why is this even an App? (Score:2)
If all they are doing is presenting products to users, I am baffled why they need a native experience?
No Push Notification? (Score:2)
Yech! (Score:1)
Apple hatred blinding you (Score:2)
Because of all the Apple hatred going on here, people fail to realize that banning applications that will use any means available to plaster you with ads it's a really good thing. You can argue about the technical details of how it was done, but in general I consider this to be a very good thing. And it is one of the reasons I miss my old iPhone after trying out Android.
After reading about stuff like this, it makes me realize that even if Apple hardware is way overpriced, they are like an antivirus software
Reminds me of Stitcher (Score:2)
I still don't see how this is even freaking legal.
*THE* App Store? (Score:2)
I think you mean 'the Apple App Store'.
Was this article submitted just to surreptitiously slip the phrase into current use to bolster Apple's bogus trademark application?
Re: (Score:1)
Nope, they haven't removed the app from users who already had it installed. It still works just fine for existing users, but nobody new can download it. I'm really sort of torn on this - Apple has the right to enforce its guidelines, and it appears that AppGratis technically violated the letter of the law. But did they violate the spirit? I guess Groupon and a number of others should be pulled, too, because they send out the push-messages each day as well...
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has never used the 'killswitch', the was Amazon, crawl back in your basement and put your tinfoil hat back on.