Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

shiftyjelly.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 98 posts

Re: Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

#31

Post by dlikhten »

rkalla wrote: post #4

What I got from this blog post is that they made an uninformed decision, and ended up with an unexpected result that pissed them off from the perspective of "lost sales". The email from Amazon clarified there were no money to made and sure enough, no money was made. The added costs of the server is unfortunate and justifiably something to be upset about (especially if you weren't accounting for it), but I have to poi…

Lets say you are right, the dev is saying "omg look at teh numberz i lost 100 thousandz salez"

Note: Sales did not pick up after the free app sale. Therefore that free app sale was actually a waste of time. Furthermore their app requires a server to run, since its not a subscription-based app the server is 100% on their backs. They now support 100,000 unpaid customers with a server, and ALL those customers are going to cost them in the long run.

Amazon further moved by reducing the price of the app for 3 days without consent and modified description of the app.

TL;DR = sales on amazon are for profits of amazon only, get their numbers up but provide no real value for clients. They developer makes more money selling 10 apps a week than having the promotion which permanently harmed their revenue.

Re: Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

#32

Post by rkalla »

campnic wrote: post #24
rkalla wrote: post #4

What I got from this blog post is that they made an uninformed decision, and ended up with an unexpected result that pissed them off from the perspective of "lost sales". The email from Amazon clarified there were no money to made and sure enough, no money was made. The added costs of the server is unfortunate and justifiably something to be upset about (especially if you weren't accounting for it), but I have to poi…

Your entire response is conjecture. He readily admits he bought into the 20%, got and clarified the 0% offer, debated and went for it. He shows the 54k number as a way of reinforcing the bait-and-switch they are using to lure people into the market, not as a way to say 'i should have been paid $x'. You say 'Amazon gave that company an incredibly aggressive marketing campaign for 1 day' but let me tell you what i see.…

campnic,

I appreciate the response. I'll try and address each thing you mentioned.

--------------------

but let me tell you what i see. 'Amazon is building their market on the backs of apps by giving them away for free.'

--------------------

This company's app uses a simple software model. You pay $1.99 and you get their app. Your comment decries the entire Amazon model as benefiting them and not the developer.

I don't agree with this and here is why... let's say this company had a subscription-based app or some in-app-payment-enabled app. Suddenly it is on 101k new devices and let's say that 5k of them (5%) buy some simple subscription or even less, some 1-time-in-app-micro-resource inside the app for $.99.

Now suddenly this blog post has a very positive tone to it and the developers are praising Amazon for such a progressive app sales model and we are all here nodding our heads about how awesome it is and you and I are high-fiving each other over Skype Video because we are so excited.

The Amazon model isn't broken and it's not building a market on the backs of its developers. It can be an aggressive, mutually-beneficial relationship if both parties are prepared to take advantage of what Amazon has to offer. These guys weren't ready for that yet, but I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that come this time next year they will have a new app back in Amazon App Store, ready to do the 1-day-free-giveaway AGAIN, but this time they are going to be prepared to take advantage of all the traffic.

----------------------

Its also unnecessarily diminutive to say '... I have to point out that the sales BEFORE the free-app-of-the-day listing[1] were not impressive...". The fact of the matter is they made infinitely more money before the deal of the day then we can say they did AS A DIRECT RESULT of the deal of the day listing.

---------------------

I agree that my comment came off way too demeaning and I didn't mean it that way. I was getting carried away with making my point that from a sheer-number-of-device-installation perspective, they went from a trickle of water to a firehose in one day and that isn't a bad thing.

Re: Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

#33

Post by WalterSear »

tybris wrote: post #23
irons wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not saying the 0% price was a secret from his company, he's saying it was a secret to the general public. I pay pretty close attention, and I thought the free apps of the day were paid at the 20% rate that Amazon warns they may pay you if they unilaterally discount your app.

I see no reason to think that's not the case. This was a mutual agreement outside of the general terms. That's hardly unusual.

It is amazon's standard policy. Many developers have commented on it.

Re: Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

#34

Post by recoiledsnake »

rkalla wrote: post #4

What I got from this blog post is that they made an uninformed decision, and ended up with an unexpected result that pissed them off from the perspective of "lost sales". The email from Amazon clarified there were no money to made and sure enough, no money was made. The added costs of the server is unfortunate and justifiably something to be upset about (especially if you weren't accounting for it), but I have to poi…

>For an app selling 10-20 copies a day, how much would it have cost that company, paying a PR firm, to get it infront of 101k new users (forget about payment)... how many tweets would you have to get out or blog posts written to make 101k people aware of your app?

It's not just that, the app would've got in front of much more than 101K people for that many to download. Maybe a couple of million?

Looks like this strategy is:

1. Good for apps with ads or in-app purchaes. 2. Bad for apps that need server infrastructure on the backend.

Not all apps are like that. Since the app failed both the above categories, they shouldn't have agreed to the terms.

Other apps might be enjoying the attention happily and making money, I don't see anything 'rotten' about that.

Re: Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

#35

Post by colbygk »

rkalla wrote: post #4

What I got from this blog post is that they made an uninformed decision, and ended up with an unexpected result that pissed them off from the perspective of "lost sales". The email from Amazon clarified there were no money to made and sure enough, no money was made. The added costs of the server is unfortunate and justifiably something to be upset about (especially if you weren't accounting for it), but I have to poi…

I totally disagree with the point about the nature of a free app getting a lift in reviews.

"How many reviews may be a half to a full star higher because the app was free and there isn't that feeling of being owed value by the reviewer because they got your app for free."

Breaking a rule, I cannot currently post direct references, I hope someone either corrects or bolsters this:

I have read at least one peer-reviewed study showing that people generally see a free service/item as having less value than one that costs some X $ amount. Perhaps that doesn't translate to how they feel about the quality of that service/item, but I think your assumption about the reviews being susceptible to an extra half point is not well founded.

Re: Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

#36

Post by [deleted] »

shiftyjelly wrote: post #9
rkalla wrote: post #4

What I got from this blog post is that they made an uninformed decision, and ended up with an unexpected result that pissed them off from the perspective of "lost sales". The email from Amazon clarified there were no money to made and sure enough, no money was made. The added costs of the server is unfortunate and justifiably something to be upset about (especially if you weren't accounting for it), but I have to poi…

Can I just reply here? Here goes. I think you missed the entire point of the article. We agreed to be featured, we stand by that decision. What we take issue with is the public perception that Amazon pays their (publicly stated) 20% of the asking price for developers to be featured. They don't. Simple as that. Everything else is a beef, yes, but not our primary beef. Also we left it a month, we got featured June 27th…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

#37

Post by rkalla »

rkalla wrote: post #29
shiftyjelly wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I just reply here? Here goes. I think you missed the entire point of the article. We agreed to be featured, we stand by that decision. What we take issue with is the public perception that Amazon pays their (publicly stated) 20% of the asking price for developers to be featured. They don't. Simple as that. Everything else is a beef, yes, but not our primary beef. Also we left it a month, we got featured June 27th…

shifty, Admittedly, my response was focused more on the other beef than that single point. Given how much other information was in the post, I didn't think the 20% == 0% was the central argument; my apologies for missing that. My core belief that in the long(er) term that the give away likely would have helped the movement and sales of your app still stands though. I think you leaving it in the store for an extra mon…

Would appreciate clarification on the downvotes guys. If I'm missing something let me know.

Re: Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

#38

Post by rkalla »

colbygk wrote: post #35
rkalla wrote: post #4

What I got from this blog post is that they made an uninformed decision, and ended up with an unexpected result that pissed them off from the perspective of "lost sales". The email from Amazon clarified there were no money to made and sure enough, no money was made. The added costs of the server is unfortunate and justifiably something to be upset about (especially if you weren't accounting for it), but I have to poi…

I totally disagree with the point about the nature of a free app getting a lift in reviews. "How many reviews may be a half to a full star higher because the app was free and there isn't that feeling of being owed value by the reviewer because they got your app for free." Breaking a rule, I cannot currently post direct references, I hope someone either corrects or bolsters this: I have read at least one peer-reviewed…

That is a good point to bring up.

I don't think that study and those results apply here verbatim because this is more the Groupon model than the "cheap service" model.

I am, for a VERY limited time, getting a product for free. The perception of value is much higher (because of the time limit) than if I were downloading an always-free product or a really cheap product.

I think the success of Groupon, effectively using the same pattern of attraction, would indicate that people DO perceive a huge value from an extreme sale/giveaway like this for such a short period of time.

I'd also argue that the sheer volume of downloads (100k vs 20 the day before) would also support that claim.

Neither point perfectly scientific and conclusive, but I felt collectively the supported my position.

Re: Amazon App Store: Rotten To The Core

#39

Post by rkalla »

Jacobra wrote: post #11

It seems like small developers could get around this by releasing some kind of trial edition on the free-app-a-day promotion.

From what I understand, Amazon won't feature a trial or "lite" version of your app for the Free App of the Day. It doesn't have the same value-proposition for users.
Post reply on HN