Amazon's "App of the Day" Hurting Developers
Developer Shifty Jelly claims that developers don't make any money when Amazon offers their apps for free.
On a personal note, I plead guilty of lurking on Amazon's Appstore each morning so that I can download the latest "Free App of the Day." I may not need some of them, but they're stored on my account nevertheless just in case sometime in the near future I’ll perhaps need a new recipe for grilling in the back yard or setting a reminder for changing the car's oil.
And as much as a free app per day benefits my overall Android app library, apparently it's hurting the developers even if I download just one specific title from Amazon's daily special. App developer Shifty Jelly reports that, despite Amazon publicly claiming that it pays developers 20-percent of the asking price even when it's sitting in the Free App of the Day chair, developers don't receive a dime. Not even a penny, for that matter.
Tuesday the developer said in a blog that Amazon offered to place a specific app in the promotional seat, but the company's email also stated that it would receive zero-percent rev share during that day. Naturally Shifty Jelly wasn't keen on the idea despite the traffic the promotion could possibly bring during the following days.
"Thanks for emailing us," the developer responded in an email. "If I read this correctly, you’d like to give away our application for free, and pay us nothing? That’s very generous of you, but we like being paid for our work. I appreciate that Amazon is trying to build up its store, and get more users, but the problem is at the moment you have the reputation of being ‘The place where I get my free apps’ and for a developer like us who doesn’t put advertising into our applications, that can only be a bad thing."
"We’d be happy to reconsider if you decided to pay us the 20-percent that we agreed to in our original developer agreement, but this new one seems to favor only you, at the expense of us?" Shifty Jelly added.
Amazon thus responded, claiming that it won't receive any revenue from the free app either, and that the Free App of the Day promotion is the "most valuable and visible spot in the store." Additionally, the app would remain on the front page for an additional 14 days. "All these highly valuable placements are at no cost to you," the company said. "We want to promote your app and in exchange of the placements, at the 0-percent rev share for one day only."
Eventually Shifty Jelly caved in and tested the free app waters. The app became available on June 27 and "sold" 101,491 copies in twenty-four hours - that previously would have raked in a nice $54,805.14 USD. But because Amazon essentially gave the app away for free, Shifty Jelly didn't get any of it.
"Did the exposure count for much in the days afterwards?" the blog reads. "That’s also a big no, the day after saw a blip in sales, followed by things going back to exactly where we started, selling a few apps a day. In fact Amazon decided to rub salt in the wounds a little further by discounting our app to 99 cents for a few days after the free promotion. All we got was about 300 emails a day to answer over the space of a few weeks, that left us tired and burnt out. For all we know most of the people who wanted our application, now have it."
"What makes us mad though is the public perception that Amazon pays developers to be featured," the blog continues. "Every single person we asked on Twitter or via email thought they were helping developers out, and getting a free application. Amazon does nothing to dispel these rumors, in fact they put really restrictive clauses at the bottom of their emails, saying that no one is even allowed to discuss these back door deals they are doing. But that’s not our only beef with Amazon."
The developer claims that it can't remove any of its apps from Amazon's store. Even more, there's a lengthy review time up to two weeks, and then the online retailer reserves the right to set the price despite what the developer wants. Amazon will re-write the product description and it won't even provide error reports. The list goes on, but towards the end of the blog, Shifty Jelly said that it's removing itself from Amazon's Appstore.
Head here to read the whole blog, and then head here to see why Bithack is also doing the same thing.
- Microsoft Reveals its Internal Xbox Live Police
- These Glasses Keep Your Eyes Moisturized
- A Nuclear Reactor in Your Kitchen is a Bad Idea
- Glocke MP3 Cradle Inspired by Buddhist Bell
- Study Claiming IE Users Are Dumb Just A Hoax
- Camera Concept Records Footage in Both Directions
- Best Buy is Giving Away Free Nexus S Units All Day
- GameStop to Sell Digital Downloads in Stores
- iCloud Pricing Revealed Ahead of Beta Launch
- Nintendo Chief Writes to 3DS Early Adopters
- Report: Pegatron to Begin iPhone 5 Shipments Next Month
- Microsoft Cuts Down Spam By 90 Percent
- Telex Software Circumvents Internet Censorship
- Sony: PS Vita Will Not be Ready by Christmas
- Verizon LTE: The Fine Line Between Truth and Deception
- Earth May Have Once Had Two Moons
- UFO Device Floats On Water, Abducts Pollution
- This Alarm Clock Cleans Your Room, Steals Your Blanket
- Google: Apple, Microsoft Waging War on Android
For $50,000 you should sue.
If nowhere in the contract is something related to this, than you should sue them,
I´m not exacly sure if this doesn´t fall into the software piracy level.
Amazing what you can do with a product when it has no inventory costs associated it (or virtually none). Maybe Amazon should consider giving a "free product of the day" away and see if their stance would change when it actually cost them money.
This is a shame. Their Pocket Cast app (which I assume is the app in question) is absolutely the best podcatcher I have tried on Android. The thing is though, I would never have heard of it if not for the Amazon Free App of the day. And believe me, I did a fair amount of searching and even read a few article roundups on Android podcatchers and this one was never mentioned. I just happened to try it out and learned of its greatness. Maybe the free App of the Day should be more like a 30-day trial? If you like it, then you have the option to purchase it. Or perhaps at least have the ability to donate through the Amazon store if you want to help the devs out afterwards.
I always assumed the developer was paid... even if their app was the featured free app.
How about only free for the first 1000 downloaders, so that way it gets shed loads of advertising and only a minimal cost to the developer.
Terms of the appstore could be that you opt-in to be on the app of the day, if you don't agree you never get the exposure but also don't lose sales.
I bet Amazon will claim that non- 50,000 in revenue for their share holders. This would of been succesfull if their profits were from ads.
The developers seem to assume a lot! "$54,805.14" If they are not selling well now it's probably because their product is not the best. Maybe they should always do free with as-support. As that seems to be the only way they can "sell" their apps.
They agreed to it before the app was listed for free, what's the problem? They can't possibly think that all those people who downloaded it for free were going to buy it. Some of them probably would, but most wouldn't have, they just saw "free" and downloaded it just in case they should ever actually want to use it.
Problem is (with all Android Apps) it just takes one rooted phone and the APK is now free to the world. This google policy is what is really rough for developers. This is why your android apps are full of adds. It is too bad because it hurts everyone all the way down the tree, (except google)
The developers seem to assume a lot! "$54,805.14" If they are not selling well now it's probably because their product is not the best. Maybe they should always do free with as-support. As that seems to be the only way they can "sell" their apps.
dud you are dumb--- , there is no assuming there , it's simple math
give away this many copies free = this much revenue potential lost
if amazon didn't have the free app of the day , and those 50,000 users bought the app then there certainly would have been that much money made , again there is no assumption here simpel calculation.
also it's a simple fact that many users don't buy apps at all and just grab the free apps as they come. This very mentality underlines the economic problems in US today , people getting shit they arnt paying for , or folks giving away stuff they cant afford to give away.
i think these guys should sue the ass off amazon over this. Things like this are making me like amazon less and less
Lol I kept misreading "Shitty Jelly" xD
dud you are dumb--- , there is no assuming there , it's simple math give away this many copies free = this much revenue potential lost if amazon didn't have the free app of the day , and those 50,000 users bought the app then there certainly would have been that much money made , again there is no assumption here simpel calculation. also it's a simple fact that many users don't buy apps at all and just grab the free apps as they come. This very mentality underlines the economic problems in US today , people getting shit they arnt paying for , or folks giving away stuff they cant afford to give away. i think these guys should sue the ass off amazon over this. Things like this are making me like amazon less and less
no my good sir, you are the dumb one here.
the assumption here is that the app would have gotten those many downloads even if it wasn't free. that is obviously wrong.
it's not math, it's logic.
you don't calculate using the number of downloads you got when offering something for free. that number is obviously several orders of magnitude above what you would normally get if the app was paid. If the developer lost any money AT ALL that would have been the money he would have made on any other day, which he claims himself to be a rather meager sum.
Of course the free advertising he gets from this market maneuver should far outweigh whatever that meager sum is. In fact, it's a well known strategy to release something for free for a week or two in the apple appstore to gain notoriety. Advertising is EVERYTHING.
Of course if your app was already sub-par and you don't know what to do with the promotional campaigns, well, you know where I'm going with this...
It can go both ways.
Take valve and steam for example. A few years ago they gave portal away for free. I wasnt a steam user at the time but i became one just for that. Fast forward and ive bought about 20 other valve games through steam now. Those are sales they would not have had without giving me portal for free. In addition to that ive bought numorous other games from other developers through steam as well. Most of them were bought when they had their specials(not for free but highly reduced). Even tho i bought them all on specials, those are all sales they would not have had without offering me just 1 game for free, or those specials.
Amazon say they get nothing for you apps either. Really you get people coming to your site for free apps and you have advertising on your site that you sell.
Portal was always "free" though. It came bundled in the orange box which myself and I assume others bought for Half life 2 and team fortress 2. Portal was more of a demo game to see if people found it fun. I loved Portal and bought Portal 2. So, I too used a "free" product and purchased additional games from them.
On topic: I'm not a big app fan and won't pay for them. Even a buck or two they don't really do much for me. They should place a timer on the free app so that people can use them for a month and if they really like the app they can buy them later. Giving them away for free saturates the market and screws the developers over.
no my good sir, you are the dumb one here.the assumption here is that the app would have gotten those many downloads even if it wasn't free. that is obviously wrong.it's not math, it's logic.you don't calculate using the number of downloads you got when offering something for free. that number is obviously several orders of magnitude above what you would normally get if the app was paid. If the developer lost any money AT ALL that would have been the money he would have made on any other day, which he claims himself to be a rather meager sum.Of course the free advertising he gets from this market maneuver should far outweigh whatever that meager sum is. In fact, it's a well known strategy to release something for free for a week or two in the apple appstore to gain notoriety. Advertising is EVERYTHING.Of course if your app was already sub-par and you don't know what to do with the promotional campaigns, well, you know where I'm going with this...
No, no, my good good sir, he isn't the dumb one. However, you are now definitely one for not paying attention to the article in the slightest. Good job bro.
It isn't an "assumption" that they would have actually got that many downloads. They did get that many downloads. The 54.8k total is what they would have gotten had they received the 20% cut that they agreed to in their Developer Agreement. Now, my math shows a slightly different number ($1.78 per download x 101,491 x .2 = $36,130.80), but regardless, they would have made that money, if Amazon had honored their original agreement, but instead Amazon didn't(through the backdoor deal), and Amazon received plenty of free advertising for their app store(which would have cost them 36k in the original deal), and Shifty Jelly was basically drop kicked in the nuts. Way to go Amazon.
Nevermind with my (mis)calculation, lol. I based my total on 20 percent of their normal sale received per download ($1.78) instead of 20 percent of the asking price ($2.70). The $54.8k number is accurate. Amazon shafted them good.
Sad that iOS treats them better.. I expected more of Amazon...
Limited copies would help (limit to 1000), as well as offer more developer control, and mandatory user reviews. Providing free, as-is software is usually a great way to get free beta testers, and garner user feedback to make a more complete product. Bait and switch is also a good way of getting more users, like offering 'free' lite versions with less features.
The problem with these pricing estimates is that it assumes that people would pay for the regular price, the 'big news' is that if you weren't getting sales before, the situation wouldn't change without proper alteration to a marketing or price strategy. I might dislike pancakes, but if someone were to offer free pancakes I would probably wait in line. As well free 'tiny' samples of lemonade might convince me on a full purchase.
If a developer doesn't offer a demo then there is no way of knowing if the software performs as advertised. Many developers don't offer refunds for buggy software, usually passing blame, or "working on a fix". If most projects on sourceforge worked "as advertised" people wouldn't actually buy software.
I often wondered how Amazon could afford to give away a free app every day, and now I know: it's because they don't pay out on those downloads.
I'll admit that I've downloaded dozens of free apps "just in case" I want them in the future. I've downloaded even more free games, many of which I haven't played. Now I feel bad for cheating those developers. Although to be honest, I only purchased 3 apps for my phone before Amazon's app store came around, everything else was a free app.
So basically, I'm treating Amazon's free app of the day with the same mind set that music and video game pirates treat their actions, which is: "Hey, the developer isn't really losing out on anything, because I wouldn't be buying their product anyway", although, at least Amazon's free app is legit, unlike a ripped copy on bittorrent.
No, no, my good good sir, he isn't the dumb one. However, you are now definitely one for not paying attention to the article in the slightest. Good job bro.It isn't an "assumption" that they would have actually got that many downloads. They did get that many downloads. The 54.8k total is what they would have gotten had they received the 20% cut that they agreed to in their Developer Agreement. Now, my math shows a slightly different number ($1.78 per download x 101,491 x .2 = $36,130.80), but regardless, they would have made that money, if Amazon had honored their original agreement, but instead Amazon didn't(through the backdoor deal), and Amazon received plenty of free advertising for their app store(which would have cost them 36k in the original deal), and Shifty Jelly was basically drop kicked in the nuts. Way to go Amazon.
I've done my share of contracts in the past with distribution/advertising channels. I do not have the specifics on this one, but from my real life experience that 20% margin would have applied to whatever value the app was sold for... it was given away for free. 20% of $0 is still $0.
They did get that volume of downloads only because the app was offered for free. Comparison between that and sales volume on a normal day where the app would have sold for it's retail price is moronic.
No matter how you look at it, the developer wasted his 24hrs of fame. And what he lost is whatever he would have made on a normal sales day.
Maybe he could just ask people do donate to him if they like the app? Then he might recoup his hardware investment costs.
Maybe he could just ask people do donate to him if they like the app? Then he might recoup his hardware investment costs.
I've done my share of contracts in the past with distribution/advertising channels. I do not have the specifics on this one, but from my real life experience that 20% margin would have applied to whatever value the app was sold for... it was given away for free. 20% of $0 is still $0.They did get that volume of downloads only because the app was offered for free. Comparison between that and sales volume on a normal day where the app would have sold for it's retail price is moronic. No matter how you look at it, the developer wasted his 24hrs of fame. And what he lost is whatever he would have made on a normal sales day.
However, you don't know if they got that many downloads simply because it was free or because it was on the front page!
My biggest problem with this is that there is no opt out. It's unfair to assume all developers want to trade advertising for income. Just because others think that it is a fair trade it's still the developer's app and as a fellow developer I want control of my product. It shouldn't be up the distributor (or anyone else) to determine what is fair for something that is not even theirs.
Also, we don't know what the developer may have planned for the future. Maybe they just invested $20,000 in another advertising stream (magazine/online/etc). Maybe they don't intend on ever releasing another product. Maybe they want to stay under the radar. Who knows? But the only person that should be able to answer that is the developer.
I've done my share of contracts in the past with distribution/advertising channels. I do not have the specifics on this one, but from my real life experience that 20% margin would have applied to whatever value the app was sold for... it was given away for free. 20% of $0 is still $0.They did get that volume of downloads only because the app was offered for free. Comparison between that and sales volume on a normal day where the app would have sold for it's retail price is moronic. No matter how you look at it, the developer wasted his 24hrs of fame. And what he lost is whatever he would have made on a normal sales day.
You should read the article again. Amazon is advertising that they pay developers 20% of the full price even when Amazon is giving it for free. So the bottom line is that Amazon is advertising to their customers a policy which they do not enforce, if they did Shifty Jelly would have earned 58k.
However, you don't know if they got that many downloads simply because it was free or because it was on the front page! My biggest problem with this is that there is no opt out. It's unfair to assume all developers want to trade advertising for income. Just because others think that it is a fair trade it's still the developer's app and as a fellow developer I want control of my product. It shouldn't be up the distributor (or anyone else) to determine what is fair for something that is not even theirs. Also, we don't know what the developer may have planned for the future. Maybe they just invested $20,000 in another advertising stream (magazine/online/etc). Maybe they don't intend on ever releasing another product. Maybe they want to stay under the radar. Who knows? But the only person that should be able to answer that is the developer.
This sounds like a company with a bad product complaining over free promotion. The perception that were thousands of people waiting to bite when the price got lowered to $0.00 seems to be absolutely incorrect.
From this article it sounds like the company could have opted out of the "free app" waters if they didn't like the concept. Other than that, it just sounds like they didn't read their contracts. Not amazon's fault.
You should read the article again. Amazon is advertising that they pay developers 20% of the full price even when Amazon is giving it for free. So the bottom line is that Amazon is advertising to their customers a policy which they do not enforce, if they did Shifty Jelly would have earned 58k.
directly from:
https://developer.amazon.com/help/faq.html
"What is the payment structure between Amazon and me?
Amazon pays developers 70% of the sale price of the app or 20% of the list price, whichever is greater. "
I couldn't care less about what's written on the article on this page (Toms). It is not supported by any references or links. Maybe there really is a place somewhere where Amazon says that "..even if it's offered for free..." like the article says, if that is the case then I'll change my view on the matter completely... but from what I've read and linked from amazon's site all they say is "20% of the list price"... my interpretation of what the "list price" is may be up for debate, but currently I see today's app's price listed as "FREE"... that may very well be Amazon's interpretation. I'm no lawyer. I'm no writer either.
I'm so sick of people bitching about profits.
Look at the mother f***ing oil companies who WHINE and CRY to Washington, who in turn, gives them BILLIONS of dollars for FREE. Yes, the Government subsidizes these oil companies.
Anyone with a brain only has to quickly do a look-up for a typical yearly profit report for ANY oil company, and you'll see STAGGERING numbers. The oil companies are reporting record profits in the BILLIONS, and at the same time they're receiving welfare from the government.
Anyways, not to completely derail the topic - deal with it. Amazon gives you publicity; and word of mouth is not to be underestimated. Nothing wrong with profits, but I'm sick of these greedy bastards.
I registered for an amazon account just to get the legitimate-not-pirated apps. dont hate us shifty.
You cannot count the number of times an app was downloaded for free and assume thats the same number you would have sold on any other day.
You can call me dumb or stupid or whatever it won't change the facts!! Maybe I just understand reasoning and simple logic better than you. No point and trying to call me stupid because you can't figure it out.
Maybe devs should realize that not everyone can pay for apps. I sure as hell ain't paying for one when I can get one for free.