[mbateman]

Generally it seems like you're expecting the OP to take on your perspective without really taking his perspective seriously. Just saying you have a "core belief" that waiting longer would help doesn't really seem like a fair point.

Why don't server/support costs matter? Why does it have to be that it's more beneficial for these guys to have their software on 100k more devices than not? Why should all business models have to work that way? And why should someone who has a business model expecting to profit from Amazon's advertised 20% be willing to accept waiving that?

OP seems to have a valid complaint against Amazon and a worthwhile warning to others in similar situations, and you're just telling him to suck it up figure out some way around it. Okay, I get what you're saying, but withdrawing from what is by all evidence an unprofitable app market driven partially by a bait-and-switch still seems perfectly reasonable.

[rkalla]

That is a fair point, I don't think the OP's complaint about the 20-to-0 switch was invalid, but I do skip past it to try and look at what kind of benefit can be squeezed from their current predicament instead of scorching the earth and walking away.

Thank you for the feedback.

[irons]

The OP clearly decided that not doing business with Amazon was the right choice for their business, and Amazon richly deserves the scorching.

Amazon looked like it was setting up an app store where Android developers had a hope of getting paid, but so far, they've created a space where the control-freakism runs deeper than under Apple (e.g., the lack of control over basics like device filtering and removing apps from sale), and the return on investment is worse than under Google.

[JeffffreyF]

Oh, hell no. Scorching Amazon for scorching the earth is exactly what is needed. You cannot comprehend the reality of a common good.