[citation][nom]luissantos[/nom]no my good sir, you are the dumb one here.the assumption here is that the app would have gotten those many downloads even if it wasn't free. that is obviously wrong.it's not math, it's logic.you don't calculate using the number of downloads you got when offering something for free. that number is obviously several orders of magnitude above what you would normally get if the app was paid. If the developer lost any money AT ALL that would have been the money he would have made on any other day, which he claims himself to be a rather meager sum.Of course the free advertising he gets from this market maneuver should far outweigh whatever that meager sum is. In fact, it's a well known strategy to release something for free for a week or two in the apple appstore to gain notoriety. Advertising is EVERYTHING.Of course if your app was already sub-par and you don't know what to do with the promotional campaigns, well, you know where I'm going with this...[/citation]
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.