[richcollins]

Right this seems like a zero sum game across the agents involved:

  - users
  - advertisers
  - "killer apps" company

It's obvious from the reviews that the users only care about the gift cards. So if they get more gift cards than the other parties get back in app sales commission, the users win. However the terms state you're limited to 3 cards per year and that you lose your points after 60 days of inactivity, so I'm guessing that other parties come up on top via this bait and switch technique. It's also possible that the advertisers get the short end of the stick if they're just paying for impressions.

[kumph]

I'm just about to go on a hike, but let me respond quickly. I do appreciate tough criticism, but I think there are some rash judgments and misconceptions here.

1) just because the recommendations aren't suited to you doesn't mean they're bad in general. Hacker news is very special, sophisticated demographic. The recs are currently optimized for a more main stream audience. We get lots of feedback from users attesting to this. Certainly there is lots of room for improvement tho and that's why I want to hire so badly. We care a great deal about the product.

2) There's no bait and switch or anything underhanded going on with the gift cards. We get a certain amount when a user downloads an app, and we credit the user a certain percentage to work their way toward a reward. We need to expire point of inactive users to prevent an accounting nightmare. Many users are getting the cards every day.

Hope that clears things up. I certainly understand the skepticism, and again I welcome tough criticism.

[ginger19]

Out of curiousity, what does it mean for the recs to be optimized for a mainstream audience instead of a sophisticated one? Different audiences will like different types of apps, sure, but why wouldn't the same basic recommendation algorithm work for everyone? Unless of course the assumption is simply that "mainstream" users are less discriminating, and the recommendations don't have to be as individually targeted.

[eevilspock]

I don't think you understand my criticism. App publishers are paying you to pay people to download their app. How can that be the basis for quality, objective recommendations?

Or let me try with a question: Explain how exactly your app helps people find the good app they need in the haystack of bad apps? If you don't do that, then this is an outright scam. People are paying you money for something. Please tell me what they are getting.