[campnic]

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. 'Amazon is building their market on the backs of apps by giving them away for free.' I write Android apps for a living and I appreciated the cautionary tale. The rest of the comment you left is basically unsupportable. We have no data to say what % of people that get the app for free leave a review (and, consequently, whether or not that review is good or bad). I'm guessing we also have very little insight into how the numbers of installs affect the search rankings.

You are (probably) right, there are a bunch of people that grab just the free apps, but I don't see that as a good thing and I'm not sure how it plays into your argument. Its also not clear that the 'freemium' option was offered to the developer as an alternative of putting up their full app up for free. If it was, I would have expected PopCap to do so with Plants v. Zombies.

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.

[tybris]

> 'Amazon is building their market on the backs of apps by giving them away for free.

I don't get that. It's just a deal. They could have said no. The rules of the game are clear. Amazon can make your app free unilaterally, but you'll still get 20%. Or, you go into any arbitrary mutual business agreement with them to guarantee that your app gets promoted, at the cost of lower/no revenue. I found the fact that the latter exists informative, but in no way threatening.

My take from this whole thing is that in the technology industry, people are not used to making business deals and get scared when they do.

[irons]

I found the fact that the latter exists informative, but in no way threatening.

Why does it have to be "threatening" to be newsworthy?

[neuroelectronic]

I don't know, but hear it is.

[campnic]

I don't wish to be mistaken, my shot was more about making the logical opposite argument then making a solid description of what Amazon has done. I did read the article as critical of Amazon but I agree that the author didn't get more or less then he explicitly agreed to and that Amazon does offer something in return.

[rkalla]

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.

[campnic]

Very rational. I agree that the Amazon model is not broken, its just different (I did not mean to suggest it was broken, though I can see that being implied from my statements). I also agree that it is OK for the developer to publicize (critically) that there was an alternative/non-public agreement to become the app of the day which varies from the publicized terms. At the end of the day, you are both "right". There are types of apps that this can work well for (which I think you do a good job arguing for) and there are pitfalls to the system which Amazon tries to not make public (which I'm thankful to the author for having written about).

[kevinpet]

If they had a subscription-based business model, they likely wouldn't have been charging for the app to be begin with. Amazon pitched it to them, and pitched it to others, as benefiting sales. Their claim needs to be evaluated on that basis, otherwise, you're just moving the goal posts.