[jacquesm]

AppGratis simply served a need, both on the consumer side (App discovery) as well as on the corporate side (app promotion). What ratio paid apps to free apps they were running is guesswork but I'd imagine if they would fail at the mix they would fail in the marketplace. The bigger problem is that they were simply too good at what they were doing and were competing with Apple on Apple's turf. Apple would like to control how you discover Apps and any kind of curation that is successful will sooner or later be hit like this.

Whether or not AppGratis could have seen this coming is debatable, but the product was solid and seemed to have served a genuine need. If the app store would not be broken in many respects then AppGratis would have never been able to carve out the niche that it had.

App curation at the level that AppGratis was doing is really hard work, and you can't blame them for wanting to be compensated for that hard work. So a certain percentage of paid promotion is a fairly obvious step to make the model viable imo.

Their biggest mistake - if you can call it that - was probably to be too good at what they were doing.

In the AppStore no threat to Apple is too big to fail. Better remember that if you are successful with an app you wrote and you are possibly in competition with some portion of the Apple empire.

[anoncow]

>AppGratis simply served a need, both on the consumer side (App discovery) as well as on the corporate side (app promotion)

This exactly. I am sorry to say this but the submission appears lopsided.

The submission accuses appgratis of being "black hat", but doesn't explain how.

Does AppGratis run botnets which download apps?

If it is genuine users downloading apps - the business is white hat. It doesn't matter if the users get points, dollars or karma for downloading stuff.(I haven't used appgratis)

If instead of hurling accusations at appgratis, the author should have just said that

1. Apple runs the appstore. 2. It says you cannot have an app which mimics the appstore and 3. appgratis has no business taking over apple's territory.

Because that is what the post ultimately boils down to. For me at least.

I am sorry if the author of the submitted post feels offended. But it hurts to see people kick someone in the nuts when they are down.

[hayksaakian]

> It doesn't matter if the users get points, dollars or karma for downloading stuff.

So you're a OK with pay-for-downloads but not botnets?

Is there really a difference?

[alxbrun]

"AppGratis simply served a need, both on the consumer side (App discovery) [...]"

How can you call "discovery" a process where users receive everyday a push for the app that paid the highest bid to AppGratis ?

[jacquesm]

> where users receive everyday a push for the app that paid the highest bid to AppGratis ?

From what I understand of it only a fraction of the placements was paid for, you have to pay your bills somehow. If AG would only push paid ads they would have never ever been so popular with their users.

[windsurfer]

How can you twist words like that? You get paid by a marketing company to steer discussions on social networks in favour of your brand.

[2pasc]

This is plain bullying. Most promoted apps did not pay AppGratis advertising to be in the app. Some did, and they were described as "Sponsored". How do you describe Google Business model then?

[PavlovsCat]

"Steering discussions"? Sounds like something that could use killing with a stake.

[mynameisvlad]

Did you find out about a new app? Yes? Then you've just discovered it.