Amazon's "App of the Day" Hurting Developers

[hellwig]

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.

 

[luissantos]

[citation][nom]scuba dave[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.

 

[jimslaid2]

Maybe he could just ask people do donate to him if they like the app? Then he might recoup his hardware investment costs.

 

[jimslaid2]

Maybe he could just ask people do donate to him if they like the app? Then he might recoup his hardware investment costs.

 

[eeide]

[citation][nom]luissantos[/nom]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.[/citation]
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.

 

[hetneo]

[citation][nom]luissantos[/nom]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.[/citation]
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.

 

[Kamab]

[citation][nom]eeide[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.

 

[luissantos]

[citation][nom]hetneo[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.

 

[bebangs]

I registered for an amazon account just to get the legitimate-not-pirated apps. dont hate us shifty.

 

[leadpoop]

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.

 

[eddieroolz]

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.

 

[eeide]

[citation][nom]Kamab[/nom]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.[/citation]
And if that's the case then I wouldn't feel that sorry for them. If you can choose to not be in the free app program and they just didn't understand then that's their problem...

 

[Guest]

Asking for donations is a waste of time. As a dev who wrote an app that has been downloaded over 200,000 times, and received a total of $200 in donations over 4 years, I can say that relying on donations is not going to work.